| Positive |
•
•
•
|
General
positive comments (x6)
Informal
and relaxed
Ref lab talks were particularly interesting!
|
| |
|
| Programme
and Content |
•
|
Stricter
time keeping on talkers (particularly commercial presentations)
(x6) |
•
|
More
time for discussions at the end would be good (linked with
time keeping)
The time keeping was definitely
a problem and meant that time allocated to discussion
at the end of each session was used up. We will certainly
be looking to control timekeeping more rigorously in
future meetings. |
•
•
•
•
•
•
|
What
about cyto???
Try and mix in commercial and non commercial where possible
Too much mass spec
Too much commercial input
Some speakers too pre occupied with minutiae
Pharmacogenetic talk irrelevant |
•
|
Branch
out into molecular techniques in other fields? e.g. haematology,
immunology
Obviously it is difficult to
assemble a programme that will be relevant to a wide
range of participants. Specific comments regarding
content have been taken on board, particularly the
lack of cytogenetic content. |
•
|
Would
have been useful to discuss and compare the current techniques
actually used by different diagnostic labs for different
diseases
Specific discussion between users
would be beneficial. To encourage this we have set
up a users
comments page where this type of interaction can
take place. |
| General |
•
|
Place
presentations on the internet for downloading (x3).
Where presenters have given
permission pdf versions of the presentations have
been included on this site (see agenda
listing).
|
•
|
List
of delegates and email addresses (x2).
We will not be publishing a list
of delegates – the primary target of this meeting
was the diagnostic and research community and numerous
registers of personnel in these fields already exist.
However, specific requests from delegates will be answered
individually. |
•
|
Name
badges?
This would have been useful and
will be included in future events. |
•
|
Need
to stay distinct from other meetings (e.g. HUGO MD meetings),
with particular focus on NGRL and NGRL clients.
We are keen to achieve this.
In particular, because of the size and focus, we feel
this meeting was more accessible than other similar
meetings and to a wider range of people in diagnostics
and research in the UK. Other
suggestions as to how this meeting can maitian uniqueness
would be welcome. |
•
|
More
cross networking and communication between the diagnostic
labs needed.
The enthusiasm for networking
and communication between labs was evident at this
meeting. To try and maintain this atmosphere we have
initiated a users
comments page where specific experience can be
posted to aid the wider community. |
_
