Team:Nanjing China Bio/Online

From 2012.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
Line 82: Line 82:
     <div class="head">
     <div class="head">
-
           <div class="h188"><img src="/wiki/images/thumb/9/98/Outreachimg.jpg/800px-Outreachimg.jpg" width="976" height="188" alt="南京IGEM"/></div>
+
           <div class="h188"><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2012/9/98/Outreachimg.jpg" width="976" height="188" alt="南京IGEM"/></div>
           <div class="h45"></div>
           <div class="h45"></div>
           <div class="h80">
           <div class="h80">

Revision as of 16:53, 26 September 2012

CommunityHome > outreach


Besides these above, we also conduct an online survey in order to find out how are the iGEMers communicating and collecting information during the preparation for the competition. At first, we found problems when we enter the iGEM official website. It's difficult or even impossible to log in! What's more, some official information provided on the website could be edited by guests. Worse still, we found some BioBricks provided by the iGEM committee which submitted by the previous teams fail to function. Many of our team members thought it meaningful to change this situation. Based on this idea, we create a questionnaire on surveymonkey.com and send emails to teams in Asia Division to invite them to fill in our questionnaire. In this way, we could get overall view of this phenomenon. Soon, we got a good deal of feedback from different teams. More than 80% of them thought it necessary to set up an exchange platform in the charge of the iGEM committee. We produced the following charts to show our results.






As can be seen from the first chart above, more than half of the surveyed preferred to set up a forum as the exchange platform. Several people wish to build a social network like Facebook to assume the function of information exchange. In the second chart, we can seen more than one third of the iGEMers have found that parts provided by the official unable to work. This means that a considerable number of parts submitted by the previous teams are not qualified. The iGEM committee should push on the establishment of regulatory mechanisms to cut down the occurrence of such incidents.

In addition, the iGEMers under investigation also put forward numerous constructive comments according to our topic. For example, one of the respondents rise the problem that the long description of the BioBricks could not be revised when uploaded; another respondent thought it inappropriate for the official to change the assessment standards of the official awards frequently. In conclusion, we hope the iGEM committee to set up an exchange form to enhance the communication between different teams and check the validity of the parts submitted.