Per Team

• BUK02 BoGu
  • Sida funding
    • Travel grants
    • Sandwich programme
    • Scientific equipment
• KENpost Ab
  • Review meeting with team leader in Stockholm Sept 2022. With Cecilia & xxx
• RWA01 ThMu
  • RWA:01-IPICS Reference Group overview feedback 08 Oct 2021
    • General Comments
      -The application is an improvement in comparison to the previous one.
      -The new MSc program is a welcome development, but initiating a local PhD program need to be preceded by acquiring stronger supervision capacity.
      -The direction involving biochar seems far-fetched in relation to earlier studies, the connection between analytes targeted in the pollution studies and the candidates for remediation is unclear.
      -The long-term plan is reasonable, but publication quality needs to increase.
      Recommendation-The focus of the planned work is too broad, and would benefit from being narrowed down.
      -Find an additional PhD student for a sandwich program with a cooperating partner (maybe in the region, in South Africa or with ANCAP partners), while developing the local supervision capacity in the MSc program.
      –A closer follow up of plans and outcomes is needed.
      -Continued funding for three years on a suitable level.
    • Overall Comments
      -Overall, applications show improvements compared to earlier years, but still there is need for further improvements and modifications.-
      The 3/6/9-year vision is well thought through by many applicants, but not all.
      -SRG recommendations are taken into account better than in previous applications, but also here there is room for further improvement.-Few applications take a starting point in the achievements of the previous granting period.-In many cases, “objectives” are still confused with “actions” and “measures”.-Literature is better referred to compared to earlier years, but is not always used to frame relevant knowledge gaps to support the proposed research plan.-There are many examples of good gender equality promoting activities, but in most cases increased efforts are needed.-In many cases, attracting post graduate students seems still to be a challenge.General Feedback and DiscussionIPICS Sci. Ref. Group (SRG) 8 Oct 2021
    • Overall Recommendations
      -Improve research plans, referring both to literature and to own previous results, and, based on this, identify knowledge gaps to state well-motivated research questions/hypotheses, increasing the possibility of publishing the results in good journals, and to attract additional funding.-Do not use the term “heavy metals”, but rather “toxic metal species” or “toxic forms of metals”, as agreed by IUPAC.-ISP should move to require better planning of outcomes, in terms of e.g. graduations and publications, to be able to better follow up results.-ISP should introduce an application form better suited for those networks that doesn’t focus on scientific research activities.Regarding equipment: -Distinguish between “nice to have” and “need to have”.-Use available equipment as efficiently as possible, for multiple purposes.-Expand access to needed equipment with colleagues and cooperation partners.
• UGA01 JoWa & Florence
  • ROPE training during SRG meeting in Sthlm 2022.
• UGA02 EmTe
• ZIM01 StMu
  • ROPE training during SRG meeting in Sthlm 2022.
  • Local physical meetings / combined with zoom
    • Undergrads has Nov 2020, every two week
    • Agreed Nov 2022 postgraduate meetings every second
      Tues . one hour. Auxillia will coordinate to start with. present draft
      work and get comments by the team, manuscript, grant applications oral
      presentations.
  • We have on-line meeting 1st Tues every month with Stanley.
  • ISP monthly meetings on zoom
    • Start every meeting with sharing of success stories
  • Have a board with achievements.
  • ISP grant
  • Incorporate a session or two on research management, scientific network management and/or laboratory management in the 20th NAPRECA 2023 symposium
  • ISP Grant ZIM:01 Biochemistry Funding 3 years, 2023-2025
  •  
• ZIM02 NoBa
• ZAM01 OnMu
• ZAM02 JaNy
  • ROPE training during SRG meeting in Sthlm 2022.
  • General Feedback and Discussion IPICS SRG 29 September 2022
    • General Comments
      • –  Application templates are not always completely filled. This doesn’t seem to improve over years.
      • –  Sometimes the research/activity plan is incomplete and lacking. This doesn’t seem to improve over years.
      • –  The achievements of the previous granting period are sometimes not properly addressed, nor how the objectives have been reached – or why not. It is sensible to build the new application on what has and hasn’t been accomplished in the previous phase.
      • –  Applications that are not up to standards may need to be revised, even implying postponing support for a year.
      • –  ISP should do a better work to pre-screen applications, and invite only “good enough” applications to be presented.
      • –  When citing background literature, a larger degree of critical review of the referred literature is desirable, e.g. with regard to quality.
      • –  In presentations, it must be clearer where images come from, which are not own.
      • –  When reporting numbers (graduations, dissemination), it should be clarified what has been achieved with ISP support and what with other funding?
      • –  Make clear how PG students are supported, if that is the case, by ISP or other sources, such as own university.
      • –  Administrative costs should not be budgeted by research groups, but possibly “over head” costs. Over head costs should not be mixed up with institutional co- funding.
      • –  It seems that in some cases solvents such as hexane are used, which is a work environment hazard if not properly ventilated. (Heptane would be a better choice.)
      • –  The application covers a wide scope, without going into specifics. The research plan and objectives need to be described in more detail, including how do the PG students’ tasks interlink, and link to the objectives.
      • –  The scientific basis given is not entirely convincing.
      • –  There are a lot of clarifications needed. For example what is the rational of comparing the similar solvents methanol and ethanol?
      • –  The plant extracts, are they intended for prevention or cure of disease? (What means “anti-” ?). Is it realistic to have the outlined outcomes in three years?
      • –  The toxicity studies of the preparation appear to be the most sensible part of the intended work.
      • –  What about safe storage and use of chemicals? Handling of hexane? Is the use of hexane as a solvent suitable in perspective of the intended anti-cancer approach?
      • –  How are the team members scientifically connected and what are their functions?
      • –  The rate of publications is rather low and quality of publications needs to be ascertained.
      • –  The budget is unrealistic, dominated by administrative costs which is not supposed to be budgeted at all with research groups , but they should rather account for expected co-funding by their home institution. Still, to some extent university overhead can be accepted under the conditions given in the ISP guidelines, on funds transferred for local use. If the exaggerated administrative costs in the budget is due to a faulty ISP excel budget template, then the error should be corrected.
      • –  What are the outcome of the two years of funding so far?
        How has the time been used to prepare for a more solid application accounting for the feedback by the SRG from the 2019 meeting?

• ANEC IsTa
  • ISP Grant ANEC Electrochemistry Conditional 3 years, 2023-2025*
    • Comments RefGroup
      IPICS support to activities started: 2013
      Funding last three years (kSEK): 2020/ 375 2021/ 500 2022/ 500
      Requested funding (kSEK): 2023/ 2,724 2024/ 1,474 2025/ 1,102
      Proposed funding (kSEK): 2023/ 450 2024/ 450 2025/ 450
      The creation of the African Network of Electroanalytical Chemists came up from:
      • Visits and scientific contacts in Sweden in 2008 et 2009 by Pr. Issa Tapsoba, Burkina Faso
      • Scientific visits in 2010 by Pr. Issa Tapsoba in two laboratories in Cameroon (Dschang
      and Yaoundé I Universities)
      • Participation in October 2011 at the national symposium on analytical chemistry at
      Yaoundé, Cameroon, by Pr. Issa Tapsoba and Pr. Modou Fall
      • The network’s original application to ISP, positively evaluated in 2011, and supported
      from 2013.
      • The launching of ANEC activities during the 4th Federation of African Societies of
      Chemistry congress in Marrakech, Morocco, in May 2013, where a committee board was
      established.
      IPICS Scientific Reference Group overview assessment
      General Comments
      – There are concerns that some of the listed network members seem not to be active in the
      network, which essentially cantered around Burkina Faso, Cameroon and Senegal. This is
      not in itself a problem, but unclear. As the application currently stands, it will primarily
      benefit the central nodes, to less extent other active network members.
      – The descriptions of the scientific parts are unclear. Modifications and structures of MOF
      (metal-organic frameworks) are not well explained.
      – It seems that rather than advancing electrochemistry in Africa, the ambition is to find
      electrochemical solutions to various problems that have been identified.
      – Student movements are to only small extent within the network, it is mostly to external
      collaborators. There is too little information about the participating students.
      – There is a good gender balance at MSc level, but it needs to be improved at the PhD level,
      what is plan for accomplishing that?
      

      – How is the network structured and constituted? How often does the board meet and what
      do they decide? Can board minutes be appended to the application?
      – Have online facilities made meetings easier?
      – The budget excessive to IPICS.
      Recommendations
      – The network can receive continued funding, but the SRG requests an improved
      application by 31 October for a grant to be considered for 2023-2025. The application
      topic is good, but the scientific approach and its justification needs to be better described,
      in more detail, and a revised application should take into account the general comments by
      the SRG

• NABSA
• SEANAC
  • ISP grant. ISP (Peter) visits Dec 2022.
• NAPRECA Robert Byamukama
  

• 1022: I will be attending the Summer School together with Assistant Executive Secretary Dr. Jane Namukobe. We have partnered with COMSTECH in organising this summer school and several delegates will participate in facilitating some sessions of the Summer School. We shall also sign an MoU between NAPRECA and COMSTECH (The Ministerial Standing Committee on Scientific and Technological Cooperation of the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) during this Summer School.n This is therefore to request

  • 1. Request for the two air tickets. The details are given here (attached)and suggest that Hossein purchases the two air tickets. I am therefore sending the copy of the passport details of two staff members, airport of departure, departure and return dates, so that air tickets can be purchased from there by Mr. Hossein. 2. Request for the accommodation and this be sent to NAPRECA Kenya to pay them to the hotel.