ERC grants Funding for excellent ideas
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
ERC grants Funding for excellent ideas
Horizon 2020 • The EU Framework programme for research and innovation • 2014-2020 • Total 70 billion euro • ERC: 13.1 billion euro 2
Horizon 2020 • ‘Blue sky’ research
• Technology development
I • Education & training for
researchers
Excellent • research infrastructures
science
•‘Close-to-market’
II III •R&D collaboration
technology •research,
development Industrial Societal development,
demonstration, best
• Risk finance leadership challenges practices
• SME instrument •Standardization
•Policy support
3
Horizon 2020 • ‘Blue sky’ research
• Technology development
I • Education & training for
researchers
Excellent • research infrastructures
science
•‘Close-to-market’
II III •R&D collaboration
technology •research,
development Industrial Societal development,
demonstration, best
• Risk finance leadership challenges practices
• SME instrument •Standardization
•Policy support
4
European Research Council - mission To encourage the highest quality research in Europe through competitive funding and to support investigator-initiated frontier research across all fields of research, on the basis of scientific excellence. 5
European Research Council - mission To encourage the highest quality research in Europe through competitive funding and to support investigator-initiated frontier research across all fields of research, on the basis of scientific excellence. Funding excellent scientists with the most brilliant ideas 6
ERC grants- Frontier research
• Any field of research*
• Interdisciplinary, crossing boundaries between different fields
• Pioneering
• New and emerging fields
• Unconventional, innovative approaches and scientific inventions
• High risk – high gain
• Opening new horizons of knowledge
* Except nuclear energy and unacceptable ethical issues
7
ERC – main grant types 1)Personal frontier research grants 2)Proof of Concept grants (for ERC laureates) 3)ERC Synergy Grant 8
“Individual Research Team” concept
Individual research teams:
• Principal Investigator (PI) - team leader
PI
• any nationality or age
• additional team members
PI’s host institution:
• EU Member State or Associated Country
9
ERC- three types of personal grants
ERC STARTING Grant 2-7 years after PhD
PI is starting first research team
transition to independence
ERC CONSOLIDATOR grant 7-12 years after PhD
PI is consolidating team
consolidation of independence
ERC ADVANCED grants internationally recognized
research leadersEligibility window (StG and CoG 2019)
Starting grant: PhD 2-7 years prior to 1 January 2019
PhD awarded from 1 January 2012 to 1 January 2017 (inclusive)
Consolidator grant: PhD 7-12 years prior to 1 January 2019
PhD awarded from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2011 (inclusive)
Extensions to eligibility window:
Maternity leave: 18 months per child; before/
Paternity leave: accumulation of actual time taken off after PhD
Long-term illness (PI or direct family >90 d), clinical
after PhD
training, national service
11ERC Grants- What is allowed?
• Budget: StG: up to 1,5 M€ CoG: up to 2 M€
AdG: up to 2,5 M€
Top up of 0,5/0,75/1 M€ access to large facilities
in case of: purchase major equipment
PI moving to Europe
• Up to 5 years
• Min. 50% /40%/30% of time dedicated to the project
• Including portability
12Profile of PI (StG and CoG)
• Promising track record of early achievements, including:
Significant publications as main author in:
major international peer-reviewed multidisciplinary journals
or
the leading international peer-reviewed journals of their
respective field
• Important publications without PhD supervisor
StG: at least 1; CoG: several
• Invited presentations, awards, granted patents
13AdG – Profile of PI
• Active researcher
• Track-record of significant achievements in the last 10 years
• Contribution to research field
• Ability to change research fields
• International recognition
• Inspire younger researchers
• Leadership in industrial innovation
14Submission • Single submission – two step evaluation • Only 1 proposal for ERC research grant under the same work programme • Strict resubmission rules
3 domains - 25 panels • Physical Sciences and Engineering • Life Sciences • Social Sciences and Humanities Budget division over domains and panels based on No. of applications received 16
Examples of Panels
SH4: the human mind and its
complexity:
Choose the right panel Cognitive science, psychology,
linguistics, philosophy of mind
and key words
PE10: Earth system science LS8: Ecology, Evolution and
Physical geography, geology, Environmental Biology
geophysiscs, atmospheric
sciences, oceanography, Population, community and
climatology, cryology, ecology, ecosystem ecology, evolutionary
global environmental change, biology, behavioural ecology,
biogeochemical cycles, natural microbial ecology
resources management
17The proposal
Single submission – two-step evaluation
PART A ANNEXES PART B1 PART B2
Web Host Inst. Section 1 PI & Synopsis Section 2
forms Binding Scientific proposal 15 p.
A1-A3 statement of a.Extended synopsis 5p.
forms support a.State of the art &
b.CV (including funding ID) 2p. objectives
PhD certifcate
Ethics c.Track record 2p. b.Methodology
table Extension
documents c.Resources
Ethical
annexes
Eligibility check step 1 step 2 (incl. interview)
18Evaluation panel structure
ERC
Panel chair
Step 1
Panel members Step 2
(12-15)
Panel members +
external evaluators
Choose your panel wisely!!
19How are you evaluated?
Step 1 C: not of sufficient quality for ERC
B: of high quality but not sufficient for step 2
A: of sufficient quality to pass to step 2
Step 2 B: meets some but not all of the excellence criteria
A: excellent, will be fundable if sufficient funds are available
20Resubmission rules
First-step score
B score: may not submit for next call
C score: may not submit for coming 2 calls
Strategic planning crucial
21How are you evaluated? Excellence of the PI • Intellectual capacity and creativity • Commitment, willingness to devote at least 50% of time Excellence of the project • Ground-breaking nature and potential impact • Methodology (step 1: feasible / step 2: appropriate) • High risk/High gain balance 22
PI - What do evaluators want to know? Intellectual capacity and creativity: • To what extent has PI demonstrated the ability to propose and conduct ground-breaking results? • To what extent does PI provide evidence of creative independent thinking? • To what extent have the achievements of the PI typically gone beyond the state-of-the-art? Commitment • Is the PI strongly commited to the project and willing to devote a significant amount of time to it? 23
Science- What do evaluators want to know? Ground-breaking nature and potential impact • To what extent does the proposed research address important challenges? • To what extent are the objectives ambitious and beyond the state-of- the-art? • To what extent is the proposed research high risk/high gain? Scientific approach • To what extent is the scientific approach feasible (extended synopsis)? • To what extent is proposed methodology appropriate (full proposal)? • To what extent does the proposal involve development of novel methodology (full proposal)? • To what extent are timescales and resources properly justified (full proposal)? 24
25
Lessons learned – Life Sciences Frequent remarks in rejected proposals • Not enough high impact papers without PhD supervisor (StG/CoG) • PI remained in lab of PhD supervisor (StG) • No proven expertise on risky/groundbreaking parts of project • Publications with high number citations are reviews • Recent scientific output of lower quality compared to earlier work (AdG) • Project is standard continuation of previous work • Project not hypothesis-driven • Coherence between subprojects unclear • Proposed experiments not suited to answer research questions 26
Lessons learned – Physical sciences & engineering Frequent remarks in rejected proposals • High impact publications only from collaborations and leading role of applicant not clear • Number of citations not sufficient • Not enough experience supervising PhD students • Absence of project planning • Too much focus on technological development/engineering without considering scientific questions • Not clear why proposed approach will be successful in comparison to previous efforts • Doubts regarding technological feasibility 27
Lessons learned – Social sciences & Humanities Frequent remarks in rejected proposals • Not enough experience supervising PhD students • No external funding acquired • No experience managing large grant (AdG) • Books published in Dutch (no other language) • No peer reviewed articles • Theoretical framework not sufficiently addressed • Workplan not clear • No innovative research methodologies • Project doesn’t add to theory formation/new conceptual development 28
Go/no-go: optimal timing? (StG)
STG 2014 (825)
STG 2014-2015 # interviews
STG 2015 (751)
at Step 2 with success rate step 1 SR 2014 (26 %)
by years past PhD step 1 SR 2015 (26 %)
400 45%
350 40%
Step 1 success rate (26 % overall)
35%
300
# Interviews
30%
250
25%
200 20%
150 15%
100 10%
50 5%
0 0%
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
years past PhD
29Go/no-go: optimal timing? (CoG)
COG 2014 (809)
COG 2014-2015 # interviews at
COG 2015 (701)
step 2 with success rate by
2014 Step 1 SR (32 %)
years past PhD
2015 Step 1 SR (34 %)
300 100%
90%
250 80%
# interviews
70%
200
60%
150 50%
40%
100 30%
20%
50
10%
0 0%
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
30Go/no-go: optimal timing? 31
ERC panel member: “We are looking to fund excellent scientists with a vision and brilliant plans to achieve that vision, rather than individual research projects…” 32
High risk
Ambition Feasibility
Novelty Versus
33• Information on your
methodology
• Preliminary data
Your vision • Contingency plan
and creativity • Proven expertise
Credibility…
34Go/ no-go? Go, if: - Your frontier research idea is mature enough - You have well thought-out plans to achieve your research goals (feasibility) - Your cv shows leadership skills, scientific impact, international recognition and independence. No-go (wait) if: - You need more proof in your cv (e.g. publications without PhD supervisor) - Your idea is still too general, it is hard to become concrete 35
Statistics – Success rates
Success rates
EU NL
StG 2015 12,2%
2016 13,0%
CoG 2015 14,9%
2016 13,6%
AdG 2015 14,4%
2016 9,7%
36Statistics – Success rates
Success rates
EU NL
StG 2015 12,2% 19,4%
2016 13,0% 16,8%
CoG 2015 14,9% 23,8%
2016 13,6% 19,9%
AdG 2015 14,4% 17,8%
2016 9,7% 11,0%
37Statistics – score distribution (H2020)
StG to 2nd step 26%
First step B 43%
First step C 30%
CoG to 2nd step 34%
First step B 36%
First step C 30%
AdG to 2nd step 24%
First step B 42%
First step C 32%
38Statistics – score distribution (H2020)
StG to 2nd step 26% NL: 36%
First step B 43% 47%
First step C 30% 17%
CoG to 2nd step 34% NL: 43%
First step B 36% 39%
First step C 30% 17%
AdG to 2nd step 24% NL: 38%
First step B 42% 42%
First step C 32% 20%
39Call deadlines?
Call deadlines 2018:
Starting grant 2018 Opening: 18 July 2017
Deadline: 17 October 2017
Consolidator Grant 2018 Opening: 24 October 2017
Deadline: 15 February 2018
Advanced grant 2018 Opening: 17 May 2018
Deadline: 30 August 2018
(New deadlines published summer 2018 - Similar schedule expected)
40ERC Synergy grant - key aim Enabling PIs to join forces in new ways in order to address ambitious research questions • Transformative research, major scientific breakthroughs • Projects should go beyond what individual PIs could achieve working alone 41
ERC Synergy grants
• Small groups: 2-4 PIs
• Significant time commitment (≥30% of working time)
• Set-up as suitable for project (1 – 4 institutions)
• No eligibility windows
• Projects up to 6 years, max 10 M€
additional 4 M€ in case of PI moving to EU, purchase of
major equipment and/or access to large facilities
42ERC Synergy grants - examples
IMBALANCE-P – "Effects of phosphorus limitations
on Life, Earth system and Society"
Natural
ecosystems
"Quantify the responses of responses
ecosystems and society in a world Earth
system &
increasingly rich in N and C but climate
limited in Phosphorus" responses
Societal
responses
43ERC Synergy grants - examples BlackHoleCam – "Imaging the Event Horizon of Black Holes" 'Are black holes just a theorist’s dream?' 'Prove the existence of event horizons, one of the cornerstones of general relativity ' 44
ERC Synergy grants – lessons learnt
• No ‘golden’ composition
• PIs expected to present ERC level profile
• Projects should tackle ‘big’ scientific
questions
• Working arrangements crucial
45ERC Synergy grants –2018 call
Call open 3 August 2017
Deadline 14 November 2017
Call budget: 250 M€
Expected success rate: around 10%
Similar call expected for 2019
(deadline: Fall 2018)
46ERC Synergy – intended resubmission rules
First and second step
B score PI may not submit for 2019 Synergy call
First step
C score PI may not submit for 2019 & 2020 Synergy call
PI may not submit for 2019 StG, CoG and AdG
4748
Some words of advice… • Take sufficient time to develop your scientific idea • Assess your impact on research field and independence • ‘Get to know’ your panel(s) • Arrange for feedback 49
More information
erc.europa.eu
• Calls
• Panels
• News alerts
• Funded projects
50Need support?
Your local EU support office
National Contact Point for ERC:
Esther Verhoeven and Doenja Koppejan
www.rvo.nl/horizon2020
horizon.erc@rvo.nl
088-0424210
51│ 52
You can also read
