European research fundingERC: New possibilities for scientific community

Leena Palotie

Akatemiaprofessori

Biomedicum Helsinki

Science and research today

Extremely competitive International operations necessary Funding very tight and competitive Recruitment of top experts and future talents critical

and more and more challenging Dependent of the positive attitudes of public and decision

makers

NIH: 28 Billion Dollars

A role model for major European funding bodies

(Wellcome trust) Fair evaluation, professional evaluation and management

infrastructure Funding decisions transparent, based on the peer

evaluations Joint efforts with European (and other) funding agencies

in global projects Excellent interaction and communication with

investigators

Problems to be solved by European research funding

No European Investigator-driven grants: only integrated

projects/networkd Relative lack of experts in the review process (inbreeding) Lack of long term funding (5-7 years) Small grants distributed ”evenly” Transparency and feed back of the review process to

scientists deficient

Deficient follow up of the progress of projects Underdeveloped strategic thinking resulting in poor

planning European tradition and training in writing of the proposals

is very weak

Marie Curie Fellowships

Post-Doctoral Fellowships

Individual Fellowships ( 35 years or younger, 12-24

months)

Return Fellowships(previous MC,12 months)

Industry Host Fellowships

Senior Researchers

Experienced Researchers Fellowships (10 years of

postdoctoral research experience, 3-12 months)

European Research Council

On 21th of September 2005 the Commission adopted the

”Ideas” specific program under the 7th framwork program

which will implement ERC Budget 7.46 M €/ 7years) Scientific Council of ERC was established in summer

2005 and it’s task is to prepare the strategy and operative

models of ERC during 2006

Scientific strategy of ERC

Create a European Investigator driven granting system Funding based solely in excellence Reverse the brain drain, attract young scientists to Europe

Should there be limits on the size of grants given by the ERC? Yes, size of NIH/NSF R01

~300K/year) How will the criterion of excellence be reflected in calls for proposals? By the excellence of review

panels How will the objective of funding ”high risk” research be pursued? Multidisciplinary panels,

”earmarked” funding Specifically what strategy should be applied to ensure the support of young investigators? The first

call targeted to investigators with <10 years from PhD

ERC Funding: Investigator initiated grants

Fixed deadlines : The first call opened in December

Starting Independent Researcher Grants (ERC StG)

For young stars, < 10 years from Ph.D

ERC Advanced Investigator Grants (ERC Advanced Grants)

For already established investigators

Transparent evaluation,

Funding based on the excellence of the applicant and

excellence of the proposal Only one active ERC grant/investigator at one time

ERC Funding: logistics

Registration as an applicant electronically First round: Letter of intent, ”standardized” information

collected, a short description of research Second round: Full proposal, letters from the institute and

background organization(s)

Evaluation by experts panels (cross disciplinary proposals

encouraged and evaluated across the panels) Interviews in Brussels for ERC StG applicants

Panels for peer review (www.

http://erc.europa.eu/index_en.cfm)

Physical sciences and engineering (8)

Humanities and social sciences (5)

Life sciences (7)

10 members for each subpanel, a high profile chair for

each (28% of panel members women) Panels are made known to applicants Applicant chooses 1-2 panels, most competent to

evaluate the application

Funding and reporting

P.I. is the grant recipient, he/she can take the grant with

him/her if transferring from an institute to another Institute is the grant receiver and responsible for fiscal

reporting 20% fixed indirect cost

Reporting: Brief annual scientific progress report and fiscal report

(institute) More extended scientific report at the end of the funding

period No deliverables IRP rights : Institute of the P.I.

Finnish strengths

Good track record in basic education Excellent national consensus of the importance of

research (Council of Science and Technology) Center of Excellence and Biocenter Finland-type

concepts provide the basis for ”European” competence

centers, should facilitate the docking of junior

investigators A small community provides possibilities for national

strategies and integration of cross-disciplinary expertise

Special societal and infrastructure-based strengths

Finnish weaknesses

Scanty interactions between funding agencies Underdeveloped debate- and discussion culture ”Democratic” distribution of funding but based on institutes, not

on individuals Small grants, no concept of recruitment

Rigid structure of universities (professorships, departmental

structure) Lack of philantropy

Evaporating resource of clinical scientists Lack of tenure track

Recruitment of international students and scientists still very limited

Centers of excellence in the areas of special strengths

(”innovations are societal, not technical”) Maximal synergy and integration should be created

across traditional boundaries Long term funding of critical infrastructure, better

integration of operations of critical ministries and funding

agencies

More strategic planning and profiling nationally and locally Better structured graduate and postgraduate training

Kansainvälinen lääketieteen tutkimuskeskus Meilahteen

Tieteellinen uskottavuus (Neljä Akatemian huippuyksikköä) Kyky rekrytoida kansainvälisesti (Ulkolaisten tutkijoiden määrä) Erinomaiset kansainväliset yhteistyöverkot (Nordic Center of

Excellence, EU-hankkeiden johtajuus) Hyvä tutkimuksen infrastruktuuri (HYKS, Biocentrum,GIU,KTL,

Biocenter Finland) Hyvä koulutusmiljöö (Tutkijakoulut ja näyttö tohtorikoulutuksessa) Strateginen keskittyminen vahvuusalueille (Tiedekunnan

tutkimusohjelmat)

Pitkäjänteinen rahoitussuunnitelma: Voimien yhdistäminen kansallisesti poikki ministeriörajojen

(OPM,STM.KTM) Kansainvälisen rahoituksen hankkiminen (EU,NIH,Suuret säätiöt)

Novel concepts need new structures

Leroy Hood

Biomedicum lecture 2005

Science

Science is not accounting, it is not pedestrian. Science if

actually rather treachurous. It takes a lot of courage,

commitment and ego to take an observation or hypothesis

that challenges the rest and move it along.

Bernanide Healy, Director of NIH 1991-93