Prof. Bob Nesbitt, School of Ocean and Earth Science, Southampton Oceanography Centre,

1. European CommissionFramework 5Marie Curie ProgrammeRESEARCH AND TRAINING NETWORKS[RTN] Prof R.W. [Bob] NesbittSouthampton Oceanography Centre,UK European CommissionFramework 5Marie Curie ProgrammeRESEARCH AND TRAINING NETWORKS[RTN] Prof. Robert.W. [Bob] NesbittSouthampton Oceanography Centre,UK

2. Prof. Bob Nesbitt, School of Ocean and Earth Science, Southampton Oceanography Centre, Southampton, UK rwn2@soc.soton.ac.uk

6. Laser ablation\pit Zircon grain from granitic rock in Zimbabwe. The core is 3.8Ga and the rim is 2.7Ga; determined by U-Pb dating of laser ablated material.

9. MAGE Network “ Martian Geophysical European Network” • The contract is worth 1.29 million Euro. • 42 month contract with 9 Partners (including Swiss). • Starting date September 2002 • Budget for each partner is from 115k to 223k Euro

10. RESEARCH TRAINING NETWORKS The PRIMARY OBJECTIVE is: to provide training-through-research, especially of YOUNG RESEARCHERS [at pre and post-doc level] within the context of high quality, trans-national collaborative research projects. Community funding is provided primarily for the appointment of Young Researchers, with support for NETWORKING, some overheads and certain direct costs.

11. Purpose of the Mid-term Review To take stock of progress to date To explore flexibility in the contract To clarify issues [financial, administrative, best working practice, progress with engagement of YR] It is principally an opportunity for the partners, the YR and the Commission Representative to discuss questions or issues that may not be clear from the official documentation.

12. Mid-Term Review “Unlike presentations made in the context of scientific workshops and international conferences, emphasis should be placed upon: Managerial, Logistical and Other Practical Aspects

13. Format ofMAGE Mid-Term Review • Tour de Table • Report by the Coordinator on progress with respect to Training, Scientific Programme and Finance. • Reports by each of the Partners. • RWN meets the Young Researchers. • Presentations by Young Researchers • Final Round-up

14. YOUNG RESEARCHERS • It would be helpful if the YR would include in their presentation (in addition to the science) an account of: • Background training: • Experiences within a given institute. For example the problems you encountered in moving country, language etc

15. Young Researchers continued. • How you discovered about the Network and your views on the recruitment process: How much training you have received within the Network; are there any obvious gaps? Do you feel part of a Network? [In brackets….what you think of the Commission and its programmes!]

16. YOUNG RESEARCHERS Required to make a final report on their experiences and Invited to fill in a confidential questionnaire (anonymous).

17. Separate session between Commission Rep, Expert Advisor and Young Scientists to give them a chance to voice concerns which they may not wish to discuss in front of the whole group.

18. FINAL OUTCOME • Commission receives Mid-Term Review prepared by the Network. • Commission representative writes report based on the Mid-Term meeting. • Based on these reports, the Commission (through the Project Officer, Jean-Bernard Veyret), will write to the Coordinator giving the views of the Commission.

19. Don’t forget to acknowledge Marie Curie in Publications I would appreciate copies of your P-Point Presentations If you have problems your first point of contact is the coordinator (do NOT contact Brussels directly) I am very happy to assist as an intermediary between Brussels and the network