European Research Council

Transcription

1 European Research Council The ERC: Funding Opportunities and the Evaluation Process Dr Alejandro Martin-Hobdey Head of Unit Scientific Management Department Zagreb 1

2 Outline What do we offer? Funding schemes, opportunities The Evaluation Procedure How to prepare and submit a grant proposal 2

3 What is special about the ERC? All fields of science and scholarship are eligible Investigator-driven, bottom-up Scientific Excellence is the only criterion Individual team + research project Irrespective of nationality, gender or age of researchers Attractive grants Significant, flexible grants, up to five years Under full control of the Principal Investigator Independent individual teams in Europe All nationalities can apply Host organisation to be located in EU or Associated Country 3 3

4 ERC Grant schemes Starting Grants starters (2-7 years after PhD) up to 2.0 Mio for 5 years Consolidator Grants consolidators (7-12 years after PhD) up to 2.75 Mio for 5 years Advanced Grants track-record of significant research achievements in the last 10 years up to 3.5 Mio for 5 years Proof-of-Concept bridging gap between research - earliest stage of marketable innovation up to 150,000 for ERC grant holders 4

5 Extensions of eligibility window 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 specialty training No limit to the total extension 5

6 Researchers career development and complementary funding schemes ERC AdG - Advanced ERC CoG Consolidators Senior Professor ERC StG - Starters Marie Curie Junior Professor/ Junior Researcher Associated Professor Full Professor Erasmus Post-docs Students Post Graduates 6

7 Creative research freedom of the individual ERC grantee ERC offers independence, recognition & visibility to work on a research topic of own choice, with a team of own choice to gain true financial autonomy for 5 years to negotiate with the host institution the best conditions of work to attract top team members (EU and non-eu) and collaborators to move with the grant to any place in Europe if necessary (portability of grants) to attract additional funding and gain recognition ERC is a quality label 7

8 Host institution 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 8

9 ERC Evaluation process (StG, CoG & AdG) Panel structure : 3 domains and 25 panels Each panel : Panel Chair and Panel Members Life Sciences (LS) 9 LS1 Molecular & Structural Biology & Biochemistry LS2 Genetics, Genomics, Bioinformatics & Systems Biology LS3 Cellular & 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 & Non-Medical Biotechnology Social Sciences and Humanities (SH) 6 SH1 Markets, Individuals & Institutions SH2 The Social World, Diversity & Common Ground SH3 Environment, Space & Population SH4 The Human Mind and its Complexity SH5 Cultures & Cultural Production SH6 The Study of the Human Past Physical Sciences & Engineering (PE) 10 PE1 Mathematics PE2 Fundamental Constituents of Matter PE3 Condensed Matter Physics PE4 Physical & Analytical Chemical sciences PE5 Synthetic Chemistry & Materials PE6 Computer Science & Informatics PE7 Systems & Communication Engineering PE8 Products & Process Engineering PE9 Universe Sciences PE10 Earth System Science 9 9

10 ERC Evaluation process : Submission of proposals Single submission one deadline per Call to a targeted panel of your choice electronically only proposals have two parts: Part A: administrative forms Part B: scientific proposal itself (pdf) Step 1: Look at only Part B1 Step 2: Look at Part B1 + B

11 Evaluation of proposals Evaluation procedure STEP 1 STEP 2 Remote assessment by Panel members of section 1 Synopsis and PI Remote assessment by Panel members and reviewers of full proposals Panel meeting Panel meeting + interview (StG+ CoG) Proposals retained for step 2 Ranked list of proposals Feedback to applicants Redress 11

12 Submission of proposals Proposal structure PART A online forms PART B1 submitted as.pdf A1 A2 A3 Proposal and PI info Host Institution info Budget 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) 12 12

13 Evaluation Criteria Excellence as sole criterion, to apply to: Research Project Ground breaking nature Potential impact Scientific Approach Principle Investigator (PI) Intellectual capacity Creativity 13 13

14 Who evaluates the proposals? Panel members: typically 600 PMs involved per call High-level scientists Recruited by ScC from all over the world About members plus chair person USA (7%) Other (7%) Remote Referees: typically 2000 / call Each evaluate only a small number of proposals 14 14

15 # panel members/panel chairs UK DE FR IT NL ES SE BE AT DK FI PL HU PT CZ EL IE RO SK BG CY HR LTSI EE LU CHIL NO TR RS IS MK US CA JP AU HK RU CL CU TW AR IN SA UA BR MX ZA ERC panel members by country of HI and gender ERC Starting, Consolidator and Advanced grant calls ERC StG, CoG, AdG panel members by host institution country Total M (74 %) F (26 %) EU Associate countries International 15

16 Panel meeting Step 1 Scoring Result 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 sufficient quality to pass to Step 2 of the evaluation 16 16

17 Feedback to applicants Step 2 results Result 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 17 17

18 Resubmission restrictions Ever increasing number of applications causes low success rates and high panel workload New for 2014 call applicants: those who receive a B (Step 1 or Step 2) have to wait out one year those who receive a C will have to wait out two years 18

19 # submissions ERC StG, CoG, AdG 2013 Age of applicants at call publication date ADG 2013 COG 2013 STG age of applications 19

20 # funded PIs Age of StG, CoG & AdG grantees From StG (incl CoG) & AdG Age of grantees inc COG ADG STG incl COG Age of grantees at call publication date 20

21 # funded proposals Final success rate StG Years past PhD funded 2012 (263) funded 2013 (300) SR 2012 (13.7 %) SR 2013 (9.2 %) 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% Yrs passed phd on call publication date 0%

22 # funded proposals Success rate by age at call publication date StG Funded proposals by age (at call publication date) funded 2012 funded 2013 SR age 2012 SR age age at call publication date 20% 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 22

23 Number of grantees ERC performance Grant distribution per HI country, StG Mobility - Incoming and staying grantees (287 proposals) Grantee moving to the country - all nationalities Grantee staying in the country - "non-european" Grantee staying in the country - "European" Grantee in the country - nationals of the country UK DE IL FR NL CH ES BE AT IT SE PT FI NO EL HU IE CY CZ HR PL TR Country of host institution f 23 23

24 Number of Grantees DE IL FR UK NL IT ES US BE CH CA EL PT FI SE CZ TR AU IE IN PL RU AT HR HU AR BR BY CY DK EC MK PK SG StG 2013 Proposals for funding Applicant Nationality applicant in own country National in country National abroad Grantee nationality 24

25 National initiatives in support of finalist projects in the ERC calls Relation with National Agencies II supports unfunded StG finalists Some funding agencies uses ERC evaluation results in support research A new partnership between National Funding Councils and ERC NO: The Research Council SE: support for unfunded finalists of StG calls since 2007 FI: support scheme for finalists in reserve lists since 2009 calls IE: New scheme opening in Previous scheme for StG2007 finalists FR: ANR launched an initiative to support unfunded StG2007 finalists BE Flanders: FWO supports the best ranked PIs on the ERC-StG reserve list LU: FNR supports unfunded StG and AdG finalists since 2009 calls CH: SNSF launched an initiative to back unfunded StG2007 finalists PL: Support scheme for finalists of 2009 and 2010 calls. It might continue CZ: opened support scheme for finalists in 2012 HU: Call for unfunded ERC finalists of StG2007 and StG2009 SI: Complementary scheme for unfunded finalists of 2010 calls RO: opened support scheme for finalists in 2012 TR: Considers a scheme to support unfunded ERC finalists PT: New national initiative in support of ERC finalists being developed ES: support for unfunded finalists of StG calls since 2007 IT: Call open to all unfunded StG2007 finalists BG: Develops a scheme to financially support projects in the ERC reserve list EL: support for unfunded StG and AdG finalists in 2010 and 2011 calls CY: Research Promotion Foundation supported StG 2009 finalists 25 25

26 Call Planning 2015 Planning 2015: StG 2015 currently open (2-7 yrs PhD) Deadline 3 Feb 2015 CoG 2015 opens 13 November 2014 (7-12 yrs PhD) Deadline 12 March 2015 AdG 2015 opens 10 Feb 2015 Deadline 2 June 2015 PoC 2015 opens 7 Nov st deadline 5 February 2015 Existing grant holders only 26 26

27 Some take-home messages. ERC Awards are: Very competitive: ~10% success rates Significant: 1.5M 2.0M for Starters / Consolidators Bottom-up: Open to any topic Ambitious: Achieve or boost independence; form a group Looking for High-risk/ High-gain research Flexible: Can re-budget as necessary Portable: Can be moved anywhere in Europe Prestigious: Will boost a research career 27 27

28 For further information ERC Web site: Documents: ERC Work Programme (published annually) Information for Applicants (published with each call) National Contact Points European Commission Research Participant Portal 28

29 Thank you 29