Talk:Bioblast 2012: Scientific Committee
From Bioblast
Revision as of 12:41, 14 November 2012 by Meissner Barbara (talk | contribs)
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)
- I vote for short presentations of 10+5 min for the majority; with a few feature lectures selected for extended (20+10) time slots (e.g. bioenergetic perspective; evolutionary perspective) I agree, no presentation without abstract. If submitted abstract/ presentation volume is too high, then selection for presentation should be based on the deadline + an evaluation process. Those who may be your 'feature' lectures can be considered in a separate category e.g., 'invited lectures'. For a final discussion topic, a "world-view on mitochondrial genetics and function, leading to a new mitochondrial medicine" sounds very interesting. The topic could be applicable to a wide range of interests. Robert C Boushel, DK (2012-11-13)
- 10+5 minutes will give a chance for everybody including youngest scientists and students. On the other hand, it is an attractive idea of great themes and perspectives in 20+10 minutes, but the time control should be rigorous. The manager in chief may give a "yellow card" not to "punish", but to give a public signal that the time is over and presentation has to be concluded. I am afraid that many short presentations become exhaustive and disperse the attention. One possibility is to select some presentations 20+10 for the more experienced researcher and reserve one day for a section like a poster section. However, it is not needed to be strictly "poster". It may be a presentation in the notebook in a round table by a short group (like up to 10 people) and then the people will change to other tables and so on. I don't care to be included in the round table with my notebook. Antonio Galina, BR (2012-11-13)
- I think having one "longer" session at the start of each day is a good idea, if the topics are broad in perspective. I would suggest having a discussion about the value of different protocols (eg. room air saturation vs hyperoxic, titrations vs. max substrate protocols,titrations for H2O2 and problems with that, etc). There are a lot of protocols out there and I think it's important for everyone to have an open discussion about the role of each one, as every protocol has it's merits in answering specific questions. Graham Holloway, CA (2012-11-13)
