While participants had a mostly favorable impression of the program, we received a number of suggestions for how to improve the program moving forward. For instance, some students felt that the step-by-step, guided instruction we provided on computational tools such as Maestro and VMD would have benefitted from more of an overview of the algorithms. This was a balance we had to navigate throughout development of the program, that is, weighing the need to provide background content with the desire to get the students working with the tools. Similarly, a few students commented that some modules were a bit rushed and suggested that we lengthen the duration of the program. Some students felt that since activities in the computer lab and the wet lab could only be done by one person at a time, due to limited materials and bench space, this restricted the learning opportunities. Again, here we are balancing two needs, one is the cost of running the program, in terms of hardware and consumables, and the other is a desire to provide each student with a sufficient level of hands-on experience. Finally, we noted a mix of responses in regard to the translational biotech modules. Many of the students really appreciated being exposed to this aspect of the science, while many others were uninterested and would have preferred more talks on the actual science. These responses reveal a challenge faced by any program of this nature, that is, pitting a desire to expose students to the practical/pragmatic aspects of a career in science, against the pure enthusiasm most young scientists have at such an early stage of their career.