Page 5 - MemoriaBBN-Eng

www.ciber-bbn.es

As regards training aspects, in addition to the usual initiation programmes in re-

search and mobility, the effort we made together with the UNED and ENS to design
a course specialising in nanomedicine must be highlighted. Unfortunately, this effort

was not compensated with a strong enough demand, and the course had to be can-
celled.

With respect to the platform programme, an application has been submitted for re-

cognizing the platform as a Singular Scientific and Technical Infrastructure (ICTS).

Said application is pending resolution as of the date of writing this report.

To round off this series of actions, CIBER-BBN has participated as a member entity in
events organized by the European Nanomedicine Platform and, through programme

managers, in a number of conferences and seminars disclosing the capabilities of our
centre. Furthermore, like in previous years, CIBER-BBN was represented together

with other CIBERs in events organized in Madrid and Barcelona in the framework of

Science Week.

In addition to this annual reflection/summary, 2013 saw us immersed in developing
a new strategic plan for the 2014-2017 period, which was approved by the Board of

Trustees in December. It allowed us to think about the centre, its objectives, and the

mechanisms for leading us towards them. The reflection was made from inside and
outside, such that we do not only place importance on how we see ourselves, which

can always contain some sort of bias, but we analyzed how we are seen by external
agents that we have been collaborating with to achieve our objectives.
é
With respect to the Scientific Advisory Board (SAB), a mechanism for renewing half

the members every two years was established, assuring continuity of knowledge

while at the same time periodically renewing members. Therefore, Professor Ruth
Duncan, Professor Rogrio Gaspar, Professor Jean Louis Coatrieux and Professor Ro-

ger Kamm left their positions on the SAB, and we would like to thank them and

acknowledge them for their help, advise, questions, and support for CIBER-BBN.
New people have joined the CIBER-BBN SAB, and Professor Leif Sörnmo, Professor

Matthias Epple, Professor Patrick Boisseau and Professor Wolfgang Parak are now
part of the SAB. We would also like to thank them for serving in this capacity.

At the end of 2013 a decision that had already been made months before, i.e., con-

centrating the administrative offices of the different CIBERs in Madrid, was instituted.

This decision means that the CIBER-BBN is now legally a part of a major centre,
CIBER without any other name, but retains all the scientific and organisational inde-

pendence of our programmes just like up until now. Grouping the administrative part

in a single office in Madrid means that the staff from the Zaragoza office had to choo-
se between moving to Madrid or, where staff circumstances did not allow, abando-

ning the CIBER-BBN as of December 31. This marked the life of the office throughout
this year, and I would like to personally thank all the people from the office for having

remained committed and professional until leaving the centre. In addition, the new 13
20
administrative operating guidelines that entered into force on January 1, 2014 were T
initiated in the last few months in 2013 in specific conferences.
OR
P
The annual conference was held in Malaga in November, and taking into account that RE
L
the second biannual period for the 2010-2013 4-year period strategic plan (13 pro- A
NU
jects in Bioengineering, 10 in Biomaterials and 21 in Nanomedicine) just ended, time N
was allocated to go over the achievements earned in different intramural projects, A
N /
and then time was allocated to design and define projects that could be submitted in B
the next intramural call for proposal. Said next call will be the one in the first 2-year -B
R
period of the 2014-2017 strategic plan. This Plan keeps the intramural programme BE
CI
as the backbone of CIBER-BBN’s collaborative activity, but with some changes. These
latter projects were evaluated by the ANEP, and they necessarily required including a
5
clinical partner, such that the translation to clinical practice may be better oriented as