VIRTUAL SANDPIT 2 (JAN 2021)

Delegate Pack

WELCOME

Welcome to this virtual Research Sandpit

The Research Sandpit format is a commonly used tool of Research Councils and other
research funders to stimulate new thinking to address complex (or “wicked”) problems or
challenges.
This training event is designed to give you some exposure to this format. By taking part you
have an opportunity to:
 Gain experience of the sandpit format

 Address a genuine “grand challenge” faced by industry and society where materials
science and engineering can have significant impact.

 Utilise your imagination, technical capability, energy and creativity as an early career
researcher in materials science to generate, perhaps “naïve”, yet potentially ground-
breaking, disruptive concepts that will help the field.

 Build new networks among your peers and practice team working and
communication across a range of disciplines to achieve a shared purpose

 Be introduced to and have the opportunity to practice a range of tools for creative
thinking – the generation and management of ideas.

 Develop collaborative proposals and meet deadlines.

Normally a two-day event in a physical location, we have adapted as much of the format as
possible to the virtual world and we hope you will find the experience useful and rewarding.
Every Sandpit has a problem or grand challenge at its heart – here is the one we are
focussing on in this workshop.

VIRTUAL SANDPIT 2 – Jan 2021: Call for Proposals 8th Jan 2021 v1 Page 1 of 12
Call for Proposals
SANDPIT CHALLENGE STATEMENT
THE RESEARCH CHALLENGES OF CONSERVING UNIQUE
HERITAGE ARTEFACTS UNDER PROCESSES OF DECAY
Heritage collections evolve over time as a function of the environment they are exposed to
and treatments completed on them to aid their conservation. It is particularly challenging to
ensure the long term stability of marine archaeological finds, such as those encompassed in
the Mary Rose collection.

Their survival is attributed to burial in the sediments, effectively eliminating oxygen and
therefore rendering corrosion and bacterial reactions ineffective. What results is a material
which on the one hand is degraded and has lost material, but has also gained new
compounds which have migrated in over time from the marine environment and corroded
artefacts. This results in a complex material which presents many challenges to museum
professionals.

The chemical stability is of concern; destructive acids can be formed via further breakdown
of the original material and the evolution of contaminants either from the marine environment
or previous treatments. In addition, artefacts can be altered via the environment they reside
in; from temperature, relative humidity, light and pollution in the air. The latter can be from
natural pollution or additionally showcase material, or indeed gasses emitting from degrading
artefacts.

Understanding what material is present, the pathway in which it can degrade, determining
the likelihood of that degradation happening and the impact on other properties such as
structural stability is critical. Only then can we develop successful remediation strategies to
safeguard heritage for future generations.

This challenge bridges a number of different disciplines and must satisfy a number of
different stakeholders. This can be the conservator caring for the object, the curator wanting
to interpret the object, or the public wanting to view and experience the object, amongst
others.

VIRTUAL SANDPIT 2 – Jan 2021: Call for Proposals 8th Jan 2021 v1 Page 2 of 12
FOUR CHALLENGE QUESTIONS
The four challenges can be understood in terms of a medical analogy which is depicted.

Challenge 1: Understanding and Predicting Artefact Lifetimes

How can we dramatically improve modelling of artefact decay,
in order to predict future trajectories with precision?
How long will the Mary Rose hull last? How long will this cannon ball
not fall apart? These are killer questions.

The degradation of materials can be predicted to some degree

through empirical modelling, but there are significant uncertainties.
How can we use the increasing understanding of materials science Understanding the
to more accurately model and predict the degradation of artefacts? Disease

Challenge 2: Monitoring the Process of Degradation in an Artefact

How can we achieve a step-change in our ability to monitor the state of an artefact and
observe the processes of degradation?
Even with the best models, we still need to know what is actually
happening to a particular artefact.
Material degradation is commonly preceded by changes within the
artefact that provide clues about what is impending. Yet damaging
an artefact in order to monitor it is rarely acceptable.
Can we find new approaches to instrumenting critical materials;
components; chemistry or structure – a breakthrough that would
ensure a rapid and an effective response to impending changes in This Patient
state of an artefact, yet with minimal damage to the artefact?

VIRTUAL SANDPIT 2 – Jan 2021: Call for Proposals 8th Jan 2021 v1 Page 3 of 12
Challenge 3: Prevention and Cure of Artefact Degradation
How can we find new ways to prevent, cure, or reverse the degradation of artefacts?
There is urgent need to address the degradation of artefacts:
slowing down decay; halting decay; preventing decay; or reversing
decay. Being urgent, this has to be addressed with, or without, full
understanding of the phenomena involved (ideally with of course).
But there are other constraints that cannot be breached too. We
cannot usually damage an artefact in the process, or risk artificial
modification. Artefacts also need to be displayed to the public.
Important work has been done, and some significant successes
Prevention and Cure
achieved. However the urgency of the situation remains, and there
is pressing need to explore new approaches.

Challenge 4: Opportunity for Research Breakthrough

How can we apply the unique opportunities, learning, and focus afforded by the Mary
Rose project to make novel research breakthroughs in other areas?
The Mary Rose project is a rare materials-science environment,
forcing new ways of addressing the problems raised to be sought.
Clearly what is being learnt has application to other conservation
projects. But it prompts the broader question of what other diverse,
unexpected, and perhaps surprising opportunities are created for
research breakthroughs - making the most of innovative
opportunities.
This is a strategic research management question guiding
Can We Help Save
research, and requires creative thinking, investigation, and the
construction of a cogent argument about what directions to pursue. the World?

VIRTUAL SANDPIT 2 – Jan 2021: Call for Proposals 8th Jan 2021 v1 Page 4 of 12
Schedule

VIRTUAL SANDPIT 2 – Jan 2021: Call for Proposals 8th Jan 2021 v1 Page 5 of 12
 Proposal Deliverables
Concept Pitch
On day 3 (Wed 13th January) a short 10 minute “concept pitch” of your idea to a
panel and receive feedback on it. The purpose of this is to help you make better final
proposals.

Written Proposal Document

Deadline: Day 5 (Monday 18th January) 5pm. A template is provided in Appendix A.
It should be no more than 6-8 pages in length and contain:
o A statement of the research question your proposal addresses
o The objective of the work proposed
o The methodology(ies) proposed
o The resources required and an outline delivery plan
o External inputs - guidance sought from external parties (Mentors or others from
your own professional networks).

Presentation
On day 6 (Wednesday 20th January) a presentation of the proposal (15 mins plus 15
mins Q&A) to a panel of distinguished scientists. We recommend that, as far as
practical, each member of the team should present a part of the proposal.

JUDGING CRITERIA
Judging will be based on both the written proposal and the presentation of the research idea
your team has developed, using these criteria:

 Impact – What is the potential impact of the research?

 Research Question - Merit as a research question

 Methodology - Quality of methodology proposed

 Value - Cost-effectiveness.

 Innovation & Inter-disciplinarity - How radical is the idea?

 Stakeholder buy-in - How attractive is this likely to be to stakeholders?

VIRTUAL SANDPIT 2 – Jan 2021: Call for Proposals 8th Jan 2021 v1 Page 6 of 12
 Mentors

ROLE OF MENTOR/ WORKING WITH MENTORS

We have arranged for some experienced scientists to support you as mentors during the
workshop.

Note that the range of delegates’ backgrounds in terms of first degree subject PhD topic,
institution, culture etc. is broad, so the approach your team takes will be one of many
possible avenues. It follows that the mentors’ technical knowledge, while potentially useful,
may actually be less useful to you than their experience of technical problem solving and the
broader career skills they have developed. Their experience and accumulated wisdom will
be of value in supporting you.

Your ideas should be feasible and not fantasy, and teams should be able to justify the
choices they make by articulating their ideas to an informed, technically aware but possibly
non-specialist audience such as the mentors.

We encourage teams to explore the problem and generate ideas using the techniques they
will be introduced to on the morning of Day 2 (Tuesday 12th January).

Other Guidance Available to the Teams

You may need to seek detailed technical advice from elsewhere. We will not discourage
teams from seeking support/guidance from their own networks, or the internet, but we
encourage you to keep ownership of your ideas, and critically evaluate any input you
receive.

Appendices are on the following pages.

VIRTUAL SANDPIT 2 – Jan 2021: Call for Proposals 8th Jan 2021 v1 Page 7 of 12
APPENDIX A: PROPOSAL DOCUMENT TEMPLATE

The completed proposal should be no more than 6-8 pages in length.

1: TEAM NAME:

2: TEAM MEMBERS:

3: RESEARCH QUESTION ADDRESSED

<A statement of what you see the proposal specifically addressing. This may be one
of the “Challenge Questions”, or a more specific narrowing down of one of them, or
indeed something quite different if you have gone in a different direction.>

4: OBJECTIVE OF THE WORK PROPOSED

<What specifically are you aiming to achieve if the project is funded; What impact will
this have?>

5: INNOVATION AND PROGRESS

<Why do you believe the approach to be new, and that research will learn or benefit
in other ways?>

6: METHODOLOGY

<What is the core research methodology that you propose? i.e. how will we be able
to tell, with reasonable confidence, whether the project has “succeeded” or that we
have “learnt” useful things from it in real terms?>

7: RESOURCES REQUIRED

<In outline terms what do you need to do this work? If you need ideas about cost,
please contact Dr. Stanley for guidance>

8: STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

<In this challenge, stakeholder engagement is key and can be difficult. How do you
believe stakeholders will view this project, and how do you propose to engage them?
>

9: EXTERNAL INPUTS AND GUIDANCE

<List the external guidance you have sought, and specific points that you took away
to improve your proposal in each case. (These may be Mentors on the programme
and others from your professional networks).>

VIRTUAL SANDPIT 2 – Jan 2021: Call for Proposals 8th Jan 2021 v1 Page 8 of 12
APPENDIX B: BIOGRAPHIES OF MENTORS

THE MENTORS

Dr Eleanor Schofield
Mary Rose Trust
Prof. Eleanor Schofield is currently the Head of
Conservation and Collections Care at the Mary Rose Trust.
After completing her PhD in Materials Science at Imperial
College London in 2006, she completed research posts at
Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory and the
University of Kent.
She joined the Mary Rose Trust in 2012 and is now
responsible for the conservation of the Mary Rose hull and
associated artefacts, the care and management of the
collection and research into novel conservation treatments
and characterisation methods.

Hayley Simon
University College London
Hayley recently completed a PhD in Archaeological
Chemistry at UCL, where she was looking at the corrosion
and conservation of the Mary Rose cannonball collection.
Her research was focused on the application and
development of synchrotron-based techniques for studying
archaeological material.
Hayley was awarded the prestigious Ronald Belcher Award
from the Royal Society of Chemistry for her innovative
research on the conservation of the Mary Rose iron
cannonballs. Prior to her PhD, Hayley did an MChem in
Chemistry at Warwick university where she specialised in
analytical chemistry.

VIRTUAL SANDPIT 2 – Jan 2021: Call for Proposals 8th Jan 2021 v1 Page 9 of 12
Dr Rob Jones
Research and Facilities Manager, Henry Royce Institute, National Nuclear Laboratory
Rob Jones has worked at National Nuclear Lab for three years in a technical project
management role and has scoped, developed and delivered analytical packages of work for
various international customers with a focus on Post Irradiation Examination of fuel. Before
that he undertook an EngD at the University of Manchester in Geochemistry and mineral
formations in a nuclear effluent treatment plant.

Dr Amy Nommeots-Nomm
Research Manager, Henry Royce Institute, Imperial College London
Amy completed her undergraduate master’s degree at
Loughborough University in Material Engineering, and her
PhD at Imperial College.
Since completing her studies Amy has worked in additive
manufacture in Europe and North America in academia and
industry. Currently she works as a Research Development
Manager for Royce at Imperial College London, in the
Atoms to Devices theme.

Dr Ian Wimpenny
Research and Facilities Manager, Henry Royce Institute, The University of Manchester
Ian Wimpenny is based at the Royce hub in Manchester.
Within Royce, he manages areas of 2D Materials, Atoms to
Devices, Chemical Materials Design and Biomedical
Materials and as part of the delivery team, he provides
equipment users with an end-to-end service from initial
scoping of requirements and structuring project to delivery
and completion.
Ian has a Research background in Biomedical Engineering
and Medical Materials Science and worked on Industrial
projects for identification of foreign materials (in food,
healthcare devices, pharma and processing equipment) as
well as testing based on ISO standards.

VIRTUAL SANDPIT 2 – Jan 2021: Call for Proposals 8th Jan 2021 v1 Page 10 of 12
APPENDIX C: THE JUDGES

Professor Mary Ryan FREng

Faculty of Engineering, Department of Materials, Imperial College London
Mary Ryan is currently Professor of Materials Science and
Nanotechnology, and Vice-Dean for Research in the Faculty
of Engineering. She joined Imperial in 1998 from Brookhaven
National Laboratory in the US where she was assistant
scientist in the Materials-Environment Interactions Group.
She graduated from Manchester University with a Joint
Honours degree in Mathematics and Physics and was then
awarded a PhD in Materials Science carrying out early work
with in situ electrochemical STM to study passivation
phenomena in binary alloy systems.
Mary leads a large interdisciplinary group focused on
understanding nanoscale materials, and nanoscale interfaces
in and between materials and their environments. She has a
particular interest in the development of operando approaches and has pioneered nanoscale
methods in synchrotron science.
Her research spans diverse application areas including: energy materials (batteries,
magnetocaloric cooling devices, photovoltaics, fuel cells and catalysis); nanomaterials for
bio-sensors and therapies; the mechanisms that lead to human and environmental toxicity
associated with nanostructures, and the potential of nanomaterials for environmental
remediation (in particular for nuclear waste). A key aspect of this work is understanding the
reactivity and stability of nanostructures in operando in order to maximize efficiency and
lifetime of devices and systems.
She was elected Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering in 2015 and is a Fellow of
IoM3 and of the Institute of Corrosion.

VIRTUAL SANDPIT 2 – Jan 2021: Call for Proposals 8th Jan 2021 v1 Page 11 of 12
Samantha (Sam) Beath
Head of Conservation and Collection Care, The Manchester Museum
Sam Beath is Head of Conservation and Collection Care
Manager at Manchester Museum. She studied
Conservation at Durham University and is an objects
conservator with over 20 years’ experience; having
previously been Head of Sculpture Conservation at
National Museums Liverpool.
She has undertaken research work in the field of laser
cleaning of artefacts (under the name of Sportun) and now
has a focus on educational technology, studying for a
Ph.D. at Loughborough University, focused on integrating
digital touch into 3D replica artefacts to improve access for
visitors, particularly those with additional sensory and
neurodiverse needs.

Dr Sam Jones
Dame Kathleen Ollerenshaw Research Fellow, The University of Manchester
Dr. Samuel Jones is a Dame Kathleen Ollerenshaw Fellow
in the Department of Materials at the University of
Manchester. He heads up the Jones Lab which focuses on
understanding material/virus interactions. Sam completed
his masters in Chemistry, from the University of Warwick,
under the direction of Prof. Stefan A. F. Bon in 2009. His
work at the time focused on hydrogen bonding interactions
for gold nanorod assembly.
During his studies he also undertook a research project at
the University of Tasmania in the group of Dr. Adrian
Blackman. For his Ph.D. Sam moved to the University of
Cambridge where he worked in the Melville Laboratory for
Polymer Synthesis under Prof. Oren A. Scherman, on the supramolecular assembly of
nanomaterials via cucurbit[n]uril. Upon completion of his Ph.D. in 2013, Sam moved to the
École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) where he worked alongside Prof.
Francesco Stellacci. His research focused on the synthesis of novel virucidal materials and
the synthesis of Janus nanoparticles for targeted delivery.

VIRTUAL SANDPIT 2 – Jan 2021: Call for Proposals 8th Jan 2021 v1 Page 12 of 12