>> From the Library of Congress in Washington, DC. ^M00:00:04 ^M00:00:18 >> Fenella France: We're delighted to have you all here for the first day of Cultural Heritage and Data: The Role of Research Infrastructures. And it's my very great pleasure to introduce John Van Oudenaren, the director o Scholarly and Educational Programs and acting director of the World Digital Library to give the welcome to the library. >> John van Oudenaren: Thank you Fenella. Thanks for inviting me here and welcome to all of you. It's great to be here with some old colleagues, belongs to any colleagues, so my good friend Riccardo Pozzo in particular. Good morning and welcome to the Library of Congress and the two-day International Symposium on Cultural Heritage and Data: The Role of Research Infrastructures. Today's program will advance our current understanding of research infrastructures focusing on current initiatives, issues and challenges, solutions, and the future landscape of research infrastructures. Our international colleagues in IPERION CH and that stands for Integrated Platform for the European Research Infrastructure on Cultural Heritage. I assume you all know that. But I read it out for my benefit, if not for anyone else's. The consortium is focused on taking up the challenge outlined in the Horizon 2020 Work Program 2014-2015 for European Research Infrastructures, which calls for the establishment of a unique European research infrastructure for restoration and conservation of cultural heritage. Encompassed in this proposal by the term heritage science, where heritage science is a crosscutting domain embracing a wide range of research disciplines according to various aspects of tangible and intangible cultural heritage conservation, interpretation and management. This challenge of course encompasses the building of stronger and more effective collaborations between the EU and US partners. Research infrastructures play an increasingly important role in the advancement of knowledge for humanities and heritage science. They are a key instrument in bringing together a wide diversity of stakeholders and offer unique research services to users from different countries, attracting new researchers to humanities and preservation science and help to research-- and help to shape research communities. Research infrastructures help to create a new research environment in which all researchers whether working in the context of their home institutions or in national or multinational scientific initiatives have shared access to unique or distributed research facilities, including data instruments computing and communications, regardless of their type and location in the world. These initiatives are at the center of the knowledge triangle of research, education, and innovation. They produce knowledge through research, diffuse it through education and apply it through innovation. I trust you'll enjoy the presentations outlining some of the European Union and US initiatives in this area. And we look forward to stimulating further collaborative efforts to make best use of resources to encourage the standardization of procedures and to ensure access internationally to advance research for humanities and heritage science. Once again, welcome and thank you for joining us. ^M00:04:02 [ Applause ] ^F00:04:06 ^M00:04:09 >> Fenella France: So I just wanted to give a quick overview of the next two days. These-- Today's presentations are being filmed so all speakers have been given a release form. If you do not wish to have that put up on the website, then we will not do so. But we're hoping that you will all agree to do that. And as part of that filming, we will-- whenever there are questions, I will actually ask-- one of us will be here speaking the question so that the film crew can actually hear [inaudible]. So there have been a number of organizers who have helped make this event come to fruition. And so, we have Monique in the front, Barbara, Odile, Jong-on, Giulio and Stefano. Thanks to everyone who have helped with bringing this together. So we are really looking at engaging in these transatlantic dialogue to understand more about how we can be effective in the communications and the collaborations that we bring together in taking those forward because we really are working now in a global infrastructure and we need to make sure that anything that we kept during the data we're working with is interoperable between all our different initiatives. These four main areas that will be focused on throughout the different presentations, education and training, innovative instrumentation, advancing diagnostics and digital heritage, and you'll see both panels and presentations on those various areas. I just want to note that we had a similar meeting starting to really engage and thinking about working with our international colleagues in December 2014, and this was looking at Fostering the Transatlantic Dialogue. And so, these presentations were given here and we-- most people agree but we want to get those up on our website as well and by the link the two events together. So as John mentioned, IPERION CH has been-- this is the focus behind this meeting today. And many of our colleagues here who will be presenting on the various initiatives, we're delighted to have those different projects put forward because sometimes in the states, we don't always get to hear what's happening in Europe. We also have presentation of-- presentations, I'm sorry, representatives from a number of other initiatives that we've talked about in the past and I will just go through these for your interest. ARIADNE which of course is archeology database structure. CENDARI, looking at it from the humanities perspective. DARIAH-EU, which is also the Digital Research Infrastructure for Arts and Humanities. There's another one, we learned last time to get very good with all our different acronyms. PARTHENOS, which is one of the newer ones which was kickstarted in July of 2015 and some of us were privileged to be there, really looking at where the gaps are between some of the various initiatives and starting to pull all that together. And E-RIHS, which I know Luca will talk about, the European Research Infrastructure for Heritage Science, which is a new focus to really try and combine what's happening across Europe with the intent and the hope that once we get passed looking at some of the legal implications, taking that into a global perspective as well. So a few things I just want to focus on that you'll see coming up throughout the various presentations, in terms of collaboration and cooperation. So we really want to talk more effectively and think more effectively about what is collaboration in an effective way. And do specific types of collaboration require different approaches and you may see this coming out when we talk about education versus digital, versus the innovation and the diagnostics. Also, the many changes just happened last night in both New Zealand and Italy. How do we achieve sustained collaboration, a very constantly changing economic and international climate and keep things moving forward particularly because we often do not have extensive funding for those. And the sustainability of international collaborations. In terms of research and networking, IPERION talks about the joint research for faster scientific advancement and integrating the activities for a more structured community. And so, with those four areas, we really are looking at teasing out what collaborations already exist and how we can move those forward. [Inaudible] speaks of this thinking about how we can link together the stakeholders and sharing unique research services. Many of us are privileged to have extensive laboratories, but not all institutions have those capabilities. And so, how we can make more effective model to engage with other institutions and share our resources is something that we really need to think about as we go forward with the sustained approach. And thinking of these aspects, both as the physical resources, the network of expertise and colleagues, which is a really critical component that I think is really what holds everything together most effectively. And then, one thing I think is becoming even more critical is the interoperability of the data and making sure that people can access that effectively that isn't an open environment and that we can share it, you know, in effective manner. So with sharing sustainability, really thinking about how do we make sure we got these long-term collaborative activities moving forward across different cultures, both economic and diverse natures. ^M00:10:00 This international sharing of the resources and platforms to actually initiate, engage and allowed us to move forward. I do just want to mention this came out of our last meeting here where it was very interesting in fact where we started to look at the differences between European and United States approaches. And one of the things we realize in fact that, you know, these are centralized public funding model versus a private model here in the states. And also we don't have the privilege of having a Ministry of Culture or similar in the United States. And the need for us to really start to think about as a collaboration and a coalition of institutions here in the states of how we can form and engage grouping that allows us to show a strength and united body in terms of moving forward to cultural heritage. So, I just wanted to finish there. Leave that to open up the meeting and turn over to our first speaker of the day, Dr. Riccardo Pozzo, who's a director of Social Sciences and Humanities, Cultural Heritage Department of the National Research Council of Italy. ^M00:11:11 [ Applause ] ^F00:11:15 ^M00:11:17 >> Riccardo Pozzo: And good morning. It's a pleasure to be here. I was already here and some of you I already spoke. So, I'm trying not to repeat myself and just keep you update in what has been happening. Last time I spoke to you it was about 10 months ago. But first, on behalf of the Italian co-chairs of the joint Italy-US Committee on Culture and Natural Heritage, may I extend my deepest thank to Fenella France and the Library of Congress who organize this and to her colleagues, three of our co-chairs, American co-chairs, namely Barbara Berrie, Odile Madden and Jong-un Hahm. Thank you very much. It's a big pleasure to be here. Now, you have all read the news with it and it's not funny. But anyway, I wanted to stay to [inaudible] unflinching commitment. The unflinching committee of the Italian government to sustaining what we are doing. It's very important. Fenella was saying, there is no Minister of Culture in the United States. We have a Minister of Culture in Italy. And more for that, we have a minister of culture whose budget covers 0.4 of the GDP, 0.4, imagine 0.4 of the US GDP what that would be. In our case, it's 0.4. It's actually less than that. We got some cuts, it's about 0.3. But still it's a lot of money. And why do we have that? Because we have this enormous responsibility, 0.3 of the GDP goes towards conservation, protection, use of monuments. That's defining our country. Greece has similar figures obviously. But we are-- in the G8, we are industrialized country. We are very innovative and we have that. So that Fenalla France was writing in her presentation science, technology and Innovation. Let me rephrase it. Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics STEM, but we are actually going for STEAM, Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts and Mathematics. That's a form we are working on a little, STEAM. Now as regards as the updates. We had the ravishing moment in March of 2016 when ESFRI accepted the Italian CH project, the Italian CH infrastructure. As in this project, which means about-- they change name. We updated, upgraded the name. Now the name is E-R-I-H-S, E-RIHS, pronounce it the way you want. New York or not New York. And the European Research Infrastructure Heritage Signs. That's it. It's the reality. And we're talking about sustainability. So, in order to become what is supposed to become, E-RIHS has five years counting now, 2016, 2021. In 2021, E-RIHS would be full fledged. It will become a European Research Infrastructure Consortium and will start counting years from there. So, we have five years working together very hard. We will be established in 2021 and finally to see how ESFRI and the European Union will consider that infrastructure has reached its peak and there's nothing more innovative to say, which means that sooner or later, the European Union will start reconsidering financing a mature infrastructure. And the infrastructure will go on of its own legs. That's the way we face sustainability right now. Five years preparation, a long time as a mature infrastructure and fans see what happens. I'm quite aware of this because I represent Italy in all six European Research Infrastructure for Social and Cultural Innovation, that's the way we're called, with this research infrastructures deal with matters of social sciences and humanities or if you want social innovation and culture innovation. Six in numbers right now, five landmarks and one project. The project I mentioned already, that's E-RIHS. The landmarks are DARIAH, H, DARIAH, Digital Research Infrastructure of Arts and Humanities, CLARIN, Common Language Resources, that's for linguistics, [inaudible] for social sciences, the European Social Survey, CESSDA which is public records and SHARE for retirement, aging population. Particularly SHARE is the one-- the oldest one, the one that people say, all right, all right, are you done? You're mature. You have nothing more to look. In ways of making yourself better, so SHARE is an example of a research infrastructure, which is not going to be financed anymore in the next work programs. And we have to find and-- but still, this is a situation in which we are not yet-- it's a long time to go. But let me see again a better scenarios. 2020 would be the end of Horizon 2020, 2021 would be the start of FP9, Frame Program number nine. So, we are currently looking at a result of the midterm evaluation of Horizon 2020, which is more favorable for research infrastructures. There is no words of them being reconsidered. But still we have to make sure about the work program after work program we are in. And-- So the best thing is to look for business models. And, you know, I congratulate very much and look a bit certain for his looking forward and having considerate from the start that E-RIHS, and let's call it E-RIHS, since now IPERION CH [inaudible]. So, I thought it's a name as a project that is currently sponsoring us. But E-RIHS, E-RIHS has a global impact. So, it was the first [inaudible] was the first-- he was the first to have contacts with US scholars since he in Washington, Los Angeles and we've opened it up to China. Chinese Economy, Culture, and Heritage is a candidate to becoming associate and we have to look around. So the global impact is there. And we have to look at business models that make it possible to work on access units and see that at the end of the year, the fiscal distribution corresponds to what we had planned it for. Let me conclude. We have a reference to the European Union South Africa Joint Research Agreement that was signed in Cape Town two months ago exactly, on October 4th. And that is quite interesting because the Minister for Science and Technology and Innovation, Madame Naledi Pandor, who's really a woman to whom I personally have a lot of respect. ^M00:20:04 She had engineered the agreement on the basis of South Africans interest in a very new research infrastructure of which perhaps you might have heard, which is called the Square Kilometre Array was going to be built in the desert of Kalahari. And that's the gift of South Africa for joining the European Union on this great endeavor of research infrastructures. But when we signed the agreement, we were there representing all research infrastructures currently active. And it was clear that South Africa too has an interest in the profits in research gains that all European infrastructures provide. And particularly, the social and cultural innovation infrastructures, we found sensible years. More of that, we found the urgent needs because if you take the issue of migrants, which is determining so much politics and economics right now in Europe, where in South Africa is it's just as the same as we had, only southward. We have-- We welcome migrants northbound. We welcome migrants southbound. So the idea is International Corporation of researches European Union. We've [inaudible] can be a great profit in a holistic way. It's important that we come up with our perspective and that we come up we-- sorry, we Europeans. We Europeans come up with perspective, which is distinctly European. And what makes us currently distinctly European is interdisciplinarity, multilingualism, and the fact that whatever you do, it's always a consortium of plus 12 states. This is a model that we are proud of. It has worked well. It will work again, better. And we are very thankful for you, for your attentive years. Thank you. ^M00:22:35 [ Applause ] ^F00:22:41 ^M00:22:45 >> Fenella France: Thank you Riccardo. And now it gives me great pleasure to introduce Mary Kavanagh, who is the minister counselor for Research and Innovation in the delegation of the European Union to the United States. Thank you so much for being here. ^M00:22:59 ^M00:23:02 >> Mary Kavanagh: Good morning everybody. And thank you Fenella. Thank you to the organizers for inviting me to speak here this morning. I have to say it's a great honor to speak at the Library of Congress of course. So thank you all very much. Now, I know that you're all specialists in cultural heritage. I can put straight up. I'm not specialist at all but I'm a great appreciator of cultural heritage. And the reason that I'm invite-- was invited to speak this morning was not to speak about cultural heritage per se because of course, I'm not an expert. But to speak to you about how the European Union funds research in cultural heritage and what opportunities may exist there between-- for transatlantic cooperation. So most of my presentation will focus on Horizon 2020, which is the European framework program for research and innovation. It covers the years from 2014 to 2020, which is why it's called Horizon 2020. And I will talk about that in a moment. But first, I just like to mention a few other ways in which the European Union provides funding for support of cultural heritage in Europe. And firstly, it's important to mention a program called Creative Europe. Now Creative Europe is a program that is much broader than research and it funds things in Europe such as the European City of Culture. It funds things like the Heritage Days, where cities are encouraged to open up buildings and open up places to the public that maybe they normally don't have access to. It also funds prizes for work on cultural heritage throughout Europe. So that's Creative Europe. It has a budget for the cultural part of the Creative Europe program of about 422 million euros. The second area where work on cultural heritage is funded is through our education program and particularly through the Erasmus Plus Programme. And that is a program of-- that covers many areas. But one particular area of interest is it funds collaborative projects for training between higher education institutions. These higher education institutions can be in Europe and they can also involve partners from outside of Europe. And that's really boosting skills and education to make people more employable in whatever area. But this also includes cultural-- the cultural area. And then a third area where Europe provides a lot of funding for our support and preservation of European culture and heritage is through what we call the Cohesion Funds. And the Cohesion Funds because you know Europe has 28 member states. And there is a great deal of-- that a lot of difference in the incomes, in the wealth of these different areas around Europe. Some of the areas of Europe that perhaps are the least wealthy have-- in some cases, got some of the most interesting cultural heritage. So the Cohesion Funds are funds which are provided to the European member states. And the member states themselves indicate how they want to spend them, so they say, for example, we want to just-- we would like to use Cohesion funds specifically for preserving an archeological site for example. Or they may want to build, what we call it, interpretive centers to help maybe bring more tourism to an area and without damaging the actual heritage itself provide a center for our people to learn more about the-- about that culture-- the cultural heritage in that particular area. So these are-- I just want to just give you a kind of broad brush idea of different ways in which the European Union funds cultural heritage in different ways. But what I'll talk mainly about is research policy, and how research policy funds cultural heritage-- supports cultural heritage research. Now Professor Pozzo mentioned already the way in which many of the research infrastructures which are funded through Horizon 2020, which is our research program. And so I won't focus on that because I know that throughout the next day or so and next of couple of days, you would hear a lot more about the specific projects like CLARIN and DALIAH and IPERION. So I wan to say I'm not going to try to squeeze them all in to a short message now. But those research infrastructures, the European Union funds the stage of [inaudible] of development of these research infrastructures, but as Sir Pozzo rightly said, the European Union research funds are not going to fund these research infrastructures forever into the future, because there are new ones coming in line all the time. So therefore, what the European Union does want is the conceptions and the development phase. So, let me talk about some of the other opportunities and let-- but let me first introduce a little bit the program Horizon 2020. I guess any of you who are here from Europe but I know that there was several European-- I heard several European accents in the audience. So you probably are already very familiar with that but hopefully, even you who are familiar with Horizon 2020 will learn something new today. So let's see page down. What is Horizon 2020? Horizon 2020 is the European Union's framework program for funding research and innovation. It is and always on upon-- it's upon European program. So Horizon 2020 is one aspect, one dimension of research funding in Europe. Because of course every member state has its own research funding, has its own department of-- departments of science and technology. But in addition to the individual member state research programs, we have Horizon 20202. And Horizon 2020 has a number of objectives. The objectives are to develop excellent science in Europe to support-- and to support European industry and industrial competitiveness. ^M00:30:08 And of course, to strengthen the European Union's global position in research and innovation in the technology. And most importantly, Horizon 2020 is open to the world. So researchers from anywhere in the world can participate in Horizon 2020 projects. And I will describe how in the coming slides. Oh, and I should mention that the financial envelope of Horizon 2020 is about 77 billion euros over seven years, which is present approximately $80 billion. So as I said, there are three main priorities excellent science, industrial leadership, and societal challenges. And what's interesting is under for example, the excellent science which I'll talk about, there are a lot of opportunities for individual researchers in any area of science. From physics to arts, to humanities, to economic science, all kinds of science. Under the societal challenges, which I will explain in a little bit more detail also, there are also many opportunities specifically for cultural heritage research and innovation, and indeed also under the industrial leadership element, which I will also talk about briefly. ^M00:31:32 ^M00:31:37 Yeah, I will talk about the European Research Council and the Marie Curie actions a little bit later. But let me start here with the leadership in industrial and enabling technologies. Now, you might say to yourself, what has that got to do with research in the humanities, at least I did, maybe you wouldn't because you know much more than I do about research on cultural heritage. But this aspect of Horizon 2020 leadership and industrial technologies covers technologies such as ICT, nanotechnologies, materials, biotechnology, manufacturing, and space. And as an example there, there's-- Horizon 2020 by the way would publish calls for proposals. So therefore, research proposals have to come in following these calls from proposals. But for example in the materials research section, in the 2017 work program, there is a section on new materials for preserving and protecting cultural heritage. So therefore, what's important to realize is particularly with Horizon 2020, not if you're looking for opportunities in Horizon 2020, not to look only for, you know, for a section that's called cultural heritage. But it's-- very often it's mainstreamed through different parts of the Horizon 2020 program. That's one example. Likewise in ICT under the European digital agenda, there are opportunities far-- as was mentioned actually earlier by Fenella of working on how to make for example data interoperable, how to make data accessible internationally. And this can be-- equally it can be the-- in the context of cultural heritage just as it could be in the context of any other type of research. So if we take a look at some the societal challenges that are funded by Horizon 2020 and just as a small reminder, you remember that there were these three circles. So you have societal challenges, you have industrial leadership, and you have research excellence. We just talked about the leadership opportunities. Now we look at the societal challenges. Most of the cultural heritage research is funded under what we call societal challenge six, which is inclusive and reflective societies. Now inclusive and reflective societies in Horizon 2020 is a followup of similar research program that we had because prior to Horizon 2020, which starts in 2013-- in 2014, we also had another research program. It was called Framework Programme 7. And under Framework Programme 7, I just have to [inaudible] so that I can indicate the correct amount. Under Framework Programme 7, we also funded cultural heritage research to the tune of 180 million euros. So therefore, that was under the previous framework program. So this Framework Programme Horizon 2020, we can also expect although of course it's only started. It's only two years done, so we have quite a ways to go to 2020. But we can expect that funding for research on cultural heritage will be at least of the same dimension depending on the projects that come in of course. But some of the types of projects, of research project that are included for example under inclusive and reflective societies are for example projects such as religious diversity in Europe or how young people engage with culture-- oops, sorry. Another interesting one which is actually in the 2017 work program is cultural heritage of European coastal and maritime zones. So therefore, it's really quite a broad panoply of topics that are-- that come up. So I say, the 2017 work program has a number of specific culture heritage research opportunities. But it's not only inclusive on reflective societies, the six cultural-- the six societal challenge, where opportunities exist. Opportunities also exist as I said because it's mainstreamed to a certain extent. In other areas, for example under keen and efficient energy, there-- in 2017 call, there is a call for research on how to renovate historic buildings to upgrade them energetically for example. Under climate action resource efficiency and raw materials, there is a call for proposals, how natural-- how to build resilience in cultural heritage against natural disasters? So therefore again, I'm-- I repeat myself but when looking at Horizon 2020 don't go only at the-- under the obvious heading which would be inclusive and reflective societies where there is a lot of research and opportunities for cultural heritage research but also under other areas because under other areas also you will find opportunities. And then I want to-- sorry, maybe just before I come on that, I should indicate. These projects under these societal challenges, they're always collaborative research project. So they almost always must have at least three European partners from three different European countries. They can however include partners from any other part of the world also. Generally if these partners come from developing countries, such as Africa and we do actually quite a lot of work with Africa or some of the less developed countries, for example in Latin America. If the projects include partners from those countries, the European Union will fund fully the participation of those partners if the project is selected. For countries such as the United States, which is an industrialized country, the European Union generally does not fund the participation of the American partner. The American partner is expected to bring their own funds to the table. But what's the advantage for the American partner? Well, the advantage of course for the American partner is the access to all of the work that is being done by the other partners, and it's the access to that network, access to the new results that are being produced but also being part of the new results that are being produced. So it's really an opportunity for international cooperation at a very high level. So therefore that's why we say Horizon 2020 is open to the world and we really encourage and like to have American partners. So any Europeans in the audience who are thinking of preparing Horizon 2020 projects to submit, please do remember that American partners are extremely welcome and any Americans who are in the audience who have good ideas for research projects and would like to internationalize them, then please don't hesitate to speak with some European partners and look at the opportunities that Horizon 2020 might be able to provide to you. Another aspect I would like to mention regarding Horizon 2020 that you may or may not be familiar with are the European Research Council grants. And the European Research Council grants are relatively new in European research funding terms. Actually 2017 will be the 10th anniversary of the European Research Council. ^M00:40:08 And since the European Research Council was set up, it has been funding individual investigators at a very, very high level with very prestigious, very generous grants. Any researcher from anywhere in the world can apply for European Research Council grant. ^M00:40:32 ^M00:40:35 One of the stipulations however is that that person must spend at least 50% of their time in Europe. Because the idea of the European Research Council grants is that people will set up a lab in Europe. Now, I'll be very brief on this because I could talk about it for half a day because it's one of my favorite topics, but I'll be very brief. There are three main types of grant. There are grant for-- they're called Starting Grants. Most of the money goes to starting grants. And these are for individuals who are ready to set up their own research lab for the first time. The researcher who applies must nevertheless be able to demonstrate that they have really the capacity and the-- really show the potential to make a difference in their chosen area of research. And what's very important is that the area of research can be any area of research including of course humanities, cultural heritage and the arts, as well as physics or brain science. It can be anything. Then we have a-- there's a second type of grant which is called the Consolidator Grant. The consolidator grants are for people who are at a more advanced stage in their research career and they have a-- ^M00:41:58 ^M00:42:02 Well, they want to consolidate. They probably already have a small lab perhaps. They have already a number of serious publications. And they have between 7 and 12 years after their PhD. And then finally, we have the Advanced Grants, which are far much more senior researchers who want to come and spend some time in-- who want to develop a research program in Europe, set up a lab or a research group. It doesn't have to be a lab, of course it can be a research group. And there also, you can see that it's very generous. And you can see that they're very generous grants for individuals. And the idea is that they set up a research group. Now, I said they have to spend at least 50% of their time in Europe, generally the starting grants will spend most of their time in Europe. If you're going to set up your own lab for the first time, you're not only going their part time. But it's very interesting for a consolidator or in advanced grant to know that you don't have to spend all of your time in Europe. So therefore, if you have a position here at a university and that university allows you to, you can go and, you know, open a new lab or set up a new group in Europe. And in particular, the advanced grants you only need to just spend 30% of your time in Europe. What's also interesting I would like to say about this European Research Council grants is that of course, once you set up your research group or once the person who was selected sets up their research group, they can have-- they can staff their group with researchers from anywhere in the world. So this is also an interesting opportunity. They have to publish all of those posts. Well, they publish most of those posts and those posts are all advertised. So a person who is interested in coming to Europe to work in cultural heritage could for example apply for a grant, which is very prestigious if you are selected. But there's also the option to look at posts that are published in the research groups of people who have already gotten a grant. So therefore all you have to do is apply for a job rather than apply for a grant. So this is also an option. And I would specifically like to mention that all of the European Research Council grantees also have the possibility to host a temporary, on a temporary basis from maybe three months to nine moths, an NSF-founded career grantee. Because there's a special implementing arrangement between the National Science Foundation and the European Research Council, which allows-- so the NSF continues to support the US researcher and the-- and pay their travel to Europe. And the European Research Council grantee-- investigator supports them while they're in Europe. So you know, give some daily allowance, so to speak. So I just wanted to talk there about the opportunities that the European Research Council offers. There's also another opportunity for individuals, which is the Marie Curie Fellowships. The Marie Curie Fellowships we tend to say are more on-- more upstream. So therefore, they tend to be people who are just going to do a postdoc. If you are applying for a Marie Curie Fellowship, you wouldn't be at the same stage as if you were applying for an ERC grant. But a Marie Curie Fellowship, again, very well paid. It's a job. It's not just a grant. And these fellowships are interesting and I don't have a lot of time, so I won't spend a lot of time on it. But the Marie Curie Fellowships are very interesting firstly because anybody in the United States can apply for a Marie Curie Fellowship to go and work in Europe. So, if for example, you hear in the next couple of days about some wonderful projects that would be able to host you as an American, you can apply for the Marie Curie Fellowship to come to Europe for two years, and you would get paid for that. Also you get traveling allowance, you get language training. So it's very, very-- they're very nice. It's a very nice scheme. Also very interestingly, it works in the opposite direction. So if there's a European who is interested to come to work in the United States in perhaps one of your groups for a while, they have the opportunity to apply for a Marie Curie Fellowship also to go to the United States. Well, they can go anywhere in the world, but since I'm here in America, I'm going to talk about the opportunity to come to the United States. So therefore this is also something that's interesting for you to be aware of, if for example you have a European who is saying, "God, I really like to come but I don't know how I"-- you don't maybe have the funding for them. It's really interesting because basically for the American side, it's a free postdoc. For the European side, what's very interesting is that the European postdoc who gets the opportunity to come to America must return to Europe for at least one year. So therefore, Europe benefits also from what that person learns in the United States. So it's really a win-win situation. Well, I think I touched on this a little bit. Why would American researchers be interested to participate in Horizon 2020 project, particularly in the collaborative research projects? Obviously, there's the access to expertise, equipment and facilities, economies of scale and scope when you're dealing with very large projects, increased research quality, greater impact efficiency and speed, developing networks and alliances which of course we all know in science is very, very important. Career development opportunities such as those of the ERC and Marie Curie, which I just mentioned to you. And eventually business and commercialization opportunities because if you work together and develop a new means, for example, of preserving some particular type of cultural heritage, well maybe it's something that can be sold to museums around the world, for example. So I think I've gone through the participation possibilities as ERC grantees, as Marie Curie Fellowships, collaborative research projects. And I also mentioned that for US partners generally, funding is not available, but nevertheless there are a lot of advantages. Oops, I also briefly touched on the rules for participation. There have to be at least three European parties in a collaborative research project. In the collaborative research project. Of course, for the Marie Curie Fellowships, all you need in order to apply for Marie Curie Fellowship is you need to have a really good project idea and a host institution, whether you're going to Europe or going to the United States. And of course, these are all very competitive. But nevertheless, as we say in Ireland, if you're not in, you can't in. So therefore you have to, you know, put your research projects together. And likewise with the European Research Council, again, those grants are aimed at individuals, individuals out of-- who are really the-- on the cutting edge of the research in their area, whatever it is. And those research project also what you need is a brilliant research idea evidence that you're able to carry it out and a host institution that's willing to host you. I think I can honestly say that for anybody interested in coming in to Europe for-- within ERC grant or a Marie Curie Fellowship, I think most European institutes would be very happy to host, obviously if it's within their research program. ^M00:50:04 But also because these grants are prestigious for the European hosting institution also. And of course they get overheads, so that's also interesting. So, of course, the evaluation criteria are for collaborative research projects, excellence, impact and the quality and efficiency of the action. For the European Research Council grants, there's only one criterion and that's research excellence. But for the collaborative research grants, there were three standard award criteria. So, I'll finish on this, which is an advert for the participant portal where you be able to find a lot more detail on everything that I briefly touched on this morning. The topics that are open for research proposals at the moment, documents explaining how to apply the rules for participation an online manual and how to submit a proposal electronically. There's one other thing that I would like to mention, however, which is that all of these project proposals that we get at the European level and we get a lot. You can imagine thousands every year. It's like any funding agency here. They all have to be evaluated. And the European Union is always very interested in having evaluators from across the world to insure an international standards to the research that we're funding but also to, you know, have an outsider's view on the type of research that we're funding. So, also on the participant's portal, you will find a link to how to become an evaluator. And we always encourage people who might be interested to consider becoming an evaluator. The evaluators for Horizon 2020 projects are paid for the collaborative research projects, so therefore there's a-- it's paid. The first stage of the evaluation is remote, so therefore you would simply receive the projects electronically at home to evaluate. On the second part is a panel discussion in Brussels to rank the successful proposals. So, therefore, I just to say to encourage you to consider becoming an evaluator also. It's also a very good way to learn what makes a successful project. So, with all of that, I would like to thank you very much for your attention and encourage you to consider Horizon 2020 when you're looking at your next research projects. Thank you very much. ^M00:52:46 [ Applause ] ^M00:52:49 >> Giulio Busulini: So I will replace Fenella just very briefly. I'm Giulio Busulini, one of the science attaché at Embassy of Italy. So this session is open to questions. And if there are anyone is willing to raise their hands, we can maybe pick up a question from him. We're using this microphone. In the meantime, I have a question for Mary. I mean, I really appreciate your spectrum overview about the Horizon 2020. Can you maybe explain more details in relation to the collaboration between Italy-- sorry, between US and Europe? What have been signed between [inaudible] State and the European Commission in the last few months, because I think that is something that really opened the opportunity to leverage both funding on both sides of the Atlantic. So if you can just say a few words, we really appreciate it. Thank you. >> Mary Kavanagh: OK. Thank you, thank you for raising that. An American entity or an American institution can participate in Horizon 2020 in a collaborative project in a number of ways. The most common way is to become a full participant, that is to be in the project proposal from the very beginning, have the proposal selected and to sign the grant agreement, even if you're not getting funding. So, it always sounds funny that you've signed the grant agreement without getting any funding. But the grant agreement is, I suppose, only a term but it's the contract that we have that the research we're funding will be carried out. So this is the most basic way and the most common way of participating in Horizon 2020 project for an American institution. And there's also a possibility to participate as what we call a third party. Sometimes an institution-- an American institution for example, will carry out a particular discreet piece of work for one of the European partners. And this can be funded or unfunded. So in a way, it's a little bit like a subcontract that an American partner will get but strongly linked to one of the European partners. So that European-- so then the American partner does not have to sign the grant agreement because it's the European partner who signs the grant agreement and so as well, we're outsourcing that piece of work to an American partner but we are responsible that the work is done. Now, those were the two options up until recently because, well, those were the two options that existed. But there was a problem because some US institutions, particularly federal research institutions like NOAA for example, but also some universities, had a problem. They had a problem with signing the grant agreement and they said, listen, we really want to collaborate with Europe. We see all of the advantages, but we cannot sign the grant agreement because the grant agreement is-- because we're not receiving any funding. The grant agreement is too heavy a document for us to sign as to. It commits us to too many legal commitments. This is only in some cases. Many university sign without any problem because they don't-- they just don't have that problem. So therefore, in order to relieve that problem, the United States Department of State and the European Commission worked on finding a solution. And the work to find the solution took a long time. The solution itself is supremely simple and elegant, and it simply means that the European project and the American partner can simply-- once the European has the European funding and once the American has the American funding, they can collaborate together without anybody having to sign anybody else's grant agreement. So therefore, what it basically means is that the European project, Horizon 2020, even if it knows from the beginning that it's going to have-- that is going to work together with an American partner, doesn't even have to mention the American entity in the research proposal. The American partner likewise, you know, request its own funding from its own national funding mechanism. And only at the end, they come together and they decide themselves the extent of their collaboration and they decide amongst themselves the extent of the sharing of resources, the sharing of knowledge. And this was considered to be the easiest because those who want to collaborate very deeply can collaborate very deeply. It's entirely up to the funded projects. And those who want only a lighter form of cooperation maybe within occasional workshop together or something can do it that way. But it's entirely up to them. So therefore, it leaves a lot of liberty to the research projects. And it relieves a US partner of having to sign a grant agreement if their university regulations are-- federal regulations don't allow it. So, thank you. That's basically in a nutshell what the new implementing arrangement does. >> Giulio Busulini: In my opinion, and just to leave the floor also, Fenella just came back. To strategize a little bit better from the funding perspective so that we are able define together new fund scheme that allowed to have not any barriers from the consortium agreement, on the grant agreement that kind of impediment and facilitate the research dialogue in a more proactive way. So, that is the thing that the goal of the discussion today. We try to identify how we can leverage our European scheme in a more proactive way with the US, one, and see how we can use also the opportunity of the research infrastructure commitment that we have on Europe in a more interest and proactive in the next future. So I leave the floor to Fenella who just came back. >> Fenella France: Can you please join with me in thanking our speakers. ^M00:58:52 [ Applause ] ^M00:58:57 So we're going to move forward now and moving now to sort of looking at the landscape of heritage science in the US and Europe. And I think it's very interesting for us, particularly here in the US because there is so many wonderful initiatives. And as you've heard from Mary and Riccardo, just the difference in the way projects are funded and the collaboration is a very different focus. So, I'd like to introduce Monique Bossi, who is the Italian National Contact Point for research infrastructures for APRE. And so I'm going to ask you to come forward. And we also have Luca Pezzati on my left, who you've already heard, who is the coordinator of IPERION CH, the National Research Council of Italy and Odile Madden from Research Scientist and head of modern materials research at the Smithsonian Institution Conservation Institute. And between them, they will be talking about differences and foci on particular projects and initiatives in both the US and America. ^M01:00:00 >> Monique Bossi: OK. Thank you. Thank you Fenella. OK. So I think we are all very pleased to be here today. For us, it's a big privilege and we are happy to share with you this session. We are now moving from a general let's say introduction that any way we deem necessary to set the frame a little bit of the aim of the discussion today. And as I said, we are moving towards a more concrete part of the discussion. And in particular, we will now try to landscape what's going on in Europe and in the US with specific respect of research infrastructures in the science heritage domain-- in the heritage science domain, sorry. So just one word about what we mean by research infrastructures. Research infrastructures under the frame of the discussion today is continued to be any type of facility, any type of support, any type of piece of equipment that can help any type of researchers for whatever field to perform their activity. They can be single sided, they can be distributed, they can be physical, virtual, whatever type of support as far as it is accessible from researchers from outside the institution, so-- that owns the facility of course. So as you can see, when it's a broad spectrum of possibilities we are varying some examples today. We will have an insight of which type of infrastructures are available now in Europe. And as we said, because the program is open to the world, all these facilities are open to US researchers that might need to access them to perform their research and continue their activity. So the session actually structure on four different interventions. So we were having first Luca Pezzati from the National Council of Research. He will present what has been done so far and the path that we have-- that we went through so far in the specific field of research infrastructure for the cultural heritage. And also will picture a little bit where we're going. Some have been already said by Professor Pozzo. But we would have now some more detailed and practical information on the way forward. And then Odile will picture as well this-- I mean, will try to picture the same frame for what's going on in the US. That's the basic aim of the agenda, the basic concept of the agenda, to have always a comparison between the European and the US landscape or opportunities so that at the end of these two days symposium, we can really have clear picture and ideas of which are the possibilities and opportunities for both part of the ocean to cooperate and to go farther in the scientific and innovational-related activities. After, we would have a short break and after that, we come back and we have these two second presentations and in particular Mr. Jan van't Hof from the Netherlands from the Minister of Health in Netherlands will continue presenting another initiative, which is the joint program in initiative funded by European Commission. And then there is a change in their agenda as you can see, Elizabeth Tran cannot be here with us today. But Ms. Jong-on Hahm, we thank her, accepted to replace and she will give a little bit of insight of what's going on for the transatlantic platform for social science and humanities. Well, thank you Jong-on for your ability. I think we can start as we are a little bit behind schedule. So thank you Luca for your presentation. >> Luca Pezzati: Thank you Monique. And which is the microphone? This one? And thank you Riccardo for having a quick landscaping of the social and cultural innovation domain in the ESFRI roadmap in Europe. So it seems that I am left with the details. ^M01:04:28 ^M01:04:31 Details, details. We had these very long initiative stepping back from Framework Program 5. So we are speaking of 15 years ago, more than 15. When we started the collaboration to European level in cultural heritage, this is the stream of projects that have been financed by the European Commission, trying to integrate in European research infrastructure for cultural heritage. The last one in this stream of project is the project IPERION CH, which organized jointly with the American institution involved that they have today here. But we didn't stop with the IPERION CH project. So I need to show you what happened after it. IPERION CH project was an improvement, the third improvement to this community and included an American partner. We have the pleasure of having here is the [inaudible] Conservation Institute in the partnership that's covering 13 states, 12 states in Europe and one here at the US. The project is an integrating activity that is the technical name in Europe. The grant is 8 million and we are now approaching the midterm. The midterm meeting will be [inaudible] in May. So we still have two and a half years of this initiative. And the initiative is quite big because we have a lot of research groups involved now in this research infrastructure. Monique is playing the-- well, this, the concept more or less of research infrastructure in Europe. I will try to explain what this project is doing actually. Because the main activities of the project providing services as a research infrastructure. And I will show you the services. Then the idea underneath the proposal of IPERION CH was to try to structure something more long term, let's say, because as you may know, projects are short term by nature and also in this case, we have initiatives that can last three to five years, no more than that. So the idea was to try to start to kick off a permanent research infrastructure dealing with cultural heritage in Europe, thus trying to help the scientific community using it. And this started considering conservation or restoration, so strictly speaking cultural heritage issues in Europe. But very soon we realize that the horizon of this should have been more inclusive. And so we finally decided to apply for a research infrastructure covering the needs of the wider community of heritage science, whatever it is. By the way, the main activities of an integrating project, integrating activity are of three natures. The first is providing services and we call that transnational access. So the infrastructure is providing services to research. The second activity is upgrading these services by doing joint research altogether. The third, but not the least important activity is insuring a continuous of networking between the European facilities providing the services. This is very important because under the networking, you do a lot of things. You do the policies of the infrastructure. You do the training. You do a lot. You do-- you organize event, international events, European events. So the budget is limited but the activity of networking is very important because it covers the assistance that the future needs. About the services, the IPERION CH infrastructure is providing three kind of services to research. The first is having mobile instruments going where the artworks are and having analytics of diagnostics of several impossible kinds of physical, chemical. And this is called mobile laboratory, so MOLAB. Then we provide services linked to access to non-mobile laboratories. In the case of IPERION CH, we only covers access to landscape facilities. It's a [inaudible] room and two accelerator in the mutual source. It is specialized in cultural heritage applications. Then we provide access to archives. I use to call them nondigital archives. But actually archives are archives and they are nondigital by definition. ^M01:10:00 We are immersed in this digital world, so we need to specify that these archives are nondigital. Archives where scientific documents are including actually pieces of artworks, if you consider cross-sections for instance or you can have samples of pigments, samples of-- so real physical object, as well as non-digitized documentation. So currently, we are also providing travel and accommodation for researchers who apply for going to archives. In IPERION, we realized very keen international interest in the initiative and that is what produced our proposal as European infrastructure with global scope. One of the first interests that we collected, very important, is the interest of the intergovernmental organization, ICCROM, with who we are cooperating strictly in these years. And then here is the landscape, is what is currently going on in infrastructure at ESFRI level in the social and cultural innovation. It explains graphically what Riccardo was saying. We have a cluster of project PARTHENOS. We have two ERIC already defined, two consortia, DARIAH and CLARIN. We have one single project. It's the only one currently in the roadmap and there it will remain until the mid of 2018 with the next upgrade of the roadmap itself. And I have to point out that the E-RIHS project was the cooperation resulting from the cooperation collaboration of the IPERION CH who got the initiative of proposing the E-RIHS but also with the digital archeology infrastructure, ARIADNE, who agreed to run together with us and other national communities in Europe. And so it happened that in March 2016, so we are speaking of nine months ago, the E-RIHS was included in the new strategic roadmap of research infrastructures in Europe. And this is the actual roadmap already discussed. This is very important because it has became not anymore an integrating activity but actually a strategic project of the European Union. I don't want to discuss because we don't have enough time, what is heritage science. Heritage science concept is open to discussion. Very briefly and my mind is making signs together. So not anymore science for conservation, not anymore users our museums. No, we are all there together to do science for the heritage preservation. That is my concept in general lines, where general lines. And so we define this infrastructure with the specific aim to support the heritage science community. And I must say that probably the infrastructure will be first. And then the heritage science community, because we are still discussing in several countries about how to define the real borders, the real extension of what we have in mind. And we need to know that because we need to organize the services of the big infrastructure covering the needs of heritage science. So some exercise of analysis and strategic planning and the discussion is open. What is important this is the most interdisciplinary infrastructure in Europe. And we have in the disciplinary in the provision of services and in the user groups. What we will need to do is two difficult things, but we need to do them both. Otherwise, the infrastructure will not work. We will meet to define a common approach to diagnostic methodologies, analytics. Otherwise, we will not have consistent data. And so we will not help research. We will continue supporting the fragmentation of research in cultural heritage. So we first need to establish a common approach. So first in the creation of practices, best practices in methods but also in the use of this data. So we need to define a common data infrastructure for heritage science. I don't know what of these two things to do is the most difficult. But I only know that we need to do both, because my motto is not digital common data, no infrastructure at all due to the complexity of the scientific landscape of institutions involve, multidisciplinary and all things. We actually will need common platform. We will need to the common data infrastructure. Otherwise our languages-- we like [inaudible]. Everybody will speak their own languages and we will never to get to something integrated when it comes to heritage science. So what happened after IPERION? What happened after IPERION is that we propose E-RIHS and E-RIHS has been supported initially by 12 European countries up to the time of submitting the E-RIHS proposals, so June last year. The countries were 16 plus two ERICs involved, DARIAH ERIC and CLARIN ERIC involved. And then now we have more interest at political level for-- from three more countries that entered this-- the E-RIHS initiative, that Austria, Romania and Sweden. We have also contacts at scientific level including here with several countries ruled the strongest in non-European network that we have in this moment is the Brazilian one, is already structured in private association of laboratories supporting E-RIHS in Brazil. What is going to happen? This is just a map, a physical map of this. The structure that we have in mind is-- have a strong central hub and strong national hubs helping to coordinate the services of the infrastructure everywhere it will be established. We added one service platform to the three already served by IPERION. And this service platform will be DIGILAB and we think that we need to have a common platform either for scientific data sets and tools for research as one of the future services of the E-RIHS. So for these two years, we will continue running the services of the IPERION platforms. And we will try to establish the fourth one that for the moment is only planning. So these are more or less examples of just photographs. Before I finish and I have seven minutes, but I can use less. I have to say about the global dimension of E-RIHS because it's very important. And I think it's important here, the US, for the discussion that we will have. I was in Venice six days ago and I met with the ESFRI chair that now is an Italian guy. So that's not news. Also the old chair of ESFRI was an Italian guy, it was Carlo Rizzuto. Then we have an English guy for a couple of years, Womersley. And now again, we have Giorgio Rossi from the University of Milan, which is the ESFRI chair. And I had a discussion with Giorgio about what will happen at global level with E-RIHS. There are very nice news. The first news is that in March there will be the G7 of science in Italy. And in May, there will be the GSO, Group of Senior Official meeting including the G7 and plus 5. So the full group of senior officials dealing with global school research infrastructures. And Giorgio will be the next president of the GSO. So it will be both enforced as ESFRI chair from mid-2017 and president of the GSO. E-RIHS is one of the infrastructure proposed shortlisted for the list of global impact infrastructure in the GSO list. And what are the GSO's officials-- what are doing now. They are collecting as presumed of interest from the countries involved within the GSO that are simply 13. But the US is there. They are collecting expression of interest to come to the final list of global research infrastructure to be supported. It kind of a planetary ESFRI roadmap. It's a political matter. No money implied at least for the first stage. So what is my message that could be very interesting to close these two days of discussion with a lector from the American institution interested in E-RIHS to your American delegates in the GSO. ^M01:20:07 They are two. Now, I have the names but I don't know if the two will be the same much for obvious reason that you can guess. Anyway, you will know who these two will be before the meeting in Italy will happen because it will be very nice to have the American expression of interest for E-RIHS to be included in the list of global infrastructure. So I think that after two days of discussion, if we can get to a short letter of that kind, it could be very nice closing for this initiative that we have here. Of course, the same is I see a lot of European colleagues here. The same holds also for France, for all the European countries which have representatives in the G7. Or for the let's say not at all-- not yet, non-European countries in the G7. I see Joseph, he's there. So, we will-- by the way G7, you know, it covers still UK. The position of UK would be very, very important. So, if you simply-- even me, I can provide you with the names of the GSO contacts in your country. It will be very, very important if next year, E-RIHS collect several expression of interest from the-- this very small group of people so that we can continue the road to globalization in a certain sense. ICCROM is very interested in supporting us, and the idea that we have is while we establish E-RIHS in Europe in these five years that Riccardo cited this morning. At the same time, we work to establish RIHS at global level. So at global level in heritage science infrastructure in which we will need help because establishing a global, legal figure is not very easy in international research infrastructure. So we need to decide a lot of things. We need to see if there is a real commitment and from which countries this could be issued towards this achievement that of course will greatly help the two points in the mission that I was presenting before. Because if we are capable of organizing of reaching harmonization in methodologies, its European level, it's one thing. If we can see to have a harmonization of diagnostics and on the use of digital at the global level, these will be much, much more interesting. So with this, I save the one minute probably and I can leave you and thank you for your attention. ^M01:23:02 [ Applause ] ^M01:23:04 >> Monique Rossi: So now we continue with our landscaping exercise. And we have the pleasure to have here Mr. Jan van't Hof, from the Dutch Minister of Culture. And he is presenting now another initiative that has been funded by the European Commission, which is called The Joint Programming Initiative for Cultural Heritage. So, and here we would have the possibility to see another type of approach from the European Commission side, which is not funding activities, but funding, funding activities. So it's a different scope but it's very well placed in the frame of our discussion today. So. Mr. Jan van't Hof, please. ^M01:23:49 ^M01:23:53 >> Jan van't Hof: Thank you very much. ^M01:23:55 ^M01:24:02 So thank you very much for the introduction. Am I to be heard by everybody or should I-- yes? So I don't have to adjust it. So in-- like it was said, my name is Jan van't Hof and I'm from the Dutch Cultural Heritage Agency and a part of the Ministry Culture. And like a former speaker said, while there are introvert and extrovert people around and well [inaudible] whether you find me after this presentation introvert or an extrovert person and I will be glad to hear your remarks during the break. So, since I know some of you, but not at all of you, I thought I might give a very short introduction about myself. So I also trained at Leiden University as an art historian, and at the moment I'm head of department at their Cultural Heritage Agency. And I'm board member of various European initiatives like the JPI, IPERION and also E-RIHS. And my specialties are not in chemistry or [inaudible] but really, art historian, sort of studies like the art of collecting, the art of natural stone, and all kinds of conservation and heritage issues. So, about our agency, like I said we are a part of the Ministry of Education of Science and Culture. And we have some facilities in Amsterdam and our main premises in Amersfoort. But we have laboratories in both, 350 fte's so we are middle-sized agency. And we have a lot of various functions. So we give grants, we lease buildings, we do research, and well, among us are several university professors like Klaas Jan van den Berg, who is present at the moment. And we also-- and I will want to conclude at the end of next version of my presentation which will be on the internet. We also maintain a unique collection of reference materials, which is especially interesting of course for the data approach. We are having today. We are also partner in the Netherlands Institute for Conservation Art and Science, also known as NICAS, which is chaired by the Rijksmuseum. And I would also like to state and if you were today the Dutch government recently has adapted a very specific attention to open science. So whereas up until now, also regard is important. As from this year on open science will be paramount for all research being funded by the Dutch government. Just a very quick insight into Dutch heritage since I'm talking about the JPI, but also as a Dutch representative, so I will have some pictures of on the left, [inaudible] outside laboratory for water current and the top picture is the Royal Barge built in 1815. And on the right hand side is the Great Synagogue in Amsterdam, still in use and still only lit by candles. And we also have of course world heritage site in the Netherlands and the center-- the center picture is a famous modern movement, factory in Rotterdam but on the right and left hand side, you see world heritage sites, hope-- which we hope will be listed and they are at the moment and they-- I have taken pictures of both these sites because they are not specifically Dutch sites, but because they are sites which are-- which will be nominated together with for instance Belgium or for instance with Germany. So we are looking cooperation not only within research, but also all kinds of other initiatives. Now this is what you came for, the joint program initiative. And I want to say something about it. That we were established in 2010. And I had a very short dark with the lady from [inaudible] commission during the break, we are of course very glad we were supported by the European Commission. But I would also like to stress, we are not a European institution. We are an institution of member states. So we are-- go funding from the European Commission, but we are member state driven so there are seven member states within European, who constitute the board. And there are eight associated countries, from which one, Israel is from outside of Europe. And we have of course the various sets of board, the government board, executive board, scientific committee, and then advisory board. And the second part of the slide you see, so like I said, we were run by member states. If we launch calls, we [inaudible] inform ourselves, some calls have a top-up from the European Commission, so under Horizon 2020 or the following framework programs, we get additional funding from Brussels and we are essentially a research program. ^M01:30:16 So we, of course, do care for advocacy of cultural heritage and all the things that surround research, but mainly, we are a research program. We are not the only joint program initiative alive. There are 10. And there are about-- so for instance, oceans, water, neurodegenerative diseases, so that's always a mouthful. And I have a brochure about what we are as a set of programs with me. So again, during the break, I'll be happy to share it with you. Well, under-- on the slide you see the team which is working on a joint program, programming initiative. Photographed during a meeting in the Hague and central is our secretary general for culture education and science. So it is really-- so being fostered the top level people at our ministry. I mentioned the member state and associated countries involved and on the left hand side you see a small map indicating which countries are involved and the faded blue ones are in, and the darker blue ones are observing states. So let's give you the pictures and so almost all of Europe is in and of course, we are striving to get the ones who are not fully in also onboard. We have-- When we look at France [inaudible], we have a slightly different approach because we do look at all kinds of heritage and not only the tangible heritage, although with the focus on conservation and restoration of monuments or museums, but we look into all kinds of heritage. And so this material, immaterial and digital heritage. So like I said, the aim of the joint program initiative is to foster and to empower research and for this of course we have-- we made some effort. And the first one is what do we want to research in the end. And it is in our strategic research agenda, which is also to be seen on the internet. And we have launched several calls for proposals until now. And we have also joint activities amongst partners. Because it is fine to do funded research, but there is a lot of knowledge already present among the partners. And why shouldn't we share that knowledge too and only aim at extending knowledge via new research. So via the joint activities, we tried to share the existing knowledge. Two calls were launched nevertheless in 2012 and 2014, and we will launch three next-- sorry , four new goals-- calls over the next three years and in the final version of my PowerPoint, I will show the entity exact phrasing of the upcoming goals, which will be on digital heritage on conservation and restoration on heritage and perception and on changing environments. Now just a few more words about strategic research agenda. So we are not only research drive, but we are also very much content driven as a consortium. Like I said, member states do take part, but of course several institutions like ministries or funding agencies constitute the board of the JPI to have a very direct contact with all the partners and all the countries. The agenda is composed of four priority areas reflect-- so developing a reflective society, connecting people with heritage, creating knowledge and safeguarding the cultural heritage resource. The agenda was not put together by the board itself, but we consultated [phonetic] all member states involved and what they did was established a national consultation panel. And this proved to be very interesting opportunity within countries to really set culture heritage research on the agenda as something which is a joint effort within a country Because like you saw in the Netherlands, cultural heritage was established in say about 1870 as a specific responsibility of the government. But then while there were some persons and they dealt with archeology and they dealt with archives and so the whole world heritage was present within some people. But in 150 years, you have-- the whole field was scattered and this national consultation panel gave us the opportunity to bring all those people together in-- physically in one room. And of course, not all of them but the major representatives for the first time in 150 years. And this really gave [inaudible] Netherlands to say, well, cultural heritage is not a scattered field. We are in contact. We are really working together on agenda. And I think this might be interesting also. Well for instance, in the USA looking from Europe or looking from myself, I always look at the USA as one country, but of course like was stated, in effect is 50 states, and well, so perhaps your approach of bringing people together and you might already do. So pardon me if I'm not-- if I am being rude or having two large [inaudible]. But it really helps to bring people together so well we have to make one agenda and we bring all people together and it was really stimulating. Now the upcoming activities like I said were four new calls for the next years. We also have to revise our strategic research agenda because it's about five years old now and although we included a foresight planning chapter, you see there-- whereas conservation and restoration are still very important issues, you also see the ethical side of how you look at heritage, and how you look at heritage professionals is getting more and more impact over the last years. And also because of course in Europe, we have had an economic crisis and we've seem to pull ourselves together. But within Europe, you also have-- well, I'm not so strange with 500 million inhabitants but you have very [inaudible] currents at the moment, which will need us to reconsider not only why we do research but also in what frame do we do research and who do we actually do the research for. So who are for instance the end-users. And we are also at the JPI looking at enlarging the partnership possibly also outside Europe and we have set up a special taskforce which Luca knows very well, Luca Pezzati to for-- to strengthen the bones between the joint program branding initiative on one side and the E-RIHS on the other side. And anybody who is doing which work of art you are looking at, at the moment at the right end, it's called [inaudible]. So how does JPI fit into the landscape of data and research infrastructures. And for those longing for the next speaker, this will be my last slide. And so on the left hand side, of course you see the joint program initiative. On the right hand side, you see the E-RIHS. It is kind of a jigsaw. So of course you'll meet each other on the content, quality systems for instance, but basically the joint program initiative is about programming, about financing and has European outreach, and it includes all kinds of cultural heritage. ^M01:40:08 Whereas at the moment, E-RIHS, which is just getting started, we must-- so we will have our kickoff meeting next year, will be more of a hands-on program. It will focus on infrastructure, so it is-- so it complements the joint program initiative on that side because we are mainly ministries and funders, whereas that E-RIHS will be, of course, more on the institutional side. And of course, E-RIHS aims at a global outreach. At the moment, the European research infrastructure is European, but the global outreach was already mentioned and the focus will be mainly on the material cultural heritage. So I think we complement each other. We have already found each other and the next years will be-- well, we will be working of really joining forces. Thank you very much. ^M01:41:13 [ Applause ] ^F01:41:18 ^M01:41:20 >> Monique Bossi: Thank you Jan. We move now to the last, not presentation but intervention. As I said earlier on, unfortunately, Elizabeth Tran couldn't be here today. So we thank Jong-on Hahm to take over our intervention. Jong-on Hahm is from the George Washington University. As a background, she has also PhD in neurosciences. So, we have now another type of background. We had chemistry, we had material science, art historian and now we have neuroscience. So a very interesting panel. Thank you for this. And in George Washington University, she is focusing on global investment in science, technology and engineering and math, sort of famous STEM that were mentioned during the opening speech. And today, she will present briefly the European platform, the transatlantic platform for social science and humanities. So another European initiative that try to group and to pull together different countries and initiative. Thank you. >> Jong-on Hahm: Thank you. So first, I'll just like-- what is an interloping neuroscientist doing at a cultural heritage science meeting? I just wanted to say, Elizabeth couldn't be here because she became ill. Elizabeth Tran and I were both program directors at the National Science Foundation. So when I was at the National Science Foundation, I was in the international office and part of my portfolio was the country desk for Italy and also the European Union. It is how the state department joint committee meeting in organizing that was the first cultural heritage working group at the GCM, was the US-Italy one. So, I'm not going to step in for Elizabeth, but to give a little-- the transatlantic partnership challenge most likely came, giving you a perspective from a funder's perspective. We had a great perspective from Odile. She's a researcher, you know, people in the-- doing the work, but trying to fund the work as Riccardo said earlier, budgets always seem to be shrinking constantly. There are always cuts. We always have to deal with do more with less. And even when they don't shrink, because of costs going up, you can't do as much. We used to joke at NSF, the NSF's budget was supposed to have been doubled at least three times in the past two decades, according to authorization legislation. It hasn't. It's been flat. So, our joke was, flat is the new doubling because at least there's not a cut. So, as a funder, you want to make sure that you're leveraging in getting the most bang for the buck because this is all public dollars. All return on investment is great and so-- and there's a lot of work as you know, having been probably asked to review, you know, proposals or papers. So if we could some of the-- streamline some of the same things that people are doing because people are working together, science is global, you're publishing in the same journals, so, these efforts and I think there will be more of them, to have not-- maybe not quite joint programming initiative, but parallel working together with collaborative connection. So that the science moves forward without every single scientist and researcher being forced to understand the same minutia of every single funding agency. And so, let me get-- so transatlantic partnership, the one I know about most is digging into data because it was a project that was launched I believe at NSF in the social, behavioral, and economic sciences directorate. This is essentially to allow US researchers to collaborate with their, at the time, it was European partners, without so much the funding barriers. And what TAP has done, if you look into the partnership, there are-- the agency partners are from all over Europe. Let me see. Let me pull this up on my little-- just working. So of course you see Academy of Finland, Arts and Humanities Research Council of UK, CONACYT of Chile and CONACYT of Mexico, DFG Germany, ESRC, Portugal, CNR France, the French CNR and of course, the European Commission to make it hopefully easier for researchers, for-- to not have everyone doing the same thing at the same time. So kind of a perpetual motion where everybody is running their own little wheel and to put the-- to leverage the capacity because if any research field could-- deserves to leverage the capacity that they have, since the capacity is so scattered and is so uneven across the world, it should be the cultural heritage sciences. So I'm going to stop and I think Elizabeth said she would try to come tomorrow, perhaps you could ask her questions and then we would have more time for questions for the other panelists. Thank you. >> Monique Bossi: Thank you, Jong-on. ^M01:47:45 [ Applause ] ^F01:47:48 ^M01:47:50 OK. I think we can open the floor also with Luca and Odile. >> Antonio Sgamellotti: Luca was mentioning the G7. Next year, we are going to have the political summit in May in [inaudible], but before there will be the G7 for science, the 23 and 24 that the [inaudible]. Three statements will be discussed and approved by the G7 and then to the political artist of the G7. The first one is cultural heritage, a building resilience to disasters. This is an important topic and guest countries will decide that will be the first statement to present to the G7 for science. The other two are very important, aging society, a new economic roles. We have already prepared. I am responsible with my colleague of the University of Geneva, Giovanni to prepare the statements. The statement is all ready, but it has to be discussed by the G7 academies before deliver it to the public. It will follow the document that we already approved in Rome . The 11 to 13 of October, there was a conference in Rome in occasion of the 50 anniversary of the Florence Club and the title of the conference was Florence 1966-2016 Resilience of City of Arts to Natural Disaster, the Role of Academies. And at the end of the meeting, we approved the charter of Rome on the resilience of art city to natural disasters. ^M01:50:06 It was approved by all the Academy of Science of the world, more than 116 academy approved it and is already available in the web. If you type IAP. This is the acronym of the network of all the Academy of Science, IAP and then charter of Rome, you will get the PDF of the document of the charter of Rome. Thank you. >> Monique Bossi: Thank you, Professor Sgamelloti for this addition. >> Fenella France: I will repeat the question which was for the European representatives to talk about their approach as opposed to the American approach and various [inaudible] as well. >> Luca Pezzati: My opinion is there is a top-down process and it is more the JPI consortium and bottom-up scientific process. And this is more the IPERION E-RIHS so we'll from the top-down, you know. >> Jan van't Hof: Well, I won't exactly say the JPI is only a top-down, but it is member state-driven. So it is different than an institution-driven and what helped us was making an agenda together. So then, you'd have to-- you get to talk about the content and then you find you have the same interest, you are-- you have the same fascination. So that really helps within the countries but also, within Europe. When you want to put together financial resources, it's-- it also helps because then you really have the exposure in your own country, say, that country is giving so much money, they're giving their money, so then you can-- your own country say, well, look at other member states are doing, we shouldn't left behind. So that also helps in a vice versa way. So you want to be part of it but you are-- you also want to-- if you-- if you are in, you should really join too. On the other hand, really pulling financial resources is always difficult because you have various ways of really sharing the money. And at the moment that they still an issue on money being pulled, but it also mainly comes back into national researchers grounds. >> What's their agenda? >> Jan van't Hof: Agenda is a very good starting point both on the European level and at national level. >> Luca Pezzati: About what-- Before answering about want Antonio was saying that the day after tomorrow, we'll be in Brussels. The event organized by the commission cultural heritage, disaster resilience in climate change, the contribution of European research and innovation. And in the afternoon, Hilde De Clercq will speak-- will present the E-RIHS infrastructure of these events in Brussels. About what we were saying, I am a firm sustainer of the concept that with money, everything is easier. So if you found money for research, you can coordinate research, you can defragment research, you can involve researchers and research organization. This firm belief is also supported by my career. I started putting together money from grants in 1998. I was a very young scientist. And it was-- That's the date of my first external financed project, and then continue and established the research group in the Institute of Optics just by finding money for having them work. So simply these and it is very fortunate that we have Brussels Horizon project and all of the framework project because it is something that, in a sense, is forcing European researchers to cooperate. And the difference is obvious. Here, the United States is a much older federation of states than the European one. So in Europe, there has been, in these 20 years, the necessity, political necessity of putting on the table tools for having real collaboration between European researchers that also have the problem of not speaking the same language even if there's not exactly one English throughout the US. It was my understanding. But we have a guardian, we are Finnish, we have a bit of difficulties with several truly different languages, and it is why CLARIN is one of the research infrastructures in Europe. So, about these, the real person to whom addressed this question, how do you have the people cooperating is not me. Because I entered in a very well-established environment of cooperation. The real person to ask this question is Bruno Brunetti, who started the process and the Framework Programme 5 and he built the European family of cultural heritage. When I stepped into the process, this was five years ago, and everything was well advanced. So my job has been simply to sell these and to find new ways of exploiting this very nice situation of cooperation that I found already existing in Europe. >> Fenella France: OK. >> Well, I don't know to be provocative. But just as-- and we heard that we-- we all know that we are in a moment where we have a lot of budgeting constraints, and the key point for cultural aid, it used to make the decision maker aware of the fact that cultural heritage is something that deserves the attention from the financing committee. If this is the case, I see any of the-- I'm a little bit confused of this really between this joint programming initiatives and E-RIHS because they both rely on at member state level, in the sense that the future Italian not-- and the joint programming initiative, the Italian joint programming initiative, they both have to finance their activities, is that true? What does it mean? That it will arrive at a point where a decision has been made, has to be taken on whether to finance what one or-- and the other. Even though there are difference between them, the joint programming initiative as Jan was saying is dealing with general heritage, the E-RIHS just being with material-- with the materiality of heritage. But regardless the fact of what is dealing what, as a matter of fact [inaudible] that we will arrive at a point that the member states has to, you know, to put money on that and beyond, how do you see this probably a small battle within-- well, it-- probably, it will not be a battle. But there is also a decision maker, a decision-making process that I don't understand how will be-- how will be tackled. >> Fenella France: And just for the-- >> Is it clear what I'm asking? >> Fenella France: So for the filming here, to shrink it a little bit, how big can the bottle be and how do you engage with the management and the member states to make a decision about what should be funded and I am assuming, how do we prioritize that funding? >> Yeah. >> Jan van't Hof: Well, just to start the answer and Luca will follow I suppose. Some, say 10 years ago, the field of cultural heritage was much more [inaudible] at the moment and also had not a focal point. And what we see now and that is, that for instance that European year of cultural heritage in 2018 will really emphasize the importance of cultural heritage in Europe. So what we are seeing now is that generally speaking, the political interest in cultural heritage in Europe is really growing and will, we hope, dominate in European cultural heritage 2018. So we are at the moment not in a bad time to have several initiatives on cultural heritage. It is our task, I firmly believe that we will-- we explained to the decision makers, we are not in a battle ourselves but we are willing trying to cooperate and to share our resources and what's the interest of the decision makers is that in the end, if we have a firm collaboration, we can at least say to decision makers if you want to call something-- sorry, if you want to call someone about cultural heritage issues, there is this good working-- well, so what I say, bipolar, well, not institution, but bipolar approach. ^M02:00:16 >> Luca Pezzati: But the answer is almost complete in the sense that that's not competition at all. It's just a synergy between the joint programming initiative and the infrastructure because we are doing totally different jobs. So, the joint programming initiatives are political container developing a strategy research agenda and they already developed it, involving the cultural heritage research throughout Europe, and then the concern is to form a research initiative across Europe with what is available at European level. Why? The infrastructure produces services, so it's funded for another activity. It's servicing research. There's been a nice debate in Venice last week, how much we need to spend in research infrastructure in order for research to be efficient? Currently in Europe, the percentage is around 15 to 20% of resources going directly to research infrastructure and the bulk of it going to finance research. These are the figures. What is more difficult for us is not the competition with the joint research initiative that in the beginning may be for some problems understanding things was there, in ministries across Europe, but now the situation is very clear. We are an [inaudible] project and the joint programming initiative is a JPI. So it's very clear the rules even in the face of politicians not having to do daily with cultural heritage or heritage science. The real trouble is totally different and I had confirmation of it in the most recent meeting that I had in Vienna towards an interministerial meeting in Austria because also in Austria, they have the ministry of culture so there was representative of ministry of culture, ministry of education and ministry of research and the delegates of the ministry of research had difficulty understanding which is the role of E-RIHS aspect project comparison with DALIAH ERIC, CLARIN ERIC so what's already there into the ESFRI roadmap. That is the real problem for the moment, that I don't understand because they are outside our field and I cannot say they are stupid. They simply don't understand which are the different roles of research infrastructures in Europe and that is understandable and that is where the risk is because we are the last in the line of ESFRI project that now we made money from member states. So we need to explain that and not the duality with the joint programming initiative. That it's already a synergy. We already have a table and we have a joint interface group where we discussed of the role of research infrastructures. >> Jan van't Hof: And we also have some personal unions, so. >> Luca Pezzati: Yup. >> I don't think that is so clear because in [inaudible] at least my impression is that they so is improved cultural heritage initiatives. This is [inaudible] because the institution in trying to gather them, if not we could do with money to [inaudible] so we must be stressed that we have two completely different vendors, runs [inaudible] cultural heritage, the other is through focus on research, [inaudible]. >> Luca Pezzati: No, that's not yet done here because-- ^M02:03:47 [ Inaudible Remark ] ^M02:03:49 So initially, there's find the support for E-RIHS is within the national research plan for research infrastructures. So it completely separate from the support of Italy to the initiatives of the joint programming initiative. We need to know what will happen with the Framework Programme 9 approaching because there are several problems, because the first problem is that we don't know the UK position so if the UK is not paying for FP9, the budget will be totally different. It will not have UK participant, applicants and that may be a good point considering that they are winning everything. >> Monique Bossi: But this is already-- >> Luca Pezzati: But the world would be different. The attitude of [inaudible] is different from the attitude of the previous-- >> Monique Bossi: Commissioner. >> Luca Pezzati: -- commissioner. So we don't even know the focus on research infrastructure, how will be, our structure will be, so there is-- >> Monique Bossi: Just at the beginning of the discussion. >> Luca Pezzati: But maybe Monique can say something on this point. >> Monique Bossi: On FP9, no. It's a little bit premature. >> Luca Pezzati: I'll give you Monique. >> Monique Bossi: No, no. Whatever I would say it would be really, I mean, premature. But what I can say is that I think we have reached the end of this morning session. It's already-- yes, 12, so I invite you for an hour break so we try to convene back at 10 past 2, 10 past 1, sorry. And Fenella, anything you want to talk. >> Fenella France: So, please if you can all join me in thanking the panel for the presentations. ^M02:05:30 [ Applause ] ^M02:05:33 >> This has been a presentation of the Library of Congress. Visit us at loc.gov.