What can be learned from previous evaluations?

Mikko Heino

Background

• Grant from Bergen Research Foundation, November 2007—October 2011– Major new activity: the Guppy Experiment– Field expedition in May 2009– The core experiment operational in June 2010

Problem

• How can you run an experiment that takes >2 years when <2 years of funding is left?

44thth EvoFish Annual Meeting at Svalbard EvoFish Annual Meeting at Svalbard

Solutions

• No-cost extension– By saving money we could stretch the project

such that we would just manage– Lots of lost opportunities:• More thorough analyses of the materials• Genetics

• More money – the Research Council– “An experimental evaluation of fisheries-induced

evolution and its consequences” (2010)

«Noregs forskingsråd har dessverre ikkje kunna imøtekome søknaden»

The most important weaknesses of the project proposal

• Few replicates• 1 generation in common garden not enough• The project is over ambitious and is likely to not

deliver high quality results in some of the work packages

• Guppy is not similar to commercial fish. “In effect, the project would have been much stronger … without trying to relate it to the debate on the evolutionary effect of fisheries induced mortality”

«Noregs forskingsråd har dessverre ikkje kunna imøtekome søknaden»

Dissemination of results

• “The dissemination plan is a bit off the shelf: webpages, talks, papers, popular science articles and "The Fisherman" newspaper. This project is, however, easy to sell, and we suspect that interesting results will gain a lot of publicity without the need for much work on behalf of the team!”

Application in 2011

• This time, getting more funding urgent—otherwise the project would be compromised

• Learn from the earlier feedback– Feasibility– Dissemination

• Capitalize on the experience gained during the first year of the experiment

• Add something clearly new

• Experiment of this scale not usually possible• What we already have, what would be new

Capitalize on the experience — feasibility

• Utilizing an on-going experiment– Proof of feasibility; first results

– One student project on behavioural assays– Kick-start for the project– Low risk, high benefit to cost ratio

Partners

• One new partner for genetics– From before: Gary Carvalho, University of Bangor– Galice Hoarau, University of Nordland• Does the northern dimension help?

• Other partners (as before)– Gunilla Rosenqvist, NTNU– Lennart Persson, University of Umeå– David Reznick, University of California at Riverside

«Norges forskningsråd … hargjort vedtak om å støtte prosjektet»

Happy End

• “The applicants chose not to address some of the issues raised in the previous assessment (…). However, they do address some comments, in particular they make a good case for the model species being guppies rather than any other fish species.”

Lessons

• The setting for the successful 2nd application not easy to replicate – building on an existing project; not too early, not too late

• Good local, national and international team• Dissemination plan– Easy to copy– But can you show a track record?

Dissemination

• We post news items (at least once per month)• We put events to the calendar• We solicit news coverage

• reproduced at forskning.no and summarized at fish.no

Dissemination

• We post news items (at least once per month)• We put event to the calendar• We solicit news coverage• We are on Twitter! (active since last week…)