7 FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME Marie Curie Actions People International Research Staff Exchange Scheme Team location V.M. Gun’ko Institute of Surface Chemistry NAS of Ukraine, Kiev, UA

Teams and possible visit directions UB NANU ISC MCSU NTUA BUTE No EC-EC visits! Only EC-UA visits!

1. Maria Curie-Skłodowska University (Lublin, Poland), visits to Ukrainian team - 34 person/month 2. University of Brighton (Brighton, UK), 42 p/m 3. National Technical University of Athens (Greece), 20 p/m 4. Budapest University of Technology and Economics (Hungary), 28 p/m 5. National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine : Institute of Surface Chemistry (24 participants), Institute of Macromolecular Chemistry (5), Institute of Sorption and Problems of Endoecology (2), 127 p/m visits to EC teams and 124 visits to NASU 127 p/m visits to EC teams and 124 visits to NASU Total participant number ~70, total number of visits ~ 251 person/month, Budget - € 451,800 for Teams

Previous cooperation between teams as background of the project  Ukraine – Poland : ~200 papers and dozens of joint presentations at international conferences for 15 years, several joint grants of NATO and KBN-NASU, more than 100 visits of the participants from both teams.  Ukraine – UK : ~20 papers and several conference presentations for 10 years, and several joint grants of NATO, INTAS, The Royal Society, many visits.  Ukraine – Greece: ~10 papers, NATO and INTAS grants, many visits.  Ukraine – Hungary: conference contacts, several visits.  Poland – UK: conference contacts only.  UK – Hungary: long history contacts.

Proposal idea (scientific and knowledge related)  The main research objectives of the 4-year joint programme are: to synthesise and characterise new hybrid composite and functionalised nanomaterials based on oxides, carbons, polymers and natural minerals; to study their interaction with biological objects and environmental systems; to elucidate the role of interfacial phenomena in these systems; to study structure-property relationships of nanocomposites in specific applications; to evaluate performance of novel nanocomposites in biological media, environmental systems and specific industrial applications; to increase individual mobility and career prospective of each person involved; to facilitate transfer of knowledge between research groups involved via exchange visits; to provide training opportunities for early stage researchers; to disseminate results of the joint activities.

Proposal idea (tactical)  Materials developed by the NASU team to be comprehensively studied by the EC teams and NASU team participants during their visits to the EC teams and vice versa

Expected results  Scientific: new materials, new knowledge, new papers, new conference presentations, etc.  Human: to open mind and eyes of young scientists from Ukraine; to provide long-term contacts between teams from Ukraine and EC countries.  Tactical: providing of access of Ukrainian team participants to modern equipment at the EC teams Universities.

Expected results  For NASU, positive results are improvement of investigation level, obtaining new knowledge, use of modern equipment; but negative result is possibility of migration of young scientists from Ukraine to EC countries (increasing due to their participation in the international projects)  Positive for EC countries: new materials, new results and the influx of young scientists from Ukraine to EC

Conclusion: necessary conditions  Availability of previous real cooperation between teams from different countries and personal contact between team leaders;  Availability of good project writers (at least, in two teams) understanding all aspects of the proposal preparation, Foundation standards and rules, etc.  Compatibility and mutual completing of the teams;  Appropriate number of young scientists (PhD and PhD students) ~ 50% ;  Development of interesting and modern materials, methods, approaches, techniques planned under the proposal;  A competent coordinator who is an expert in both proposal preparation aspects and scientific direction of the project.  Availability of additional financial sources to solve certain unexpected problems appearing on the project performance.

Conclusion: some wishes  Fixed amount of the money per person/month is inconvenient and sometimes inappropriate, especially for top experts; therefore, the financial system (under IRSES) could be more flexible.  A certain portion of the grant could be used for visits between the teams from EC countries, at least, for participation in general meeting of the participants which could be organized in a country which is more closely located to other teams countries.  IRSES grants could provide several types of visits since this differentiation could allow the system to be more flexible and more attractive for potential participants from EC and other countries.