Please write below your feedback about the program. It will help KITP to keep doing it in the future.
KITP especially appreciates specific info on:
if new collaborations were established and
if people might start research on new subject inspired by the interactions at the program.

Also - each of you should have received a request to submit an Activity Report concerning your experience. Comments on this page are not a substitute for that report.
Gib Bogle
Auckland Bioengineering Institute
University of Auckland

The program was a great success. I learned a great deal about the state of the art in quantitative immunology. Of particular interest to me was the recurrent theme of the influence of stochasticity in generating cell diversity. I was keen to make contact with researchers who might have a use for the simulation model that I've been developing, and therefore it was very gratifying to make contact with Philippe Bousso, Thomas Hofer and Sarah Russell, all of whom expressed interest in the model. I will visit the first two next year, and install my software on their systems. There is a good chance of developing collaborations with these three researchers.


Rob de Boer
Utrecht University, the Netherlands.

This was the best meeting I attended in 2012. The long presentations enables us to discuss several questions that otherwise are overlooked. Having ample time for discussion among the participants was excellent and very productive. I finished two manuscripts with Alan Perelson, discussed manuscripts that are under development with Becca Asquith and Thomas Hofer, and worked on a new project with Ken Duffy, Phil Hodgkin and Leila Perie. I had great discussions with Rustom Antia, and learned a lot from all the repertoire discussions introduced by Aleksandra Walczak and Thierry Mora. We heard excellent presentations by several immunologists and it was great to have them around to discuss.


Ken Duffy
Hamilton Institute
National University of Ireland, Maynooth

This was the most informative meeting I attended in 2012. The clarity of the presentations and their unconstrained time-frame worked superbly in conjunction with speakers' willingness to elaborate in response to any query, elucidating matters both small and large. The quality of the questions from the audience is also to be commended as often these led to a much deeper understanding, at least on my part. It would be easier to enumerate the talks I didn't learn something from than those that I did, as there were none. I made progress on long-standing work with Phil Hodgkin, as well as on new work with Rob de Boer, Phil Hodgkin and Leila Perie. The Institute's staff should be singled out for praise as within a day it felt perfectly natural to be working in a building with many people whose names one commonly sees on papers.

Becca Asquith
Imperial College London

This was an excellent programme. The atmosphere was friendly, collaborative and thoughtful. It provided a fantastic opportunity to move existing projects forwards (work with Rob de Boer) as well as initiate new projects (work with Richard Neher and potentially Ken Duffy/ Ruy Ribeiro/ Rob de Boer) and to receive feedback on ongoing work (useful discussions with Rustom Antia, Alex Walczak and Alan Perelson amongst others). I also echo Ken’s sentiment that the Institute staff were great. Trying to work in another institute for 3 weeks usually means days and days of frustration hooking up printers, fax machines, housing etc etc; but because of the excellent staff all of this was remarkably pain-free.