FWO information session on ERC grants, 22 January 2014, Brussels

Transcription

Info session on ERC Grants
Wednesday 22 January 2014
The European Research Council
Established by the European Commission
© Art & Build Architect / Montois Partners / credits: S. Brison
ERC basics
What is ERC?
 An autonomous funding body set up by the EU in 2007 and led by
scientists
 Funding excellent researchers of any nationality, to carry out frontier
research in Europe, via annual competitions
 In all fields of science and humanities, without thematic priorities
 No need for networks
 Substantial grants and a recognised label of excellence
 International, top level peer-review
│2
ERC basics
ERC funding schemes
Starting Grants
Consolidator Grants
starters
(2-7 years after PhD)
up to € 2.0 Mio
for 5 years
consolidators
up to € 2.75 Mio
for 5 years
Synergy Grants
2 – 4 Principal Investigators
up to € 15.0 Mio for 6 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
│3
ERC basics
Evaluation of proposals: review procedure
STEP 1
STEP 2
Remote assessment by Panel members
of section 1 – PI and synopsis
Remote assessment by Panel members
and reviewers of full proposals
Panel meeting
Panel meeting + interview (StG and CoG)
Proposals retained
for step 2
Ranked list of
proposals
Feedback to
applicants
•
•
•
Right balance between generalist + specialized review
Appropriate treatment of interdisciplinary proposals
Good benefit-cost ratio
│4
ERC achievements
│5
ERC achievements
Rising applications
│6
ERC Calls
Total number
of applications
Starting Grant 2007
Starting Grant 2009
Starting Grant 2010
Starting Grant 2011
Starting Grant 2012
Starting Grant 2013
Consolidator Grant 2013
Starting and Consolidator Grant
Advanced Grant 2008
Advanced Grant 2009
Advanced Grant 2010
Advanced Grant 2011
Advanced Grant 2012
Advanced Grant 2013
Advanced Grant
Proof of Concept 2011 - 1&2
Proof of Concept 2012 - 1&2
Proof of Concept 2013 - 1
Proof of Concept
Synergy Grant 2012
Synergy Grant 2013
9,167
2,503
2,873
4,080
4,741
3,329
3,673
30,366
2,167
1,584
2,009
2,284
2,304
2,408
12,756
151
143
145
439
710
449
of which
Evaluated*
8,787
2,392
2,767
4,005
4,652
3,255
3,604
29,462
2,034
1,526
1,967
2,245
2,269
2,363
12,404
139
120
139
398
697
427
Funded
299
245
436
486
566
300
312
2,644
282
245
271
301
319
289
1,707
51
60
33
144
11
13
success rates**
3.4
10.2
15.8
12.1
12.2
9.2
8.7
10.2
13.9
16.1
13.8
13.4
14.1
12.2
13.9
36.7
50.0
23.7
36.8
1.6
3.0
* withdrawn and ineligible proposals not taken into account
** percentage of funded proposals in relation to evaluated proposals
│7
ERC achievements
After 7 years of existence…
 Highly recognised by the research community
 4 300 top researchers funded (65% are at an early-career stage); 64
nationalities represented
 Highly competitive (average success rate 12%)
 Working in almost 600 different institutions in 29 countries
 50% of grantees in 50 institutions : “Excellence attracts excellence”
 Benchmarking effect: impact on national programmes and agencies;
national funding for best "runners-up"
 Efficient and fast grant management
│8
ERC achievements
Highly distinguished grantees
Serge
Haroche
Konstantin
Novoselov
Nobel 2012
Nobel 2010
Ada
Yonath
Christoforos
Pissarides
Andre
Geim
Theodor
Hansch
James
Heckman
Jean-Marie
Lehn
Stanislav Smirnov
AdG 2008
2013 Wolf Prize awarded to
Simon Donaldson
AdG 2009
2013 Holberg Prize awarded to Bruno Latour - AdG 2010
Elon Lindenstrauss
AdG 2010
2013 Crafoord Prize awarded to Lars Klareskog - AdG 2009
Other Prizes awarded to ERC grantees
EMBO GOLD MEDAL 2011 – Simon BOULTON - AdG 2010
Peter Zoller - SyG 2012
2012 Prizes awarded
to ERC grantees
FEBS|EMBO WOMEN IN SCIENCE 2011 - Carol ROBINSON - AdG 2010
EMBO GOLD MEDAL 2012 Jiri FRIML - StG 2011
EMBO GOLD MEDAL 2010 – Jason W CHIN - StG 2007
BALZAN PRIZE 2012 David BAULCOMBE - AdG
2008
THE SHAW PRIZE IN MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES 2011 - Christodoulou Demetrios - AdG 2009
EUROPEAN LATSIS PRIZE 2012 Uffe HAAGERUP
- AdG 2009
L'ORÉAL-UNESCO AWARD FOR WOMEN IN SCIENCE 2011 - Anne L'Huillier - AdG 2008
KELVIN PRIZE 2012 Colin McINNES - AdG 2008
WOLF PRIZE 2010 – Anton ZEILINGER, David BAULCOMBE - AdG 2008, Alain ASPECT - AdG 2010LEIBNIZ PRIZE 2012 Michael BRECHT - AdG 2008
CRAFOORD PRIZE 2011 and EUROPEAN LATSIS PRIZE 2010 – Ilkka Hanski - AdG 2008
MILLENIUM AWARD 2010 – Michael GRATZEL - AdG 2009
& Joerg WRACHTRUP - AdG 2010
│9
ERC in H2020
 Essential features maintained:
 Increased budget (13.1 Bio € in current prices for 2014-2020):
 Strengthening the Scientific Governance of the European
Research Council:
│ 10
ERC in H2020
Budget Horizon 2020
H2020 budget € 77 billion
ERC budget € 13.1 billion
FP7 budget € 50.5 billion
ERC budget € 7.5 billion
JRC nonnuclear (3 %)
Co-operation
(65 %)
Capacities
(8 %)
People
(9 %)
Ideas
(15 %)
│ 11
ERC in H2020
Work program 2014, summary of main features
 Publication date of first calls : December 11, 2013
 Three ERC frontier research grants will be available under Work
Programme 2014: Starting; Consolidator; and Advanced Grants
 The Scientific Council will analyse the pilot phase of the ERC Synergy Grant
(calls were made under Work Programmes 2012 and 2013) before deciding on
the scope and timing of future calls. No SyG call under Work Programme 2014
 Extension of restrictions on applications will apply to the 2015 calls based
on the outcome of the evaluation of the 2014 calls
 ERC Principal Investigators will also continue to be able to apply for the
Proof of Concept Grant, first introduced in 2011
 Indicative budget for 2015 to help the research community to plan
applications
│ 12
ERC in H2020
Work program 2014 planning
ERC calls
Budget
Call Publication
Submission
Deadline(s)
Starting Grants
485 M€
11 December
2013
25 March 2014
713 M€
11 December
2013
20 May 2014
450 M€
17 June 2014
21 October 2014
15 M€
11 December
2013
DL1: 1 April 2014
DL2: 1 Oct. 2014
ERC-2014-StG
Consolidator
Grants
ERC-2014-CoG
Advanced Grants
ERC-2014-AdG
Proof of Concept
ERC-2014-PoC
│ 13
Belgium at ERC
│ 14
ERC achievements
Grants per country of host institution
ERC Starting, Consolidator, Advanced Grant calls 2007-2013
1268 evaluated proposals from BE HI
150 projects granted at BE HI
Current Host Institutions – data as of 16/12/2013
│ 15
Belgium at ERC
Success rates per country of Host Institution
│ 16
Belgium at ERC
Success rates per domain
Belgium at ERC
Mobility of researchers
ERC StG, CoG and AdG calls 2007-2013
22 Non national in Belgium (5 IT, 4 NL, 2 DE, 2 FR, 2 UK…)
Current host institutions; data as of 16/12/2013│ 18
Belgium at ERC
Host institutions in Belgium
ERC StG, CoG and AdG calls 2007-2013
Current host institutions; data as of 16/12/2013
│ 19
Country
Higher-Education Institution
No
StG/CoG
AdG
Total
LS
PE
SH
UK University of Oxford
1
63
58
121
36
52
33
UK University of Cambridge
2
69
49
118
40
57
21
UK University College London
3
56
30
86
35
18
33
CH Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich (ETH Zurich)
4
35
46
81
25
53
3
CH Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne (EPFL)
5
44
36
80
23
55
2
IL Weizmann Institute
6
51
28
79
45
33
1
IL Hebrew University of Jerusalem
7
43
30
73
33
26
14
UK Imperial College
8
34
27
61
23
38
UK University of Edinburgh
9
24
21
45
10
21
14
BE University of Leuven
9
30
15
45
12
23
10
UK University of Bristol
10
18
21
39
8
25
6
DE University of Munich (LMU)
11
14
24
38
16
16
6
NL Radboud University Nijmegen
12
25
12
37
14
11
12
NL University of Amsterdam
12
20
17
37
3
10
24
NL Leiden University
13
20
15
35
1
16
18
NL Utrecht University
14
20
13
33
8
17
8
14
25
8
33
9
23
1
CH University of Zurich
14
18
15
33
21
5
7
UK King's College London
15
22
9
31
12
5
14
IL Tel Aviv University
15
17
14
31
11
17
3
CH University of Geneva
15
14
17
31
19
9
3
FI University of Helsinki
16
16
14
30
21
7
2
16
18
12
30
28
No
StG
AdG
Total
LS
PE
SH
FR National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS)
1
142
66
208
58
119
31
DE Max Planck Society
2
67
45
112
60
45
7
FR National Institute of Health and Medical Research (Inserm)
3
39
18
57
54
1
2
FR French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission
4
34
9
43
7
35
1
ES Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)
5
25
15
40
15
20
5
FR National Institute for Research in Computer Science and Automatic Control (INRIA)
6
19
12
31
Top
European
Institutions
hosting
at least 30
ERC
Grantees
by funding
Schemes
IL Technion - Israel Institute of Technology
SE Karolinska Institute
Country
Research Organisation
2
31
StG/CoG 2007-2013
AdG 2008-2013
First legal
signatories
of the grant
agreement
Data as of 16/12/2013
ERC’s Proof of Concept
Launched March 2011
What for: establish the innovation potential of an ERCfunded idea: technical validation, market research,
clarifying IPR strategy, investigating business
opportunities
│ 21
The ERC “proof of concept” funding
Eligibility: Holders of an ERC
grant with an idea drawn from an
ERC-funded project
Size: up to €150,000 over 12 months
Total budget per year: €10 million
Outcome: A "package" to be
presented to venture capitalists
Proposal description
•
A short description of the idea and its
relation to the previous ERC grant
•
Outline an early-stage innovation
strategy for the idea
•
Outline a reasonable and plausible
plan of the activities and budget
Evaluation
Evaluation: External experts check
that the PoC plan is reasonable and
acceptable
*No scientific evaluation
Evaluation criteria:
1. Innovation potential
2. Quality of the PoC plan (Budget)
PoC Evaluation results - Summary
• First deadline 2011
 73 Eligible submissions
 30 Retained for funding
 41% success rate
• Second deadline 2011
• First deadline 2012
• Second deadline 2012
First deadline 2013
Second deadline 2013
34 Retained for funding
Areas of application of ERC projects
2011 - 2012
│ 26
Belgium at ERC- PoC
PoC grants by country of host institution
ERC PoC calls 2011, 2012 and 2013-1
Current host institutions; data as of 16/12/2013 │ 27
PoC 2011-2013 – % awarded vs %
submitted – HI country (@ call publication time)
20%
UK
% of Awarded PoCs
NL
15%
10%
DE FR
CH
IL
ES
5%
IE
AT
HU
DK
PL
EL
CY PT
0%NO BG
CZ
LU
0%
2%
BE
SE
FI
4%
IT
6%
8%
10%
% of Evaluated PoCs
12%
14%
16%
18%
PoC 2011-2013 : % of PoC grants vs % of
ERC main grants - HI country (@ call publication)
20%
NL
18%
UK
% of PoC grants
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
IL
ES
CH
DE
FR
6%
BE
SE
IE
AT
2%
PLHUELFIDK
PT
CY
0% CZ
BGNO
0%
5%
4%
IT
10%
15%
% of ERC main grants
20%
25%
More information on
http://erc.europa.eu
National Contact Point in your country
http://erc.europa.eu/national-contact-points
Follow us on
EuropeanResearchCouncil
ERC_Research
│ 30
ERC 2014 Calls
Monique Smaihi
Call Coordinator
ERC Executive Agency
Scientific Department
Brussels, 22 January 2014
•1
ERC Grant schemes
Starting Grants
Consolidator Grants
starters
up to € 2.0 Mio
for 5 years
consolidators
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
•2
Outline
Ø Evaluation Process
Ø Preparing an application
Ø Statistics
•3
Submission, evaluation and selection
Starting, Consolidator and Advanced Grants
Submission of
full proposal (strict deadline!)
Individual assessment of full
proposal by panel members &
referees
Eligibility check
(PI, HI, submission restrictions)
Step 1 (remote) evaluation on
the basis of section 1 of
proposal* by panel members
AdG:
2nd Panel
StG, CoG:
2nd Panel
meeting
meeting incl.
interviews of
applicants
1st Panel meeting
Proposals
passing to step 2
*) Profile of PI, project extended synopsis (Part B1)
Proposals
selected for funding based on
call budget
•4
Eligibility and Re-submissions
• Ineligibility
o Submission after the deadline.
o Incomplete proposals.
o No commitment letter from the HI.
o PhD award date outside the window.
• Re-submissions
o If applied in 2013 – only apply to 2014 if awarded at
least an A or a B in Step 1.
o Only one application per PI under the same WP.
•5
2014 Resubmission restrictions
•
Increasing number applications causes low success rates
and high panel workload
•
Currently 2013 applicants who received "C" at step 1
cannot resubmit in 2014
•
For 2014 applicants, tighter resubmission rules can be
expected:
o
those who receive B (Step 1 or Step 2) have to wait
out one year
o those who receive a C will
have to wait out two
years
•6
Who evaluates the proposals ?
•
USA
Panel members: typically 600 / call
(7%)
è High-level scientists
è Recruited by ScC from all over the world
è About 12 members plus a chair person
•
Referees: typically 2000 / call
è Evaluate only a small number of proposals
è Similar to normal practise in peer-reviewed
journals
Other
(7%)
•7
Reviewer Exclusion
• Applicants can nominate up to three persons to be
excluded from the evaluation of their proposal, specifying :
o Name
o Institution, City, Country
o Webpage
• The concerned persons will be excluded from the
evaluation of the proposal assuming that the ERCEA is still
in a position to evaluate the proposal properly.
•8
Feedback to Applicants
End 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. The applicant may also be subject to resubmission
limitations in the next call(s).
C
Proposal is not of sufficient quality to pass to Step 2 of the
evaluation. The applicant may also be subject to resubmission
limitations in the next call(s).
•9
Feedback to Applicants
End 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. The applicant may
also be subject to resubmission limitations in the next call(s).
• 10
Outline
Ø Statistics
• 11
StG 2014
Important changes from last year
Ø More stringent resubmission restrictions
Ø Eligibility rules for MDs
Ø Simplified budget table (Parts A and B)
Ø Ethics table
Part of the online submission forms
Ø Funding ID – changed format
Ø Model CVs provided
Ø Reason for exclusion of reviewers and other changes
• 12
StG/CoG Applicants with MDs (1)
MD applicants need to provide :
• certificates of MD basic studies and
• proof of an appointment that requires doctoral
equivalency
(e.g.
post-doctoral
fellowship,
professorship appointment).
Time reference for calculation of the eligibility timewindow = the certified date of the MD completion plus
two years
For further details, see ERC WP 2014 – Annex II
• 13
• 13
StG/CoG Applicants with MDs (2)
For applicants holding both an MD and a PhD :
• MD takes precedence over PhD only when the applicant has
held an appointment that requires a doctoral equivalency (e.g.
post-doctoral fellowship, professorship appointment).
• Proof of completion of clinical training : no longer makes an
MD applicant eligible.
• Clinical training : still counts as reason for extension of the
eligibility window (up to a maximum of 4.5 Years).
• 14
Simplified budget table – Part A
For each participant only total costs and requested EU contribution is asked
NB. Calculation of indirect costs will follow the general H2020 flat
rate of 25% of the total eligible direct costs.
• 15
Ethics table :
Part of Online Submission Forms
• 16
New Funding ID table for Part B1
§ Table format (provisional) under Section b: Curriculum Vitae
§ To give comparable level of details to the reviewers
Ongoing grants
Project Title
Funding source
Amount
(Euros)
Period
Role of the PI
Relation to current
ERC proposal
Amount
(Euros)
Period
Role of the PI
Relation to current
ERC proposal
Applications
Project Title
Funding source
• 17
New Model CVs for Part B1
§ Provided as examples in the Guide for
applicants
§ Available in the participant portal
• 18
Simplified budget table – Part B2
Cost Category
(Provisional example)
PI2
Senior Staff
Personnel
Postdocs
Ø Financial reporting periods
Students
Other
Direct
Costs1
disappear
i. Total Direct costs for Personnel (in Euro)
Ø Detailed budget breakdown
Travel
Equipment
will be asked at granting
Consumables
Other goods
and services
Publications (including Open Access fees), etc.
Other (please specify)
ii. Total Other Direct Costs (in Euro)
Ø indirect costs : 25%
A – Total Direct Costs (i + ii) (in Euro)
B – Indirect Costs (overheads) 25% of Direct Costs3 (in Euro)
C1 – Subcontracting Costs (no overheads) (in Euro)
C2 – Other Direct Costs with no overheads4 (in Euro)
Ø Only bottom two figures
5
Total Estimated Eligible Costs (A + B + C) (in Euro)
Total Requested EU Contribution (in Euro)6
will be asked in A forms
• 19
Reviewer Exclusion
• Applicants can nominate up to three persons to be
excluded from the evaluation of their proposal, specifying :
o Name
o Institution, City, Country
o Webpage
• The concerned persons will be excluded from the
evaluation of the proposal assuming that the ERCEA is still
in a position to evaluate the proposal properly.
• 20
Other changes
Ø Possibility to provide a Researcher ID (e.g. ORCHID) in Aand B-forms
Ø Interdisciplinary projects : justification paragraph in partB1
Ø The security scrutiny procedure will be abandoned
Ø Changes in the panel descriptors for all SH panels (please
see the WP and the GfA when published)
• 21
Preparing an application (1)
• Register early, get familiar with the system and templates
and start filling in the forms
• Have all your documentation ready in time.
• Follow the formatting rules and page limits.
• Proof-read the proposal well.
• 22
Preparing an application (2)
• Check coherency of figures, justify requested resources
and involvement of team members
•
Submit your proposal and relevant annexes well in
advance before the deadline to avoid last minute errors
• ! A submitted proposal can be revised until the call
deadline by submitting a new version and overwriting the
previous one
• 23
Guidelines and Other Resources
•
Read the Guide for Applicants and the
Ideas Work Programme.
•
Any doubts about your eligibility or any
other questions, contact one of the NCPs
or the ERCEA.
•
Have a look at what is already funded and
the profile of the grantees.
• 24
ERC Funded Projects
http://erc.europa.eu/erc-funded-projects
• 25
2014 : Indicative planning
ERC calls
Budget
Call Publication
Submission
Deadlines
Starting Grants
485 M€
11 December
2013
25 March 2014
713 M€
11 December
2013
20 May 2014
450 M€
17 June 2014
21 October 2014
15 M€
11 December
2013
DL1: 1 April 2014
DL2: 1 Oct. 2014
ERC-2014-StG
Consolidator
Grants
ERC-2014-CoG
Advanced Grants
ERC-2014-AdG
Proof of Concept
ERC-2014-PoC
• 26
Outline
Ø Statistics
• 27
ERC STG, COG, ADG 2013
Age of applicants at call publication date
800
# submissions
ADG 2013
700
COG 2013
600
STG 2013
500
400
300
200
100
0
26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 83
age of applications
• 28
Age of StG and AdG grantees
• 29
ERC panel members by country of HI and gender
ERC Starting and Advanced Grant calls 2007 – 2012
* Number of instances that experts of a certain country of origin are contributing to the ERC peer review
• 30
THANK YOU!
More information on
http://erc.europa.eu
To subscribe to the ERC newsletter
http://erc.europa.eu/keep-updated-erc
National Contact Points
http://cordis.europa.eu/national_service/home_en.html
• 31
“Open Access to scientific peer
reviewed publications has been
anchored as an underlying principle in
the Horizon 2020 Regulation and the
Rules of Participation and will
consequently be implemented through
the relevant provisions in the grant
agreement”





•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Information session ERC Grants
22 January 2014
Support services for applicants
Ann Moerenhout, NCP ERC, FWO
Monique Septon, NCP ERC, F.R.S.-FNRS
Laurent Ghys, NCP ERC, BELSPO (EUROFED)
EU Liaison Officers (ELO) and National Contact Points (NCP)
Who are we ?
F.R.S.FNRS
FWO
EU
research
funding
Other
funding
R&D
Policy
BELSPO
IPR
Your
institution
BOF
ELO
NCP
Finance
HR
Research
community
Services from your ELO
Info
Idea
Providing you
with (early)
information
Proposal
Proposal writing guidelines
and templates
Advice on administrative
issues, budget, IPR, HR,…
Does my idea fit into the call ?
Administrative eligibility
check
Any alternative internal
Proofreading your proposal
& external funding ?
Training sessions
Am I eligible for an ERC Grant ?
Project
Declaration of commitment
Ethics review
Helpdesk for contractual,
administrative, legal, IPR,
financial issues & questions
Liaison between you &
research related services
(TTO, HR, FA,…) &
institutional policy
Services from your ELO
Info
Idea
Proposal
You need a
Host Letter
signed
by your
Proposal
writing guidelines
Providing you
and templates
rector!
with (early)
Contact
information
Adviceyour
on administrative
ELO
wellbudget,
in
issues,
IPR, HR,…
Administrative eligibility
Am I eligible for an ERC Grant ? advance!
Does my idea fit into the call ?
check
Any alternative internal
Proofreading your proposal
& external funding ?
Training sessions
Declaration of commitment
Ethics review
Project
Helpdesk for contractual,
administrative, legal, IPR,
financial issues & questions
Liaison between you &
research related services
(TTO, HR, FA,…) &
institutional policy
Services from your NCP
Collective actions :
INFORMATION
Individual services :
HELPDESK FOR
APPLICANTS
•
•
•
•
Website & newsletter
Targeted mailings
Information sessions
In collaboration with ELO
• Specific questions & answers
• From idea up to your project &
beyond
• In collaboration with ELO
In practice : some examples
Contact your NCP
•
•
If no ELO in your organisation
Issues related to the programme :
•
Eligibility of a researcher : Will a career break
due to unemployment be considered as a
valid reason for extending the eligibility
window ? Which degrees are equivalent to a
PhD degree ?
Resubmission of proposals : Can a researcher
apply for the 2014 CoG call if he/she has
applied for the 2013 SyG call ?
Proposal : Is it possible to attach additional
documents ? Is there a minimum number of
required team members ? Is it possible to
exclude certain reviewers ?
Evaluation process : info on the evaluation
steps and timing of the evaluation process
•
•
•
Contact your ELO
•
Issues related to the host institution :
•
•
Questions about Human Resources : Regulations
concerning the appointment of team members ?
Expense coverage - justification of the budget :
personnel costs, equipment costs, consumables,
travel and subsistence costs, publication costs, …
•
Proofreading of the proposal :
•
•
Writing guidelines and templates will be checked
Checking whether your host institution’s rules
are met
Contact your ELO : Flemish academia and research centers
Stijn Delauré, EU team KU Leuven
idea > proposal : tel +32-16-320-944/446, [email protected]
proposal > project : tel +32-16-320-631/621, [email protected]
Ilona Stoffels, Saskia Vanden Broeck, Nathalie Vandepitte,
EU team UGent
tel +32-9-264-3029, [email protected]
Anne Adams, Ann Aerts, Caroline Sage, EU team UAntwerp
Nik Claesen, R&D Department VUB
Nele Nivelle, Ilse Haeldermans, Research Coordination Office UHasselt
Contact your ELO : Flemish academia and research centers
Karen Vercammen, Scientific Relations
Wendy Ruys, Katrien Van Gucht, Innovation Policy
tel +32-9-331-4813, [email protected],
[email protected]
Anne Van den Bosch, Director Public R&D Policies & Programs
Lieve Ongena, Science Policy Manager
Ann Verlinden, Research Coordinator
Contact your ELO : FWB academia
Natacha Wittorski, Research Administration
Nadia El Mjiyad, Research Administration
Christine Courillon, Véronique de Halleux, Europe Cell
Caroline Artoisenet, Research Administration
tel +32-81-72-5523, [email protected],
[email protected]
Barbara Marchi, Europe Cell
Contact your NCP
Flemish academia and research centers :
Ann Moerenhout, NCP ERC
Website : www.fwo.be/NationalContactPoint.aspx
FWB academia :
Monique Septon, NCP ERC
Website : www.ncp.fnrs.be
Federal institutions :
Laurent Ghys, NCP ERC
Website : http://eurofed.stis.belspo.be
Thank you for your attention
Good luck with your application
Ann Moerenhout, NCP ERC, FWO
Monique Septon, NCP ERC, F.R.S.-FNRS
Laurent Ghys, NCP ERC, BELSPO (EUROFED)
Initial Solar System Composition and Early
Planetary Differentiation
ISoSyC
Vinciane Debaille
Free University of Brussels-ULB, Belgium
Should I consider applying for Starting Grant in ERC?
Paradoxes to solve:
- Pioneering idea AND still feasible
- Work on your own AND work with a network of collaborators to help you
- High gain AND low risk (impossible)
- No incremental research AND no certainty when it comes to results
IS IT POSSIBLE?
YES, IT IS
Re-think the presentation of your scientific ideas in order to solve the
paradoxes
An ERC proposal is very different from any other proposal : Science is
important, presenting your project is also important
Tactics
- Sell yourself : not really a familiar concept in European culture
- There is a weakness in your project? Describe it as being high risk and high
gain
- Do not disperse yourself too much in the proposal
- Highlight important scientific points in the proposal and in your CV: catch the
attention of the evaluators
- Explain all your decisions: It is OK to ask funds for 15 PhD or only one postdoc, but explain why it is your decision in the best interest of the project
- Need space? Put your schedule in an excel table
My experience:
Year 1: 3 positive to very positive reviews, one fairly positive, finishing by:
« Yet the project is not much structured and detailed: the work of the
two post-docs and one PhD is not distributed, the precise analytical operations to test
the 4 hypotheses is not given. The implications of these hypotheses for the Earth
should also be developed and the link with Mars evolution (last line) be made. »
 improved structure, stayed focus on one final goal: why finishing the project with the
planet Mars while I did not really talk about it previously?
Year 2: 1 very positive, 3 fairly positive reviews, with unfair sentences:
« It is unclear from the proposal where the impact is likely to go
beyond those interested in planetary formation and early history of Earth
differentiation. » (nice…)
« Despite the proposed research has ambitious objectives, which might improve the
current knowledge, I think that it contains a relevant amount of incremental research
promoted by the availability of more accurate laboratory
facilities. »  nothing to tell people saying there are not interested in the topic. BUT
had to think how to make incremental research OK…
Year 3: Yeah! Going to the interview !  the main project remained globally the
same over the attempts, the writing was improved!!
Interview
- Quite terrible: I had the feeling of going back at school! ;o)
- Waiting in the same room as other applicants: others can be terrified and
terrifying
- Then going in a second room: second level of stress!
- Most important: sell yourself. Tell the evaluators why you are the best candidate
for this project, why you want hire so many people etc etc…
- Many many thanks to Yellow Research (and to ULB for participating to it!)
- I only had a few very general questions about science, other questions were
similar to those asked the training!
- Bring water, there are no drink available on the spot
My experience with submitting an
ERC Consolidator Grant
Jan Beyers
Overview
-
something about my project
why submitting an ERC CoG
added value for my research
tips and tricks
Understanding contemporary interest
group politics: mobilization and
strategies in multi-layered systems
iBias
Why submitting an ERC CoG (1)
ERC Consolidator Grants are designed to
support researchers at the stage at which
they are consolidating their own
independent research team or
programme. The scheme will strengthen
independent and excellent new individual
research teams that have been recently
created.
Why submitting an ERC CoG (2)
- odysseus II, plus various projects (ESF and FWO-V)
- that enabled me to establish a research team, ACIM
- but projects are coming to an end in 2014-2015-2016
=> consolidate what has be established
- build and strengthen a strong research profile
- doing my own research myself and building a team
around this
Added value for my research
-
flexibility of the ERC-grant
resources for teaching replacement
time to spend on the research
technical support, data-manager
postdoc
plus two PhD-researchers
extending and consolidating an existing team
Tips and tricks (1)
-
CV; knowing where do you stand
time, time, time
big plan; think big; vision
ask advice; proofreading by colleagues
(and others)
- budget; be realistic
Tips and tricks (1)
- seek a balance, innovative and cumulative
- interview; be prepared for very big and
broad questions
- luck, but much, much more chance than
winning a lottery
Questions?
HOW TO WRITE AND
DEFEND A SUCCESSFUL
ERC PROPOSAL?
Prof. Dr. Conny Aerts
[email protected]
Panelist PE9 StG 2013
ERC Advanced Grant holder (2009-2013)
SOME PRELIMINARIES TO
KEEP IN MIND
• Task of jury in Stage 1: kill 80% of excellent proposals...
• 12 panelists in Stage 1, covering all fields within panel
• Stage 1: panelists read 5 pp. CV, 5 pp. project: must say it all!
• Make self-contained, do not expect panelists to screen websites, papers,...
• Use freedom in format to stand out! Major achievements so far?
• Panelists have few minutes/page to judge (upload scores+cards)
• Stage 2: write convincingly for both panelists & expert referees
in your field
• Make task of panelists & referees as pleasant as possible (correct English!)
• 10% of Panelists is colour-blind, most panelists need glasses...
WHAT IS IT ABOUT?
WHY?
HOW?
WHY NOW?
WHY ME?
INNOVATIVE
RELEVANCE / GROUND-BREAKING
METHODOLOGY / RISKY
TIMELINESS
BEST IN THE WORLD
TIPS FOR APPLICATION TEXT
• Stick to the instructions: read & evaluate them again after you have finished
• Respect rules defined by funding agency, even if you find them silly:
you are not obliged to apply for funding...
• Give balanced state-of-the-art: is the ground-braking aspect clear?
dare to introduce
a pauze in text
referees love it!
• Is the project timely? Does it fit in this stage of your career? Are you an
independent researcher? Will you be a world-leader after StG?
TIPS FOR APPLICATION TEXT :
DISCUSS FEASIBILITY
• Is the project feasible? Comment! Risky (yes) ⧧ unfeasible (no)
• Does it depend on experiments? Which ones? Access? Data rights?
• Do not hide but discuss all important dependencies
• Are you a PI of crucial observations/experiments?
Do you have the needed permissions?
• Give a risk assessment and a back-up plan
• Discuss the high gain, without exagerrating
TIPS FOR APPLICATION TEXT:
KEEP IT SIMPLE
• Simple illustrative figures or context diagrams are very welcome to explain
complex methodology or connections between various work packages
TIME SERIES
OBSERVATIONS
X, Z, M, τ, αov
STELLAR
EVOLUTION
CODE
STELLAR MODEL
FOR SPECIFIED
INPUT PHYSICS
FREQUENCY
ANALYSIS
MODE
IDENTIFICATION
PULSATION
CODE
THEORETICAL
PULSATION MODE
PROPERTIES
χ2
OBSERVED
PULSATION MODE
PROPERTIES
• Avoid complicated and busy diagrams : referees have limited time/proposal
• Keep in mind that jury is multidisciplinary within the panel: no jargon!
An interview can be
intimidating...
Be yourself !
Dress confortably
Prepare yourself well in
advance, so that you feel
confortable with your act.
Rehersal in front of colleagues
and/or mirror!
The jury might not be what you
had anticipated/hoped for... don’t
let it perturbe you
TIPS FOR THE INTERVIEW:
KEEP IT EVEN SIMPLER
• Avoid movies that might fail or do not work on obliged device to use...
• Use a strong voice! Make an effort for this interview
• Don’t use a pointer when you are too nervous for it
BE ENTHOUSIASTIC
• Let the chair(wo)man of the panel take the word :
•
•
•
•
•
• you will get instructions from the panel chair
• if panel members introduce themselves: nodd and smile at them
• do not take the word until you are offered to do so by the chair
Introduce yourself and deliver the talk as requested
NEVER run over time! Clock your presentation within a minute
Make sure the audience is listening to you and does not get distracted!
You are more important than your slides...
Anticipate too much or too little light in the room, as well as a lousy
beamer : use appropriate colours & background in the slides
If you are not enthousiastic, how do you expect the jury to be?...
ANSWER TO-THE-POINT
• For the questions-and-answers part:
• never interrupt a jury member before his/her questions are asked
• if jury members start to discuss among themselves, just let them
(the clock is ticking in your advantage)
• have some appropriate questions ready from your side to the jury
• You may be asked questions beyond the science:
• what is the weakest point of the proposal/project? Improvement?...
• give your weakest point as scientist: how will you improve that?
• give your weakest point as a manager of a team of young scientists
• Panelists are locked-up in a room for 4 days: tired! Make the conversation
as pleasant as possible
5/12/2013: Francqui Prize 1-day Tutorial on “How to survive
from PhD to tenure-track” material + hints&tricks available
upon request
[email protected]

FWO information session on ERC grants, 22 January 2014, Brussels

Transcription

Similar documents

L-1B Intra-Company Visas and Multinational

a. Beginning on the Effective Date, ProCaps shall not manufacture

Gift Package - Child Care Aware of Eastern Kansas

Group tours - Child Care Aware of Eastern Kansas

ERC-Mini V1.3 Manual

Feature - Motorcycle Consumer News

EASY-ROTOR-CONTROL remote V1.2 Instructions Instruct

Gaura Lindheimeri `Passionate Rainbow`

Education Matters - Liebert Cassidy Whitmore

Lithodora Diffusa `Heavenly Blue`

For a neutral but informed overview of French Property