Changes between Version 4 and Version 5 of Research/DesignStudy/SteeringGroup/Scratch

Timestamp:

Sep 27, 2021 4:52:08 PM (3 years ago)

Author:

longkr

Comment:

--

Research/DesignStudy/SteeringGroup/Scratch

@@ -14 +14 @@
   * Clarification of comparable proposals in other countries; and
   * What challenges must be addressed, and over what time line, to take the technologies demonstrated in the ITRF to the clinic.
- Answers had to be delivered in 100 words (each) and over a very short timeline and were prepared by the proposal team in consultation with the Advisory Committee.  Later in September there was the possibility to submit additional information.  The BJR paper referred to in the proposal was submitted along with letters of support from the project partners.  There is still an opportunity to submit a letter of support from CERN.  **KL** will re-engage with CERN to try and get such a letter before the IAC meeting (05Oct21).
+ Answers had to be delivered in 100 words (each) and over a very short timeline and were prepared by the proposal team in consultation with the Advisory Committee.  Later in September there was the possibility to submit additional information.  The BJR paper referred to in the proposal was submitted along with letters of support from the project partners.  There is still an opportunity to submit a letter of support from CERN.  **KL** will re-engage with CERN to try and get such a letter before the IAC meeting (04Oct21).
 
- The next step in the process is the meeting of the IAC which will take place on 05Oct21.  MN and JC have made themselves available to answer the committee's questions on that day.  MN anticipates that the IAC will make its recommends to UKRI Council on the timescale of late October, early November.  He expects feedback to the proponents on this timescale.
+ The next step in the process is the meeting of the IAC which will take place on 04Oct21.  MN and JC have made themselves available to answer the committee's questions on that day.  MN anticipates that the IAC will make its recommends to UKRI Council on the timescale of late October, early November.  He expects feedback to the proponents on this timescale.
 
  SG asked whether biologist input would be valuable and whether AG and JP would be valuable if they could be available.  MN replied it would be excellent if additional colleagues could be available but that he was not wishing to ask people to be available since they may not be required.  KL felt the making robust and timely responses to the IAC's questions was of sufficient importance to the LhARA programme that LhARA collaborators would be willing to make themselves available.  JP agreed, and said he was available.  AG had left the meeting, so did not confirm.  In view of the importance to the LhARA programme, **KL** agreed to liaise and supply MN with a contact list for the key aspects of LhARA.