AHM 2007:NIH Panel Discussion - Revision history

Zohara: added name

2007-01-11T20:25:33Z

added name

Kikinis at 12:26, 11 January 2007

2007-01-11T12:26:25Z

Tkapur at 16:57, 9 January 2007

2007-01-09T16:57:19Z

Tkapur at 16:57, 9 January 2007

2007-01-09T16:57:10Z

Tannenba at 16:21, 8 January 2007

2007-01-08T16:21:32Z

Tkapur at 20:12, 31 December 2006

2006-12-31T20:12:18Z

Pieper at 15:59, 30 December 2006

2006-12-30T15:59:23Z

Shenton at 12:45, 29 December 2006

2006-12-29T12:45:27Z

Shenton at 12:45, 29 December 2006

2006-12-29T12:45:10Z

Andy: Update from Wiki

2006-12-18T13:21:11Z

Update from Wiki

New page

Back to [[AHM_2007|AHM_2007]]

The NIH Officers for NA-MIC will be addressing questions during this panel discussion at the all-hands meeting. The space below is to record questions from NA-MIC researchers prior to the meeting. Answers will also be recorded here before/during/after the meeting.

NIH Panelists: Grace Peng, Mike Ackerman

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 The NIH Officers for NA-MIC will be addressing questions during this panel discussion at the all-hands meeting. The space below is to record questions from NA-MIC researchers prior to the meeting. Answers will also be recorded here before/during/after the meeting.
-NIH Panelists: Grace Peng, Mike Ackerman
+NIH Panelists: Grace Peng, Mike Ackerman, Zohara Cohen
 #What funding mechanism is available to continue work begun by the DBPs following their tenure as part of   NA-MIC?

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:26, 11 January 2007
Line 9:		Line 9:
	#From the perspective of NIH's goals for the NCBCs, what things are seen as going well in NA-MIC and what things do you think need work?		#From the perspective of NIH's goals for the NCBCs, what things are seen as going well in NA-MIC and what things do you think need work?
	#As a follow-up to the previous question, does NIH have any specific metrics for gauging the success (and/or failure) of a large program such as NA-MIC?		#As a follow-up to the previous question, does NIH have any specific metrics for gauging the success (and/or failure) of a large program such as NA-MIC?
		+	#Ron: If there is a competitive renewal, how are we supposed to handle the DBPs? Their three year term will end one year into the competitive renewal. It is impractical to identify a three-year project (third round of DBP's) two years ahead of time.

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 #There are a number of young new investigators who have been active participants of NA-MIC and will soon be looking for their own funding. As many of them have "bought" into the interdisciplinary work begun as part of NA-MIC, what NIH grant mechanism is available for: (a) young computer scientists committed to conducting research in the area of neuroscience, and (b) young neuroscientists who now define their identity, at least in part, by their work at the interface of neuroscience and computer science?
 #From the perspective of NIH's goals for the NCBCs, what things are seen as going well in NA-MIC and what things do you think need work?
-#As a follow-up to the previous question, does NIH have any specific metrics for gauging the success (and/or failure) of a large program such as NAMIC?
+#As a follow-up to the previous question, does NIH have any specific metrics for gauging the success (and/or failure) of a large program such as NA-MIC?

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 #There are a number of young new investigators who have been active participants of NA-MIC and will soon be looking for their own funding. As many of them have "bought" into the interdisciplinary work begun as part of NA-MIC, what NIH grant mechanism is available for: (a) young computer scientists committed to conducting research in the area of neuroscience, and (b) young neuroscientists who now define their identity, at least in part, by their work at the interface of neuroscience and computer science?
 #From the perspective of NIH's goals for the NCBCs, what things are seen as going well in NA-MIC and what things do you think need work?
-#As a follow-up to the previous question, does NIH have any specific metrics for gauging the success (and/or failuare of a large program such as NAMIC?
+#As a follow-up to the previous question, does NIH have any specific metrics for gauging the success (and/or failure) of a large program such as NAMIC?

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:21, 8 January 2007
Line 8:		Line 8:
	#There are a number of young new investigators who have been active participants of NA-MIC and will soon be looking for their own funding. As many of them have "bought" into the interdisciplinary work begun as part of NA-MIC, what NIH grant mechanism is available for: (a) young computer scientists committed to conducting research in the area of neuroscience, and (b) young neuroscientists who now define their identity, at least in part, by their work at the interface of neuroscience and computer science?		#There are a number of young new investigators who have been active participants of NA-MIC and will soon be looking for their own funding. As many of them have "bought" into the interdisciplinary work begun as part of NA-MIC, what NIH grant mechanism is available for: (a) young computer scientists committed to conducting research in the area of neuroscience, and (b) young neuroscientists who now define their identity, at least in part, by their work at the interface of neuroscience and computer science?
	#From the perspective of NIH's goals for the NCBCs, what things are seen as going well in NA-MIC and what things do you think need work?		#From the perspective of NIH's goals for the NCBCs, what things are seen as going well in NA-MIC and what things do you think need work?
		+	#As a follow-up to the previous question, does NIH have any specific metrics for gauging the success (and/or failuare of a large program such as NAMIC?

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:59, 30 December 2006
Line 8:		Line 8:

	2. There are a number of young new investigators who have been active participants of NA-MIC and will soon be looking for their own funding. As many of them have "bought" into the interdisciplinary work begun as part of NA-MIC, what NIH grant mechanism is available for: (a) young computer scientists committed to conducting research in the area of neuroscience, and (b) young neuroscientists who now define their identity, at least in part, by their work at the interface of neuroscience and computer science?		2. There are a number of young new investigators who have been active participants of NA-MIC and will soon be looking for their own funding. As many of them have "bought" into the interdisciplinary work begun as part of NA-MIC, what NIH grant mechanism is available for: (a) young computer scientists committed to conducting research in the area of neuroscience, and (b) young neuroscientists who now define their identity, at least in part, by their work at the interface of neuroscience and computer science?
		+
		+	3. From the perspective of NIH's goals for the NCBCs, what things are seen as going well in NA-MIC and what things do you think need work?

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:45, 29 December 2006
Line 6:		Line 6:

	1. What funding mechanism is available to continue work begun by the DBPs following their tenure as part of NA-MIC?		1. What funding mechanism is available to continue work begun by the DBPs following their tenure as part of NA-MIC?
		+
	2. There are a number of young new investigators who have been active participants of NA-MIC and will soon be looking for their own funding. As many of them have "bought" into the interdisciplinary work begun as part of NA-MIC, what NIH grant mechanism is available for: (a) young computer scientists committed to conducting research in the area of neuroscience, and (b) young neuroscientists who now define their identity, at least in part, by their work at the interface of neuroscience and computer science?		2. There are a number of young new investigators who have been active participants of NA-MIC and will soon be looking for their own funding. As many of them have "bought" into the interdisciplinary work begun as part of NA-MIC, what NIH grant mechanism is available for: (a) young computer scientists committed to conducting research in the area of neuroscience, and (b) young neuroscientists who now define their identity, at least in part, by their work at the interface of neuroscience and computer science?

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:45, 29 December 2006
Line 4:		Line 4:

	NIH Panelists: Grace Peng, Mike Ackerman		NIH Panelists: Grace Peng, Mike Ackerman
		+
		+	1. What funding mechanism is available to continue work begun by the DBPs following their tenure as part of NA-MIC?
		+	2. There are a number of young new investigators who have been active participants of NA-MIC and will soon be looking for their own funding. As many of them have "bought" into the interdisciplinary work begun as part of NA-MIC, what NIH grant mechanism is available for: (a) young computer scientists committed to conducting research in the area of neuroscience, and (b) young neuroscientists who now define their identity, at least in part, by their work at the interface of neuroscience and computer science?