\section{GGonGRound project proposal: Part B1}
\label{sec:PartB1}
Example of link to a webpage: \href{http://eotvos.dm.unipi.it/}{Galileo Galilei Web Page}.
Example of link to a webpage: \href{http://eotvos.dm.unipi.it/GGonGroundSynergyGrant}{GGonGround Synergy Grant Web Page}.

The scientific proposal [max 15 pages, excluding the Budget Tables (obligatory), Ethical
Issues Table (obligatory) and Annex (only if applicable), and the Security Aspects Letter (only
if applicable)]
Describe the scientific, technical, and/or scholarly aspects of the project demonstrating the
ground-breaking nature of the research, its potential impact and research methodology.
Describe the significant synergies, complementarity and added value of the group
beyond the current work of the Principal Investigators to enable it to jointly achieve the
project's scientific objectives. Indicate the fraction of each PI's working time that will be
devoted to this project, a full estimation of the real project cost and any ethical considerations
raised by the project. Indicate innovative ways of working together and how the core time
spent together will be utilised.

% \begin{figure}[htbp]
% \begin{center}
% \includegraphics[width=12cm,height=7cm]{./figures/fig1.pdf}
% \caption{The position of the 35 currently known VHE $\gamma$-ray
% sources in the shy (galactic coordinates). The white area is
% accessible to the MAGIC telescope. The light shaded area displays the
% sky region which the MAGIC telescope can observe only under large
% zenith angles between 50 and 70 degrees. The dark shaded area
% corresponds to even larger zenith angles and cannot be observed by the
% MAGIC telescope at all.}
% \label{fig:fig1}
% \end{center}
% \end{figure}

\section{B1--a: State of the art and objectives}
\label{sec:B1SectionA}

{\bf The science case}. {\it General Relativity} (GR) is the best theory of gravity to-date. It governs physics at   the macroscopic and cosmic scales and has been highly successful. However, all attempts at merging gravity with the other forces of nature have failed and most of the mass of the universe is unexplained.

General Relativity  is based on the hypothesis that the gravitational force is composition independent: in a gravitational field all bodies fall with the same acceleration regardless of their mass and composition. This property is unique to gravity.  It is referred to as the {\it Universality of Free Fall} (UFF) and it is a direct consequence of the {\it Equivalence Principle} (EP). It was first tested experimentally  by Galileo in Pisa. Newton regarded testing it as so important that he reported the results of his own experiments ``{\it very accurately made}''   in the opening paragraph of the  {\it Principia}   to justify the assumption that ``{\it mass}'' and ``{\it weight}'' are equivalent --i.e. the equivalence between inertial and gravitational mass.  Einstein went much further and stated what he later referred to as the ``{\it happiest thought of my life}'':  if all bodies fall equally fast, in a freely falling frame gravity has --locally--  no dynamical effects.  UFF is therefore equivalent  to making the  ``{\it hypothesis of complete physical equivalence}'' between a gravitational field  and an accelerated frame(\cite{Einstein1907}, Ch. V {\it ``Principle of relativity and gravitation''}, Sec. $17$ {\it ``Accelerated reference system and gravitation''}).  Starting from this hypothesis --published in $1907$--  and extending it globally,  nine years later Einstein formulated the  {\it General Theory of Relativity},  which  is therefore founded on the UFF.    Any violation of UFF (hence of EP)  would violate General Relativity as well as all metric theories of gravity.

UFF experiments are unique tests of General Relativity in that --unlike all others-- they address the assumed composition independence of gravity which sets it aside from all other forces of nature; this fact  makes them the most deeply probing tests in the search for new physics beyond General Relativity and the current {\it impasse}.

It is widely recognized that experimental evidence of a violation of the UFF (hence of EP) would make for a scientific revolution, opening a totally new era in physics as it rarely happens. Even a null result (no violation) --if proven to very high precision-- would constrain physical theories for decades to come. Either way, improving UFF tests by several orders of magnitude would be ground-breaking.


{\bf State of the art.} Stringent limits to the validity of UFF have been set by small size experiments in which the test masses are mechanically coupled by means of a very sensitive torsion balance that is  slowly rotating. In terms of differential acceleration from the Earth
 they have measured $\Delta a_{\oplus}\simeq1.69\cdot10^{-15}\,\rm ms^{-2}$, finding no violation  to   $\eta=10^{-13}$\,\cite{Adel2008}, ($\eta\equiv\Delta a_{\oplus}/a_{\oplus}$,   $a_{\oplus}\simeq1.69\cdot10^{-2}\,\rm ms^{-2}$ at their latitude). Despite the much larger free fall acceleration,  Galileo-like mass dropping tests have been by far less sensitive than torsion balances. The reasons are twofold:  thw time of fall of just a few seconds and  release errors the test masses.
Careful physical modeling and analysis of laser ranging data to the corner cube reflectors left on the surface of the Moon by the Apollo missions  have set a limit similar to that of torsion balances  for the Moon and Earth falling in the gravitational field of the Sun~\cite{LLR2004}. However, although a violation is expected at some point, no firm prediction exists as to the precise level at which it should occur.

Slowly rotating torsion balances have hit the level of thermal noise~(\cite{adelreview2009}, Fig. 20);  lunar laser ranging tests are close to their limit~\cite{EPwithlaserranging}.  Even one order of magnitude improvement may be difficult with these techniques. Tests based on dropping  cold atoms have achieved $\eta=10^{-7}$\,\cite{coldatoms2004} ($6$ orders of magnitude worse than torsion balances) and have yet to match the best result $\Delta g/g\simeq3\cdot10^{-9}$ obtained in measuring the local gravitational acceleration by dropping a single species of atoms~\cite{peters1999}.

A  radically new type of experiment is necessary to improve the current experimental limit in UFF and EP tests by several orders of magnitude thus deeply probing this physical domain so far unexplored.



{\bf The case for a test of UFF and EP in low Earth orbit}. Back in the 1970s it was realized that a torsion balance kind of experiment  in which two weakly coupled test masses orbit the Earth inside a low altitude spacecraft would be equivalent to dropping them from an ``infinitely'' tall tower,  yielding both a stronger signal from Earth (by about $3$ orders of magnitude) and a time of fall around it as long as the mission duration (and no mass release problems). A violation signal (pointing to the center of the Earth) would appear at the (low) orbital frequency of the satellite --of a few $10^{-4}\,\rm Hz$-- to  be upconverted to higher frequency by rotation of the spacecraft in order to reduce noise~(\cite{ChapmanHanson},~\cite{WordenThesis},~\cite{WordenAA1987}).    Absence of weight and isolation of the laboratory (the spacecraft) are additional great advantages. Overall, in low Earth orbit an improvement by  $4$  orders of magnitude, down to $\eta=10^{-17}$, is within reach and the idea  has attracted the interest of NASA and later on of other space  agencies.

At  $h\simeq600\, \rm km$ altitude where the attraction from the Earth is $g(h)\simeq8\,\rm ms^{-2}$, the goal $\eta=10^{-17}$ sets the differential acceleration between the proof masses which must be measured: $a=\eta\,g(h)\simeq8\cdot10^{-17}\, \rm ms^{-2}$. This shows that a sensor in space only a factor  $20$ better than torsion balances would make a $10^4$ times better test.  If the masses are coupled with a natural period of differential oscillation  $T_d$, the relative displacement to be measured  is $r=a\,(T_d^2/4\pi^2)$: the weaker the coupling, the longer the differential period, the more sensitive the instrument.

{\bf The case for ``Galileo Galilei'' (GG) to test UFF and EP to $10^{-17}$}.  All investigators agree that in orbit the proof masses should be ``concentric''  cylinders --with the centers of mass as close as possible to each other to reduce classical differential effects due to  non uniformity of the gravitational field--  and should rotate, so as to upconvert the signal to higher frequency (the higher the better). The question is:  should the concentric test cylinders be sensitive (i.e. weakly coupled) along the symmetry axis ($1$D accelerometer) and rotate around an axis perpendicular to it, or else should they rotate around the symmetry axis and  be sensitive  in the plane perpendicular to it ($2$D accelerometer)?



\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\vspace{9pt}
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{Forces_NotRot.jpg}
\hspace{1mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{Forces_Rot.jpg}
\caption{Experimental evidence that in a $2$-D oscillator like GGG no signal attenuation occurs above resonance. Top plot: GGG is not rotating and a differential force signal at  $0.01\,\rm Hz$ is applied to the test cylinders along the $X$ direction of the horizontal plane of the lab. In this direction the natural frequency of oscillation  (resonance) of the test cylinders  relative to each other  is $\nu_x=0.124\,\rm Hz$ , thus the force is applied below the resonance.  We add that the natural oscillation frequency in the  perpendicular direction  is $\nu_y=0.063\,\rm Hz$. The frequency resolution is $7.7\cdot10^{-5}\,\rm Hz$ and the duration of the run is $4.3\, \rm d$.  Bottom plot: GGG has been set in rotation at $\nu_{spin}=0.19\, Hz$, the natural oscillation frequency (resonance)  during rotation is $\nu_w=\sqrt{(\nu_x^2+\nu_y^2)/2}=0.098\,\rm Hz$ and the same force signal is applied, which is  up-converted close to the spin frequency and therefore now acts above resonance.  The experimental data --i.e. the relative displacements of the test cylinders as given by one of the rotating capacitance bridges which read this differential displacements of the test cylinders-- have been demodulated back to the  non rotating horizontal plane of the lab for comparison  with non rotating case shown above along the $X$ direction. If GGG were an oscillator in $1$-D only, a force signal applied above resonance   would have been attenuated in this case by a factor $2.56$; instead, the experimental data show no such attenuation. The frequency resolution is $1.16\cdot10^{-5}\, \rm Hz$ and the duration of the run is $19\,\rm d$. We note in passing that in the non rotating case (top plot) noise increases at lower frequencies as expected for electronics noise, while in the rotating case the relevant electronics noise is that at the rotation frequency.}
\label{fig:nosignalattenuation}
\end{center}
\end{figure}



Although spinning around an axis which is not the symmetry axis is unnatural, the choice of coupling the test cylinders in $1$D prevailed, despite the fact that it essentially rules out fast rotation because it is well known that forcing an oscillator above its natural frequency causes the forcing signal to be attenuated. This choice made it necessary to solve the main critical issues of a high sensitive space experiment by brute force, most notably by requiring that the experiment be carried out in cryogenic conditions, close to absolute zero temperature~\cite{radiometerPRD}.

The signal to be measured asks for both weak coupling and fast spin, a situation which is known in {\it Rotordynamics}  as {\it rotation in supercritical regime}: it makes fast rotation possible through autocentering, but it is an established fact that it cannot work in $1$D --it works only if coupling occurs in $2$D  (\cite{DenHartog},~\cite{Crandall1970}). The ``Galileo Galilei'' (GG) space experiment was proposed in the mid $1990$s by A. M. Nobili and colleagues  who realized that this choice makes most of the critical issues disappear by design: fast rotation does not attenuate the target low frequency signal; the centers of mass of the test cylinders center on each other by physics laws; many dangerous effects are DC; cryogenics is not required; fast rotation and cylindrical symmetry allow passive $1$-axis stabilization of the spacecraft and significantly reduce its size and complexity; etc... (\cite{JAS1995},~\cite{NA_GG_1998}). Papers have been published showing the advantages of the novel idea  of a differential accelerometer  with the proof masses weakly coupled in $2$D  and rotating faster than their natural oscillation frequency (\cite{CQG1999},~\cite{radiometerPRD},~\cite{radiometerMicroscope}). The GG  space mission has been investigated with funding from  ASI (Agenzia Spaziale Italiana) (\cite{GGStudyReports}). More importantly, the new sensor design has allowed  a full-size  $1$-g version of it --with the same number of degrees of freedom and the same dynamical features-- to be built and tested on ground. GG on Ground  (GGG) has been set up with funding from ASI and INFN  (\cite{NA_GGG_2003}~$\div$~\cite{IJMPD}); the latest experimental results  (Fig.\ref{fig:GGGPictureandLSD}) demonstrate that weak coupling  of large proof masses and sensitivity to small forces are compatible with rapid rotation; in fact, it is rapid rotation that makes sensitivity to small forces possible.


The most relevant physical property of the GG/GGG novel sensor has been demonstrated very recently~\cite{PRLthermalnoise}: thermal noise due to internal damping which competes with the low frequency signal of interest is reduced as  $1/\sqrt{\nu_{spin}}$ (with no signal attenuation) making rapid rotation more effective than cryogenics in reducing thermal noise. Taking into account also residual gas damping and eddy currents it turns out that GG can perform a full test to $10^{-17}$  in just $1$~d~\cite{IntegrationTime}; in a  $9$-month mission all necessary checks against systematics can be performed so that the question as to whether the result is new physics or else it is due to a tiny known disturbance --hence it is a null result-- can be established beyond doubt~\cite{nullchecks}.

Recent collaboration with JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory, CalTech-NASA) has shown that an optical read-out based on the very low noise laser interferometry gauge developed and demonstrated at JPL will allow  GG  to fully exploit its very short integration time. The collaboration has led to an agreement between JPL and ASI  to submit GG to the EXPLORER program as a NASA led mission and the partnership of ASI, with M. Shao (JPL) as PI and A. M. Nobili as Co-PI. EXPLORER  is a long time program of  NASA dedicated to  flying small size missions every few years  years; the Nobel prize winner COBE was one of them. The $2010$ Decadal Astronomy has ranked the EXPLORER program as its second highest priority and has advised NASA to further strengthen it. EXPLORER is the right framework for a small mission like GG --which is well below the size of ESA missions-- and given that ASI cannot afford a full mission but would be willing contribute to a NASA led mission with a significant Italian r\^{o}le.



{\bf The case for GGonGround}. GG is a high precision physics experiment which can reach its goal  only in orbit, but that is just the final run of an experiment whose performance can and must be tested and demonstrated in the lab.
The EXPLORER program is the only possible route to space for GG, but for GG to enter in the EXPLORER competition and eventually be selected for flight the GGG lab experiment must prove --by sufficiently isolating the sensor from ground noise sources and with an adequate read out--  that the sensor in space can meet its target.

%
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=6cm]{Fig1.jpg}
\hspace{20mm}
\includegraphics[height=6cm]{Fig2.jpg}
\caption{Xxxx}
\label{fig:Fig12}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
%



%
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=7cm]{Fig3.jpg}
%\hspace{2mm}
\includegraphics[height=7cm]{Fig4.jpg}
%\hspace{2mm}
\includegraphics[height=7cm]{Fig5.jpg}
\caption{Xxxx}
\label{fig:Fig345}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
%



%
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{Fig6.jpg}
%\vspace{1mm}
%\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{Fig8.jpg}
%\hspace{2mm}
%\includegraphics[height=7cm]{Fig5.jpg}
\caption{Ambient temperature variations (red curve) are attenuated inside the vacuum chamber
(green curve) by about two order of magnitude, limited only by the temperature readout noise at frequencies  $>10^{-4}$~Hz.}
\label{fig:Fig6}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
%









%
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{Fig7.jpg}
\vspace{1mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{Fig8.jpg}
%\hspace{2mm}
%\includegraphics[height=7cm]{Fig5.jpg}
\caption{Xxxx}
\label{fig:Fig78}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
%



%
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{Fig9.jpg}
%\vspace{1mm}
%\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{Fig8.jpg}
%\hspace{2mm}
%\includegraphics[height=7cm]{Fig5.jpg}
\caption{Xxxx}
\label{fig:Fig9}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
%



Synergy between the Corresponding PI  Nobili, who has led GG and GGG so far, and the PI  Zavattini, who will lead the efforts for implementing a low noise laser gauge  can considerably  improve GGG to meet the goal set in Table~\ref{tab:GGGErrorBudget1}.
 Fig.~\ref{fig:GGGPictureandLSD}  shows that GGG  has reached a sensitivity of $8.5\cdot10^{-11}\, \rm ms^{-2}$ in $30$~d,  while GG must reach   $a_{GG}=8\cdot10^{-17}\, \rm ms^{-2}$ to meet its goal. We state with confidence that GGG  can improve by $5$ orders of magnitude its current performance to reach $a_{GGG}=10a_{GG}\simeq8\cdot10^{-16}\,\rm ms^{-2}$ (slightly better than torsion balances)  because --as the noise budget in the same table shows-- there are no fundamental limitations. The  main limitations are terrain  and bearings low frequency tilt noise. Terrain tilt input noise at $\nu_{GG}$ has been  measured~(\cite{ComandiThesis},\,\cite{IafollaTilts}), its effect on the test cylinders is understood (it is  expressed by a simple analytical formula with few parameters) and there is no doubt that the current suspensions can be improved (only a factor 4 is needed) and the apparatus properly modified  to meet the goal.
Air bearing is known to be several orders of magnitude less noisy than ball bearing (the vacuum chamber enclosing the torsion balance rotates on air bearing) and a solution is under study for  GGG in which only the experiment rotates, not the chamber.  This is feasible and can be realized  by A. M. Nobili with the collaboration of Dr. R. Pegna who has significantly contributed to the current GGG performance and can effectively co-lead this activity.  At full performance the capacitance bridges are no longer adequate and must be replaced by the laser gauge; this effort can be successfully led by the PI G. Zavattini based on his experience in  Fabry-Perot interferometry, with collaboration and advise from Dr. M. Shao (JPL, CA, USA) who has already developed, built and demonstrated a very low noise laser gauge.


 The roadmap Table~\ref{tab:GGGRoadmap} shows that this remarkable progress can be done in steps within the first $3$ years of the project, to secure the success of GG  through the various stages of the EXPLORER selection process (release of next Call is expected at the end of 2013). The remaining $3$ years will be devoted --as outlined in Table 3-- to bridge the remaining gap with  laser gauge noise required in space and to manufacture and test  the most crucial components of the space sensor. The final goal is to ensure the success of the experiment in space and to strengthen its European contribution.

Required funding (9592600~{\EURtm} total for $6$~yr) and PIs time on the the project are given in the Budget Tables.  Both PIs are strongly dedicated to this project, for their time is limited only by teaching duties (AMN will leave teaching the second year).  Funding is dominated  by personnel cost due to the lack of funds in Italy  to employ researchers and the very limited number of permanent ones; and  also to the wide variety of disciplines relevant to this project and need to be mastered.


 EGO  is the best Institution to host a  European project in experimental gravitation. GGonGround needs a specific but limited laboratory space (roughly $50\,\rm m^2$ with about $6\,\, m$ high roof) where the current apparatus and equipment (acquired with ASI and INFN funds)  will be moved. All activity will be carried out by the two PIs and their collaborators.

 %\vskip 40truemm




xxx

a. State of the art and objectives: Specify clearly the objectives of the proposal, in the
context of the state of the art in the field. When describing the envisaged research it should
be indicated how and why the proposed work is important for the field, and what impact it will
have if successful, such as how it may open up new horizons or opportunities for science,
technology or scholarship. Specify any particularly challenging or unconventional concepts
and approaches of the proposal, including multi - or interdisciplinary aspects.

\clearpage

\section{B1--b:  Methodology}
\label{sec:B1SectionB}

\clearpage

\begin{table}[t]\footnotesize
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|l|p{3.9cm}|p{4cm}|p{2.85cm}|p{1.5cm}|}
\hline
\hline
\hline
\multicolumn{5}{|c|}{\textbf{GGonGround goal vs GG goal in space}} \\
\hline
\hline
\hline
  &Differential acceleration between test masses       &$a \, [\rm{ms^{-2}}]$                         &$r=a\frac{T_d^2}{4\pi^2}\, [{\rm m}]$&Integration time $T_{int}$\,[$\rm d$]\\
  &$a$~@~$1.7\cdot10^{-4}\, \rm Hz$                     &                                                    &                &      \\
\hline
\hline
{\bf GG goal in space}      &$a_{GG}=\eta g(h)$                                   &$8\cdot10^{-17}$                                     &$6\cdot10^{-13}$&$1$      \\
                    &(upconverted to $1\,\rm Hz$)                         &($\eta=10^{-17}\, ,\, h\simeq600\, \rm km$)            &($T_d\simeq540\,\rm s$)    &       \\
\hline
\hline
{\bf GGonGround}   &$a_{GGG}=10 a_{GG}$                                &$8\cdot10^{-16}$                                    &$3.2\cdot10^{-14}$  &$30$    \\
{\bf goal}          &(upconverted to $0.2\div 3\,\rm Hz$)                 &                                                    &($T_d\simeq40\,\rm s$)    &       \\
\hline
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|p{2.3cm}|p{2cm}|p{2.1cm}|p{4.6cm}|}
\hline
\multicolumn{6}{|c|}{\textbf{GGonGround noise budget @~$1.7\cdot10^{-4}\, \rm Hz$}} \\
\hline
Noise Source &$\Delta a$                                   &Integrated $\Delta a$   &$\Delta r$                             & Integrated $\Delta r$ & Conditions and physical data\\
             &                                              &($T_{int}=30$~d)      &($T_{d}\simeq40$~s)                     &($T_{int}=30$~d)     &           \\
             &$[10^{-13}\frac{\rm{ms}^{-2}}{\sqrt{\rm{Hz}}}]$ &$[10^{-16}\rm{ms}^{-2}]$ &$[10^{-11}\frac{\rm{m}}{\sqrt{\rm{Hz}}}]$ & $[10^{-14}\rm{m}]$     &           \\
\hline
\multicolumn{6}{|l|}{\it {Tilt noise sources:} $a_{tilt}=\frac{k_c}{mgL}\frac{k_{shaft}}{M_{tot}gL_{shaft}}g\theta_{tilt}$} \\
\hline
terrain          & 8.2&5.1 &3.3 &2.1 & $\theta_{terrain}\simeq8\cdot10^{-6}\, \frac{\rm{rad}}{\sqrt{\rm{Hz}}}$\\
\cline{1-5}
air bearing      &4.1 &2.5 &1.7 &1.0 & $\theta_{ab}\simeq4\cdot10^{-6}\, \frac{\rm{rad}}{\sqrt{\rm{Hz}}}$\\
                 &    &    &    &    & $k_c\simeq k_{shaft}\simeq0.04\, \rm Nm/rad$ \\
                 &    &    &    &    & $m=10\,\rm kg$  $L=0.5\,\rm m$ \\
                 &    &    &    &    & $M_{tot}\simeq80\,\rm kg$ $L_{shaft}\simeq4\,\rm m$\\
\hline
\multicolumn{6}{|l|}{\it Thermal noise sources\cite{PRLthermalnoise},\cite{IntegrationTime}} \\
\hline
suspensions      &1.3 &0.8 &0.5 &0.3 & Q=20000, $\nu_{spin}=0.2$~Hz\\
\hline
eddy currents    &1.3 &0.8 &0.5 &0.3 & no $\mu$metal magnetic shield\\
\hline
residual gas     &0.5 &0.3 &0.2 &0.1 & 2 cm gap, $\rm{P}=10^{-4}$~Pa\\
\hline
\multicolumn{6}{|l|}{{\it ReadOut noise:} $a_{ROnoise}=(4\pi^2/T_{d}^2)r_{ROnoise}$} \\
\hline
laser gauge      &7.4 &4.6 &3.0 &1.8 & $T_{d}\simeq40$~s\\
\hline
\bf{Total noise}       &12 &7.4 &4.8  &3.0 & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:GGGErrorBudget1}
\caption{GGonGround goal and noise budget  }
\end{center}
\end{table}



\begin{table}[h!]\footnotesize
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{p{0.5cm} p{1.6cm} p{13.5cm} }
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{|c|}{\textbf{GGonGround} Roadmap} \\
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{l}{Time (Months)} \\
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{c}{Performance achieved} \\
&$t_0$ & $a_0=8.5\cdot10^{-11}\,\rm{ms^{-2}}$ (INFN lab San Piero, Pisa; ASI and INFN funding; Fig.\,\ref{fig:GGGPictureandLSD})\\
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{c}{First 18--month period targets} \\
6&$t_0+6$ & $a_1=2.8\cdot10^{-12}\,\rm{ms^{-2}}$ ($T_d=14.8\,\rm{s} \ \ r_{capRO}=1.45\cdot 10^{-8}\,\rm{m/\sqrt{Hz}}$; can be done with capacitance read out and ball bearings,
requires weaker joints by a factor 4)\\
12&$t_0+12$ & $a_2=7.7\cdot10^{-14}\ ms^{-2}$ ($T_d=40\,\rm{s} \ \ r_{capRO}=3\cdot 10^{-9}\,\rm{m/\sqrt{Hz}}$; can be done with capacitance readout and ball bearings,
requires 10 times longer suspension shaft)\\
18&$t_0+18=t_1$ & $a_3=5.6\cdot10^{-15}\,\rm{ms^{-2}}$ ($T_d=40\,\rm{s} \ \ r_{laserRO}=2.2\cdot10^{-10}\, \rm{m/\sqrt{Hz}}$; requires preliminary version of air bearings and
 laser metrology)\\
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{c}{Second 18--month period targets} \\
24&$t_1+6$ & reduce air bearings and rotation noise \\
30&$t_1+12$ & reduce laser gauge read out noise\\
36&$t_1+18=t_2$ &  $a_4=7.7\cdot10^{-16}\,\rm{ms^{-2}}$ ($T_d=40\,\rm{s} \ \ r_{laserRO}=3.0\cdot10^{-11}\,\rm{m/\sqrt{Hz}}$; requires air bearings to full performance and
improved laser metrology)\\
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{c}{Third 18--month period targets} \\
42&$t_2+6$ & Install rotating whirl control (as required in GG)\\
48&$t_2+12$  &  Measure patch effects and demonstrate that they are not relevant; improve sensitivity to effect from Sun @ $24\,\rm h$ by Phase Sensitive Detection in preparation for analysis of space data   \\
54&$t_2+18=t_3$ & Optimize test masses different composition, manufacture test masses, measure their quadrupole moments and confirm
requirements \\
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{c}{Fourth 18--month period targets} \\
60&$t_3+6$ & Manufacture suspensions required for GG in space, measure their elastic constants and quality factors and confirm fulfilment  GG requirements\\
66&$t_3+12$ & Demonstrate on bench laser gauge read out noise to $r_{laserRO}\simeq10^{-12}\,\rm{m/\sqrt{Hz}}\ @ \ 1\div2\,\rm{Hz}$ \\
72&$t_3+18=t_4$ & Test PZTs and inchworms to demonstrate feasibility of balancing in space\\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:GGGRoadmap}
\caption{GGonGround Roadmap}
\end{center}
\end{table}

\clearpage




%
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{Fig10.jpg}
\vspace{1mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{Fig11.jpg}
%\hspace{2mm}
%\includegraphics[height=7cm]{Fig5.jpg}
\caption{Xxxx}
\label{fig:Fig1011}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
%


%
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=8cm]{Fig12.jpg}
%\vspace{1mm}
%\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{Fig8.jpg}
%\hspace{2mm}
%\includegraphics[height=7cm]{Fig5.jpg}
\caption{Xxxx}
\label{fig:Fig12}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
%

xxx laser diff gauge

At present the capacitive readout has a sensitiviy of $1.45 \cdot 10^{-8} $ m/$\sqrt{\rm Hz}$ and will be improved by about a factor 5 in the near future. Although good, this is far from the sensitivity necessary for GG to reach $\eta < 10^{-17}$. Laser interferometry seems to be the best solution.

Besides the sensitivity of the readout system it is also necessary that it have a large dynamic range, well above 10 microns. The two cylinders in the GG and GGonGround systems will oscillate one respect to the other of distances of a few tens of microns.

To reach the goal of GG it is necessary that the readout system have a sensitivity in displacement of $1-2 \cdot 10^{-12}$ m/$\sqrt{\rm Hz}$ at 1-2 Hz corresponding to the rotation frequency of the test mases. Optical systems such a Fabry-Perot interferometers have much higher sensitivities but require that the movement of the objects being monitored be within the tunability of the laser. Generally for gaps of the order of a centimeter this means a dynamic range of fraction of microns. For these reasons a differential laser gauge following the development done by Mike Shao will be adopted. With such a system a noise level of the order of $1-2 \cdot 10^{-12}$ m/$\sqrt{\rm Hz}$ at a frequency of 1 Hz has been demonstrated with an almost unlimited dynamic range.

The implementation of the laser gauge will be in steps. At first a system with about 0.2 nm/$\sqrt{\rm Hz}$ will be installed on GGonGround as a prototype system. At this stage the limiting effect of the sensitivity of GGonGround will be due to the suspension air bearings. Improvements will then be made so as to gain a factor of about 8 on the bearing tilt noise and therefore the gauge will also be improved to avoid limiting the overall sensitivity of GGonGround. Finally we will demonstrate and reach the nominal gauge sensitivity required of $1-2 \cdot 10^{-12}$ m/$\sqrt{\rm Hz}$ at 1-2 Hz necessary for GG.

The issue of systematic errors which may degrade the performance of the laser gauge when applied to the two coaxial rotating cylinders seems to be under control. Periodic oscillations of the cylinders at their natural coupling frequency (period = 540 seconds in GG, from 10-40 seconds for GGonGround) will be present but have a frequency well above the frequency at which we will be searching for a signal: $1.7 \cdot 10^{-4}$ Hz from the rotation frequency. With the high Q's of coupling springs (Q > 20000) this should not be an issue.

A critical issue which must be kept in mind is the effect of mirror roughness. Studies by Mike Shao have shown that a high quality surface will introduce a displacement noise of about 1 picometer for each micron of transverse beam motion. With superpolished surfaces this can be a factor 10 better. This could become an issue if the masses were to move distances larger than a few tens of microns.

xxxx

\clearpage


\begin{thebibliography}{}



\bibitem{Einstein1907}{A. Einstein}, Jahrbuch der Radioaktivit$\ddot{\rm a}$t und Elektronik, 4, 411-462 (1907)\\[-25pt]

\bibitem{Adel2008} {S. Schlamminger} {\it  et. al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 041101 (2008)\\[-25pt]

\bibitem{LLR2004} {J. G. Williams, S. G. Turyshev \& D. H. Boggs}, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 261101 (2004)\\[-25pt]


\bibitem{adelreview2009} {E. G. Adelberger}{\it et al.},  Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 62, 102 (2009)\\[-25pt]

\bibitem{EPwithlaserranging} {A. M. Nobili} {\it et al.},  General Relativity \& Gravitation 40, 1533–1554 (2008)\\[-25pt]

\bibitem{coldatoms2004} {S. Fray} {\it  et. al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 240404 (2004)\\[-25pt]

\bibitem{peters1999} {A. Peters, K.Y. Chung \& S. Chu},  Nature 400, 949 (1999)\\[-25pt]

\bibitem{ChapmanHanson} {P. K. Chapman, A. J. Hanson}, {\it Proc. Conf. on Exp. Tests of Grav.  Theories},  JPL Pub. 228 (1971)\\[-25pt]

\bibitem{WordenThesis} {P. W. Worden, Jr.}, {\it PhD Thesis}, Stanford University, Stanford (CA) (1976)\\[-25pt]

\bibitem{WordenAA1987}{P. W. Worden, Jr.}, Acta Astronautica, 5, 27 (1987)\\[-25pt]

\bibitem{radiometerPRD}{A. M. Nobili}  {\it et al.},  Phys. Rev. D  Rapid Commun. 63, 101101(R) (2001)\\[-25pt]

\bibitem{DenHartog} {J. P. Den Hartog}, {\it Mechanical Vibrations}, Dover Publ. Inc N.Y. 1985 (first published in 1934)\\[-25pt]

\bibitem{Crandall1970} {S. H. Crandall},  J. Sound Vib. 11(1), 3-18, (1970)\\[-25pt]

\bibitem{JAS1995}{A. M. Nobili}  {\it et al.},  J. Astronaut. Sc. 43, 219-242 (1995)\\[-25pt]

\bibitem{NA_GG_1998}{A. M. Nobili}  {\it et al.},  New Astronomy 3  175–218 (1998)\\[-25pt]

\bibitem{CQG1999} {A. M. Nobili} {\it et al.}, Classical Quantum Gravity 16, 1463-1470 (1999)\\[-25pt]

\bibitem{radiometerMicroscope} {A. M. Nobili} {\it et al.}, New Astronomy 7 521-529 (2002)\\[-25pt]

\bibitem{GGStudyReports}\href{http://eotvos.dm.unipi.it/ggweb/phaseA}{\it GG Phase A Study Report}, ASI (1998), \href{http://eotvos.dm.unipi.it/PA2/GG%20Phase%20A-2%20Study%20Report%20April%202009.pdf}{\it GG Phase A-2 Study Report} (2009)\\[-25pt]


\bibitem{NA_GGG_2003}{A. M. Nobili}  {\it et al.},  New Astronomy 8  371-390 (2003)\\[-25pt]

\bibitem{GGG_RSI_I} {G. L. Comandi} {\it et al.}, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 77 034501 1-15 (2006)\\[-25pt]

\bibitem{GGG_RSI_II} {G. L. Comandi} {\it et al.}, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 77 034502 1-15 (2006)\\[-25pt]

\bibitem{IJMPD}{A. M. Nobili}  {\it et al.}, Int. J. of Modern Physics D, 16 2259-2270 (2007) \\[-25pt]

\bibitem{PRLthermalnoise} {R. Pegna} {\it et al.},  Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 200801 (2011)\\[-25pt]

\bibitem{IntegrationTime}{A. M. Nobili} {\it et al.}, {\it Integration time in very high sensitive EP tests in space,} to be submitted \\[-25pt]

\bibitem{nullchecks}{A. M. Nobili}, {\it et al.,} {\it Null checks in space experiments to test EP,} to be submitted\\[-25pt]


\bibitem{ComandiThesis}{G. L. Comandi},  {\it PhD Thesis,} University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy (2004)\\[-25pt]

\bibitem{IafollaTilts}{V. Iafolla},  \href{/home/nobili/public_html/GGonGroundSynergyGrant/TerrainNoise}{\it private communication} (2012)\\[-25pt]

\end{thebibliography}


xxxxx

b. Methodology
Describe the proposed methodology and feasibility in detail including, as appropriate, key
intermediate goals. Explain and justify the methodology in relation to the state of the art,
including any particularly novel or unconventional aspects addressing 'high-gain/high-risk'
balance, i.e. if successful the payoffs will be very significant, but there is a higher-than-
normal risk that the research project does not entirely fulfil its aims.

\clearpage

\section{B1--c: Resources and budget tables}
\label{sec:SectionC}


%\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{tabular}{|p{2.1cm}|l|r|r|r|r|r|}
\hline
\hline
\hline
\multicolumn{7}{|c|}{\textbf{Budget Table (in {\EURtm}) for the Corresponding Principal Investigator Anna M. Nobili}} \\
\hline
\hline
\hline
                              &Cost                     &Months       &Months        &Months        &Months        &Total\\
                              &Category                 &       1--18 &       19--36 &       37--54 &       55--72 &     \\
\hline
\hline
\multirow{17}{*}{Direct Costs}&Personnel:               &             &              &              &              &      \\
                              \cline{2-7}
                              &PI                       &44000        &44000         &36000         &36000         &160000      \\
                              \cline{2-7}
                              &Senior Staff (1)         &118500       &118500        &118500        &118500        &474000      \\
                              \cline{2-7}
                              &Post Docs (1)            &67500        &67500         &67500         &67500         &270000     \\
                              \cline{2-7}
                              &Students (PhD, 2)        &60000        &60000         &60000         &60000         &240000     \\
                              \cline{2-7}
                              &Other (Dr. R. Pegna)     &118500     &118500        &118500        &118500        &474000      \\
                              \cline{2-7}
                              &Other (1 mech. engineer) &67500        &67500         &67500         &67500         &270000    \\
                              \cline{2-7}
                              &Other (Dr. G. Catastini) &             &              &66000         & 66000        &132000      \\
                              \cline{2-7}
                              &Other (Dr. D.M. Lucchesi)  &13500        &13500         &13500         & 13500        &54000     \\
                              \cline{2-7}
                              &Other (1 Junior Staff)   &105000       &105000        &105000        &105000        &420000      \\
                              \cline{2-7}
                              &Other (1 admin. assistant) &53550        &53500         &53550        &53550         &214200      \\
                              \cline{2-7}
                              &\textbf{Total Personnel:}         &             &              &              &              &\textbf{2708200}  \\
                              \cline{2-7}
                              &                         &             &              &              &              &      \\
                              \cline{2-7}
                              &Other Direct Costs:      &             &              &              &              &      \\
                              \cline{2-7}
                              &Equipement (eligible fraction only)    &235000        &275000        &275000        &275000       &1060000      \\
                              \cline{2-7}
                              &Consumables              &25000        &25000         &25000         &25000         &100000      \\
                              \cline{2-7}
                              &Travel                   &92700        &92700         &100950        &100950        &387300      \\
                              \cline{2-7}
                              &Publications, dissemination etc..       &49500        &49500         &49500         &49500       &198000      \\
                              \cline{2-7}
                              &Other (removal and lab set up)                    &50000             &              &              &           &50000      \\
                              \cline{2-7}
                              &\textbf{Total Other Direct Costs} &452200         &442200            &450450        &450450        &\textbf{1795300}  \\
                              \cline{2-7}
                              &                         &             &              &              &              &      \\
\hline
                              &\textbf{Total Direct Costs}&1100250    &1090250       &1156500       &1156500                &\textbf{4503500}      \\
\hline
Indirect Costs                &Max 20\% of Direct Costs   &220050     &218050        &231300        &23130         &900700    \\
\hline
Subcontracting Costs (auditing)          &(No Overheads)           &10000        &10000         &10000         &10000         &40000     \\
\hline
\textbf{Total Costs of Project:}       &(By Year and Total)  &1330300    &1318300    &1397800       &1397800       &\textbf{5444200}     \\
\hline
\textbf{Requested Grant:}              &(By Year and Total)  &1330300    &1318300    &1397800       &1397800       &\textbf{5444200}     \\
\hline
\hline
\hline
\multicolumn{7}{|c|}{Working time the PI \textbf{A.M. Nobili} dedicates to the project over the period of the grant} \\
\hline
\hline
                              &                         &Months       &Months        &Months        &Months        &Average     \\
                              &                         &       1--18 &       19--36 &       37--54 &       55--72 &     \\
\hline
                              &      &\textbf{73.3\%}   &\textbf{73.3\%}    &\textbf{60\%}     &\textbf{60\%}        &\textbf{67\%}    \\
\hline
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{small}
%\label{tab:BudgetTable1}
%\caption{Budget Table 1 for the Corresponding Principal Investigator Anna M. Nobili}
\end{center}
%\end{table}
%

%\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{tabular}{|p{2.1cm}|l|r|r|r|r|r|}
\hline
\hline
\hline
\multicolumn{7}{|c|}{ \textbf{Budget Table (in {\EURtm}) for the Principal Investigator Guido Zavattini}} \\
\hline
\hline
\hline
                              &Cost                     &Months       &Months        &Months        &Months        &Total\\
                              &Category                 &       1--18 &       19--36 &       37--54 &       55--72 &     \\
\hline
\hline
\multirow{17}{*}{Direct Costs}&Personnel:               &             &              &              &              &      \\
                              \cline{2-7}
                              &PI                       &24000        &36000         &36000         &36000         &132000     \\
                              \cline{2-7}
                              &Senior Staff (1)         &118500       &118500        &118500        &118500        &474000   \\
                              \cline{2-7}
                              &Post Docs (1)            &67500        &67500         &67500         &67500         &270000      \\
                              \cline{2-7}
                              &Students (PhD, 1)        &30000        &30000         &30000         &30000         &120000      \\
                              \cline{2-7}
                              &Other (Dr. Mike Shao)    &37500        &37500         &37500         &37500         &150000      \\
                              \cline{2-7}
                              &Other (2 Junior Staff)   &210000       &210000        &210000        &210000        &840000      \\
                              \cline{2-7}
                              &\textbf{Total Personnel:}&487500       &499500        &499500        &499500        &\textbf{1986000} \\
                              \cline{2-7}
                              &                         &             &              &              &              &      \\
                              \cline{2-7}
                              &Other Direct Costs:      &             &              &              &              &      \\
                              \cline{2-7}
                              &Equipement (eligible fraction only)    &210000        &230000        &200000        &200000   &840000      \\
                              \cline{2-7}
                              &Consumables              &25000        &25000         &25000         &25000         &100000      \\
                              \cline{2-7}
                              &Travel                   &102000       &125000        &92000         &92000         &411000      \\
                              \cline{2-7}
                              &Publications, dissemination etc        &30000         &30000         &30000         &30000        &120000      \\
                              \cline{2-7}
                              &Other                    &             &              &              &              &      \\
                              \cline{2-7}
                              &\textbf{Total Other Direct Costs} &367000 &410000     &347000        &347000        &\textbf{1471000}  \\
                              \cline{2-7}
                              &                         &             &              &              &              &         \\
\hline
                              &\textbf{Total Direct Costs} &854500    &909500        &846500        &846500        &\textbf{3457000}  \\
\hline
Indirect Costs                &Max 20\% of Direct Costs    &170900    &181900        &169300        &169300        &691400      \\
\hline
Subcontracting Costs          &(No Overheads)           &             &              &              &              &      \\
\hline
\textbf{Total Costs of Project:} &(By Year and Total)   &1025400      &1091400       &1015800       &1015800       &\textbf{4148400} \\
\hline
\textbf{Requested Grant:}        &(By Year and Total)   &1025400      &1091400       &1015800       &1015800       &\textbf{4148400} \\
\hline
\hline
\hline
\multicolumn{7}{|c|}{Working time the PI \textbf{G. Zavattini}  dedicates to the project over the period of the grant} \\
\hline
\hline
                              &                         &Months       &Months        &Months        &Months        &Average     \\
                              &                         &       1--18 &       19--36 &       37--54 &       55--72 &     \\
\hline
                              &   &\textbf{40\%}        &\textbf{60\%}         &\textbf{60\%}         &\textbf{60\%}         &\textbf{50\%}     \\
\hline
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{small}
%\label{tab:BudgetTable2}
%\caption{Summary Budget Table}
\end{center}
%\end{table}
%
%\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{tabular}{|p{2.1cm}|l|r|r|r|r|r|}
\hline
\hline
\hline
\multicolumn{7}{|c|}{\textbf{Summary Table for the Entitre Budget (in {\EURtm})}} \\
\hline
\hline
\hline
                              &Cost                     &Months       &Months        &Months        &Months        &Total\\
                              &Category                 &       1--18 &       19--36 &       37--54 &       55--72 &     \\
\hline
\hline
\multirow{17}{*}{Direct Costs}&Personnel:               &             &              &              &              &      \\
                              \cline{2-7}
                              &PI                       &68000        &80000         &72000         &72000         &292000 \\
                              \cline{2-7}
                              &Senior Staff             &237000       &237000        &237000        &237000        &948000 \\
                              \cline{2-7}
                              &Post Docs                &135000       &135000        &135000        &135000        &540000 \\
                              \cline{2-7}
                              &Students                 &90000        &90000         &90000         &90000         &360000 \\
                              \cline{2-7}
                              &Other                    &605550       &605550        &671550        &671550        &2554200 \\
                              \cline{2-7}
                              &\textbf{Total Personnel:}&1135550      &1147550       &1205550       &1205550       &\textbf{4694200}\\
                              \cline{2-7}
                              &                         &             &              &              &              &      \\
                              \cline{2-7}
                              &Other Direct Costs:      &             &              &              &              &      \\
                              \cline{2-7}
                              &Equipement               &445000       &505000        &475000        &475000        &1900000 \\
                              \cline{2-7}
                              &Consumables              &50000        &50000         &50000         &50000         &200000  \\
                              \cline{2-7}
                              &Travel                   &194700       &217700        &192950        &192950        &798300  \\
                              \cline{2-7}
                              &Publications, dissemination etc        &79500         &79500         &79500         &79500     &318000  \\
                              \cline{2-7}
                              &Other                    &50000             &              &              &              &50000   \\
                              \cline{2-7}
                              &\textbf{Total Other Direct Costs}&819200    &852200        &797450        &797450        &\textbf{3266300}\\
                              \cline{2-7}
                              &                         &             &              &              &              &      \\
\hline
                              &\textbf{Total Direct Costs}&1954750    &1999750       &2003000       &2003000       &\textbf{7960500}\\
\hline
Indirect Costs                &Max 20\% of Direct Costs &390950       &399950        &400600        &400600        &1592100 \\
\hline
Subcontracting Costs (auditing)         &(No Overheads)           &10000        &10000         &10000         &10000         &40000   \\
\hline
\textbf{Total Costs of Project:}&(By Year and Total)&2355700          &2409700       &2413600        &2413600       &\textbf{9592600}\\
\hline
\textbf{Requested Grant:} &(By Year and Total)      &2355700          &2409700       &2413600        &2413600       &\textbf{9592600} \\
\hline
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{small}
%\label{tab:SummaryBudgetTable}
%\caption{Summary Budget Table}
\end{center}
%\end{table}
%


%

% The main things to note are, to span multiple columns in a latex table
% you just use \multicolumn followed by the number of columns to span
% and how you want it positioned, e.g. l for left, r for right, c for
% centered. Spanning multiple rows in a latex table is the same, except
% using \multirow followed by the number of rows to span, and how you
% would like it positioned. * basically means best fit. Remember that
% the first element of each row needs to be empty, since you have some
% piece of information spanning multiple rows.



c. Resources (incl. project costs)
It is strongly recommended to use the budget table template to facilitate the assessment of
resources by the panels (see Annex 3). The summary and the breakdown of the budget
following the template is subdivided in personnel costs, equipment and infrastructure,
consumables, travel, publication costs, and any envisaged subcontracts. This table has to be
provided by each PI and a final table will summarise the overall budget breakdown for the
roject. These figures should be summarised in the financial information form A3 as well
(although according to host institutions and not according to PIs).

Describe the size and nature of the Synergy group, including each PI and where appropriate,
their key team members and their roles. The participation of team members engaged by
another institution besides that of the participating PIs should be justified in relation to the
additional financial cost this may impose to the project (see section 1.1.3 of this guide).
Describe other necessary resources, such as infrastructure and equipment. Specify any
existing resources that will contribute to the project. It is advisable to include a short technical
description of the equipment requested, a justification of its need as well as the intensity of its
planned use. Please ensure that a short narrative description is provided for all budget lines
for which funding is requested.

State the amount of funding considered necessary to fulfil the objectives for the duration of
the project. This should be a reasoned estimate of the projects costs. Each PI should take
into account the percentage of their dedicated time (each PI is expected to devote at least
30\% of their total working time to the ERC-funded project while spending at least 50% of their
total working time in an EU Member State or Associated Country) to run the ERC-funded
activity when calculating their personnel costs. Include the direct costs of the project plus a
flat rate financing of indirect costs on the basis of 20\% of the total eligible direct costs
(excluding subcontracting and the costs of reimbursement of resources made available by
third parties which are not used on the premises of the beneficiary) towards overheads.

The project cost estimation should be as accurate as possible. The evaluation panels assess
the estimated costs carefully; unjustified budgets will be consequently reduced.

There is no minimum contribution per year; the requested contribution should be in
proportion to the actual needs to fulfil the objectives of the project.



\section{B--d: Ethical and security-sensitive issues}
\label{sec:B1SectionD}


%
\begin{center}
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{tabular}{|p{0.5cm}|p{13cm}|p{1cm}|p{1cm}|}
\hline
 & \textbf{Research on Human Embryo/ Foetus} &NO &Page\\
\hline
 & Does the proposed research involve human Embryos?& NO &  \\
\hline
 & Does the proposed research involve human Foetal Tissues/ Cells?& NO  &  \\
\hline
 & Does the proposed research involve human Embryonic Stem Cells (hESCs)?& NO  &  \\
\hline
 & Does the proposed research on human Embryonic Stem Cells involve cells in culture?& NO  &  \\
\hline
 & Does the proposed research on Human Embryonic Stem Cells involve the derivation of cells from Embryos?& NO  &  \\
\hline
 & I CONFIRM THAT NONE OF THE ABOVE ISSUES APPLY TO MY PROPOSAL&\textbf{YES} &  \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{footnotesize}
\end{center}
%
%
\begin{center}
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{tabular}{|p{0.5cm}|p{13cm}|p{1cm}|p{1cm}|}
\hline
 &\textbf{Research on Humans} &NO & Page \\
\hline
&Does the proposed research involve children? & NO& \\
\hline
&Does the proposed research involve patients? & NO& \\
\hline
&Does the proposed research involve persons not able to give consent? & NO& \\
\hline
&Does the proposed research involve adult healthy volunteers? &NO & \\
\hline
&Does the proposed research involve Human genetic material? &NO & \\
\hline
&Does the proposed research involve Human biological samples? &NO & \\
\hline
&Does the proposed research involve Human data collection? &NO & \\
\hline
& I CONFIRM THAT NONE OF THE ABOVE ISSUES APPLY TO MY PROPOSAL&\textbf{YES} & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{footnotesize}
\end{center}
%
%
\begin{center}
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{tabular}{|p{0.5cm}|p{13cm}|p{1cm}|p{1cm}|}
\hline
 &\textbf{Privacy} &NO & Page \\
\hline
&Does the proposed research involve processing of genetic information or personal data
(e.g. health, sexual lifestyle, ethnicity, political opinion, religious or philosophical conviction)? & NO& \\
\hline
&Does the proposed research involve tracking the location or observation of people? &NO & \\
\hline
& I CONFIRM THAT NONE OF THE ABOVE ISSUES APPLY TO MY PROPOSAL&\textbf{YES} & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{footnotesize}
\end{center}
%
%
\begin{center}
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{tabular}{|p{0.5cm}|p{13cm}|p{1cm}|p{1cm}|}
\hline
 &\textbf{Research on Animals} &NO & Page \\
\hline
&Does the proposed research involve research on animals? & NO& \\
\hline
&Are those animals transgenic small laboratory animals? &NO & \\
\hline
&Are those animals transgenic farm animals? &NO & \\
\hline
&Are those animals non-human primates? &NO & \\
\hline
&Are those animals cloned farm animals? & NO& \\
\hline
& I CONFIRM THAT NONE OF THE ABOVE ISSUES APPLY TO MY PROPOSAL&\textbf{YES} & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{footnotesize}
\end{center}
%
%
\begin{center}
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{tabular}{|p{0.5cm}|p{13cm}|p{1cm}|p{1cm}|}
\hline
 &\textbf{Research Involving non-EU Countries  (ICPC Countries)} &NO & Page \\
\hline
 &Is the proposed research (or parts of it) going to take place in one or more of the ICPC Countries? &NO & \\
\hline
 &Is any material used in the research (e.g. personal data, animal and/or human tissue samples, genetic material, live animals, etc) : &NO &\\
 &a) Collected in any of the ICPC countries? & NO& \\
\hline
 &b)  Exported to any other country (including ICPC and EU Member States)? &NO & \\
\hline
& I CONFIRM THAT NONE OF THE ABOVE ISSUES APPLY TO MY PROPOSAL&\textbf{YES} & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{footnotesize}
\end{center}
%
%
\begin{center}
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{tabular}{|p{0.5cm}|p{13cm}|p{1cm}|p{1cm}|}
\hline
 &\textbf{Dual Use} &NO & Page \\
\hline
 &Research having direct military use  & NO& \\
\hline
 &Research having the potential for terrorist abuse &NO & \\
\hline
& I CONFIRM THAT NONE OF THE ABOVE ISSUES APPLY TO MY PROPOSAL&\textbf{YES} & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{footnotesize}
\end{center}
%\clearpage




\textbf{Security-Sensitive Issues}\\
There are no security-sensitive issues


