All talks in Adobe PDF format.

• Physics would allow cryo-EM to contribute far more to structural biology than what it (EM) currently delivers.
  Richard Henderson, MRC-LNB
  • Followup discussion
    Grant Jensen, California Institute of Technology
• In-focus phase contrast will lead to a major expansion of what cryo-EM can contribute to structural biology (i.e. to biochemistry and cell biology)
  Radostin Danev, Okazaki Insitute for Integrative Biosciences
  • Followup discussion
    Rasmus Schröder, University of Heidelberg
• Beam-induced movement is a major limiting factor in what cryo-EM is able to deliver.
  Bob Glaeser, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
  • Followup discussion
    Bridget Carragher, Scripps Institute
• Ultrafast exposures could outrun a major part of beam-induced movement. What about ns or shorter exposures?
  Nigel Browning, University of California, Davis
  • Followup discussion
    Bradley J. Siwick, McGill University
• Better detector technology will make a major improvement in what cryo-EM can deliver.
  Peter Denes, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
• Inelastically scattered electrons should not just be thrown away during EM tomography of thick specimens.
  Max Haider, CEOS
  • Followup discussion
    Niko Grigorieff, Brandeis University
• Summary: Consensus and dissent
  Eva Nogales, University of California, Berkeley and
  David Agard, University of California, San Francisco