Initially the projects relied mainly on the association of two different partner laboratories, with the first often providing the technical assistance for the topic of the second. This was an essential stage that allowed the researchers to adopt a vocabulary common to both groups, and to come to a better understanding of what the other's technology could bring to the partnership. Over the years, this type of cooperation' has been replaced by projects where close collaboration plays an important role, and each of the parties tries to bring an intellectual and conceptual added value, in the most balanced way possible. This past experience counts, but we couldn't ignore that for this AAP 2014, the IDA is now an institute that has attained a certain level of maturity with regards to this approach. This is the reason why the criteria for submitting a project, this year, may appear to be more severe, but are actually in the logical evolution of the IDA that I've just spoken of. We have therefore preferred projects that were resolutely collaborative and original, with a financial bonus for those projects with three partners, and endeavouring to avoid projects that were a follow-on. The idea was to increase the turnover, not only of ideas, but of the people involved. The distribution of the main researchers (PI) amongst the four laboratories is respected, new researchers came forward in light of the call for projects, bringing with them new interrogations and original topics. I must say that it was a real pleasure to read through these projects. They showed that there had been real forethought. The projects financed all show a certain maturity that testifies to the evolution of out institute over the past 12 years.