Science and Innovation Strategy Board Twenty sixth meeting Monday by bullsonparade


									   Science and Innovation
       Strategy Board
         Twenty-sixth meeting

Monday & Tuesday, 25/26 September 2006
Barnham Broom Hotel and Country Club,

        commencing at 12:00 pm

  Natural Environment Research Council

AHRC        Arts & Humanities Research Council                           JIF      Joint Infrastructure Fund (OST/Wellcome Trust)
AS          Atmospheric Sciences                                         MRC      Medical Research Council
BAS         British Antarctic Survey (NERC)*                             MS       Marine Sciences
BBSRC       Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council       NERC     Natural Environment Research Council
BGS         British Geological Survey (NERC)*                            NCAS     NERC Centre for Atmospheric Sciences**
BNSC        British National Space Centre (DTI)                          NEB      NERC Executive Board
CASE        Co-operative Awards in the Science of the Environment        NEST     Network for the Exploitation of Science and Technology
CASIX       Centre of Observation of Air-Sea Interactions and Fluxes**   NIEeS    National Institute for Environmental eScience**
CGAM        Centre for Global Atmospheric Modelling (part of NCAS)       ODP      Ocean Drilling Program
CCC         Tyndall Centre for Climate Change                            OPMs     Output and Performance Measures
CCLRC       Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research           OST      Office of Science and Technology (DTI)
            Councils                                                     PML      Plymouth Marine Laboratory**
CCMS        Former Centre for Coastal and Marine Sciences (NERC)         POL      Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory*
CEH         Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (NERC)*                     PPARC    Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council
CLASSIC     Climate & Land Surface Systems Interaction Centre**          PRC      Peer Review Committee
COMET       Centre for Observation and Modelling of Earthquakes and      QUEST    Quantifying the Earth System
            Tectonics**                                                  RAE      Research Assessment Exercise
CPB         Centre for Population Biology**                              RCUK     Research Councils UK
CPOM        Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling**                 ROPAs    Realising Our Potential Awards
CSR         Comprehensive Spending Review                                RSU      NERC Research Ships Unit
CTCD        Centre for Terrestrial Carbon Dynamics**                     SAMS     Scottish Association for Marine Sciences**
DARC        Data Assimilation Research Centre**                          SBRI     Small Business Research Initiative
DEFRA       Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs           SEBCC    Science and Engineering Base Co-ordinating Committee
DGRC        Director General of the Research Councils                    SHEFC    Scottish Higher Education Funding Council
DMAG        Data Management Advisory Group                               SISB     NERC Science and Innovation Strategy Board (formerly
DML         Dunstaffnage Marine Laboratory (base for SAMS)                        STB)
DTI         Department of Trade and Industry                             SMA      Science and Management Audit
EA          Environment Agency                                           SMRU     Sea Mammal Research Unit**
ENRIs       Environmental and Natural Resource Issues                    SOC      Southampton Oceanography Centre**
EO          Earth Observation                                            SPA      Strategic Partnership Agreement
EPSRC       Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council           SR2004   2004 Spending Review
ERFF        Environment Research Funders Forum                           STB      Former NERC Science and Technology Board (see SISB)
ES          Earth Sciences                                               TFS      Terrestrial and Freshwater Sciences
ESF         European Science Foundation                                  UGAMP Universities Global Atmospheric Modelling Programme
ESRC        Economic and Social Research Council
ESSC        Environmental Systems Science Centre**
EuroHORCs European Union Research Organisations Heads of
            Research Councils
HEFCE       Higher Education Funding Council for England
HEFCW       Welsh Higher Education Funding Council
HEIs        Higher Education Institutions
HORCs       Heads of Research Councils committee
HPC         High Performance Computing

* NERC Research Centre       ** NERC Collaborative Centre

The terms of reference of the Science and Innovation Strategy Board (SISB) are to:

i.      develop and recommend to Council a science and innovation strategy that reflects NERC’s Charter
        and the most important national, European and global needs and challenges facing the environmental

ii.     develop and recommend to Council priorities, programmes and other initiatives that will deliver the
        science and innovation strategy;

iii.    monitor and report to Council on the implementation of the strategy by the evaluation of scientific
        outputs and their potential impacts.

In carrying out its business the Board will:

i.      assess and advise Council on the health of the UK’s environmental science base, including the
        provision of trained manpower and scientific services and facilities;

ii.     advise Council on:

        a.    challenges in the environmental sciences,
        b.    future research and training opportunities,
        c.    monitoring and survey,
        d.    a strategy for the management of scientific data,
        e.    the exploitation of research and training investments made by NERC;

iii.    make recommendations to Council, within indicative financial planning allocations set by Council, on
        prioritising new programmes and initiatives to deliver the science and innovation strategy;

iv.     advise Council on setting the NERC standards for quality of research and training from assessment of
        proposals through to evaluation of scientific output and performance;

v.      report to Council following each SISB meeting, and, at least annually, on progress with
        implementation of the science and innovation strategy.

In all of the above, the Board will be guided by the following principles to:

i.      support and represent the long term interests of environmental sciences in the UK;

ii.     promote the best science in the best place;

iii.    be mindful of NERC’s responsibilities for safeguarding certain national capabilities by:
              a. sustaining the necessary infrastructure; and
              b. maintaining an informed customer base;

iv.     plan for the longer term;

v.      develop strategies that anticipate the growing interdisciplinarity and interconnectivity of science;

vi.     maintain good working links with NEB; and

vii.    engage and communicate with stakeholders.

As approved by NERC Council on 27 November 2003
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH COUNCIL                                       (standing information item)



NERC uses the expertise, knowledge and advice of the international academic and research
community, government agencies, industry and elsewhere. Their involvement is an essential
contribution to the Council's decision-making processes, many of which lead to the allocation of
public funds.


NERC needs to set out clearly how it expects its Council and Committee members to behave, in
order to reduce the risk of improper conduct of business or allocation of funds. It is therefore also
important that Council’s procedures are documented and easily understood, to allay public concern.
This can be done by following HM Treasury’s guidelines for publicly-funded agencies. All members
of NERC Committees who have a vested interest should therefore follow the arrangements below.

Vested interest is defined as:

i.      the committee member being associated with an institution, department or individual that has
        submitted a funding proposal or that would otherwise benefit from a decision;

ii.     being involved, in any way, in the development or implementation of proposals seeking
        Council funds or in the evaluation of research investments, or otherwise standing to benefit
        from a decision.

General expectation

If it is not obvious or immediately apparent, Committee members must inform the NERC official
acting as Secretary to the Committee, or the Chairperson, of the exact nature of their vested interest.
This applies in all instances where a decision could result in the allocation of NERC funds or other
resources, or otherwise provide benefit.


It is Council policy that:

i.      On taking up their appointments, all Council members must declare any private, professional
        or commercial interests that could conflict with NERC’s interests. These interests may be
        direct or indirect, monetary or non-monetary, which the public might reasonably think could
        influence the Council members ’ judgment.

ii.     NERC will register the declarations of interest centrally and update them every year.
        Members should, however, provide updated information as changes occur. NERC will put the
        register on its website so the public can inspect it, and the website detail will be published in
        the NERC Council’s annual report.

iii.    The chairperson of a meeting will be briefed on interests using the register, and will draw
        attention to any possible conflicts on interests before the meeting starts.

iv.     Normally, members with vested interest should leave the meeting while the proposal or issue
        is being discussed or considered.
v.      If the Committee agrees, the Chairperson may use their discretion to allow members with
        vested interests to remain in the meeting, if their absence will compromise the Committee’s
        expertise, or if they are invited to speak on ‘matters of fact ’.

vi.     NERC will remove all papers and background information relating a vested interest from the
        respective member’s meeting papers.

vii.    All Committee members are expected to abide by the in confidence nature of much of the
        business conducted at meetings.

viii.   All vested interests declared, and actions taken, should be recorded in the Committee
        minutes, ensuring a proper audit trail.

The meeting Chairperson must ensure that the above procedures are followed.

(*) For the purposes of this statement Committees is the generic term used for the Council, its Boards
and any other group convened by, or acting on behalf of, Council or the Chief Executive.
NERC FUNDING CATEGORIES                                                           (standing information item)

 Enduring activities    Funding        Title of Category                             Purpose
  NERC supports         Category

Long-term                    1        Strategic Data and    To support a proportion up to 100% of full direct costs
underpinning base                     Knowledge             (including core staff) of survey, mapping, long-term
for the                                                     observation, data management and closely
environmental                                               interdependent R&D upon which scientific research
sciences                                                    programmes will draw.

                             2        Shared Services and   To support a proportion up to 100% of full direct costs
                                      Facilities            (including core staff) of shared services and facilities
                                                            accessible to the whole NERC user community.

Skilled people               3        Research Centre       To support a proportion of core scientific staff costs in
                                      Capability            NERC Research Centres (HEI dual support analogue),
                                                            together with enabling funds, plus specific funds to
                                                            support other key aspects of “national capability” in
                                                            these Research Centres.

                             4        Training              To support Studentships and Fellows (excludes normal
                                                            staff development programmes for NERC staff)

Research                     5        Research              To support direct marginal costs of Research
Programmes and                                              Programmes (“blue skies” and directed) on the same cost
exploitation of new                                         basis across all NERC delivery mechanisms. Subject to
knowledge                                                   open competition, apart from defined circumstances.

                             6        Knowledge Transfer    To promote translation of outputs from research
                                                            programmes (new knowledge, technology, methods) into
                                                            new products and services in the economy (innovation).

Basic support                7        Infrastructure        To support, where necessary, routine indirect costs of
                                                            support for activity funded under Categories 1-6.

                             8        Specialist Major      To support major infrastructure that would otherwise
                                      Infrastructure        distort normal running costs; major “ring fenced
                                                            activity” undertaken in line with Government policy (e.g.
                                                            Antarctic Infrastructure; Earth Observation

                             9        Major Capital         For new capital investment in support of Categories 1-8
                                      Projects              above (e.g. new buildings, research vessels).

Science and Society         10        Science and Society   To support the communication of NERC’s work to
                                                            society in general.

External co-funding is permitted against each of the        • To add value to NERC Science Budget investment
funding categories above. External funding should be          in each of the categories above.
attributed/defined as co-funding for a given category in
line with the purpose of that category.                     • To ensure that NERC Science is both excellent and
                                                              relevant to stakeholders.


Twenty-sixth meeting to be held on 25/26 September 2006 at the Barnham Broom Hotel and
Golf Club, Norwich in the Colton Suite (25th) and the Barford Suite (26th)


Monday, 25 September 2006 (Colton Suite)

 12:00        coffee (Colton Suite)
 12:15   1.   Presentation by Countryside Survey team (60 min)                       SISB 06/28

 13:30        lunch (Colton Suite)

              FOR DISCUSSION:

 14:05   2.   Approval of Minutes of twenty-fifth meeting, 11/12 July 2006, and    SISB 06/29(P)
              Matters Arising/Actions from previous meetings (10 min)

 14:10   3.   Chairman’s report (20 min)                                                   Oral

 14:30   4.   Finance report (10 min)                                              SISB 06/30(P)

              FOR DISCUSSION:

         5.   Oceans 2025: NERC marine centres’ strategic research proposals
              (280 min total)

 14:40        a.   Context and assessment process (20 min)                        SISB 06/31a(P)

 15:00        b.   Presentation of proposals (50 min)                             SISB 06/31b(P)

 15:50        coffee

 16:00        c.   Proposals and moderating panel report – discussion (150 min)   SISB 06/31c(P)

 18:30        session close

 19:30        pre-dinner drinks (Hotel bar)

 20:00        dinner (Colton Suite)
 Tuesday, 26 September 2006 (Barford South)

               FOR DECISION:

 09:00    5.   d.   Oceans 2025: NERC marine centres’ strategic research        SISB 06/31d(P)
                    proposals: conclusions and recommendations (60 min)

 10:00    6.   RAPID-WATCH directed programme proposal (40 min)                  SISB 06/32(P)

 10:40         coffee

               FOR DISCUSSION:

 10:50    7.   NERC strategy development: non science strategy areas (90 min)    SISB 06/33(P)

               FOR INFORMATION:

 12:20    8.   Rolling programme of SISB business (5 min)                          SISB 06/34

 12:25    9.   Any other business (5 min)                                                Oral

 12:30         close

 13:00         lunch (Barford Suite Foyer)

 13:30         Joint NERC Strategy session (Council/SISB/NEB members)
               (Barford Suite)

 18:00         depart

Timings are indicative.
(P) = Personal in strict confidence

Additional information (available on the SISB members website):
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH COUNCIL                                                 SISB06/29(P)


CONFIRMED MINUTES (open) of twenty-fifth meeting held on 11/12 July 2006, at London

Members:      Mr E Jenner (Chair), Professor Huw Davies, Dr K Duff, Professor C Edwards,
              Professor H Elderfield, Professor J Harries (items 6 to 14), Professor R Harrison,
              Professor J Hooker, Professor T Jickells (items 1 to 7), Professor N Owens (items 1 to
              5), Professor A Thorpe, Dr N Veck, Professor M Wilson, Dr S Wilson, Dr K Winters.

Apologies:    Dr P Newton.

Attending:    Mr A Lewis (items 10 to14), Ms H Jeffery, Dr N Garnett, Miss M Wickenden, Dr F
              Culshaw (all items 1 to 9).

Invited:      Professor Alex Halliday (items 1 to 9), Professor Robert Gurney, Professor Louise
              Heathwaite, Professor Peter Liss, Professor Georgina Mace, Professor Judith Petts
              Professor Mike Pilling, Professor Julia Slingo (all items 1 to 5).

Secretary:    Miss R Leader

1   Developing the science priorities for the next NERC strategy – workshop (SISB 06/23(P))
[Management in confidence]

2   Presentations by the seven panel chairs (SISB 06/24(P))
[Management in confidence]

3   Discussion and questions – session 1
[Management in confidence]

4   Discussion and questions – session 2
[Management in confidence]

5   Plenary discussion and summary of day 1
[Management in confidence]

6   Introduction to day 2
[Management in confidence]

7   Prioritisation of challenges – session 1

[Management in confidence]

                                               Page 1 of 2
8   Prioritisation of challenges – session 2
[Management in confidence]

9   Feedback from breakout groups and agreement of SISB priorities
[Management in confidence]

10 Approval of Minutes of twenty-fourth meeting, 16/17 May 2006, and Matters Arising from
   May meeting    (SISB 06/25(P))
[Management in confidence]

10 Chairman’s report          (Oral)

10.1 [Management in confidence]
10.2 FAB. Dr Wilson said that in principle Council were supportive of FAB Phase 2. However, as
     this was a significant change in the way NERC operates, Council requested further information
     on what FAB is and who is involved. Following Council agreement, implementation planning
     would then commence over the summer, with a review of progress later in the year.
10.3 Peer Review College. Mr Jenner reported that Dr Wilson, Mrs Parker and the PRC chairs met
     on 28th June and acknowledged the previous lack of dialogue between themselves and SISB. It
     was agreed that SISB members would be encouraged to sit on one panel per year and that Dr
     Wilson and Mrs Parker would discuss how best to integrate SISB into the Peer Review College
10.4 SISB nominations 2006. Forty-two applications were received and eight candidates selected
     for interview on the 20th July in London.
11.5 Membership. Professor Glover and Dr Veck were thanked for their contributions to SISB.
     Professor Huw Davies was welcomed in his role as SISB’s Council member.

11 Finance report (SISB 06/26(P))
[Management in confidence]

13 Rolling programme of SISB business (SISB 06/27)
13.1 The Chairman asked members to note the proposed business programme for SISB meetings in
     2006 and 2007, and to raise any additional items for discussion.
13.2 The September SISB meeting will focus on agreeing recommendations from the Oceans 2025
     marine programme proposals, the highlights of which would feed into the strategy debate.
13.3 Professor Thorpe informed members that he would be attending a preliminary SR2007 meeting
     with the Director General, Science and Innovation (Sir Keith O’Nions) on the 19th October.

14 Any Other Business         (ORAL)
14.1 The Chairman thanked members for their input during the strategy workshop and requested
     they provide feedback to the Panel Chairs as soon as possible, particularly if there was a skills
14.2 Next meeting will be at Barnham Broom Hotel and Golf Club, Norwich on 25/26 September
     2006, commencing at 12 noon with a presentation by the Countryside Survey team.
                                               Page 2 of 2



MEETING DATE: 11th AND 12th JULY 2006


Ref   Decision                                                                 Action with:   Target date
1     Developing the science priorities for the next NERC strategy (SISB       Dr Wilson      July 2006
      [Management in confidence]
2     Developing the science priorities for the next NERC strategy (SISB       Dr Wilson      July 2006
      [Management in confidence]
3     Developing the science priorities for the next NERC strategy (SISB       Dr Wilson      July 2006
      [Management in confidence]
4     Developing the science priorities for the next NERC strategy (SISB       Dr Wilson      October 2006
      [Management in confidence]
5     Developing the science priorities for the next NERC strategy (SISB       Dr Wilson      October 2006
      [Management in confidence]
6     Developing the science priorities for the next NERC strategy (SISB       Dr Wilson      November 2006
      [Management in confidence]
7     Developing the science priorities for the next NERC strategy (SISB       Dr Wilson      September 2006
      [Management in confidence]
8     Chairman’s Report (ORAL):                                                Dr Wilson      September 2006
      The project management and the scientific coordinator roles in the
      QUEST programme should be resolved promptly.
9     Chairman’s Report (ORAL)                                                 Dr Wilson      September 2006
      Discuss with Prof Prentice his status as chair of the QUEST Moderating
10    Approval of Minutes (SISB 06/25(P)):                                     Miss Leader    July 2006
      [Management in confidence]
11    Finance Report (SISB 06/26(P));                                          Dr Wilson      September 2006
      [Management in confidence]
12    Finance Report (SISB 06/26(P));                                          Dr Wilson      September 2006
      [Management in confidence]
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH COUNCIL                                                            Oral



Introductory note

1.    A copy of the letter sent to Prof Prentice on the 31st August 2006 is attached for information.

Further information

Steven Wilson
Prof. I. Colin Prentice
QUEST Leader
Dept. Earth Sciences
University of Bristol
Wills Memorial Building
Queens Road

                                                                                  31 August 2006

Dear Colin

At its meeting of July 11-12 2006, SISB considered your proposed measures to strengthen the
management and coordination of QUEST. Below, I have outlined the SISB response and the
next step actions that Steven and I propose focusing on.

SISB agreed with you that the issues of management and science coordination need to be
resolved promptly, and in general your proposed ways forward have been accepted, with the
new Project Board having some responsibilities for reviewing progress. The only significant
area where SISB did not agree with your proposal was regarding your role as Chair of funding
panels. While I appreciate that you firmly disagree with this issue, I believe some of your
concerns can be considerably diminished by ensuring you are still able to facilitate a robust
panel discussion on fit to programme strategy. This is explained in section (4) below.

(1) The need for a step-change improvement in programme management

(a) Appointing a Senior Programme Manager

Although SISB agreed that the issues of management and science coordination need to be
resolved promptly, there is some concern that the results of your survey of Centre Directors and
Programme Coordinators may steer you too far away from the greater level of programme
management that is needed. We would therefore like to trial your suggestion of redirecting the
management expertise that already exists in the Core Team, through restructuring existing Core
Team authority and responsibilities into a new Science Manager Post, with review by the new
Project Board. By the end of September, I would like to see a full description of this role and
the other roles in the Core Team (which will no doubt have been affected by it). Since the
Science Manager role is a significant and distinct role, it should be described as such, including
the %FTE you envisage for it. I understand that Sarah also wants to continue working on
QUEST research activities for some percentage of her time, but these should be considered as a
“Programme Scientist” role. In other words, it is acceptable for Sarah to work on two distinct
roles within the Core Team, but it is not acceptable for the two roles to be indistinct and merged.
The descriptions of all the other Core Team roles should also be distinct and clear about lines of
authority within the Core Team structure. I assume that your role will focus on strategy,
prioritisation and ensuring delivery and that you will delegate authority to the Science Manager
to manage specified financial and personnel resources to enable your priorities to be delivered.

I am asking Gina to liase with you in developing this, noting that the revised Core Team roles
you proposed on 9 May 2006 need more specificity on targets and deliverables (i.e. need to be
measurable) and on demarcation of responsibilities for tasks that are shared across several
positions. Also, some important responsibilities seem to be missing compared with the original
role descriptions, such as overall responsibility for implementation and delivery, leading
knowledge transfer and capacity building in the UK.

(b) Producing a comprehensive and costed management plan.

You indicated that this will be a priority for the Science Manager, and that there will be early
versions of these documents (including a QUEST-wide Gantt chart) by the Autumn, when you
propose meeting with Alan, Steven and Ed Jenner to review progress. This will be an excellent
development, although it may be more appropriate for the review meeting to be with the new
Project Board.

Your agreement with Alan to publish a brochure outlining the content and implementation of
QUEST is interesting and it will be good to have more information about its purpose, intended
audience and therefore content (I assume it is not intended to be in place of comprehensive
management documents).

As noted above, the new Project Board (see 5 below), of which you will be part, will have
responsibility for reviewing progress towards improving programme management. Progress may
also be reviewed as part of the mid-Term review scheduled for spring 2007.

(2) The need for a stated quality assurance policy and plan

The reassurance you provided regarding quality assurance for preservation and access to models
within QUEST’s existing Data Policy, and your plan to confer with the Hadley Centre to
establish QUEST model evaluation standards is welcome. Both should be integrated into the
comprehensive management plan referred to above.

SISB’s recommendation regarding quality assurance focused on data, software and models as
these underpin QUEST’s deliverables. However, quality standards should be embedded in other
aspects of the management plan, where relevant, as metrics against which to measure success.

(3) The need for stronger scientific coordination

It was good to learn of the progress that has been made already. The plan for a workshop with
key UK coordinators is welcome and I would like this to take place before the first meeting of
the Project Board and the next meeting of the SLG, so that the outcomes can be reported to
them. I would consider Phil Williamson and Meric Srokosz to be essential participants at the
meeting, given their extensive experience of coordinating UK science communities for directed

The Open Science Conference (OSC) in March 2007 should also be developed as an opportunity
to engage the UK community in QUEST and the Core Team should liase closely with the SLG,
the key UK coordinators and NERC in developing the agenda.

(4) The need for more transparent and clearly documented decision-making processes

The plan to openly publish information on panel meetings was welcome. SISB considered your
case for chairing panel meetings in which you do not have a significant vested interest but
concluded that the problem of perceived vested interests was too great. Therefore, their original
recommendation that you should not Chair any future funding panel meetings should stand.

As you noted, it is essential that you continue to be able to facilitate a robust discussion on ‘fit to
programme priorities’ that will enable you to build a strategically coherent programme. NERC
QUEST staff will work closely with you and the Chair of future QUEST panel meetings to
ensure that this happens.

(5) Governance Model

(a) Establishment of a Project Board

Thank you for your support of this idea. I have asked Gina to take this forward, with a view to
holding the first meeting of the Project Board in mid-late autumn 2006. Naturally, you will be
part of the discussions regarding its development, such as the ToR and membership.

(b) SISB representation on IAB

While she has not yet been approached, I propose that Prof. Kathy Whaler of the University of
Edinburgh is invited to represent SISB on the IAB. Kathy is a new SISB member, not involved
in QUEST, but a geophysical solid Earth dynamicist, with a broad perspective and a member of
the     Edinburgh     Earth    Observatory.        Her    details   can     be    found    at

I would welcome your views on this proposition before we take this issue outside you, Gina and

(6) Focusing Stakeholder Engagement

It was good to learn of your existing plans to focus Stakeholder Engagement in much the same
way that SISB recommended. In order to maximise the opportunity for stakeholders to
influence the programme, it is crucial that the first meeting of the core stakeholder group goes
ahead without delay, in autumn 2006, as planned. I am aware of the strong links that the QUEST
Science and Policy Officer has recently built with members of the NERC Public Sector Liaison
Team and with ERFF. This is excellent progress, and I recommend that these teams and NERC
QUEST staff are involved in development of the group (e.g. ToR, membership) and are
represented at its meetings.

You’ll have seen that many of the actions are in line with what you proposed and so I hope that
the outcome of this rather protracted process is broadly a welcome one. Thank you for your

Best wishes,

Dr Philip Newton
Deputy Director
Science and Innovation
Tel: +44 (0)1793 411636
Fax: +44 (0)1793 411584

cc: Dr Steven Wilson
    Dr Gina Adams
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH COUNCIL                                                 SISB 06/34



Current rolling programme of SISB business

         7/8 November 2006, London MRC
         Development of NERC strategy (update/delivery/next steps)
         NCAS II proposals
         NCEO preview
         CEH EHFI update (to be covered in Chairman’s report)
         NERC technology strategy
         Pre-dinner presentation on GENIE and e-Minerals projects

         6/7 February 2007, venue TBA
         Peer Review College (biannual item)
         NCEO full review
         Characterisation criteria – directed programme delivery mechanisms
         Scientific Infrastructure – discussion of paragraphs 23-29 of the paper
         NERC technology strategy
         Horizon scanning?
         Need pre-dinner presentation ideas

         15/16 May 2007, venue TBA
         Need pre-dinner presentation ideas

         10/11 July 2007, venue TBA
         Peer Review College (biannual item)

         24 September 2007, venue TBA

         6/7 November 2007, venue TBA


SISB is asked to:

   i.       NOTE the business programmed in for future SISB meetings; and
   ii.      DISCUSS what other items it wishes to see added to the forward agenda.

Further information

Rachel Leader

Dates for SISB meetings 2007

                        deadline for receipt
Council 2007      no.   of papers            prep meeting   papers issued   SISB dates 2007           venue

 31 Jan - 1 Feb   1     Thurs 18 Jan       Tues 23 Jan      Tues 30 Jan     Tues & Wed 6 - 7 Feb      Swindon
  28 - 29 Mar     2     Thurs 26 April     Tues 1 May       Tues 8 May      Tues & Wed 15 - 16 May    London
  20 - 21 Jun     3     Thurs 21 Jun       Tues 26 Jun      Tues 3 Jul      Tues & Wed 10 - 11 July   TBA
  25 - 27 Sep     4     Thurs 6 Sep        Tues 11 Sep      Tues 18 Sep     Mon 24 Sep                TBA
  28 - 29 Nov     5     Thurs 18 Oct       Tues 23 Oct      Tues 30 Oct     Tue & Wed 6 - 7 Nov       TBA


To top