Difference between revisions of "AHM 2007:NIH Panel Discussion"
From NAMIC Wiki
m (added name) |
|||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| 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. | 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? | |
| − | + | #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 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. | ||
Latest revision as of 20:25, 11 January 2007
Home < AHM 2007:NIH Panel DiscussionBack to 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, Zohara Cohen
- What funding mechanism is available to continue work begun by the DBPs following their tenure as part of NA-MIC?
- 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 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.
