cc: plemke@awi-bremerhaven.de, ewwo@bas.ac.uk, r.r.dickson@cefas.co.uk, maria.noguer@defra.gsi.gov.uk, mccave@esc.cam.ac.uk, studhope@glg.ed.ac.uk, B.Turrell@marlab.ac.uk, rwood@metoffice.com, sfbtett@metoffice.com, ppn.NERC.NERC@nerc.ac.uk, j.m.slingo@reading.ac.uk, p.j.valdes@reading.ac.uk, j.lowe@rhbnc.ac.uk, JYM.SOC.NERC.SOC.NERC@soc.soton.ac.uk, Peter Challenor , a.j.watson@uea.ac.uk, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, m.hulme@uea.ac.uk, haugan@gfi.uib.no, C Gommenginger , Meric Srokosz , lkeigwin@whoi.edu date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 20:58:43 +0100 from: Simon Tett subject: Re: RAPID: Dutch & Norwegian Collaboration to: Philip Newton Phil, I think there is some merit in what you suggest though to be honest it depends on what you mean by "RAPID" science. My concerns are: 1) It will change the focus of the 2nd AO. This could damage our integrative work and reduce our ability to pull together a RAPID community 2) It could delay the AO -- the impact of this is that less Science will be done as more will need to be spent on the admin of the program as the program lifetime will increase 3) The 2nd AO is the last change that the SC have to steer the program -- by trying to integrate with Norway & Holland we make it more difficult. 4) Isn't FP6 the right place to get trans-euro funding? Perhaps we could have a 2.5 AO which has £3/4 Million funding (3 projects) that could be joint with Norway/Holland or other European funding agencies. . Philip Newton wrote: Thanks Eric, We could adopt the model you suggest, and I would welcome the views of others. The driver for going for more explicitly collaborative proposals is the chance of getting access to matching money from CREST, which could be up to several million pounds. The feeling is that we are more likely to succeed with that if the national commitment to a collaborative programme is more explicitly strong (ie genuine joint proposals). Moreover, it seems to me that collaborative work is likely to be stronger if there is an initial constraint to write a single proposal (despite the 'success' of the NSF venture, even with a strongly focused AO, the US principal investigators had to have arms strongly twisted to write their 'synergistic' proposals, as they were deeply sceptical that anything could get funded through a joint process). Why these countries and not, for example, France, Germany.....? Well, we have tried to get other countries with strong profiles in the RAPID science area involved, but without success to date. But if we can pull the CREST matching money out of the hat, it may be that we could use some of the matching funds to lever in one or two more countries in some way. And then there is always FP6: even though WATCHER will not fly, there are two likely RAPID-relevant bids in the offing that we know of. I acknowledge that the science that RAPID would end up funding in the second round would be different (at about 25% level if we commit about 25% of second round funds to the joint call). Presumably, this means that we will not fund the lowest quartile of proposals that we would otherwise have funded. But instead, we will fund other projects, and with an additional 1.8M pounds (even w/o CREST monies), all addressing RAPID second AO objectives. The trick is to get the focus of the joint call right, and then to follow that up to ensure that researchers from the three countries have an opportunity to write some high-quality focused proposals that enable us to fund some excellent and RAPID-relevant research. It is on this issue that it would be helpful in particular to have the SC feedback I am requesting, on the strengths of communities in these countries. Best Wishes, Phil "Eric W Wolff" [1] 07/21/03 06:16pm >>> Dear Phil, This sounds like a good attempt to get some coordination but perhaps adds a level of complication that might not be in the best interests of RAPID. My concern is that the effect in the UK will be that we restrict a fair proportion of the second call budget to proposals that have a Norwegian or Dutch collaborator. I am wondering why we would end up making one of our main drivers the need to collaborate with these particular nationalities (there are several other countries that make at least as obvious a connection scientifically). I'd like to hear the views of others, as this idea is new on me. And I don't want to dampen the excellent opportunities for synergy that having a matched call could bring. But I do wonder if the end result might be merely to exclude some excellent proposals, or alternatively to spawn some artificial and unnecessary quasi-collaborations. Can we not find a model more like the one with NSF, where synergistic proposals scored well, and could be coordinated, but were not a prerequisite for the funding from each nation. Best wishes Eric ---------------------------- Eric Wolff British Antarctic Survey High Cross Madingley Road Cambridge CB3 0ET United Kingdom E-mail: [2]ewwo@bas.ac.uk Phone: +44 1223 221491 Fax: +44 1223 221279 Alternate fax: +44 1223 362616 "Philip Newton" [3] 21/07/03 15:06:13 >>> Dear Steering Committee, ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The following information is not in the public domain, and out of respect for the concerned research councils should remain confidential until further notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For those of you present at the 2 June 2003 Steering Committee meeting, you will recall that I was due to meet with representatives from the Dutch Research Council (NWO) on 20 June, to build on the interest in RAPID they have shown throughout our programme development (e.g. NWO attended RAPID launch Town Meeting; Hendrik van Aken attended PIs kick-off meeting). The meeting was a positive one, culminating in a proposal for the NWO to put up about 1.5M Euros for investment in RAPID-oriented science. The proposal is to identify a subset of NERC's second AO that is of strategic interest to NWO (probably thermohaline-related), and hold a joint call and evaluation for proposals jointly proposed between UK and Dutch researchers. The call would be part of RAPID's autumn 2003 call (the Dutch delaying their plans by 4 months to fit in). The principle agreed would be that we would be aiming to do jointly what neither single nation would or could otherwise do, and that the national programmes of both countries must benefit from the collaborative work. This proposal then gave me leverage to go to the Norwegian Research Council - whose funding rounds for NoClim have unfortunately never coincided with ours, despite Peter's great efforts - to offer them a time-limited opportunity, with a carrot of a chance (20%?) of matching money from the EU (through a marine-CREST initiative...). Happily, the Norwegian RC have made a strategic decision to find 1MEuros to allow them to participate in an autumn call with us and the Dutch, on the same conditions I outlined above for the projected bi-lateral with the Dutch. Clearly there is a lot of detail to sort out; it will be more complex than the NSF joint venture (though the fact that we have done the NSF exercise undoubtedly enticed). The joint call will need to be part of RAPID's second AO. I envisage that we'd put about 1-1.5m pounds of our second call money up against theirs, and the idea is that proposals to it would have to have investigators (PIs/co-Is) from at least two of the three countries. Each RC could fund only its own researchers (which will complicate...). It seems that both countries would effectively be happy to use the NERC mechanisms, adding 1 or 2 people to our SC for decision meetings (not necessarily as full members). You may wonder why you have not yet been consulted on the joint venture, beyond being aware that we have continually been searching for joint opportunities at the RC level with Norway and Holland, to enhance the delivery of RAPID's science objectives. This is because events have been rapid (this has all come together in the last 5 weeks), and I felt we needed to get to a certain point of 'solidity' about what could happen first. However, Meric and I would now welcome your views on how best to take this forward, especially in terms of using your knowledge of activities in Holland and Norway to help identify the most appropriate subsets of RAPID's science objectives for the joint part of the call. For example, in what areas do these countries have especial strengths (e.g. intellectual, infrastructure, ongoing programmes/activities) that would help us deliver certain RAPID science objectives? In cases you identify, are you aware whether those areas are also (related to) strategic objectives in that nation's programmes? I realise that entering into this joint venture with Norway and Holland will cause some complications, but if it is set up in the right way, then I am sure that the benefits to the programme, to the science-area, and to those involved, will dwarf such inconveniences. If the attempt to secure 'matching' money through the CREST initiative succeeds, then our flexibility and scope will be further enhanced. Please be assured that we do not underestimate the complexities here, and acknowledge that we need to plan the joint component of the AO very carefully, provide support to allow joint proposals to be developed, avoid the pitfalls of EUROCORES.... But with your help and advice, I'm sure we can considerably enhance the RAPID programme and this science area through this venture. Best Wishes, Phil Dr Philip Newton Marine Sciences Manager Science Programmes Directorate Natural Environment Research Council Polaris House North Star Avenue Swindon SN2 1EU, UK. Tel: +44 (0) 1793 411636 Fax: +44 (0) 1793 411545 E-mail: [4]ppn@nerc.ac.uk Dr Philip Newton Marine Sciences Manager Science Programmes Directorate Natural Environment Research Council Polaris House North Star Avenue Swindon SN2 1EU, UK. Tel: +44 (0) 1793 411636 Fax: +44 (0) 1793 411545 E-mail: [5]ppn@nerc.ac.uk -- Dr Simon Tett Managing Scientist, Data development and applications. Met Office Hadley Centre Climate Prediction and Research London Road Bracknell Berkshire RG12 2SY United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)1344 856886 Fax: +44 (0)1344 854898 E-mail: [6]simon.tett@metoffice.com [7]http://www.metoffice.com