Management Meeting: Reykjavik, Iceland

1) Feedback after mid-term review

After a brief welcome, the project coordinator, Liane G. Benning summed up EU feedback following the mid term review held in Fuerteventura in February 2014. The European Commission representatives complimented MINSC PIs and fellows on running a good network and mentioned that they were pleased to see good representation of inter-sector cooperation. The EC representatives noted that this is a significant advantage for fellows. The EC representatives also noted that problems arise when local regulations clash with EU regulations (eg. UCPH needs four years for PhD; teaching requirements in Denmark delay project work). Some countries have no possibilities to cancel an employment contract if the ESR proves not to be qualified (Germany), whereas others can (UK makes transfer tougher). The commission does not like to see contracts broken. EU will retroactively make PhD part of program. One of the areas of improvement requested by the commission representatives was even more cooperation between sectors (evidenced by papers and other outputs). However, in some cases inter-sectoral publications prove difficult. In the case of the industrial partner MAERSK, for example, it was explained that co authorship can be a problem. PIs in industry struggle with internal guidelines which state that if Maersk has not provided data, they cannot be mentioned as co authors on papers regardless of whether or not they were involved in the supervision and training of the fellow. Training a fellow is not considered as providing data. Partners must request review of any papers with Maersk co-authorship (this can take 2 to 3 months). This is a company policy that cannot be changed.

2) Feedback on first period financial report and periodic progress report

Next, Liane provided some preliminary feedback on the first period financial forms. Overall, most partners financial declarations were completely in line with those expected by the commission. One exception was West systems where a slight miscalculation caused an overpayment in Mobility and an underpayment in Living. However, this calculation will be adjusted in the second period. The project officer also asked that information about Outreach activities, dates and places of secondments and visits, network-wide training events, publications, etc be added as attachments to the periodic report even though the information is available on the project website. Some corrections (missing stamps, for ex.) have had to be made to the printed financial reports, so there has been a slight delay in sending these to the commission. Once the financial officer has finished reviewing the financial report, Clare will send all partners any feedback regarding their individual form Cs. Most partners feel that the new Marie Curie budget guidelines are clearer than those in previous frameworks. One problem noted is that the country correction coefficients are generally set some time before projects are funded and that they do not always reflect the local economic situation at the time the fellow is recruited. In some cases, fellows are penalized relative to fellows in other countries.

3) Obligation to perform Outreach

Liane next reminded all PIs that the MINSC annex specifically references outreach events to be performed by network partners and fellows. So far, MINSC fellows have been productive in creating scientific outputs, but they must also target the general public. The fellows need to be reminded and encouraged to add content to their newsletter (on Iceland meeting etc.) They should also participate in local lab visits to non scientists, open days, science fairs, school presentations, etc. All of these events must be documented in the progress reports sent to the project manager.

4) Obligation to go on secondment

Liane also reminded PIs to talk with their fellows about secondments. This is an important element of collaboration in the network and must be documented in reports to the European Commission.

5) Upcoming network events

Partners next revisited the original MINSC annex to review the training courses initially promised in the proposal and to verify that all training would be completed by the end of the project. The MINSC network is on track to provide all training and even more than initially anticipated. The question about whether or not to run an additional network event in early 2015 was raised but was not resolved and will be revisited.

6) Future reports to the European Commission

The meeting concluded with a reminder to all partners about upcoming reports: both periodic and financial and a calendar of upcoming significant dates.