| 5 | | **ZOOM:** https://imperial-ac-uk.zoom.us/j/91737583512?pwd=U0dPWnFtWVArbHdldDgyUy9Wa0k1QT09 |
| | 5 | == Notes == |
| | 6 | |
| | 7 | 1. __Introduction; [wiki:Research/DesignStudy/SteeringGroup/2021/09-27 minutes and actions from last meeting]__ \\ |
| | 8 | Status of actions: |
| | 9 | * **KL:** re-engage with CERN to try and get such a letter before the IAC meeting (04Oct21) |
| | 10 | - **Done.** Letter sent to M. Noro in advance of 04Oct21 |
| | 11 | * **KL:** liaise and supply MN with a contact list for the key aspects of LhARA |
| | 12 | - **Done.** AG and JPar and others nominated to MN. |
| | 13 | * **KL:** with DK find a date for LhARA Day |
| | 14 | - **Done.** This will be 15Dec21. |
| | 15 | * **KL** will liaise with DK to set the two-monthly pattern and to book a rolling 6-month set of meetings. |
| | 16 | - **Done.** Diary invites sent. |
| | 17 | |
| | 18 | [raw-attachment:2021-11-22-LONG-1.pdf Introductory slides]. No additional points noted. |
| | 19 | |
| | 20 | 2. _Adoption of agenda__ \\ |
| | 21 | Agenda was adopted. |
| | 22 | |
| | 23 | 3. __Institute Board, proposal and adoption of first co-chairs__ \\ |
| | 24 | KL explained that the definition of the management structure of the collaboration in the reparation of the proposal had led to a careful revision of the way the programme was described. N. Bliss had reviewed the first draft of the organisational structure and found a number of issues including the need to standardise the naming of the various bodies in the collaboration's management. Rather than a "Steering Group", the function of the present body is to represent the interests of the institutes that make up the collaboration, to ensure that the "executive team" manage the programme in line with these interests, to endorse appointments and decisions, and to be the PI group that champions the collaboration and its search for resources. |
| | 25 | |
| | 26 | We discussed various issues related to the function and role of the Institute Board and agreed that one of the next steps would be the creation of a constitution for the collaboration. This would be a job for the Inaugural chairs. |
| | 27 | |
| | 28 | The renaming of the Steering Group so that going forward it would be the **Institute Board** was unanimously agreed. |
| | 29 | |
| | 30 | To prepare for the discussion of the appointment of the inaugural Institute Board chairs, T. Greenshaw and Y. Presado left the meeting. KL introduced the discussion of YP and TG as Inaugural Chairs by saying that the proposed appointment was inline with the co-leadership of the collaboration from a life scientist and a physical scientist. TG had long-standing expertise in large collaborations and that he had taken senior and leading roles in these collaborations. YP is a leading researcher in the efficacy of novel beams and leader of an area of growing importance of the field. The appointment of TG and YP was endorsed unanimously. TG and YP rejoined the meeting and were congratulated on their appointment. It was also noted that the work package content of the project would necessarily change and grow over the reconstruction phase. |
| | 31 | |
| | 32 | The timeline for the preparation of the proposal as defined in the slides was noted. |
| | 33 | |
| | 34 | **YP took over as meeting chair** |
| | 35 | |
| | 36 | 4. __Status of development of proposal__ |
| | 37 | * Organisational aspects: KL \\ |
| | 38 | [raw-attachment:2021-11-22-LONG-2.pdf See slides]. Points noted: \\ |
| | 39 | The need to flesh out the details of the responsibilities and roles was discussed. The overall distinction between the LhARA initiative as a "Programme" and the LhARA design and build activity as a "Project" was noted. The key issue in the development of our programme as the parallel influence of life and natural sciences was endorsed. The mapping onto the specification of the programme structure would need to be written carefully. It was noted that the third essential strand was generating clinical impact in parallel to the development of the biological science and LhARA project aspects of the programme.\\ |
| | 40 | The timeline for preparation and review of the proposal was presented and is as described in the slides. |
| | 41 | * Preliminary and pre-construction programme development: CW \\ |
| | 42 | CW was indisposed so KL summarised the status of preparation of the proposal in slides 6 to 12. In general there was good progress and the WPMs were to be congratulated for the significant efforts. The end station/instrumentation development w/p (WP5) needed further discussion for specification and the ion-acoustic dose-mapping activity needed to be documented. |
| | 43 | * Stakeholders’ plan development: JPar \\ |
| | 44 | See [raw-attachment:Lharas-takeholder-meeting-notes-290921.pdf slides] |
| | 45 | * JC commented on the status of the consideration of the ITRF proposal: The UKRI IAC had met and had made its recommendations to UKRI. The Research Council Executive Chairs were now being consulted to ask for their input on the strategic fit of the proposal to their council's programme. If this yields sufficient support, the next step will be to see whether there is sufficient money to support the Preliminary Phase activity. JC reported that DL is planning for success and preparing to go ahead. He noted that the ITRF was a bigger piece of work than LhARA alone. He also commented that STFC had been briefed and was asking questions about the medical accelerator initiative. |
| | 46 | |
| | 47 | 5. __Agenda for LhARA collaboration meeting; 15Dec21__ \\ |
| | 48 | Item covered in slides presented by KL under item 4. |
| | 49 | |
| | 50 | 6. __Outreach and engagement plan for 2022__ \\ |
| | 51 | KL reported that the intention was to initiate a "LhARA seminar tour". The concept would be to jointly deliver the seminar by one life scientist and one natural scientist. AG+KL and JP+CW would seek to initiate the series, generating a slide pack and some idea of response of audiences. Then to reach a large enough fraction of our peer group Institute Board members were invited to take the seminar programme forward. |
| | 52 | |
| | 53 | It was suggested that KL contact K.Gleeson to offer to reach out to Maggies groups and that the Imperial Academic Health Science Centre be approached. KL will make these contacts. |
| | 54 | |
| | 55 | 7. __DONM__ \\ |
| | 56 | 25Jan22: 11:00 GMT |
| | 57 | |
| | 58 | 8. __AoB__ \\ |
| | 59 | None |
| | 60 | |
| | 61 | === Summary of actions === |
| | 62 | * **KL:** Reach out to K. Gleeson re presentation to Maggies Centres and add IC Academic H/science centre to seminar target list |
