[BBF Standards] BioHackathon, or Characterization Challenge

[Vincent Rouilly]

Hi,

I have tried to summarize the current discussion on a wiki page of  
the BBF website.
http://openwetware.org/wiki/The_BioBricks_Foundation:Standards/ 
Technical/BBF_WetLab_Challenges


Sorry if I have missed  some points, feel free to edit it as you wish,

Vincent.


On 11 Feb 2008, at 07:14, Josh Perfetto wrote:

> I see this discussion taking two separate paths.  One is primarily  
> an inter-lab collaboration to perform useful work needed to advance  
> the state of BioBricks.  The other is a community-building event  
> which may push the limit further in designing systems based on  
> BioBricks.  Both will result in a sharing of information throughout  
> the community, albeit information of a different sort.  Both are  
> valuable activities.  I think Mac outlined a good approach for what  
> I am terming an inter-lab collaboration.  For a community event,  
> the design-a-thon idea Jason presented earlier is very interesting— 
> especially since this approach seems to be where we want to be  
> headed with BioBrick-based design.  The design of new systems,  
> possibly around problems we wanted to tackle, could take place at  
> such an event, with synthesized DNA being ordered after the event  
> and shared between group members, who could perform wetlab testing  
> independently.  Possible problems/ideas:
>
>
>
> -          It may take a few iterations to get the designed systems  
> working.  Subsequent collaboration could take place via email/Skype/ 
> Wiki, and/or this could be a recurring event.
>
> -          I’m not sure what the community interest in this would  
> be.  If it were light then such an event might best be run  
> consecutively with SB 4.0 or another such event.  However simply  
> scheduling one such event may attract a lot of external interest  
> and draw more people into the community.  If the interest is large  
> enough, it may be possible to have multiple projects, some more  
> complex for the experienced members to push the design limits, and  
> some more simple for newer members to bite their teeth on, perhaps  
> with the guidance of one or two more experienced members.
>
>
>
> -Josh
>
>
>
>
>
> From: standards-bounces at biobricks.org [mailto:standards- 
> bounces at biobricks.org] On Behalf Of Mackenzie Cowell
> Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2008 2:28 PM
> To: Bryan Bishop
> Cc: standards at biobricks.org
> Subject: Re: [BBF Standards] BioHackathon, or Characterization  
> Challenge
>
>
>
> I theoretically agree with Bryan's comment. However, I also agree  
> with John and Jason that in practice there would be significant  
> overhead for bringing non-native lab members up to speed on all the  
> little details of how to accomplish something in the host lab, and  
> that more time might even be spent on explaining the lab's  
> logistics to the visiting experimenters (where is the agar?  where  
> are the antibiotics?  where are the small falcon tubes?  wait, you  
> don't use falcon tubes? etc.).  Perhaps it would be possible to  
> accommodate a few visitors with lots of preparation and  
> organization by a sort of experimental coordinator beforehand, but  
> let's not try and tackle that problem this time.
>
>
>
> Instead, I envision:
>
>
>
> * continuing the discussion on this list, solidifying  
> organizational issues and an overview of what we would like to  
> accomplish with the community gardening / barnraising party.
>
> ** augmenting the discussion with a conference call between  
> interested labs to nail down the specifics
>
> * picking a date,
>
> * identifying point people in each lab who will organize the event  
> locally and be responsible for setting up teleconference equipment  
> (i.e. a group skype chat with speakers, ichat video, etc.)
>
> * DOING A TEST RUN
>
> * linking up all the participating labs on the chosen date and  
> producing some quality characterization data and / improving the  
> categorization and documentation of existing and new parts in the  
> registry.
>
>
>
> I also very much support the idea of bringing iGEM teams in on this.
>
>
>
> mac
>
>
>
> On Feb 10, 2008 11:38 AM, Bryan Bishop <kanzure at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sunday 10 February 2008, John Cumbers wrote:
> > Yes I agree, I was thinking about it and it just complicates it to
> > have a lab host it, we just need to decide on what we're doing and
> > then each lab can do it at the same time, e.g same weekend and
> > publish results on-line. I'm open to suggestions, Vincent which
> > promoter do you want to start with :) cheers,
>
> Although I am not against having many labs working on the same problem
> at the same time, separating them all to their usual labs and routines
> significantly reduces the buzz, and this buzz is something valuable.
>
> - Bryan
> ________________________________________
> Bryan Bishop
> http://heybryan.org/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Standards at biobricks.org
> http://biobricks.org/mailman/listinfo/standards_biobricks.org
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Mac Cowell
> iGEM Coordinator
> igem.org
> 231.313.9062
>
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Standards at biobricks.org
> http://biobricks.org/mailman/listinfo/standards_biobricks.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://biobricks.org/pipermail/standards_biobricks.org/attachments/20080211/f486b04c/attachment-0001.html