http://www.ukro.ac.uk/mariecurie

Marie Curie Industry-Academia Partnerships and Pathways

UK NCP for Marie Curie

mariecurie-uk@bbsrc.ac.uk

Session overview

• UKRO and the NCP

• Policy background and description of actions

• Financial issues

• Submission and evaluation of proposals

• Success rates

UK

Res

earc

h O

ffic

e –

MC

NC

P

UK Research Office

• Based in Brussels, Established in 1984,

• Staff of 13

• Sponsored by the seven UK Research Councils

• Receives subscriptions from over 140 research organisations

• Range of services for sponsors and subscribers

• Research Council policy work

• Brussels liaison

• For more information see www.ukro.ac.uk

UK

Res

earc

h O

ffic

e

To promote effective UK engagement in EU research, innovation and higher education activities

UKRO’s ServicesU

K R

esea

rch

Off

ice

‘Core’ subscriber services Open to non-subscribers

Query service (Majority of) training courses and information events

Annual briefing visits

(for UK subscribers)

Annual Conference

News updates

ims.ukro.ac.uk

Marie Curie UK National Contact Point

Subscriber website

www.ukro.ac.uk/subs

European Research Council UK National Contact Point

Meeting room in Brussels British Council

European RTD Insight publication

Marie Curie NCP - helpdesk• Web, email, telephone, visits

• http://www.ukro.ac.uk/mariecurie/index.htm

• mariecurie-uk@bbsrc.ac.uk

• Tel: +32 2 230 0318

• Advice on applying for MC actions:• Eligibility

• Application help

• Results

• Contractual issues

• Advice to those with MC contracts:• Social security and tax

• Model agreements between host and fellow

• Contractual issuesUK

Res

earc

h O

ffic

e –

MC

NC

P

http://www.ukro.ac.uk/mariecurie

Framework Programme 7 and the ‘People’ specific programme

UK NCP for Marie Curie

mariecurie-uk@bbsrc.ac.uk

Policy Background

• FP7 is designed to achieve the EU2020 and Barcelona objectives and to complement activities in Member States.

• Support to the European Research Area • Innovation Union• Budget of €50 521 million• Complementarity with other EC programmes:

• Competitiveness and Innovation• Education and Training• Structural Funds

FP

7 –

Po

licy

Bac

kgro

un

d

Who is eligible for funding?

EU-27Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria , Cyprus, Czech Republic,Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, UK

Associated Countries (FP7)Albania*, Croatia*, Faroe Islands*, FYR Macedonia*,

Iceland*, Israel*,Liechtenstein*, Montenegro*, Norway*, Serbia*, Switzerland,Turkey*, Bosnia Herzegovina*

*except Euratom

FP

7 O

verv

iew

Country eligibility F

P7

FP7 Specific Programmes

Co-operation – Collaborative Research

European Research Council

Marie Curie Actions

Capacities – Research Capacity

Fra

mew

ork

Pro

gra

mm

e 7

JRC EURATOM

Objectives and Policy Context:

• Make Europe more attractive to researchers• Structuring effect on the European Research Area

through transnational and intersectoral mobility in order to create a European labour market for researchers

• Strengthen human potential by:• Encouraging people to become researchers• Encouraging researchers to carry out their research

in Europe

• Trans-national and inter-sectoral mobility• €4.7 Billion

Marie Curie Actions F

P7

– M

arie

Cu

rie

Act

ion

s

Principles

• Skills and competence development at all stages of researcher’s career

• Open to all research areas addressed under the Treaty plus possibility of targeted calls

• Strong participation from enterprises• Reinforce international dimension• Appropriate gender and work/life balance• Good working environment, transparent

recruitment and career development

FP

7 –

Mar

ie C

uri

e A

ctio

ns

Overview of Marie Curie ActionsP

eopl

e S

peci

fic P

rogr

amm

e

Actions for Organisations

Actions for Individuals

Initial Training Networks

Industry Academia Partnerships and Pathways

International Research Staff Exchange Scheme

CO-FUND

Intra- European Fellowships

International Incoming Fellowships

International Outgoing Fellowships

Career Integration Grants

Also funded: Researcher’s Night

2011 Deadlines

Industry Academia Partnerships and Pathways (IAPP)

20 July 2010 – 7 December 2010

Researchers’ Night 28 September 2010 – 12 January 2011

Initial Training Networks (ITN) 20 July 2010 – 26 January 2011

COFUND 20 October 2010 – 17 February 2011

Career Integration Grants (CIG) 20 October 2010 – 8 March 2011 and 6 September 2011

International Research Staff Exchange Scheme (IRSES)

20 October 2010 – 17 March 2011

Intra- European Fellowships (IEF)

International Incoming Fellowships (IIF)

International Outgoing Fellowships (IOF)

16 March 2011 – 11 August 2011

FP

7 –

Peo

ple

– M

arie

Cu

rie

IAPPs – 2011 call info

• Publication date: 20 July 2010• Call deadline: 7 December 2010

• Indicative budget: €80 million

• Indicative timetable:• Results expected 4 months after deadline• Grants agreement signature from 9 months after

deadline

FP

7 –

Mar

ie C

urie

- IA

PP

Definition of researchers

Early-Stage Researchers 0 - 4 years (FTE)

from obtaining degree that qualified them to embark on a doctorate

Experienced Researchers i) in possession of a PhD

or

i) at least 4 years experience (FTE)

FP

7 –

Mar

ie C

urie

Act

ions

Transnational Mobility Requirements• Must not have been resident in host country for more

that 12 months in the last 3 years date of recruitment or secondment

• Researchers can return to the country of their nationality if the mobility rule is respected

• For international organisations the country mobility rule does not apply – BUT the fellow must not have spent more that 12 months in the previous 3 years at the host international organisation.

• Note – IOF 3rd country nationals have to have spent 5 years before the deadline in Member States or countries associated to FP7

FP

7 –

Mar

ie C

urie

Act

ions

http://www.ukr

Industry Academia Partnerships and Pathways (IAPPs)

IAPPs in contextF

P7

– M

arie

Cur

ie -

IAP

P

“In the context of the 'Innovation Union' flagship initiative, inter-sectoral mobility between academia and industry continues to be a priority as a means to improve cooperation between the two sectors and to eliminate cultural and other mobility barriers. At the same time it plays a structuring role by allowing researchers to acquire key skills which are equally relevant to the public and private sectors.”

Indicative budget share for IAPPS 2007-2013 = 5-10% of overall people budget

What is an Industry–Academia Pathways and Partnership?

FP

7 –

Mar

ie C

urie

- IA

PP

• It is a two-way partnership with at least one commercial enterprise and one academic organisation in two different Member or Associated Countries

• Includes secondments, recruitment and networking activities

• Project can be up to 48 months• Majority of researcher months should be

secondments

What is an Industry–Academia Pathways and Partnership?

FP

7 –

Mar

ie C

urie

- IA

PP

• An IAPP aims to increase industry-academia co-operation by:

• Supporting the creation, development, reinforcement and execution of strategic partnerships

• Creating diverse career possibilities and experience for researchers

• Knowledge sharing/cultural exchange, especially SMEs

• Aiming for longer term co-operation between both sectors

What can you do with an IAPP?F

P7

– M

arie

Cur

ie -

IAP

P

• Staff exchange (mandatory) – experienced researchers, early-stage researchers (and possibly technical staff and research managers!) for between 2 months and 2 years

• Recruit experienced researchers for between 12 months and 2 years (optional)

• Organise common workshops/conferences• Inter-sectoral mobility possible, within framework of

whole project, in same country up to a maximum of 30% of total researcher months

• For SMEs, a contribution towards small equipment costs (up to 10% of project total)

Definitions of eligible organisationsF

P7

– M

arie

Cur

ie -

IAP

P

Each IAPP must involve at least one university/research centre in the non-commercial sector and at least one entity from the commercial sector. An IAPP project can be co-ordinated by a partner from either of the two sectors

Commercial sector partners:• must be organisations operating on a commercial

enterprise, gaining the majority of their revenue through competitive means with exposure to commercial markets.

• may include: incubators; start-ups; spin-offs; venture-capital companies; etc.

• may range in size from the smallest- micro-companies with research capacity to very large multi-national enterprises

Definitions of eligible organisationsF

P7

– M

arie

Cur

ie -

IAP

P

Non-commercial sector partners can include;

• National organisations, e.g., universities, public non-commercial research centres

• Non-profit or charitable organisations (e.g., NGOs, trusts, etc.)

• International European interest organisations (e.g. CERN)• The Joint Research Centre of the European Commission• Other international organisations (e.g. WHO, UNESCO,

etc.)

Statistics (1)

2007 2008 2009

Submitted 103 141 358

Evaluated 102 141 356

Selected 41 51 59

Budget (M Euro)

38.5 45 65

Success rate 40 % 36 % 16.6 %

FP

7 –

Mar

ie C

urie

- IA

PP

Industry/Academia ratio (A list)

Participants Coord.

Industry 131 (54%) 23 (24%)

Academia 110 (46%) 36 (76%)

SME participation

Participants Coord.

Total 536 (36.4 %) 81 (22.8 %)

A list 78 (32.4 %) 11 (18.6 %)

Statistics (2)F

P7

– M

arie

Cur

ie -

IAP

P

FP

7 –

Mar

ie C

urie

- IA

PP

Funded Projects (1)Chemistry: FOLDAPPI Scientific Goal: to investigate potential of foldamers to disrupt

protein-protein interactions. Partners:2 pharmaceutical companies, 2 universities, 4 member

states – France, Germany, UK, BelgiumDuration: 4 yearsEC contribution: €1.1m

Economics: QUARISMA (Quality & risk management in food chains)Scientific goal: to stimulate more sustainable development in the

European meat sector and mobilise the scientific knowledge necessary for this.

Partners: 2 industry, 2 universities, 2 member states – Germany, Netherlands

Duration: 4 yearsEC contribution: €2.3m

FP

7 –

Mar

ie C

urie

- IA

PP

Funded Projects (2)Life Sciences: OXYSENSEA biosensor, image analysis, and work flow system platform for the

study of neuronal injury and assessment of cellular bioenergeticsPartners: 2 industry, 2 academic, 3 member states – Ireland,

Germany, AustriaDuration: 4 yearsEU contribution:€580,000

Engineering: DECADE (Development of Efficient and Robust Controllers for Advanced Energy Systems)

Project vision: to transfer knowledge related to the development, design, operation & control of advanced energy systems that provide the central elements of a sustainable energy strategy in which energy (heat) and electricity are produce and used in the most economically attractive, robust and efficient way.

Partners: 2 industry, 2 academic, 4 member states/associated countries – Macedonia, UK, Hungary, Greece

Duration: 4 yearsEU contribution: €760,000

Financial Issues

Cost Category Comparison F

P7

– M

arie

Cur

ie

Former Cost Categories

Eligible expenses for the activities carried out by the researcher

Eligible expenses for the activities carried out by the host organisations

- A -

Monthly living and mobility allowance

- B -

Travel

Allowance

- C -

Career

exploratory allowance

- D–

Contribution

to the participation expenses of

eligible researchers

- E -

Contribution

to the research/ training

/transfer of knowledge programme expenses

-F -

Contribution

to the organisation

of international conferences, workshops and events

- G -

Management

activities (including

audit certification if applicable)

- H -

Contribution to overheads

- I -

Other

types of eligible

expenses / specific condition

s

Cost Categories from 2011 Work Programme

- 1 -

Monthly living

allowance

- 2 -

Monthly Mobility

allowance

- 3 -

Contribution to the training

expenses of eligible researchers

and research/transfer of

knowledge programme expenses

- 4 -

Management

activities (including audit certification if

applicable)

- 5 -

Contribution to

overheads

- 6 -

Other types of

eligible expenses / specific conditions

• Category 1:• Living allowance (including salary)

Correction factor applied

• Category 2:• Mobility allowance

Without family: €700 per month

With family: €1000 per month

Correction factor applied

• Category 3: • Training / research expenses of eligible researchers

€1800 per research per month

*Category 3 also includes costs for the host

FP

7 –

Mar

ie C

urie

- R

ates

Allowance rates - IAPP

Researcher Living Allowance for IAPP

Experience Stipend(€/yr)

Employment contract (€/yr)

Early-Stage researchers

50% of full rate

38,000

Experienced researchers (< 10yrs)

58,500

Experienced Researchers (>10yrs)

87,500

FP

7 –

Mar

ie C

urie

- R

ates

Salaries are inclusive of all compulsory deductionsCorrection factor applied for cost of living (UK Co-efficient now 120.3%)

Benefits for the institution – IAPP

• Category 3: • Contribution to Research/Training/Transfer of Knowledge

€1800 per research per month

*Category 3 also includes costs for the researcher

• Category 4: • Management Activities

Maximum 10% of the total EC contribution

• Category 5: • Contribution to overheads

10% of direct costs except for subcontractors

• Category 6: • Other types of eligible expenses – Small equipment cost for SME. Up

to 10% their budget

FP

7 –

Mar

ie C

urie

- R

ates

How do the finances work?

Basic principle = funding follows researcher but is intended to be flexible

• Budget for each partner calculated on the basis of incoming researchers, i.e., the researchers recruited or received in secondment by the organisation

• Administrative flexibility in terms of who actually pays researcher – i.e., researcher may remain on payroll of sending organisation to provide continuity of pension payments

• Financial arrangements will be part of negotiation process with Commission & must be detailed in consortium agreement

• Secondees should be on employment contracts with host institution unless for short stays or they continue to receive usual salary from home organisation during secondment.

FP

7 –

Mar

ie C

uri

e A

ctio

ns

http://www.ukro.ac.uk

Submission and Evaluation

Proposal Submission

• All submission done onlineContact the EC if there are compelling reasons for why

you are unable to submit online

• Electronic Proposal Submission Service (EPSS) • Is available

• Meet the deadline!

MC

A –

Su

bm

issi

on

& E

valu

atio

ns

Outline of the Process

Call fichePublished

Proposal submitted

Evaluation Process Notification

Ofresults

Contract negotiation

Contract signature

ProjectStart

MC

A –

Su

bm

issi

on

& E

valu

atio

ns

Eligibility

Individual Evaluation

Consensus

Thresholds

Ranking by Commission

Negotiation

NegativeResult

Ethical Issues

CommissionFunding Decision

Proposal

Rejection

Rejection

Rejection

Evaluation ProcessM

CA

– S

ub

mis

sio

n &

Eva

luat

ion

s

Publication of call 20-07-2010

Deadline for submission of proposals

7 December 2010 at 17.00.00,Brussels local time

Evaluation of proposals Mid March-2011

Evaluation Summary Reports sent toproposal coordinators ("initialinformation letter")

End April-2011

Invitation letter to successfulcoordinators to launch grant agreementnegotiations with REA services

Mid June-2011

Letter to unsuccessful applicants From August-2011

Signature of first grant agreements From September-2011

Process timetableM

CA

– S

ub

mis

sio

n &

Eva

luat

ion

s

Admin information in……

• PART A provides participant details and the information for the budget estimation • A1 – Proposal information (abstract, acronym,

evaluation panel etc)• A2 – Information on host organisation. Coordinator is

Participant 1• A3 – Not for IAPPs • A4 – Number of fellows. Includes details for seconded

and recruited researchers• A5 – Not for IAPPs

FP

7 –

Mar

ie C

urie

– Y

our

Pro

posa

l

Your project is mainly defined in ….

…PART B of the proposal forms(Part A is administrative

info)

• PART B addresses the evaluation criteria• …which vary according to MCA• …and have different weightings and thresholds

• General structure of Part B for individual fellowships is:• Cover Page, Table of Contents• S & T Quality • Transfer of Knowledge • Implementation • Impact

FP

7 –

Mar

ie C

uri

e –

Yo

ur

Pro

po

sal

Evaluation of proposals

• Evaluation by competent experts in the field

• Need to address all of the issues to maximise scores

• Total score is 100%

• Overall threshold (70%)

• Some criteria have a threshold

• Each area is weighted

• Science counts for 25%; Impact counts for 30%!!

• You must focus on the objectives of the activity to be successful

MC

A –

Su

bm

issi

on

& E

valu

atio

ns

European Charter and Code

• European Charter for Researchers addresses:• Roles and responsibilities• Entitlements • of researchers and their employers or funding

organisations.

• Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers aims to:• improve recruitment and make selection procedures

fairer and more transparent• proposes different means of judging merit

MC

A –

Su

bm

issi

on

& E

valu

atio

ns

Maximising Your Chances of Success

What does the Commission want?

A project that matches “their” objectives:

“This action seeks to open and foster dynamic pathways between public research organisations and private commercial enterprises, in particular SMEs, including traditional manufacturing industries, based on longer term co-operation programmes with a high potential for increasing knowledge-sharing and mutual understanding of the different cultural settings and skill requirements of both the industrial and academic sectors.

The action will be implemented through targeted and flexible support for human resources interactions within co-operation programmes between at least two organisations, one from each sector and from at least 2 different Member States or Associated countries”

Text taken from 2009 People Work Programme

M

arie

Cu

rie

– W

hat

’s r

equ

ired

IAPPS – Part B

Transfer of knowledge 20%

S & T Quality 25%

Researcher N/A

Implementation

25% Impact 30%

FP

7 –

Peo

ple

– M

arie

Cu

rie

3/5

3/5

3/5

No threshold

Overall threshold 70%

MCA – S&T Quality

Sub-criteria : 3/5 25%

• Scientific/technological objectives of the research programme, including in terms of intersectoral issues• Scientific quality of the joint collaborative research programme• Appropriateness of the research methodology• Originality and innovative aspect of the research programme. Knowledge of state-of-the-art

FP

7 –

Peo

ple

– M

arie

Cu

rie

Assessors’ comments on S & T quality: positive

• The project is very challenging and innovative• The involvement of the private sector is meaningful and

complementary to the academic partners• The proposal is genuinely inter-sectoral and interdisciplinary• Science and Technological objects are clearly described and

detailed• Valuable and innovative scientific advances with respect to the

state-of –the-art are envisaged• The research methodology is appropriate, comprehensive and

well-planned• The research programme and methodology are very well

detailed and integrated with the envisaged transfer of knowledge and training.

M

arie

Cu

rie

– W

hat

’s r

equ

ired

Assessors’ comments on S & T quality: negative

• The research programme lacks a detailed list of workpackages, timetable and particular involvement of each partner is not specifically included.

• The project is not very original since it is based on previous results obtained by academic partners.

• The project research methodology is not properly developed and lacks details as regards risk assessment, milestones and outcomes.

• Presents limited intersectoriality• No previous documented information – articles, scientifc

journals, conferences, and so on.

M

arie

Cu

rie

– W

hat

’s r

equ

ired

MCA – Transfer of Knowledge

Sub-criteria 3/5 20%

• Quality of the transfer of knowledge programme. Consistency with the research programme • Importance of the transfer of knowledge in terms of intersectoral issues.• Adequacy of the role of researchers exchanged and recruited from outside the partnership with respect to the transfer of knowledge programme.

FP

7 –

Peo

ple

– M

arie

Cu

rie

Assessors’ comments on Transfer of Knowledge: positive

• Well-planned strategy for secondments and recruitments providing for effective knowledge transfer between public and private sectors

• The inter-sectoral secondments are planned in detail (names of researchers and scientific areas in which they will be involved)

• The involvement of ESRs in the secondment scheme is important for the advancement of their scientific careers

• The partners demonstrate sound capacity to receive and transfer knowledge; suitable scientific, training and complementary training course are planned

• The researchers who will be recruited have defined research tasks and the requested duration and time of recruitments is appropriate

• The human resources in the proposal are clear, relevant, consistent with the research, well justified and of high quality

M

arie

Cu

rie

– W

hat

’s r

equ

ired

Assessors’ comments on Transfer of Knowledge: negative

• Secondments are only indicated in terms of person/month within a table, but are not described in detail and no additional explanations are given.

• ToK referring to young researchers is not addressed in sufficient detail.

• There is only a limited consistency between the research programme and ToK due to the vague description of the latter.

• Transfer of knowledge is unbalanced with too much emphasis on academic research

• Importance of ToK in terms of intersectorialty is not demonstrated as the industrial partner has limited participation in research

• The precise role in training of the industrial partner is not clearly described.

M

arie

Cu

rie

– W

hat

’s r

equ

ired

MCA – Implementation (1)

Sub-criteria 3/5 25%

• Capacities (expertise/human resources/facilities/infrastructures) to achieve the research and exchange of know-how and experience. Fit between capacity of host and size of support requested• Adequate exploitation of complementarities and synergies among partners in terms of transfer of knowledge.

FP

7 –

Peo

ple

– M

arie

Cu

rie

MCA – Implementation (2)

Sub-criteria 3/5 25%

• Appropriateness of management plans (recruitment strategy, IPR strategy, demarcation of responsibilities, rules for decision making, etc. • How essential is non-ICPC Third Country participation, if any, to the objectives of the research programme.

FP

7 –

Peo

ple

– M

arie

Cu

rie

Assessors’ comments on Implementation: positive

• The partners are complementary and well-suited for the envisaged research and ToK

• The key scientific staff involved are experienced and have an appropriate level of involvement

• Project management and risk assessment are well-structured and approached

• The envisaged work plan is very well thought out and structured, with detailed and suitable deliverables, clear allocation of roles and effective progress reporting measures

• IP generated under this project will be carefully managed and the strategy takes carefully into account development perspectives of the industrial partner

• Facilities and infrastructures are up-to-date and suitable for the project outcomes.

M

arie

Cu

rie

– W

hat

’s r

equ

ired

Assessors’ comments on Implementation: negative

• Secondments are not sufficiently specified• Some aspects of management structure are not described in

detail• The management plan is scarcely defined in some points• Time commitment of the co-ordinator to project activities is

limited• Recruitment strategy and its contribution to research activities

is not detailed• The technical background of the academic partners is not clear• It is not sufficiently detailed on the point of capacities,

specifically in regard to scientific expertise, facilities and infrastructures, to achieve a real experience and know-how exchange

• IPR aspects are unclear.

M

arie

Cu

rie

– W

hat

’s r

equ

ired

MCA – Impact

Sub-criteria

No threshold – but 30%

• Provision to develop new intersectoral and lasting collaboration• Strategy for the dissemination and facilitation of sharing of knowledge and culture between the particpants and external researchers (inc. international conferences, workshops, training events)• Extent to which SMEs contribute to the project• In case of SMEs participation: Adequacy of the available infrastructures for the performance of the project. In case extra equipment is requested, necessity & justification in the context of the partnership.•Impact of proposed outreach activities

FP

7 –

Peo

ple

– M

arie

Cu

rie

Assessors’ comments on Impact: positive

• The project plans for the lasting collaboration between the partners in a field that is still not widely exploited.

• The circulation of information and the exploitation of results is well addressed

• There are possible and promising exploitation routes for the planned results

• It can be foreseen that new and fruitful collaboration will ensue• Dissemination strategy is accurately designed and has

appropriate targets; tools are adequate and of excellent quality• The potential impact of the project is relevant, with a clear

European dimension.

M

arie

Cu

rie

– W

hat

’s r

equ

ired

Assessors’ comments on Impact: negative

• The intersectoriality of the project is not described in detail in terms of future collaborations; indeed, it is specifically mentioned that lasting collaboration will only be foreseen in the case of developing a spin-off project

• Contribution of the SME to the project is limited• Standardisation aspects are not properly addressed• Possible commercial impact, in particular through SME, not

addressed.• Central role of SME is stressed but the need for key extra

equipment seems to contradict the present adequacy and availability of infrastructure

• Details of application are not well described.

M

arie

Cu

rie

– W

hat

’s r

equ

ired

Hints & Tips

Approaching your project proposal writing

• Keep the Guide for Applicants in front of you • Treat the criteria as examination questions• Think about the way your write

• Brainstorm each section• Then focus on a section at a time

• Plan your proposal writing • Remember ethics table even if no issues• Remember B7 table – half page per beneficiary

on host capacities

FP

7 –M

arie

Cu

rie

– H

ints

& T

ips

Approaching your project proposal writing

• It will feel repetitive – addressing issues from different angles

• Stick to the page limit• Think about your evaluators

• Clearly address the main objectives• Use clear and concise language• Explain country specific jargon• Provide them with the evidence they need

• Find colleagues to read it through

FP

7 –M

arie

Cu

rie

– H

ints

& T

ips

Further Information

UKRO NCP website:

http://www.ukro.ac.uk/mariecurie/index.htm

Queries on the schemes:mariecurie-uk@bbsrc.ac.uk

Tel: +32 2 230 0318; Fax +32 2 230 4803

Other useful websites:

http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/people/home_en.html

FP

7 –

Mar

ie C

uri

e A

ctio

ns