Talk:Bioblast 2012: Scientific Committee: Difference between revisions
From Bioblast
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
* ''I think that the 'Preliminary structure' format of 2 x (20 + 10) min and 3 x (10 + 5) min is optimal if there are significantly more than 35 people who want to speak. I agree that there should be no oral presentations without abstract. | * ''I think that the 'Preliminary structure' format of 2 x (20 + 10) min and 3 x (10 + 5) min is optimal if there are significantly more than 35 people who want to speak. I agree that there should be no oral presentations without abstract. | ||
:''As a | :''As a subject for discussion '''I would suggest: What mitochondrial research questions do we need to focus on and solve in the next 10 years?''''' [[UK Cambridge Brown GC|Guy Brown]], UK (2012-11-13) | ||
* ''It would be nice to have two long (20+10 or 25+5) presentations, as proposed in your preliminary time-table. You have a big choice of potential speakers. As an example, I may propose Rossignol for "Historical perspective" and Mary-Ellen Harper for "Evolutionary perspective". Rossignol served recently as guest editor for the "mitochondrial" issue of the International Journal of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, and Mary-Ellen is doing interesting studies on the role of uncoupling proteins. Another fascinating subject for "evolutionary perspectives" would be the role of mitochondria in cancerogenesis (I have no particular speaker in mind). I wonder how many people from your partcipants list would submit abstracts and would be willing to speak. If more than 35, you may shorten the time allocated for coffee breaks to 30 min thus gaining four more slots for short presentations. Another possibility would be to extend the afternoon session on Wednesday. I will think about the topic(s) of a final discussion session and will let you know soon.'' [[Wojtczak L|Lech Wojtczak]], PL (2012-11-13) | * ''It would be nice to have two long (20+10 or 25+5) presentations, as proposed in your preliminary time-table. You have a big choice of potential speakers. As an example, I may propose Rossignol for "Historical perspective" and Mary-Ellen Harper for "Evolutionary perspective". Rossignol served recently as guest editor for the "mitochondrial" issue of the International Journal of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, and Mary-Ellen is doing interesting studies on the role of uncoupling proteins. Another fascinating subject for "evolutionary perspectives" would be the role of mitochondria in cancerogenesis (I have no particular speaker in mind). I wonder how many people from your partcipants list would submit abstracts and would be willing to speak. If more than 35, you may shorten the time allocated for coffee breaks to 30 min thus gaining four more slots for short presentations. Another possibility would be to extend the afternoon session on Wednesday. I will think about the topic(s) of a final discussion session and will let you know soon.'' [[Wojtczak L|Lech Wojtczak]], PL (2012-11-13) | ||
* | * ''I vote for the 10+5 min oral presentations. About discussion, I '''suggest the topic of: "role of mitochondria in disease progression"'''. As a general comment, the 7x 10+5 talks after lunch is too many in a row. How about breaking it in 4x10+5, coffee break, 3x10+5 ? or make a 5, lunch, 4, break, 5, end; instead of 5, lunch, 7, break, 2, end.'' [[HU Budapest Chinopoulos C|Christos Chinopoulos]], HU (2012-11-13) | ||
Revision as of 10:26, 14 November 2012
Discussion on preliminary structure for presentations
- I think that the 'Preliminary structure' format of 2 x (20 + 10) min and 3 x (10 + 5) min is optimal if there are significantly more than 35 people who want to speak. I agree that there should be no oral presentations without abstract.
- As a subject for discussion I would suggest: What mitochondrial research questions do we need to focus on and solve in the next 10 years? Guy Brown, UK (2012-11-13)
- It would be nice to have two long (20+10 or 25+5) presentations, as proposed in your preliminary time-table. You have a big choice of potential speakers. As an example, I may propose Rossignol for "Historical perspective" and Mary-Ellen Harper for "Evolutionary perspective". Rossignol served recently as guest editor for the "mitochondrial" issue of the International Journal of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, and Mary-Ellen is doing interesting studies on the role of uncoupling proteins. Another fascinating subject for "evolutionary perspectives" would be the role of mitochondria in cancerogenesis (I have no particular speaker in mind). I wonder how many people from your partcipants list would submit abstracts and would be willing to speak. If more than 35, you may shorten the time allocated for coffee breaks to 30 min thus gaining four more slots for short presentations. Another possibility would be to extend the afternoon session on Wednesday. I will think about the topic(s) of a final discussion session and will let you know soon. Lech Wojtczak, PL (2012-11-13)
- I vote for the 10+5 min oral presentations. About discussion, I suggest the topic of: "role of mitochondria in disease progression". As a general comment, the 7x 10+5 talks after lunch is too many in a row. How about breaking it in 4x10+5, coffee break, 3x10+5 ? or make a 5, lunch, 4, break, 5, end; instead of 5, lunch, 7, break, 2, end. Christos Chinopoulos, HU (2012-11-13)
