Guidelines and Outline
Fall, 2008
Learning objectives:
- To better understand topics in translational medicine.
- To improve formal presentation skills.
- To improve teamwork skills.
Format of student presentations:
Students will organize into six “teams”, each containing four members. Each team will lead two class discussions on different dates with different preceptors. These discussions will be organized as follows, with one student covering each area:
Student 1. Review the background problem. Identify the important research questions/goals.
Student 2. Review the general background of translational research/procedural issues and discuss how they pertain specifically to the problem under discussion. These issues include one or more of the following:
• Regulatory issues
IRB human subject protocols
IACUC animal protocols
• Intellectual property/technology transfer/other legal issues
• Ethical considerations
Student 3. Discuss pertinent research data and findings.
Presentations for areas 1-3 will be limited to 10 minutes and 8 slides. There will 5 minutes for discussion and questions immediately after each student talk (total time = 15 min).
Student 4. No formal presentation. Lead a discussion on implications of the findings and future directions. Thirty minutes will be allotted for this discussion. The 4th team member will prepare 3-4 slides to serve as an outline to organize this discussion and stimulate ideas. The preceptor will be invited to join in and share his/her personal experiences and expertise in the field.
Role of the preceptor:
In general, the preceptor will discuss his/her own work. The preceptor will provide two documents as background reading for the session. One document will cover the problem to be addressed, for example, a brief review of the disease under study. The second document will cover a translational research issue pertaining to the study. This document can be a published paper or unpublished manuscript describing a research study. We encourage preceptors to use less conventional documents such as IRB proposals or patent proposals to expose students to things that they might not otherwise have a chance to review.
The class discussion should be primarily student run. The role of the preceptor is to help the students organize this discussion prior to the day of the presentation. In addition, the preceptor should provide expertise and personal insights to supplement the student run presentation.
The preceptor is expected to meet at least once and preferably twice with all four students together prior to the day of presentation. The students should arrange these meetings well in advance of the presentations.
Student evaluations:
Written and verbal evaluations and constructive criticisms will be provided to each student immediately after their presentations. Student presentations will be evaluated according to the following criteria:
1. Style of presentation
2. Staying within allotted times (see above)
3. Slide content
4. Knowledge of topics and ability to answer questions from classmates and faculty
5. Ability to facilitate discussion and bring everyone in the class into the discussion.
6. Ability to work well within teams and to interrelate talks with those of other team members
In addition, students will be evaluated on their contribution to class discussion throughout the course. A token system will be used to facilitate participation by all members of the class. Team success will be judged in part by the quality of the discussion and the breadth of the participation.
Students are expected to attend every session. Potential schedule conflicts should be discussed in advance with one of the course directors.
For planning this course in future years, preceptors will be evaluated by students for:
1. accessibility
2. quality of guidance
3. choice of topic
4. selection of reading materials
Be creative! Have fun!
Class Date |
Faculty Preceptor |
Title |
Student 1 |
Student 2 |
Student 3 |
Student 4 |
Mon, Sept. 8 1412 BRB II/III |
Jennifer Lagenberger |
Intellectual Property. |
|
|
||
Mon., Sept. 15 104 Stellar-Chance |
Rosemary Mazanet |
Application of Intellectual Property to drug development. |
Lisa Korn |
Rena Zheng | Sean Spencer | Rohan Joshi |
Mon, Sept. 22 104 Stellar-Chance |
Jordan Orange |
Cytokine therapy in disease. |
Greg Peterfreund | Brittany Weber |
Ankit Jain | Alice Zhou |
Tues, Sept. 30 104 Stellar-Chance |
Jean Bennett |
Gene therapy for congenital blindness. |
Omar Butt | Tapan Patel | Irene Chernova | Alice Zhou |
Tues, Oct. 7 John Morgan Wood Room |
Kathy High |
Gene Transfer for Hemophilia. |
Paul Hess | David Rawnsley | Jesse Platt | Omar Butt |
Mon, Oct. 13 1412 BRB II/III |
Don Siegel |
Targeted drug delivery to human skin using human single-chain antibody fragments. |
Josiah Peterson | Jiyeon Kim | Andrew Liu | Jenn Burg |
Mon, Oct. 20 104 Stellar-Chance |
Carl June |
Genetically engineered lymphocytes for HIV and Cancer Therapy: Translational Take Home Lessons. |
Jesse Platt | Henry Bergquist | Ankit Jain | Irene Chernova |
Mon, Oct 27 104 Stellar-Chance |
Robert Vonderheide |
Telomerase-based vaccines for cancer. |
Jenn Burg | Eric Lee | Jiyean Kim | Rena Zheng |
Tues, Nov. 4 1412 BRB II/III |
Brian Litt |
Implantable Devices to Treat Epilepsy. |
Whitney Parker | Kevan Salimian |
Paul Hess | Tapan Patel |
Tues, Nov. 11 301 BRB II/III |
Paul Offit |
The Growing Threat of America's Anti-Vaccine Movement. |
Sean Spencer | Greg Peterfreund | Andrew Liu | Rohan Joshi |
Mon, Nov. 17 1412 BRB II/III |
Robert Levy |
Developing novel heart valve replacements: Clinical, laboratory & corporate mechanisms. |
Brittany Weber |
David Rawnsley |
Josiah Peterson | Henry Bergquist |
Mon, Nov. 24 1412 BRB II/III |
Dan Rader |
Genetics of lipids and translation to therapeutics. |
Lisa Korn | Jie Xu | Emily Charlson |
Eric Lee |
Mon, Dec. 1 1412 BRB II/III |
Barbara Weber & Tal Zaks |
EGFR inhibitors in cancer therapy: biological, study design, and regulatory implications.
|
Kevan Salimian | Jie Xu | Emily Charlson |
Whitney Parker |
• Last updated: 08/27/2008