Category / Uncategorized

Beyond REF2014

Attending a recent course on ‘Researcher development, the environment and future impact’, there seems to be a recurring theme across all sessions – the importance of adopting a long term view into research.

You reap the seeds you sow. This rings true in many aspects of life. It certainly is the common mantra sung by many of the speakers on the course. ‘Investment in the future’, ‘future impact’, ‘vitality and sustainability’ are just some of the buzz words thrown into the mix in that context.

And all that, has a direct and indirect link to the ‘impact’ element in the context of the Research Excellence Framework. Naturally, if you’re at the stage of planning your research and thinking about the impact, you’re too late for REF2014.

Yes, the speakers were referring to REF2020,  even though there isn’t an official REF2020 yet.

Isn’t it a bit too early to start thinking about that, I heard you say. When should you start thinking about ‘impact’? Colleagues from other HEIs talked about ‘impact’ at the PhD stages; others even mentioned ‘impact’ during undergrad. So, is there a ‘right’ time to start thinking about impact? Yes. The answer is, as early as possible.

How far wide will your research reach?

How many people will benefit from it?

What significance will it have on the society at large?

How many lives will it change?

Your research is like the stone that creates ripple in the water – how many ripples will it create? How long will the ripples last for? Will it create a beautiful wave? How many people will see those ripples and appreciate their beauty? It’s all to do with the way you cast that stone. You aim, you calculate and you plan.

Free image courtesy of

With proper planning of your research career path comes the evaluation and identification of the relevant ‘impact’. Along the way, other elements like obtaining funding and support, peer review processes and publications will slot into place, piece by piece.


At an early stage in your research career? Then come to one of our ECR Forums! First one next week!

Over the next six months we are running a series of forums for academic colleagues who are at an early stage in their research career. The forums will be open, informal sessions where you can meet with a group of experienced academics and Julie Northam and Julia Taylor from the R&KEO to discuss anything you like to do with research. From publications to projects to funding to research strategy we will be on hand to help and advise. Lunch / refreshments will be provided.

The forums will be held at the following times and you will need to book to confirm your attendance (this is so we can order enough food and refreshments in advance)

25 July 13:30 – 15:00 in Casterbridge, Thomas Hardy Suite Talbot Campus

17 September 12:30 – 15:00 on the Talbot Campus (Room to be confirmed)

19 November 12:30 – 15:00 on the Lansdowne Campus (Room to be confirmed)

11 December 12:30 – 15:00 on the Talbot Campus (Room to be confirmed)

BUCRU – Seminar presenting Breaking News!



We would like to invite you to an afternoon seminar by one of our Visiting Faculty, Professor Mike Wee, presenting some exciting new research findings to come out of a recently completed Research for Patient Benefit funded study comparing two methods of pain relief during labour (abstract and biography below).  This paper was just voted best paper of the conference at the Obstetric Anaesthetists Association Annual Conference in Liverpool and was featured recently in the Bournemouth Echo

The seminar is scheduled for Thursday 19th July 2-3pm in BG10 Bournemouth House (after the HSC end of term lunch and next door for your convenience).

We hope you can make it and look forward to seeing you then.



Administrator: +44 (0)1202 961939 /

Title: The IDvIP Trial: A two-centre double blind randomised controlled trial comparing i.m. diamorphine and i.m. pethidine for labour analgesia

Research team and affiliations: MYK Wee, JP Tuckey,* P Thomas,† S Burnard,* D Jackson.

Poole Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Poole, UK, *Royal United Hospital, Bath, UK, Bournemouth University Clinical Research Unit, Bournemouth, UK.


Background: Intramuscular pethidine, the commonest parenteral opioid analgesic used in obstetrics and more recently diamorphine usage has increased in the UK.  The maternal, fetal and neonatal side effects are well known for pethidine but there are no sufficiently powered large RCTs comparing pethidine with diamorphine. The aim of this trial is to address this.

Methods: After ethical approval, informed consent was obtained from 484 women randomised to receive either 7.5mg diamorphine i.m. or 150mg pethidine i.m. for labour analgesia. The sample size calculation derived from a small RCT giving 90% power (at the 5% significance level) is based upon the maternal primary outcome measure of pain relief at 60mins and the neonatal primary outcome measures of Apgar Score of <7 at 1min and neonatal resuscitation. Secondary outcome measures include verbal pain intensity at 60mins and over 3hrs post-analgesia, pain relief over first 3hrs, maternal oxygen saturation, sedation, nausea and vomiting and maternal satisfaction with analgesia. Fetal and neonatal secondary outcomes include CTG trace, meconium staining, UApH, UVpH, time of delivery to first breath, Apgar Score at 5mins, naloxone use, neonatal oxygen saturations, sedation and feeding behaviour for the first 2hrs after delivery.

Results: Reported using CONSORT guidelines. At 60mins post-administration and over a 3hr period, diamorphine is better at reducing pain scores than pethidine (p<0.001). There were no statistical differences between the two groups regarding Apgar Scores of <7 at 1min and the need for neonatal resuscitation.  The time between first dose administered and delivery is on average 82mins longer with the diamorphine group compared to pethidine (p<0.001). The vast majority of women experienced moderate to severe pain at all times. Women receiving diamorphine were more satisfied with their analgesia. There were no statistically significant differences in maternal sedation, nausea and vomiting or oxygen saturations over the 3hr period. There were no statistically significant differences in the fetal and neonatal outcomes including feeding behaviour between the two groups within 2hrs of birth but neonates in the pethidine group were more likely to be moderately or severely sedated at delivery.

Discussion: Intramuscular 7.5mg diamorphine gives significantly better analgesia than 150mg pethidine but prolongs delivery by approx. 82mins.  Women given diamorphine are more likely to be satisfied with their analgesia.  The mechanism for the prolongation of delivery time in the diamorphine group should be investigated further.

Acknowledgement: This research was funded by the NIHR Research for Patient Benefit Programme (PB-PG-0407-13170).


1. Tuckey JP, Prout RE, Wee MYK. Prescribing intramuscular opioids for labour analgesia in consultant-led maternity units: a survey of UK practice. International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia 2008, 17(1):3-8.

2. Fairlie FM, Marshall L, Walker JJ et al. Intramuscular opioids for maternal pain relief for labour: a randomised controlled trial comparing pethidine with diamorphine. British  Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1999; 106(11): 1181 -1187.

Biography of speaker:

Michael Wee is a consultant anaesthetist from Poole Hospital and Royal Bournemouth Hospitals.  He has a special interest in obstetric anaesthesia and is the lead obstetric anaesthetist at Poole Hospital.  He is chair of the Research and Innovations Group at Poole Hospital and is a Board member of the Western Comprehensive Local Research Network.  He was awarded a visiting professorship at Bournemouth University in 2009.  He is a referee for several medical journals.  His research interests include patient information, safety in anaesthesia, maternal analgesia and simulation in epidural anaesthesia.  He is a co-supervisor of a PhD student at BU and chief investigator of the MObs study investigating early warning scores in obstetrics.

An update to all applicants to the Fusion Investment Fund!

We received 65 proposals across the three strands which was very encouraging and with the workshops we ran in June being well attended, I am pleased there has been a lot of interest in this new initiative. 

I received 39 applications for Co-Creation and Co-Production Strand (budget £400k), 7 for Study Leave Strand (budget £750k) and 19 for Staff Mobility & Networking Strand (budget £200k).  The committees meet this week to decide which proposals get funding and Matthew Bennett will be in touch to relay these decisions to all our applicants.  Applicants will know the outcome by 30th July.

If you were not successful in this round, I hope you won’t be discouraged from applying again to the fund in December, which is when we will open again applications.  There is an opportunity to receive face to face feedback from a member of the panels, this is helpful in shaping future applications and our committee members are keen to help you secure funding in December.

For any other queries about the fund, contact me Sam Furr.

Health, Wellbeing and Ageing: BUs Research Themes as Communities of Practice

At the most recent meeting of the Health, Wellbeing and Ageing Research, we discussed how the Ageing Strand of this theme might be developed along the principles of a community of practice (Wenger et al., 2002, 2006). Here is a summary for wider scrutiny, comment, critique and eventually consensus on how we can together move this strand forward.
The Philosophy
A community of practice (COP) is a “a group of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly” (Wenger, 2006). Our passion is Health and Wellbeing- a salutogenic rather than pathogenic approach to health, social care and related fields. For many of us, it is the application of this to the Ageing Process and managing older age that holds our particular interest and area of expertise. The central philosophy of a COP is that members learn with and from each other. The rationale is two fold: firstly learning is linked with member wellbeing (specifically cognitive wellbeing): secondly, learning and wellbeing jointly facilitate productivity. In other words, our activities and outcomes/outputs will and do flow from communities of this type. (Wenger et al, 2002)
Key to the development of a COP such as this one is the “practice” element. Through interacting regularly (at times virtually, at times face to face) we are building relationships and learning better ways of working together (Wenger et al., 2002, 2006). Community members engage in joint activities, helping and learning from each other, sharing information and building relationships. By practicing in this way we are developing what Wenger refers to as a shared repertoire of resources (e.g. a common definition of wellbeing; an understanding of regional, national and global policy on Ageing Well) experiences (appropriate and friendly funding sources), stories, tools (e.g., research methodologies, review techniques), ways of addressing recurring problems (e.g. dealing with ethics, dealing with rejection, holding interviews with people with impaired hearing or mobility issues)—in short a shared practice.

The community can be moved forward practically by following the seven principles of developing a community of practice (Wenger et al., 2002). I concentrate on four here.
The development of Health, Wellbeing and Ageing should be an evolutionary process. Members differ widely in interests. Sociologists and engineers rub shoulders. Those interested in clinical trials and phenomenology share the same building! But our differences are not important. What is important is that we share an interest/expertise in Health, Wellbeing and/or older people. Rather than impose our own preconceived structures as to what projects or subgroups should be developed, projects themes are allowed to arise organically and the community’s agenda develops as members engage and disengage. For this to continue, it is essential that members know about each other’s interests and take time to interact and share these. Up to date STAFF profiles and BURO lists managed by our friend BRIAN are key to this as are student staff seminars and conferences. But as with any evolutionary process, it takes time to develop and small steps in the right direction are expected and accepted.
Through opening dialogue with those within the university and with external colleagues we are together developing a shared competence in a domain that distinguishes us from, but guides our rules of collaboration with, the range of other networks within the field (e.g. AgeUK, Help and Care, Poole and Bournemouth Borough Council, Research Councils). Creating an open dialogue between members and between members and those outside of the groups is central.. Our social media group pages AGEING at BU is a step in developing these insider and outsider discussions.!/groups/106969319443779/. Twitter and much more should follow.. Technical stewards (Wenger,2010) are required to lead the community in maintaining the community through these Web 2.0 technologies, keeping us actively engaging and building internal and external relationships required to maximize our learning. These sites can serve dual purposes and promote our activity but evidence shows that if self promotion overrules the central learning objective of these sites (Terras, 2012), our e -profile withers and die. A balance is essential

Community members can engage in the theme at three different levels of participation: as the core convening group, as active participating members or on the periphery watching developments. All levels are acceptable and learning about health, wellbeing and its application to Ageing can occur in any of the three. We strive however to introduce mechanisms whereby movement between core, active and peripheral participation can occur. Active participation should be encouraged but not forced, “building benches on the sidelines” for members to sit and watch until they are confident to move to the centre and take more active roles within the group (Wenger et al., 2002). An ethos of mentoring is fostered not necessarily on a one to one basis, but as a group philosophy where active and core members are cogent of the need for inclusivity and for offering opportunity to peripheral members should they wish to engage.
Engagement is also encouraged by making explicit the value of community membership. From personal experience, being part of a community has offered us all opportunities we would not have accessed if we had not been members. The social capital generated has lead to individuals making connections to networks to which some members had links but others not (connections to external networks come from whom we know not necessarily what we know). We have been able to draw on the skills of others, (for example, the researchers amongst us have gained insight into curriculum development, faculty development and health care policy). The network has enabled us to submit bids that are cross school and cross institutional which we hope is reflected in their quality arising from this cross fertilisation of ideas and disciplines. Most importantly, we have connected to like-minded individuals and reduced our research isolation.
Food for thought. I would welcome thoughts on whether this fits with colleagues’ vision for the Health, Wellbeing and Ageing theme. I acknowledge the input of already successful COPs into these thoughts specifically IN-2-theory and GRIN members as well as good thoughts and discussion on this topic from the HSC Health and Wellbeing Community leadership.

Sarah Hean

Terras, M. (2012) The verdict: is blogging or tweeting about research papers worth it? Available at:
Wenger, E., White, N.and Smith, J.D., (2010) Digital Habitats , Portland: CPSquare
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & W.M. Snyder. (2002). Cultivating Communities of Practice A Guide to Managing. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
Wenger, Etienne. (2006). Communities of Practice: a brief introduction, 1-6. Retrieved from

Filling a pair of big REF shoes

Second week into my secondment at the Research Development Unit, gearing myself ready to cover for Anita Somner during her maternity leave, it is beginning to dawn on me, the enormity of the task I have in hand. Not least because of the experience and expertise as demonstrated by Anita in all things REF-related has left me with the horror feeling that I may not be able to fill those Size 13 (!!) shoes, but also the new roles and responsibilities as well as steep learning that come with the job.

I have made it sound like a bad thing.

Believe me, it’s not.

Next year in the REF calendar, is a pivotal one with various important and exciting challenges at different points of the year and I welcome them with open arms.

So if you have any REF-related query, please feel free to contact me. I cannot promise you that at this point I will know all the answers to your question, but I can promise you that I will definitely do my best, to find out those answers to your question.

EPSRC Overseas Travel Grants – Call


Overseas travel grants provide funding for international travel and subsistence. You can use them to visit recognised non-UK centres to study new techniques and to travel from the UK to start or develop international collaborations.

There is no limit on amount of funding and no closing dates.

Salary and indirect costs

In addition to travel and subsistence, the principal investigator can request funds to cover their salary and indirect costs. But funding is not available through this scheme to specifically support sabbatical absences or conference attendance. Consumables and equipment (e.g. laptops) are not covered under this scheme.

Number of people

The OTG should normally be for the support of the named principal investigator only. Support for other staff such as PhD students and researcher co-investigators can be requested although their inclusion should be fully justified.

Timing and the length of the grant

There is no upper limit on the length of grant.

If the funding decision for an OTG comes after the requested start date of the grant, the funding cannot be backdated. EPSRC do not allow any expenditure incurred before the announcement date to be charged to the grant. So please ensure you leave enough time for processing, which is currently at least 12 weeks before the proposed visit.

Where can you go

As long as the visit is to a recognised research centre there are no restrictions on which countries can be visited. If you need a visa to enter a country, you can include the cost of obtaining a visa in your proposal. But OTGs are exclusively for travel abroad, outside the UK. However you can apply for funding for researchers from abroad to visit the UK as a visiting researcher on a research grant proposal.

Linking OTG proposals to an existing ESPRC research grant

You do not need to link an OTG proposal to an existing EPSRC research grant. But there is an expectation that any new techniques learned or collaborations formed may lead to future research proposals.

OTGs and first grants

An applicant who has been a Principle Investigator on an OTG would be eligible to apply for a first grant. Applying for an OTG does not affect eligibility for the first grant scheme.

Support for researchers applying to Framework Programme 7

You can use overseas travel grants to help UK researchers to start or foster international collaborations to develop high-quality bids to Framework Programme 7 (FP7). Your application should address how the grant will help develop collaborations with European researchers for a FP7 bid.

Who can apply

Overseas travel grants (OTGs) are open to any full-time investigator employed by a recognised UK research organisation (excluding PhD students and PDRAs). Our funding guide gives full details of eligibility of organisations and individuals.

How to apply

You can apply for travel and subsistence, salary costs of the principal investigator for time spent on the grant, and indirect costs. There are no closing dates and you can apply at any time. You can apply for funding to visit one centre or several centres.

You should submit your proposal through the research councils’ joint electronic submission (Je-S) system. Select document type ‘standard proposal’ and scheme ‘overseas travel grant’. As these are usually smaller grants than standard responsive mode applications, it may not be appropriate for your description of the proposed research to fill the allocated 6 sides A4. Please complete as much as required to fully justify your intended visit.


Proposals are assessed through our peer review process. If a proposal gets supportive referees’ comments, funding may be approved without consideration at a prioritisation panel. We try to provide a fast turnaround for these proposals but advise you to apply at least 12 weeks before the proposed visit.

More information

If you would like to discuss a possible proposal, or if you have any questions regarding applications for funding to develop collaborations for FP7 proposals than please search our staff contacts to find the person responsible for your research area. We cannot supply examples of successful OTG applications as these proposals have been submitted to us in confidence.

The RKE Operations team can help you with your application.

British Heart Foundation – Funding opportunities

There are two health/medical science related funding opportunities available through the British Heart Foundation.

The first is ‘Clinical Study Grants (click the link for more information on how to apply).  A summary of the call is as follows:

For clinical trials and other clinical studies costing more than £300,000.

Entry requirements

  • The principal investigator will be a senior researcher working in an established research institution in the UK. S/he must have a strong track record of grant support, usually from us, and an internationally recognised research profile.
  • Any multicentre interventional clinical trial, while remaining under the scientific control of the principal investigator, should be managed by a UKCRC-registered Clinical Trials Unit (CTU) and should include a member of the CTU as a co-applicant or principal investigator.
  • For multicentre observational studies, applicants should consider a mentorship arrangement with a CTU — BHF will judge the need for this arrangement on a case by case basis.

Grant duration

Up to 5 years, with an interim review at the half way point. BHF may consider a staged award based on proof of adequate recruitment and progress if deemed appropriate. 

Award may include

  • Staff salaries. For example: research fellow, clinical trial co-ordinator, research nurse, where fully justified.  
  • Research consumables directly attributable to the project.
  • Research equipment essential for the project.


The second opportunity is ‘Immediate postdoctoral basic science research fellowships’ (click the link for more information on how to apply).  A summary of the call is as follows:

To provide an opportunity for the most promising newly qualified postdoctoral researchers to make an early start in developing their independent cardiovascular research careers in an established institution in the UK.

Entry requirements

  • Candidates should be in the final year of their PhD studies or have no more than one year of postdoctoral research experience from the date of the PhD viva.
  • Candidates must be able to show, by publications or otherwise, evidence of exceptional research ability.
  • The fellowship will not usually be held in the institution where the PhD was carried out.
  • Residency requirements apply – check eligibility.

Grant duration

  • 3 years with the possibility of a 1 year extension if a strong case can be made (e.g. that this will lead to a competitive application for a more senior personal award).
  • BHF strongly encourage that up to 1.5 years of the award are spent overseas or in a second UK institution.
  • A supervisor is required in each laboratory, who must be able to guarantee the candidate access to space and resources for the required period and provide relevant scientific guidance.

Award may include

  • Salary of applicant.
  • Reasonable research consumables and small items of equipment, directly attributable to the project.
  • Economy return travel costs to second laboratory for the fellow only.  


Decision process for both calls

There are no closing dates.  Please submit the application when it is ready.

 The RKE Operations team can help you with your application.

Fusion Investment Fund Applications Closed

Thank you for all your applications to the Fusion Investment Fund!  

The committees are meeting in July to decide which proposals will receive funding and Prof. Matthew Bennett will be in touch to relay these decisions to all of our applicants.

I will be posting to the Research Blog details about the proposals that do secure funding.  If you do not manage to get funded in this round there will be a further opportunity to apply to the fund again in December when we will open to proposals again.  I do hope that you will apply again particularly if this is the first time you have applied for funding. 

If you wish to develop your skills then we have a Grants Academy that can help.  The Academy recruits members to develop their potential for securing funds internal and external, you should be able to find all the information you need here.  The Academy is managed by Caroline o Kane who will also be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Finally thank you for your interest in the Fund!

Sam Furr

Connecting with Canada

Week commencing 18 June saw me attending a research retreat at the University of Saskatchewan, Canada, building on successful collaboration with Canadian colleagues (via 2 CIHR development grants) established around 5 years ago my colleague Professor Debra Morgan is now leading a large programme grant application to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) which would allow for comparative work to be conducted in Dorset and Canada around community based dementia services. As well as academic meetings discussing the content, focus and budgetary implications of the programme of work there was a one day ‘Stakeholder’ event where decision makers debated the merits of the four strands of the programme of proposed work. This was a fantastic example of public engagement in writing a programme grant and the opening presentation I gave about the UK dementia strategies and implementation plans were very well received. It is always good to have synergy between work going on in different places and to learn from one another. Canadian colleagues were very complimentary about the policy level work that has been established within the UK, but some of the practical initiatives occuring in rural Canada are very much at the forefront of quality dementia care provision. Here’s hoping we secure the grant award!

Tapping into US and Canadian Funding Streams

I currently work in the research field exploring interprofessional collaboration and training.
Whilst a hot topic in the early 2000s in the UK and Europe, there is a dearth of funding for this topic currently and a lack of recognition in funding streams (including European funding) of its importance in the patient safety and safeguarding agendas. The opposite is true in US and Canada as exemplified by the multimillion support by CIHR in Canada for this area over the past 5 years and the recent commitment this month of $8.6 million by the US Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, and The John A. Hartford Foundation to accelerate team work and collaboration amongst health professionals and break down the traditional silo-approach to health professions education.
There is a need for BU to tap into these US and Canadian funding streams. We have recently had some success in this.
A team lead by BU recently submitted a bid for an international research network area to the ESRC with colleagues from the University of Western Cape, South Africa, Rhode Island, US, University of New Brunswick and British Colombia, Canada and Universities of Southampton, Huddersfield, Nottingham here in the UK. Not unexpectedly, this was blown out the water. We subsequently submitted the same application, to run ¼ of the same activity to the Canadian Research Council equivalent (CIHR) and have been notified today of its success.
Moral of the story: go to the funding streams interested in your area of research even if these are in other countries. US and the Canada have Interprofessional collaboration and education very high on their agendas. Through our international networks, BU is able to tap into these funding streams effectively and get the same work done. Result! Interested to hear others experiences of US and Canadian funders.

Fusion Investment Fund – It is almost time to submit applications

Good morning!

This week I have received enquiries from colleagues trying to locate the Fusion Investment Fund application form.

The FIF application form is available here, please remember to submit your applications by 2:00pm on Sunday 1st July.

I would also like to clarify that the only costings which should be on the forms are salaries and research costs – not any overheads, as this is a BU-funded scheme.

For clarification please see the Fusion Investment Fund FAQs V4. 

Best of luck!

Sam Furr

Fusion Investment Fund – It is almost time to submit applications – 1st July Deadline!

Criteria for the Fusion Investment Fund have now been compiled

Good Morning! The last few weeks have been a flurry of activity; Friday saw the last Fusion Investment Fund Telephone surgery, with the opportunity for applicants to review their drafts with Matthew before they submit proposals.

I also published the FAQs for the Fusion Investment Fund on Tuesday and do hope you have had the opportunity to review these.  The Criteria by which committee groups will judge the applications is included so it is an essential read if you plan to apply to the fund.  Click the link to see the FAQs FIF V3.

The final thing for me to say is I really look forward to receiving your applications and want to remind you that the deadline is the 1st July (This Sunday) we will not be extending the deadline.

Best of Luck!


To apply to the fund please your application forms to


BRIAN is now live but due to the enormous amount of data that has been imported into it from several different sources ready for the launch, it’s taking its time to populate all fields on the external site.  Therefore, please can I ask that you don’t log in to BRIAN until Monday so that the system has the weekend to pull all of the information in?  This also means that you should not click on the link in the top right-hand corner that says ‘Click here to find out more about BRIAN’ as this goes to the log in page.  If you want to find out more about BRIAN then click here.

As said in a previous Blog, your publications will be imported from a number of data sources.  You will have a number of existing publications imported from BURO and in addition to this, BRIAN will now import from online databases, for example, Web of Science.  BRIAN is clever enough to match and authenticate any publication pulled in from an online database with a duplicate from BURO.  In order to allow the system time to authenticate these for everyone, we will not switch on the automatic emails informing you of publications to approve until Monday.

One of the benefits of BRIAN is that it allows you control of your external profile pages.  If you have an existing profile page then your information has been manually input into BRIAN as far as possible.  As of next week, external people will be directed to your new profile page.  However, we will leave your current profile page available for you to view so that you can compare them if you wish.  These will be available for the next three weeks only.  A reminder will be sent out the week before these are switched off.

User Guides are available on BRIAN for you to look at on Monday.  I will write an article next week on additional functions that BRIAN will perform in the near future.

Thank you for your patience.  If you have any queries regarding BRIAN, please email

Fusion Investment Fund Applications – Three weeks to go!

I would like to remind you of the deadline for applications to the Fusion Investment Fund, which is the 1st July. 

Last Fusion Investment Fund Workshops – Places are still available!

Many of your colleagues have attended these workshop sessions in the last two weeks, bringing along draft proposals to show Matthew Bennett and his team of academics.  I attended the surgery session on Thursday 7th June, meeting colleagues taking the opportunity to attend and ask for specific advice and pointers from Matthew on how to make their applications stand out from the crowd. 

Please be aware we re-scheduled the Study Leave Workshop – This is now taking place on Wednesday 13th June

Study Leave Workshop:

Wednesday 13th June 2012, 09:00-10:00 – PG146, Thomas Hardy Suite (TC).

This workshop will provide academics preparing proposals for study leave funding with the opportunity to discuss issues around study leave, the contractual/HR side of the arrangements, and the benefits of undertaking study leave. The workshop will be lead by Matthew Bennett with support from HR and a couple of BU academics with experience of taking study leave as part of their careers. Max of 30 attendees.

The Last Fusion Investment Fund surgery:

Friday 22th June 2012, 12:00-14:00 – P403, Poole House (TC)

These surgeries will provide academics preparing proposals for one of the FIF strands with the opportunity to bring their ideas and drafts to discuss with Matthew Bennett and a team of Professors and to test out what makes a good, fundable proposal with a competitive edge. Max of 30 attendees per session.

  • Booking onto a session is easy, simply click the link to be taken to Staff Development bookings page.


Applying to the fund.

 To apply to the fund please see the information here on our intranet pages.

 If you have any queries about the fund please email

Best of luck!


Talk on Software Platforms for Evolving Predictive Systems, wednesday 13th June 14:00, Lawrence Lecture Theatre

Our next external speaker of the STRC seminar series will be Mr . Tobiasz Dworak. The talk will take place on Wednesday, 13th of June in Lawrence Lecture Theatre at 14:00 h
Tobiasz is a highly experience Project Manager and Software Developer in the International Company Research & Engineering Center (REC-global)
I think that those of you involved in software design and development would like to hear this Seminar.
The title of the talk is: “Current state of INFER platform software. (Hands on demo)”
“I will be presenting current state of the INFER (Computational Intelligence Platform for Evolving and Robust Predictive Systems) software with emphasis on new model of predictive elements. Additionally I’ll draft further of INFER core and present live demo of the software. Open discussion will take part after the presentation. I’d like to hear wishes from all potential users of INFER”.
Best Wishes, Emili