Upload
dangcong
View
215
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
│ 1
European Research Council Grants: To apply or not to apply?
Nicolas Sifakis Research Director IAASARS NOA
Seconded to the ERCEA
Scientific Management Department
3 December 2015
National Observatory of Athens
│ 2
Outline
What does ERC offer?
Funding schemes, opportunities
The Evaluation Procedure/ERC Modus operandi
How to prepare and submit a grant proposal
Tips, rumours and the "truth"
│ 3
ERC in the H2020 Structure
The HORIZON 2020 main components: Excellent Science
World class science is foundation of technologies, jobs, well-being
Europe needs to develop, attract, retain research talent
Researchers need access to the best infrastructures
Industrial leadership
Societal challenges
Excellent Science: European Research Council
Future and Emerging Technologies
Marie Sklodowska Curie Actions
Research Infrastructures
│ 3
│ 4
What is special about the ERC?
• All fields of science and scholarship are eligible
• Investigator driven, bottom up
• High risk – high gain research
• Scientific Excellence is the only criterion
• Individual team + research project
• Irrespectively of nationality, gender or age of researchers
• Attractive grants
• Significant, flexible grants, up to five years
• Under full control of the PI
• Independent individual teams in Europe
• All nationalities can apply
• Host organisation to be located in EU or AC (portable!)
│ 5
• to work on a topic of own choice, with a team of own choice
• to attract top team members (EU and non-EU) and collaborators
• to gain true financial autonomy for 5 years
• to negotiate with the HI the best conditions of work
• to benefit from the possibility of portability of grants
• to attract additional funding and gain recognition
ERC offers to grantees
independence, recognition & visibility
│ 6
Figures and facts
│ 7
StG
starters (2-7 years after
PhD) up to € 2.0 M for 5 years
AdG track-record of significant research achievements in the last 10 years
up to € 3.5 M
for 5 years
Proof-of-Concept Exclusively for ERC grant holders bridging gap between research - earliest stage of marketable innovation, up to €150,000
ERC Grant funding schemes
CoG
consolidators (7-12 years after
PhD) up to € 2.75 M for 5 years
│ 8
Researcher's career development
and complementary funding schemes
Post-docs
Extraordinary track record / achievements
Students
Post Graduates
Junior Researcher Associated Professor
Senior Researcher Full Professor
Marie Curie
ERC AdG
ERC StG
ERC CoG
ERASMUS
│ 9
ERC StG, CoG, AdG 2014
Age of applicants at call publication date
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
26283032343638404244464850525456586062646668707274767880828486
# A
pp
lican
ts
Age of applicants at call publication date
AdG 2014
CoG 2014
StG 2014
│ 10 │ 10 │ 10 │ 10
Who can apply to ERC?
• Excellent Researchers
• Any nationality, any age or any current place of work
• In conjunction with a Host Institution
based in EU or associated countries
│ 11
Applicant legal entity: Institution that engages and hosts the PI
for the duration of the project (25% overheads to HI)
Any type of legal entity: Universities, research centres, business
research units … as long as it is in MS or AC
Commitment of HI to ensure that the PI may:
- apply for funding independently
- manage research and funding for the project
- publish independently as senior author
- have access to reasonable space and facilities
Host institution
│ 12
25 panels for all areas of science
in 3 domains Each panel: PC and 10-15 PMs
Social Sciences and Humanities (SH) 6
SH1 Individuals, institutions & markets
SH2 Institutions, values, beliefs and behaviour
SH3 Environment & society
SH4 The Human Mind and its complexity
SH5 Cultures & cultural production
SH6 The study of the human past
Physical Sciences & Engineering (PE) 10
PE1 Mathematical foundations
PE2 Fundamental constituents of matter
PE3 Condensed matter physics
PE4 Physical & Analytical Chemical sciences
PE5 Materials & Synthesis
PE6 Computer science & informatics
PE7 Systems & communication engineering
PE8 Products & process engineering
PE9 Universe sciences
PE10 Earth system science
Life Sciences (LS) 9
LS1 Molecular & Structural Biology &
Biochemistry
LS2 Genetics, Genomics, Bioinformatics &
Systems Biology
LS3 Cellular and Developmental Biology
LS4 Physiology, Pathophysiology &
Endocrinology
LS5 Neurosciences & neural disorders
LS6 Immunity & infection
LS7 Diagnostic tools, therapies & public
health
LS8 Evolutionary, population & environmental
biology
LS9 Applied life sciences & biotechnology
│ 13
Other
(7%)
Who evaluates the proposals ?
(7%) USA
Panel members: typically 600 / call
High-level scientists
Recruited by ScC from all over the world
About 12-16 members plus a chair person
Referees: typically 2000 / call
Evaluate only a small number of proposals
Similar to normal practise in peer-reviewed journals
│ 14 │ 14
321308
266
194
114105101
85 81 7766 65
55
41 3627 21
9 5 5 5 4 3 3
125
4437
166 4 3
196
15 11 6 5 3 3 3 1 1 1
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
UK DE FR IT ES NL SE BE AT DK FI PL HU CZ PT EL IE RO BG CY SK LT EE SI CH IL NO TR RS HR IS US JP CA AU TW CL HK RU UA AR MX
EU Member States Associated C. International
Men
Women
Nu
mb
er
of
as
sig
nm
en
ts*
Country of Panel Member's Host Institution
Based on the eight ERC StG and AdG calls 2007 - 2011
ERC panel members by country of HI
and gender
ERC StG, CoG and AdG calls 2007 - 2014
│ 15
General impression of review process
• Very fair & professional (careful reviews, careful checks on reviewers & review process)
• Excellent oversight, preparation & screening for possible COIs by ERC staff
• Very many excellent proposals, too small budget highly competitive
│ 16
Excellence as sole criterion, to apply to:
Research Project
Ground breaking nature
Potential impact
Scientific approach
Principle Investigator (PI)
Intellectual capacity
Creativity
Commitment
Evaluation Criteria
│ 17 │ 17
Eligibility check
Step 1 (remote) evaluation on the basis of Part B1 of proposal by panel members
Proposals passing to Step 2
Individual assessment of full proposal by
panel members + referees
AdG : 2nd Panel meeting
Submission of full proposals
Proposals selected for funding
How does it work?
Submission, evaluation and selection
1st Panel meeting
CoG, StG: 2nd Panel meeting
+ interviews of
applicants
│ 18
PART A – online forms
A1 Proposal and PI info
A2 Host Institution info
A3 Budget
PART B1 – submitted as pdf
Extended Synopsis 5 pages
CV 2 p.
Track Record 2 p.
Annexes – submitted as pdf
• Statement of support of HI
• copy of PhD or equiv. (StG & CoG)
If applicable:
• document for extension of eligibility
window (StG & CoG)
• explanatory information on ethical
issues
PART B2 – submitted as pdf
Scientific Proposal 15 p.
(incl. budget table)
Submission of proposals
Proposal structure
│ 19
Extensions of eligibility window possible for StG and
CoG for documented situations of:
• Maternity – 18 months per child
• Paternity – effective time taken off
• Military service
• Medical speciality training
• Caring for seriously ill family members
• No limit to the total extension
Extensions of eligibility window
│ 20
Panel meeting – Step 1 Scoring
Results of Step 1:
A. Proposal is of sufficient quality to pass to Step 2
of the evaluation
B. Proposal is of high quality but not sufficient to
pass to Step 2 of the evaluation
C. Proposal is not of sufficiently high quality to
pass to Step 2 of the evaluation
│ 21
Feedback to applicants
Step 2 results
Results of Step 2:
A. Proposal fully meets the ERC's excellence criterion and
is recommended for funding if sufficient funds are
available
B. Proposal meets some but not all elements of the ERC's
excellence criterion and will not be funded
At the end of both steps, applicants will be informed
about the ranking range of their proposal out of all
proposals evaluated by the panel.
│ 22
Restrictions of reapplications
• Ever increasing number of applications causes low
success rates and high panel workload
• New for 2016 call applicants:
• those who receive a B at Step 1 have to wait
out one year
• those who receive a C will have to wait out
two years
│ 23 │
Questions to ask yourself as an applicant
• Is my project new, innovative, bringing in new solutions? theory?
applications?
• Does it promise to go substantially beyond the state of the art?
• Why is my proposed project important?
• Is it timely? (Why wasn't it done in the past? Is it feasible now?)
• What's the risk? Is it justified by a substantial potential gain? Do I have a
plan for managing the risk?
• Why am I the best/only person to carry it out?
• Am I internationally competitive as a researcher at my career stage and in
my discipline?
• Am I able to work independently, and to manage a 5-year project with a
substantial budget
• How can I prove/support my case?
│ 24
Preparing an application
Choose your Host Institution (to be done well in advance)
Select the "right" Panel – very IMPORTANT, ID explanation
Choose your descriptors and free keywords carefully
Talk to the National Contact Points and your institution's grant office
Register early, get familiar with the system and templates and start filling
in the forms respecting formatting rules and page limits
A submitted proposal can be revised until the call deadline by submitting
a new version and overwriting the previous one. Download and proof-read
the proposal before submitting
Make use of using all help tools and call documents (Information for
Applicants, Work Programme, FAQ)
│ 24
│ 25
In Step 1: Panel members (generalists and with multidisciplinary approaches) see only Part B1 of your proposal: Prepare it accordingly!
Pay particular attention to the ground-breaking nature of the research project – no incremental research. State-of-the-art is not enough. Think big!
Know your competitors – what is the state of play and why is your idea and scientific approach outstanding?
Only the extended Synopsis is read at Step 1: concise and clear presentation is crucial (evaluators are not necessarily all experts in the field)
Outline of the methodological approach (feasibility)
Show your scientific independence in your CV (model CV provided in the part B1 template)
Funding ID to be filled in
│
Submission of Proposals Differences in Part B1 and Part B2
│ 26
Submission of Proposals Differences in Part B1 and Part B2
In Step 2: Both Part B1 and B2 are sent to specialists around the world (specialised external referees)
Do not just repeat the synopsis
Provide sufficient detail on methodology, work plan, selection of case studies etc. (15 pages)
Check coherency of figures, justify requested resources
Explain involvement of team members (ERC proposals are NOT collaborative ones)
Provide alternative strategies to mitigate risk
│
│ 27
Submission of Proposals
Proposal budget considerations
• Budget analysis carried out in Step 2 evaluation (meeting)
• Panels have responsibility to ensure that resources requested
are reasonable and well justified
• Budget cuts need to be justified on a proposal by proposal
basis (no across-the-board cuts)
• Panels to recommend a final maximum budget based on the
resources allocated/ removed
• Panels do not “micro-manage” project finances
• Awards made on a “take-it-or-leave-it” basis: no negotiations
│ 28
It is your choice (in MS or Associated countries)
You can change it during the project's life (e.g. your career)
Negotiate with the HI (your position, equipment, administrative support,
access to infrastructure, etc.)
Rumours
1. The quality /fame of the HI is increasing my chances/scores
2. There is a lobbying from the not so successful countries to introduce a quota
NOT true,
1. the HI is not an evaluation criteria and it is never discussed at the evaluation
meetings,
2. lobbying is firmly rejected, but WG are set-up to support less successful
countries WP
Tips 1- Host Institution
│ 29
Decides on the panel which will evaluate your proposal
Is the basis of allocation to the panel members (with various expertise)
Will determine whether a cross panel evaluation is necessary
Rumours
1. Choose the panel "strategically"
2. The more cross panel descriptors are indicated, the higher the funding chances,
i.e. indicates inter-disciplinarity
NOT really true,
1. Your project might be evaluated by a "wrong" panel" (only with restricted
expertise)
2. If your project is interdisciplinary, decide on the evaluating panel based on the
dominating innovative element of your project
Tips 2- Submission; Descriptors and free keywords
│ 30
Obvious link between Parts B1 and B2 (both evaluated only in step 2)
Clear and logical presentation (keep the recommended length)
Make use of the evaluation criteria (use them as title/subtitle)
Make the project "easy to read and attractive"
Give timeline and show you did your homework (references/literature)
Describe accurately the requested budget vs. the proposed research (
Rumours
1. Ask for more money, the reviewers will anyhow cut it down
2. I need preliminary results
NOT true,
1. Unexplained or non-motivated requests can be cut down
2. If you have preliminary results include them, if they are absent, explain the "hypothesis"
show support in literature
Tips 3- The project
│ 31
As important as your project (almost)
Clear and logical presentation (list all relevant facts)
"guide the reviewer"
Have a Researcher ID that can be generated on the web of science (submit the
web address in the application
If you know that you have gaps or other issues in your CV (e.g. co-authored
publications), explain them
Give trend (if possible)
Describe accurately any other activity which can indicate scientific maturity
Rumours
One needs publications in Nature/Science/Cell high-IF journals to succeed
NOT true, however, publishing with senior scientists (former supervisors) raises doubts
about maturity/scientific independence. Give publishing trend is possible, explain gaps in
the trend (maternity, illness, army, ..), explain publishing habits in your field and country.
Tips 4- The CV
│ 32
Think through your project, have a logical and clear step by step description
Explain risks if you can identify them and have a contingency plan
"Guide the reviewer", use evaluation criteria as title/subtitle
Rumours
1.There is request to include PMs from all Member States in the panels, not all are competent
2.PMs are generalists, with only few real experts, those can influence the panel decision
3.Expert PMs influence the panel decision by lobbying for their own country
NOT true, however,
1.if equal excellence/expertise is present, a positive discrimination might be applied (considering
gender, grantee, geographic location, etc.)
2.PMs are excellent scientists, all used to evaluate projects at national and international level
3.The panel meetings are assisted by ERC scientific officers and independent observers
(including members of the Scientific Council) to assure equal treatment and objective evaluation
│
Tips 5- The evaluation
│ 33
Show your interest and enthusiasm – to be remembered by the PMs
Have clear and representative slides ("Less is more"!), focus on SCIENCE!
Bring additional slides on new supporting data, if you can/have
Look at the panel and not to the wall/slides - to be remembered by the PMs
Answer all questions, if not sure ask back the question
Don't over-explain your CV
Keep the time
Rumours
1. Choose your Acronym in alphabetical order, interviews are planned after alphabet
2.Late PM interviews have less chance, PMs are tired
NOT true, however,
1. Easy to remember acronym helps identifying the project during discussions
2. Tiredness can be there, "shake" the PMs up, place a joke, a comment…
│
Tips 6- Interview: PRACTICE!!!
│ 34
After the interview
Redressing
Before Redressing: don't blame the evaluator, see what could you have
done/explain/present better
Diverting scientific opinions are not motivating a redress
An obvious mistake might result in a re-evaluation
│ 35
Increasing your chances
Address all evaluation criteria carefully
Be clear when describing scientific excellence
Show your ability of thinking outside the box
Show the progress beyond the state-of-the-art
If you have supporting preliminary results, include them
Support (literature) & visualise your hypothesis, if possible use charts, tables, images
Show "proof of maturity", think through the research you propose, identify risks and propose
alternatives to reach the goal (contingency)
Be realistic with your goals (don't over-dimension the Work Plan)
Have a well presented CV
Choose the correct descriptors (key words), don't "overuse" them
Use your own key words
│ 36
To avoid:
• Overdo beefing up your CV
– e.g. 4th co-author on some oral or poster presentations
• Overstate your own contribution, experience, creativity…
• Try to solve all the World’s problems
• Ignore risks
• Write your proposal in a rush.
│ 37
Typical reasons for rejection
Principal investigator • Insufficient track-record
• Insufficient (potential for) independence
• Insufficient experience in leading projects
Proposed project • Scope: Too narrow too broad/unfocussed
• Incremental research
• Collaborative project, several PIs
• Work plan not detailed enough/unclear
• Insufficient risk management
Interview • Discussions/addressing the questions
• Presentation
│ 38
To do:
• Focus on ONE well-defined scientifically-relevant problem.
• Tell a very good story, comprehensible to the non-expert.
• Be frank about risks. If possible, mention fallback options
• Be honest and modest (contributions by you and others, relevance to the research field)
│ 39
Final recommendation
• Tailor your CV well in advance and take the time to prepare and submit your best scientific idea! It’s worth it – ERC puts all efforts into making the review process as fair as possible – though you may still need some luck as well.
│ 40 │ 40
StG 2014 Grantees
Years past PhD
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
# f
un
ded
pro
po
sals
Years passed phD
STG 2014 # years passed PhD
│ 41
Call Planning 2016
• StG 2016 (2-7 years PhD)
• Deadline was 17 November 2015
• CoG 2016 (7-12 years PhD)
• Opened October 2015
• Deadline 2 Feb 2016
• AdG 2016
• Opens end May 2016
• Deadline 1 September 2016
│ 42
Success rates by country of Host Institution
314
249
573
367 969
103 601 155
80 158
36 42 238 35 3 9 35 66 263
1 35 11 2 1 3 13 7
1 2
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
CH IL FR
NL
UK
AT
DE
BE
DK
SE
HU
NO
ES IE EE
CY
PT FI
IT LV
EL
CZ
HR IS
BG
PL
TR
SK SI
Su
ccess r
ate
Host country
ERC STG/ADG/COG Success rate for all calls in FP7:2007-2013
(Overall success rate = 10.4 %)
# - number of grants
│ 43
OGLEIV is an optical gravitational lensing experiment leading to new frontiers in observational astronomy using one of the largest scale sky surveys worldwide (University of Warsaw).
Some examples of recent ERC projects relevant to research activities in NOA
FLOODCHANGE analyses 200-year flood data from selected catchments building a flood-change model to predict how variations in one parameter could affect floods levels, and will attempt predicting how floods will change in the future (Vienna University of Technology).
SIREAL addresses seismology in the ionosphere., and would contribute to determine parameters of seismic source from ionospheric data shortly after an earthquake (Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris)
MODES deals with modal analysis of atmospheric balance, predictability and climate by studying some of the reasons behind the uncertainty of weather analyses and forecasts (University of Ljubljana).
│ 44
Do your HOMEWORK
http://erc.europa.eu
ERC Funded Projects http://erc.europa.eu/erc-funded-projects
│ 45
Subscribe to ERC newsletter and newsalerts:
http://erc.europa.eu/keep-updated-erc
National Contact Points: http://erc.europa.eu/national-contact-points
National Documentation Centre (EKT): Cristina Pascual, Georgia Mazioti
Where to apply:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/index.html
Follow us on:
Further information
EuropeanResearchCouncil
ERC_Research
Thank you for your attention & Good luck with your future application
European ResearchCouncil
Annex: complementary slides
│ 48
EU -28
Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom
Austria Belgium Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland
│ 49
Associated Countries
• Iceland • Switzerland • Bosnia& Herzegovina • Turkey • Albania • FYR Macedonia • Israel • Montenegro • Norway • Serbia • Faroe Islands • Republic of Moldova • Ukraine but not Crimea/Sevastopol • Tunisia – provisionally • Georgia – provisionally
│ 50
“… to support researchers (Principal Investigators) at the stage at which they are starting their own independent research team or programme.”
• minimum of 50% time in Europe (MS + AC)
• minimum of 50% working time on ERC project
Starting Grants (1/4)
Objective
European Research Council
│ 50
│ 51
• Potential for research independence
• One publication without PhD supervisor
• significant publications as 1st/main author
• invited presentations in conferences
• supervision of students
• mobility
• funding, patents, awards, prizes
Starting Grant (2/4)
Profile
European Research Council
│ 51
Junior Professor/ Junior Researcher
Associated Professor
│ 52
• 2 years ≤ PhD date ≤ 7 years
Counting from 1 January Call's calendar year
Call 2015 counts from 1 January 2015
• Extensions to this period are possible
paternity leave, maternity leave, long-term illness, national military service
Starting Grant (3/4)
Eligibility
European Research Council
│ 52
│ 53
– €1.5M for 5 years
– extra €0.5M
• "start-up" costs PI moving from outside EU+AC
• purchase of major equipment
• access to large facilities
100% total eligible direct costs (salaries, equipment, etc.)
Starting Grants (4/4)
Possible requested amount
European Research Council
│ 53
│ 54
“…to support researchers (Principal Investigators) at the stage at which they are consolidating their own independent research team or programme.”
• minimum of 50% time in Europe (MS + AC)
• minimum of 40% working time on ERC project
Consolidators Grants (1/4)
Objective
European Research Council
│ 54
│ 55
• research independence (very often already
working with own group)
• Several publications without PhD supervisor
Promising track-record of early achievements
• significant publications as 1st/main author
• invited presentations in conferences
• supervision of students
• mobility
• funding, patents, awards, prizes
Consolidators Grant (2/4)
Profile
European Research Council
│ 55
Full Professor
│ 56
• 7 years < PhD date ≤ 12 years
Counting from 1 January Call's calendar year
Call 2015 counts from 1 January 2015
• Extensions to this period are possible
paternity leave, maternity leave, long-term illness, national military service
Consolidators Grant (3/4)
Eligibility
European Research Council
│ 56
│ 57
– €2M for 5 years
– extra €0.75M
• "start-up" costs PI moving from outside EU+AC
• purchase of major equipment
• access to large facilities
100% eligible direct costs (salaries, equipment, etc.)
Consolidators Grants (4/4)
Possible requested amount
European Research Council
│ 57
│ 58
• Take place at Step 2 meetings • Panel evaluates interview + written proposal
• Interviews between 20-30 minutes
(panel dependent)
NOTE: Invited applicants are reimbursed
Consolidators & Starting Grant
Interviews
European Research Council
│ 58
│ 59
• “… Advanced Grants are intended to promote substantial advances in the frontiers of knowledge, and to encourage new productive lines of enquiry and new methods and techniques, including unconventional approaches and investigations at the interface between established disciplines.”
• minimum of 50% time in Europe (MS + AC)
• minimum of 30% working time on ERC project
Advanced Grants (1/3)
Objective
European Research Council
│ 59
│ 60
– Active researchers (any age, nationality, and current place of work)
– Track-record of significant research achievements (last 10 years, extension in case of career breaks possible)
– Exceptional leaders in terms of the originality and significance of their research contribution
Advanced Grants (2/3)
Profile
European Research Council
│ 60
│ 61
– €2.5M for 5 years
– extra €1M
• "start-up" costs PI moving from outside EU+AC
• purchase of major equipment
• access to large facilities
100% eligible direct costs (salaries, equipment, etc.)
Advanced Grants (3/3)
Possible requested amount
European Research Council
│ 61