Easter
Hey Guys,
seeing as we’re just going to communicate by email this week? What are everyone’s thoughts on how the presentation went? and what we think we need to improve obviously before the
marks are given as that’ll obviously help! 
Suziexxx
Presentation
Hey all,
There seems to be a little confusion as to how many slides we’re each doing, and how it’s all going to come together. I’m quite happy to compile all our work into one presentation before the meeting tomorrow as long as I receive it in due time. Otherwise, bring your slides with you tomorrow on a CD, laptop, memory stick or SD card and I’ll add it to the rest of them.
We decided around 4 slides each. The number of slides isn’t the issue though, it’s how long you talk for about them, and we said to aim for that to be 2 1/2 – 3 mins.
PLEASE include some images with your slides. I understand that this is extremely difficult with some topics, but anything slightly relevant is better than nothing. A major critisism of presentations such as these can be that they are too text-based, let’s not fall into that trap. Even if it is just a case of having a stock photo of an official-looking document when talking about research governance, etc. etc. A google search from “free stock photo document” would return images such as these.
Thanks,
Chris
hi guys
i cant remember the number of slides we decided to do each. when and how fo we put it together.
please let me know asap.
thank you
Found this…
Not sure if this is of any interest or benefit to anyone in our group, but I thought it was quite interesting!
E-Mail about Date of Presentation
Hey guys,
did you all get that email about the change of date for the presentation? If not, I’ll post it on here. Please comment back ASAP.
Chris
Reply From Dr. Greenman #2
Hi Chris
Personally I would have preferred your previous title as I think it provides more focus; however the stuff that you detail that you plan to cover sounds ideal. The key thing is that you address questions and don’t just describe events; you need to be critically appraising throughout.
We’re meeting next week so I suggest you as a group work on the items that you lit and we can then sort the “organisation “.
Hope this helps
john
To me, it sounds like we want a comprimise of the two; some of the focus of the old title with some of the freedom of the new one. However, I suggest we stick our course, as we are all in agreement our old title was TOO focused; let’s just get some research as we discussed today, and present our case at next thursday’s meeting. Then, if he still thinks our title is too broad, we could change it so it represents what we’ve found out, rather than the other way around.
I think we covered the part where he mentions we need to be “critically appraising,” i.e. give our own representations and views of what happened and whether their effects were appropriate.
Can you put and comments, feedback & suggestions in the comments section of this post
Chris
Meeting 2
- Suggested that we try and draw links between similar events, partilarly where one has/should have affected future events. i.e. Alder Hey still happened dispite a similar incident at Bristol
- Title decided to be too descriptive, changed to
Changes in modern research governance and bioethics
- Suggested that we include instating of Committee’s and Councils in our coverage
- Research Governance Framework & UK Ethics Committee’s suggested to be covered
- Alder Hey and Bristol to be covered under one heading of Human Tissue Act
- Patrick found: http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/clinicalresearchgovernanceoffice/researchgovernance/howhasresearchgovernancedeveloped
- Nuremburg Code – Andy
- Declaration of Helsinki – Gullu
- Human Tissue Act – Suzie
- Organ Donation – Simi
- EU Directive & Research Governance Committees – Rosie & Oyinlola
- Research Governanace Framework – Patrick
- MMR – Steve
- Stem Cells, Japan Brain Death controversy and Stamford – Chris
Posting 101
Hey all,
It seems a couple of people are struggling with how to post on the blog.
First, log in (Hit “Log In” Under the “Log In & Out’ title on the right. then enter your username and password as per the email,)
Then, you should see the “Dashboard” (If not, you can click “Site Admin” as a logged-in user. Then you have three options.
- Use the box on the right of the dashboard to write a ‘quick press’ that is usually sufficient. Give the post a title, write your message (tags are unneccesary really) and then hit publish.
- Click ‘Posts’ on the left of the dashboard, then “add new.” Enter title & message, then hit “publish” on the right.
- If you are responding to someone else’s post, leave a comment on it instead. Just head back to the blog itself (click “visit site” at the top) and click underneath the post in question, where it says “0 comments” or whatever. Then you will have the option to post a comment.
Seems complicated just reading that, but just try following it along and it should all be clear as mud.
Chris
Research ethics timeline (s)
Here is the link to the NHS leaflet. I also found another research ethics timeline which may be useful:
http://www.nres.npsa.nhs.uk/EasySiteWeb/GatewayLink.aspx?alId=357
http://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/timeline.cfm
Andy
Technical Issues!
Hey guys, sorry for the problems. It seems to have been a problem with the theme, so for now, the blog will have to look less awesome.
You should all be able to log in now by clicking ‘Log In’ under the ‘Meta’ header, with the username and password I explained in the original email.
Once logged in, you should be taken to the ‘Dashboard’. From here, you can upload media and add posts.
Don’t hesitate to ask me if you have any problems at all, via email or here on the blog.
Cheers,
Chris