Difference between revisions of "2007 Materials for NCBC Program Review"

From NAMIC Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 11: Line 11:
 
Q2: '''A brief statement - (one page, max)  addressing each of the questions listed below.  These are the questions that we have been asked to address in our report.  Our goal in asking for this information is to be able to produce a report that reviews the program as a whole.  Your view, from the vantage point of the center you direct,  is critical to our work.  In addition, your answers will provide us with more information that we can use in our discussion with program staff on June 11th.  We know that some of this information can be found on your websites, so in those cases a link to the information would be most helpful.'''
 
Q2: '''A brief statement - (one page, max)  addressing each of the questions listed below.  These are the questions that we have been asked to address in our report.  Our goal in asking for this information is to be able to produce a report that reviews the program as a whole.  Your view, from the vantage point of the center you direct,  is critical to our work.  In addition, your answers will provide us with more information that we can use in our discussion with program staff on June 11th.  We know that some of this information can be found on your websites, so in those cases a link to the information would be most helpful.'''
  
−
2.1. To what extent does the vision and direction of the NCBC initiative promote biomedical computing?
+
2.1. To what extent does the vision and direction of the NCBC initiative promote biomedical computing? (Eric/Polina)
  
−
2.2. In what ways has the NCBC initiative advanced biomedical computing?
+
2.2. In what ways has the NCBC initiative advanced biomedical computing? (Jim Miller)
  
 
Answer:http://www.na-mic.org/Wiki/index.php/2007_Annual_Scientific_Report#4._Impact_and_Value_to_Biocomputing
 
Answer:http://www.na-mic.org/Wiki/index.php/2007_Annual_Scientific_Report#4._Impact_and_Value_to_Biocomputing
  
−
2.3. Are the NCBCs interfacing appropriately? (recommended by RICC)
+
2.3. Are the NCBCs interfacing appropriately? (recommended by RICC) (Will Schroeder)
  
 
2.4. What new collaborations have been formed through the NCBC initiative?
 
2.4. What new collaborations have been formed through the NCBC initiative?
 
**Answer: http://www.na-mic.org/Wiki/index.php/NA-MIC_Collaborations
 
**Answer: http://www.na-mic.org/Wiki/index.php/NA-MIC_Collaborations
 +
**Link to Project Weeks
  
−
2.5. What new training opportunities have the centers provided?
+
2.5. What new training opportunities have the centers provided? (Randy Gollub)
  
 
**Answer: http://www.na-mic.org/Wiki/index.php/Training:Main
 
**Answer: http://www.na-mic.org/Wiki/index.php/Training:Main
  
−
2.6. What changes could make the program more effective in the future?
+
2.6. What changes could make the program more effective in the future? (Will Schroeder/Steve Pieper)
  
 
2.7. What lessons have been learned from the NCBC initiative that can guide future NIH efforts in biomedical computing?
 
2.7. What lessons have been learned from the NCBC initiative that can guide future NIH efforts in biomedical computing?
  
−
'''Q3:A list of publications and/or software tools produced by the Center.''' If this information is provided in your progress report or is available on your website, a link will be sufficient.  We are especially interested in your assessment of the maturity of your software tools and the impact they are having on the scientific community.
+
'''Q3:A list of publications and/or software tools produced by the Center.''' If this information is provided in your progress report or is available on your website, a link will be sufficient.  We are especially interested in your assessment of the maturity of your software tools and the impact they are having on the scientific community. (Will Schroeder, Allen Tannenbaum)
  
 
A3:  
 
A3:  

Revision as of 20:59, 5 June 2007

Home < 2007 Materials for NCBC Program Review

Materials requested for NCBC Program Review

These are due to Gwen Jacobs by Friday, June 08, 2007.

Q1: A copy of two parts of your most recent progress report: the summary section and the highlights section.

Summary: http://www.na-mic.org/Wiki/index.php/2007_Annual_Scientific_Report#1._Introduction

Highlights: http://www.na-mic.org/Wiki/index.php/2007_Annual_Scientific_Report#3._Highlights

Q2: A brief statement - (one page, max) addressing each of the questions listed below. These are the questions that we have been asked to address in our report. Our goal in asking for this information is to be able to produce a report that reviews the program as a whole. Your view, from the vantage point of the center you direct, is critical to our work. In addition, your answers will provide us with more information that we can use in our discussion with program staff on June 11th. We know that some of this information can be found on your websites, so in those cases a link to the information would be most helpful.

2.1. To what extent does the vision and direction of the NCBC initiative promote biomedical computing? (Eric/Polina)

2.2. In what ways has the NCBC initiative advanced biomedical computing? (Jim Miller)

Answer:http://www.na-mic.org/Wiki/index.php/2007_Annual_Scientific_Report#4._Impact_and_Value_to_Biocomputing

2.3. Are the NCBCs interfacing appropriately? (recommended by RICC) (Will Schroeder)

2.4. What new collaborations have been formed through the NCBC initiative?

2.5. What new training opportunities have the centers provided? (Randy Gollub)

2.6. What changes could make the program more effective in the future? (Will Schroeder/Steve Pieper)

2.7. What lessons have been learned from the NCBC initiative that can guide future NIH efforts in biomedical computing?

Q3:A list of publications and/or software tools produced by the Center. If this information is provided in your progress report or is available on your website, a link will be sufficient. We are especially interested in your assessment of the maturity of your software tools and the impact they are having on the scientific community. (Will Schroeder, Allen Tannenbaum)

A3:


We have asked John Whitmarsh and Jennifer Villani to provide us with metrics (submitted applications, funded ones etc.) associated with the two RFA's; the collaborative R01 and R21 grants. We are interested in the impact these two programs are having on the community and how they are helping to develop a collaborative network led by the NCBC Centers.

Logistics

When completed, the information should be sent to:

Gwen Jacobs, PhD

Professor of Neuroscience

Asst. CIO and Director of Academic Computing

1 Lewis Hall

Montana State University

Bozeman, MT 59717

406-994-7334 - phone

406-994-7077 - FAX

gwen@cns.montana.edu <mailto:gwen@cns.montana.edu>

Retrieved from "https://www.na-mic.org/w/index.php?title=2007_Materials_for_NCBC_Program_Review&oldid=11198"