There are many levels on which to think about the first session. How was it technically? Good- we had one glitch with the graphics, but pointing the camera at the screen solved that. As someone who likes to make videos, I am going to use the remote next time and actively record Venkat as he speaks and switch to the audience for the questions. Let me compliment Madras- I think you had the most dynamic coverage! How was the content? There is no doubt the material is interesting. For my part, I know I rushed the next-generation sequencing and need to cover some of it again. I will do that- a recap that will fit well with the next topics anyway. Mike thanks for bringing the Scope and starting the STR analysis. I will be down to film you on Monday as you process the samples! Venkat, you have thrown down the gauntlet- I see this is a genomics versus proteomics competition. It is interesting how many 'omics' must be considered. Your point is well taken, as was an audience point that it is in fact the activity of factors (proteins, RNAs, and other molecules, comments on these anyone?) that really represent the phenotype of the cell. I look forward to the next installment!
After the session we adjourned to the room next door and ate pizza and Ruth's delicious homemade chocolate cake! We talked. Two main subjects: how did it go and what topics would be good for the student presentations? The students thought that more interaction during the session would be good. Together we came up with the idea of pairing students between the sites- so that we can learn more about each other. Probably most of this will go on behind the scenes. Venkat reminded us that this course is an experiment and that we could write it up as a paper for a science education journal. So I encourage you to do what I am doing now- write down your thoughts privately or publicly. Then we will have data.
Topics for student presentations. 1) The $1000 genome was the first idea and I have already blogged about it. 2) Functional genomics and/or genetic engineering. These topics are rife with Nobel prizes, science, technology and ethical issues. We struggled with a third equally interesting idea. Then Sathiya suggested: 3) Biology and law. A wonderful idea- how do findings in science get made into products? And if they do what happens next ? -an interesting mix of patents, generic drugs, money, egos and more!
In Hyderabad, we had our share of technical problems mainly due to our bandwidth and that the second camera has been disabled. Disabling the second camera now allows us to see the lectures slides on the main screen, in full size. I guess I should be happy since this is the FIRST videoconference project at this new facility, which was inaugurated in October 2008. The technical people (Ravi and Kiran) are super cooperative and helpful.
ReplyDeleteThe students are a mixed bag and I am new to most of them. A few students had some questions but there was a lot of hesitation on their part to pick up the mic and ask. I hope we become more comfortable with each other, with the remote sites and the technology, by the next session. The pairing up is a great idea and I am positive that it would make the interactions rich. I'm looking forward to this (may be a team of three, one participant from each site).
Content: as Mandy puts it, it does look like there is a competition between Genomics and Proteomics. I enjoyed both lectures immensely. Although I am familiar with most of the content (especially genomics), the presentations gave me new insights. I wish to capture the student perspectives on the two lectures.
This is a good test of us as scientists- to handle technical hurdles and adjust what we do in response to feedback. Features of a good signal transduction pathway!
ReplyDelete