FodnessReviewsLamprou

Proposal Presentation Review

Presenter: Anna Lamprou Reviewer: Kevin Fodness

1)Did the presentation clearly describe the aims of the research – empirical, conceptual, methodological, and practical?

Yes. The project seems very solid and well defined.

2)Did the presentation provide an overview of what we already know about the research subject, and then explain how the proposed research will create new knowledge?

Yes. The overview was very detailed and very well presented. The new knowledge is badly needed.

3)Did the presentation provide a robust sense of how the research will be carried out, and of the type of data that will be collected?

Yes.

4)Did the research plan presented seem credible and feasible?

Credible, yes. The project will be difficult to execute due to the broad scope and the nature of some of the actors involved (EU, large international science and technology firms, etc). This is not to say that the project is not feasible, just that it will be a challenge to do well.

5)Did the presentation provide a tangible sense of the book and other outcomes of the research?

Yes. An entire slide was devoted to the eventual outcomes of the research, including a book, website, etc.

6)Did the presentation persuade you that the proposed research is important, in this historical moment in particular?

Yes. The lack of standards and the lack of democratic governance over nano, combined with the increase of nano development, means that more insight needs to be gained into nano standards and governance, risk analysis, etc.

7)Was the speaking style clear, engaging, and well timed?

Yes, very much so.

8)Further comments and questions:

Don't use Comic Sans.