When asked about pre-conference issues, 45% of the participants agreed that they have received sufficient information about the conference in advance, while less than 20% disagreed and 38% remained neutral.

As for the information via e-mail, 68% thought that it was effective, 26% were neutral and 6% disagreed.

Regarding information provided on the website, 55% agreed that it was useful and easy to access, while 10% disagreed and 35% were neutral. 70% of the participants thought that the registration procedures were easy, while 10% disagreed and 20% were neutral.

When the participants were asked to rate the organization and logistics of the conference, 62% agreed that the duration of each session was appropriate while 34% were neutral and 4% disagreed. As for the duration of the coffee and lunch breaks, 84% agreed that it was sufficient, 13% were neutral and 3% disagreed. When it came to lunch and coffee break quality, 58% were in favor, 34% were neutral and 8% disagreed.

Regarding adherence to schedule, 72% agreed, 21% were neutral and 7% disagreed. As for the halls, 69% thought that they had enough seats in them, 14% were neutral while 17% disagreed. 88% thought that the halls had enough light in them, 10% were neutral and 2 % disagreed. Last but not least regarding the staff and volunteers, 87% agreed that they were helpful, 11.5% were neutral and 1.5% disagreed.

When asked to rate the sessions' program, 79% found the session topics useful and updated, 19.5% were neutral and 1.5% found it poor. Regarding the selection of the speakers, 83.6% found it remarkable while 14.9% were neutral and 1.5% rated it poor. When it came to the sessions themselves, 67.9% found it useful, 26.6% were neutral and 5.5% found it poor.

When asked to rate the conference fees, 85% thought that it was excellent, 13.5% were neutral and 1.5% found it. As for the networking and collaborative opportunities the conference provided, 64% thought that it was excellent, 32% medium and 4% poor. 78% of the participants wanted to download the sessions from the conference website, while 18% were neutral and 4% didn't want to.

In reference to Science Supercourse future events, 92% wanted to follow up on them, 7% were neutral and less than 1% didn't want to.

At total number of 750 participants attended the conference, 48.9% were males while 51.1% were females.

A total number of 90 participants attended the workshop, 50% of them were Postgraduate researchers, while 43% of the participants were Postdoctoral researchers. The workshop's hot topic also attracted undergraduates who formed a 7% of the attendees.

The majority of the participants were of the age group 20-30, reflecting the young researchers eagerness to understand the new science - Nanotechnology - thus accounting for 43% of the total attendees, whereas nearly the other half of the attendees aged from 30 to 50 years old.

The workshop gathered researchers and university professors from 9 different governorates. Exactly half of the participants were Alexandria residents, 30% came from Cairo and the remaining came from all over Egypt, in addition to 1 international participant who was among the attendees.

When R-G 2005 applicants were asked to rate the "announcement" process for the research grants 2005, 45.5% thought it was very proper, 27.3 % rated it as proper, 15 % were indifferent and 12.2% thought it was improper.

When R-G 2005 applicants were asked to rate the reviewing process of their researches, 81.2 % agreed about their confidence regarding it, 9.4 % were in different and 9.4% were unconfident about it.

When R-G 2005 applicants were asked to rate their interest in applying to R-G 2006, 76% were interested, 8% were indifferent and 16% were not interested.

When R-G 2005 applicants were asked to rate their interest in recommending BA/CSSP research grants program to their friends, 94% agreed they would recommend it, while 6% were not going to recommend it.

The chart demonstrates:

Number of speakers in BVA04 = 73 vs. number of speakers in BVA06 = 120

Number of online registered participants in BVA04 = 1511 participants vs. number of online registered participants in BVA06 = 1878

It is worth to mention that BVA04 registration was sponsored by BA Board of Trustees free registration- while BVA06 registration was paid by the participants.

Participants responses to the value of money for their conference registration fees: Their responses varied according to the fees they paid [fees changed with the time of registration, early bird registered paid lower than on site registration .. etc]

- Less than 100 LE registration fees payment generated 90% high satisfaction on the value received at the conference.

- 100-1000 LE registration fees payment generated 60% high satisfaction on the value received at the conference.

92% of BioVisionAlexandria 2006 attendees agreed they want to attend BioVisionAlexandria 2008