Attendence
Over the two
days the meeting was attended by 110 delegates with representatives
from diagnostics, research and the various sponsering companies.
Many delegates defined their role as both diagnostics and researh
- these have been listed under diagnostics for the chart below.
Feedback
Feedback
forms were received from a total of 39 participants. Delegates
were asked to rate each session in terms of both relevance and
interest on a scale of 1 to 5 (poor > excellent). The respondents
and their responses are summarised below.
Respondents
Summary
feedback
Summary
of comments
Comments from all the feedback forms have been summarised below.
| Positive |
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
|
Very
enjoyable mixture of topics with some real surprises
Excellent meeting, very varied topics but all presented very well
A good spread of information. Well kept to time given run-overs allowed
for. Facilities good
Very good meeting, will come again. Good use of time in sessions.
Very good variety of speakers.
Very good meeting –varied quality of speakers
A great meeting that I will try to attend every two years –value
for money
A very useful two days.
Admin staff very helpful and efficient
Very good evening ‘do’
Very good content and arrangement
Well Balanced
|
| |
|
| Neutral
/ Suggestions |
•
|
Could
do something for smaller labs: how does all this impact
on them
|
•
|
Ok
to hear from company reps but much more interested in practical
experience of people in labs –more of that please! |
| Negative |
•
|
|
•
|
Felt
that too much time was spent on lab organisation and IT
|
•
|
Session
4 should have allowed more questions as time had been allowed.
|
•
|
As
is usually the case, least satisfactory presentations from
the commercial groups –need to draw a distinction
between scientific presentation and sales pitch.
|
Top
Back
to tech meeting '06
Agenda
and talks
Sponsors
_
