First European Symposium on Biochemical Engineering Science

Summary of Responses to the ESBES Delegate Questionnaire

The questionnaire was circulated to delegates on Saturday morning, after the Plenary lectures. Additional copies were available at the ESBES reception desk throughout the day. Completed questionnaires were collected from delegates after the closing session or could be left at the reception desk.

89 questionnaires were submitted from a total of 218 registered delegates, representing a nominal response rate of 41%. However, on the basis of campus accommodation records for Saturday night, September 21, and attendance at the Closing Reception, as many as 50 delegates may have left DCU prior to Saturday afternoon. Accordingly, 89 respondents probably represents a response rate closer to 50%.

As not all respondents completed every section of the questionnaire, the number of responses to each question is indicated below. Where appropriate, the average grade and standard deviation are provided (1 is poor, 5 is excellent). Where delegates were asked to list topics or select presentations, these have been ranked according to the frequency with which each appeared. Relevant delegate comments have also been included.

1. What is your overall impression of ESBES 1 2 3 4 5
Grade: 3.85+0.:74
No. of respondents: 86
% of respondents awarding a grade 4 or higher: 73%

2 (a) Symposium Programme 1 2 3 4 5
Grade: 3.74+0.77
No. of respondents: 71
% of respondents awarding a grade 4 or higher: 66%

2 (b) Quality 1 2 3 4 5
Grade: 3.74+0.85
No. of respondents: 85
% of respondents awarding a grade 4 or higher: 71%

2 (c) Balance 1 2 3 4 5
Grade: 3.61+0.85
No. of respondents: 85
% of respondents awarding a grade 4 or higher:  56%

2 (d) Too little of
No. of respondents: 50
(some respondents cited more than 1 item)

Topic                                                                    No.
industrial applications/indus.contributions: 16
advanced concepts/novel materia: l9
measurement and control: 5
enzyme systems: 4
(integration of)physiology: 4
(integration of)biochemistry/molecular biology: 3
engineering/process design/process development: 3
animal cell technology: 2
bioreactor performance:2
discussion/workshops: 2
downstream processing: 2
environmental biotechnology: 2
biotransformations: 1
modelling/optimisation: 1
prokaryotic systems: 1

Too much of
No. of respondents 29

Topic                                     No.
reviews/familiar material: 12
modelling/optimisation: 7
downstream processing: 3
theory/academic topics: 2
engineering/process design/process development: 1
bioreactor performance: 1
biotransformations: 1
yeast: 1
parallel sessions: 1

Comments on the Symposium Programme:
'8.30 am start too early', 'too little opportunity for information discussions', 'need more younger presenters, chosen by board of international experts', 'parallel sessions not satisfactory', 'industrially oriented presentations were very good', 'session structure should not be WP based', 'beware overlap with ECB'.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Scientific Presentations
Due to the structure of ESBES (i.e. a combination of plenary lectures and parallel sessions), a strict ranking of all presentations is not possible and presentations have been grouped according to session. As attendance at individual parallel sessions may have varied over the three days of ESBES, the ranking of a particular presentation, rather than the frequency with which it was cited, is a more reasonable indicator of the level of interest. The top 2-3 presentations in each category are listed below.

a) Please list up to 3 presentations which particularly interested you

No. of respondents 78 (citing 1 or more presentations)

Ranking  Plenary Sessions    Parallel Session 1                       Parallel Session 2
1               Reuss                        King                                                Chase
2               von Stockar               Thevelein/Lubbert                        Nicoud
3               Lilly                             Teixeira de Mattos                        Scheper

b) Please list up to 3 presentations which you found less relevant
No. of respondents 47 (citing 1 or more presentations)

Ranking  Plenary Sessions    Parallel Session 1                      Parallel Session 2
1               Mattiasson                Montague                                      Eggeling
2               von Stockar               Haggstrom                                   van Walsem
3                EU-Presentations   *                                                      *

* A large number of presentations were cited by no more than 2 respondents.

c) Poster Previews 1 2 3 4 5
Grade: 2.92+1.01
No. of respondents: 82
% of respondents awarding a grade 4 or higher: 31%
% of respondents awarding a grade 2 or lower:  35%

d) Poster Sessions 1 2 3 4 5
Grade: 3.88+0.6
No. of respondents: 81
% of respondents awarding a grade 4 or higher:  75%

Comments on Poster Previews/Poster Sessions: 'a good idea - but badly handled', 'more preparation time required for presenters', 'down-stream processing poorly presented at joint poster preview sessions', 'poster previews could be better; poster sessions could be longer', 'more time required for poster previews and poster sessions', 'poster presentations too long'.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Organisation
a) Before the Symposium 1 2 3 4 5
Grade: 4.38+0.72
No. of respondents: 87
% of respondents awarding a grade 4 or higher:  89%

b) During the Symposium 1 2 3 4 5
Grade: 4.53+0.52
No. of respondents: 86
% of respondents awarding a grade 4 or higher: 99%

Comments on organisation: 'good organisation', 'very good organisation', 'excellent job', 'very good, friendly', 'very nice people', 'great , well done', 'good value; friendly people'.

c) Symposium lecture facilities 1 2 3 4 5
Grade: 4.06+0.73
No. of respondents: 86
% of respondents awarding a grade 4 or higher: 81%

Comments: 'microphones required for all sessions', 'lecture theatres too cold'.

d) Accommodation 1 2 3 4 5
Grade: 3.40+0.96
No. of respondents: 81
% of respondents awarding a grade 4 or higher: 42%

Comments: 'accommodation very noisy', 'accommodation good value', 'room could have been cleaner', 'accommodation unsatisfactory'.

e) Meals 1 2 3 4 5
Grade: 3.64+0.98
No. of respondents: 86
% of respondents awarding a grade 4 or higher: 54%

Comments: 'breakfast and lunch very nice; dinner poor', 'lunch food repetitive'.

f) Social events 1 2 3 4 5
Grade: 4.15+0.82
No. of respondents: 81
% of respondents awarding a grade 4 or higher: 81%

Comments: 'enjoyed the tour around Dublinia', 'pub crawl an excellent alternative to the Symposium dinner', 'excellent Symposium dinner', 'enjoyed receptions', 'good Symposium dinner', 'very enjoyable Symposium dinner', 'after dinner speeches too long', 'Dublinia and Guinness Receptions were excellent'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Do you think ESBES should be organised on a 2 yearly basis? 
Yes: 76 (92%)
No:  7 ( 8%)

Comments from respondents answering 'No' 'needs a yearly momentum to drive progress', 'every 3 years', 'every 3 years for improved quality', 'every 3-4 years for improved quality', 'not enough novel material', 'not enough new material', 'WP meetings more focused, ECB is a better wide-ranging forum'.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Please indicated your affiliations
Industry: 21 (24%)
Academia: 67 (76%)

General Overview of Responses

In analysing questionnaires of this type, the most telling information is often to be found in the spontaneous comments included by respondents. Although it is undoubtedly dangerous to attempt to draw conclusions from the very small sample sizes involved, these comments have been taken into consideration in the following brief summary of delegate responses:

Overall: In general, it appears as if ESBES was a success, from both scientific and organisational viewpoints. Overall delegate impressions of the Symposium were very favourable, with 73% of respondents awarding the event a grade 4 or 5.

Symposium Programme: With regard to the scientific content of the Symposium programme, the most common complaints concerned the preponderance of familiar, review-type material, the paucity of industrial applications and the lack of novel scientific contributions. While efforts can be made to remediate these problems when planning subsequent Symposia, it will be difficult (and possibly not even desirable) to include all cited elements within a single biannual event, without introducing even more parallel sessions and, ultimately, replicating larger, existing meetings. The challenge will be to achieve a compromise between the more focused events previously organised by individual Working Parties and the very wide-ranging ECB series.

Scientific Presentations: It is difficult, when ranking presentations, to separate the content of the presentation from the style of the presenter. Additionally, given both the number of respondents involved and the existence of parallel sessions, it is not possible to identify any specific trend in the rankings obtained. It is, however, interesting to note that, although over 30% of respondents indicated a preference for more industrially-oriented material, none of the presentations given by industrially-affiliated speakers ranked among the top 3 presentations selected by the delegates.
The poster preview system has worked very well in the MIP series. Moreover, responses to Questions 2 and 3 and associated delegate comments reveal an interest in more informal/workshop events which the poster previews represent. However, it was, apparently, a new idea for many ESBES delegates and one that might have worked better had poster authors been provided with more information about it in advance. The poster sessions themselves were highly regarded by the respondents. Approximately 60% of all delegates were listed as poster authors. The award of a large number of Fellowships to postgraduate students presenting posters undoubtedly contributed to the high participation rate by younger scientists and every effort should be made to maintain this element in future Symposia.

Organisation: In general, delegates were very satisfied with the organisation of ESBES, both before and during the event. There was some degree of dissatisfaction with campus accommodation and campus meals, which received average grades of 3.40 and 3.64, respectively, and specific complaints will be forwarded to the relevant bodies involved. The ESBES social programme was limited to evening events, due to the very full scientific schedule. There was a high level of participation in the Guinness receptions and both the Symposium dinner at Dublinia and the Dublin Literary Pub Tour were fully subscribed. On the basis of questionnaire responses, delegates enjoyed these events.
Future of ESBES: The vast majority (92%) of respondents supported the idea of ESBES as a biannual event. Among the small number who did not, the preference was for a Symposium every three years, although this would obviously be incompatible with the ECB series.

Affiliation: As approximately 20% of delegates were from non-academic institutions, the distribution of questionnaire respondents (industry 24%, academia 76%) largely reflects attendance at ESBES.