experiences would be obtained during the meeting itself.
• Team-based. A key element for ensuring success and enhancing sustainability in the NASIs is the participation of teams from institutions, preferably including a range of junior to senior members on each team. Gaining buy-in from administrators is critical and it has proved useful to have them among the participants. The NASI model has shown added success and commitment by participants if their home institute provides at least modest resources to help implement what faculty learn.
• Hands-on. As the design of the planning meeting suggested, the workshop would be built around extensive, direct participation. Participants would have the opportunity to be both “students” and “teachers,” to practice the methods they are learning, and to develop “teachable tidbits” and other materials (e.g., appropriate assessments) to help them implement their new courses or modules at their home institutions.
• Implementation and Assessment. An important feature of the workshop’s handson approach is the commitment to assist participants in implementing what they have learned. In addition to implementing new ideas or courses, they will acquire experience and resources to plan and carry out effective assessments of whether the learning goals of their new activities are being met. As already mentioned in the context of sustainability, thinking about assessment from the outset is helpful on multiple levels. Examples of useful assessment techniques include observation of the participants, collecting and analyzing work samples, introducing checklists of skills, use of quizzes and/or self-assessment tools, interviews, etc.
Fostering successful and sustainable networks of faculty able to teach about dual use issues and broader problems of responsible conduct in science and research depends on several key elements, some of which have already been discussed earlier in this report.
• From the beginning. Given the emphasis on forward planning, strategies for building and sustaining the network of faculty will be part of the earliest discussions of the workshop. As previously presented, networks will be influenced by the local/national context, for example with regard to the degree of faculty autonomy in course design.
• Resources. As mentioned above, whenever possible participants in the workshop will be provided with materials and other resources to help them implement what they have learned. Modest resources from their home institution to show its commitment and obligation may be particularly desirable in the project’s initial stages. It is the existence and ready availability of these resources rather than their amount that matters most; in many situations modest resources can have a significant impact.
• Continuing connections. Another way to help build a network is to have project staff from the sponsoring organization available for consultation to participants after the workshop as they implement their new ideas (courses, modules, etc.). These connections would reinforce rather than substitute for local commitment.
• Appraisal. The NASI arranges for at least some of the team members to get together approximately six months after the Institute to share experiences and challenges, reinforce ties, and make plans and adjustments. This is always important but is