1. What can be learned from previous evaluations? Mikko Heino

2. Background Grant from Bergen Research Foundation, November 2007—October 2011 – Major new activity: the Guppy Experiment – Field expedition in May 2009 – The core experiment operational in June 2010

3. Problem How can you run an experiment that takes >2 years when <2 years of funding is left?

4. 4 th EvoFish Annual Meeting at Svalbard

5. Solutions No-cost extension – By saving money we could stretch the project such that we would just manage – Lots of lost opportunities: More thorough analyses of the materials Genetics More money – the Research Council – “An experimental evaluation of fisheries-induced evolution and its consequences” (2010)

6. «Noregs forskingsråd har dessverre ikkje kunna imøtekome søknaden»

7. The most important weaknesses of the project proposal Few replicates 1 generation in common garden not enough The project is over ambitious and is likely to not deliver high quality results in some of the work packages Guppy is not similar to commercial fish. “In effect, the project would have been much stronger … without trying to relate it to the debate on the evolutionary effect of fisheries induced mortality”

8. «Noregs forskingsråd har dessverre ikkje kunna imøtekome søknaden»

9. Dissemination of results “The dissemination plan is a bit off the shelf: webpages, talks, papers, popular science articles and "The Fisherman" newspaper. This project is, however, easy to sell, and we suspect that interesting results will gain a lot of publicity without the need for much work on behalf of the team!”

10. Application in 2011 This time, getting more funding urgent— otherwise the project would be compromised Learn from the earlier feedback – Feasibility – Dissemination Capitalize on the experience gained during the first year of the experiment Add something clearly new

11. Experiment of this scale not usually possible What we already have, what would be new

12. Capitalize on the experience — feasibility Utilizing an on-going experiment – Proof of feasibility; first results – One student project on behavioural assays – Kick-start for the project – Low risk, high benefit to cost ratio

13. Partners One new partner for genetics – From before: Gary Carvalho, University of Bangor – Galice Hoarau, University of Nordland Does the northern dimension help? Other partners (as before) – Gunilla Rosenqvist, NTNU – Lennart Persson, University of Umeå – David Reznick, University of California at Riverside

15. «Norges forskningsråd … har gjort vedtak om å støtte prosjektet»

16. Happy End “The applicants chose not to address some of the issues raised in the previous assessment (…). However, they do address some comments, in particular they make a good case for the model species being guppies rather than any other fish species.”

17. Lessons The setting for the successful 2 nd application not easy to replicate – building on an existing project; not too early, not too late Good local, national and international team Dissemination plan – Easy to copy – But can you show a track record?

19. Dissemination We post news items (at least once per month) We put events to the calendar We solicit news coverage

20. reproduced at forskning.no and summarized at fish.no

22. Dissemination We post news items (at least once per month) We put event to the calendar We solicit news coverage We are on Twitter! (active since last week…)