Info session on ERC Grants. Wednesday 22 January 2014

Info session on ERC Grants Wednesday 22 January 2014

Art & Build Architect / Montois Partners / credits: S. Brison The European Research Council Established by the European Commission

ERC basics What is ERC? Established by the European Commission 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 Established by the European Commission 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 Synergy Grants 2 4 Principal Investigators up to 15.0 Mio for 6 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 Established by the European Commission 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 Feedback to applicants Ranked list of proposals Right balance between generalist + specialized review Appropriate treatment of interdisciplinary proposals Good benefit-cost ratio 4

Established by the European Commission ERC achievements 5

ERC achievements Rising applications Established by the European Commission 6

ERC Calls Evaluated* Funded success rates** Starting Grant 2007 9,167 8,787 299 3.4 Starting Grant 2009 2,503 2,392 245 10.2 Starting Grant 2010 2,873 2,767 436 15.8 Starting Grant 2011 4,080 4,005 486 12.1 Starting Grant 2012 4,741 4,652 566 12.2 Starting Grant 2013 3,329 3,255 300 9.2 Consolidator Grant 2013 3,673 3,604 312 8.7 Starting and Consolidator Grant 30,366 29,462 2,644 10.2 Advanced Grant 2008 2,167 2,034 282 13.9 Advanced Grant 2009 1,584 1,526 245 16.1 Advanced Grant 2010 2,009 1,967 271 13.8 Advanced Grant 2011 2,284 2,245 301 13.4 Advanced Grant 2012 2,304 2,269 319 14.1 Advanced Grant 2013 2,408 2,363 289 12.2 Advanced Grant 12,756 12,404 1,707 13.9 Proof of Concept 2011-1&2 151 139 51 36.7 Proof of Concept 2012-1&2 143 120 60 50.0 Proof of Concept 2013-1 145 139 33 23.7 Proof of Concept 439 398 144 36.8 Synergy Grant 2012 710 697 11 1.6 Synergy Grant 2013 449 427 13 3.0 * withdrawn and ineligible proposals not taken into account Total number of applications ** percentage of funded proposals in relation to evaluated proposals of which Established by the European Commission 7

ERC achievements After 7 years of existence Established by the European Commission 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 Established by the European Commission Serge Haroche Nobel 2012 Konstantin Novoselov Nobel 2010 Ada Yonath Andre Geim Christoforos Pissarides Theodor Hansch James Heckman Jean-Marie Lehn Stanislav Smirnov AdG 2008 Simon Donaldson AdG 2009 Elon Lindenstrauss AdG 2010 2013 Wolf Prize awarded to Peter Zoller - SyG 2012 2013 Holberg Prize awarded to Bruno Latour - 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 FEBS EMBO WOMEN IN SCIENCE 2011 - Carol ROBINSON - AdG 2010 EMBO GOLD MEDAL 2010 Jason W CHIN - StG 2007 THE SHAW PRIZE IN MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES 2011 - Christodoulou Demetrios - AdG 2009 CRAFOORD PRIZE 2011 and EUROPEAN LATSIS PRIZE 2010 Ilkka Hanski - AdG 2008 L'ORÉAL-UNESCO AWARD FOR WOMEN IN SCIENCE 2011 - Anne L'Huillier - AdG 2008 2012 Prizes awarded to ERC grantees EMBO GOLD MEDAL 2012 Jiri FRIML - StG 2011 BALZAN PRIZE 2012 David BAULCOMBE - AdG 2008 EUROPEAN LATSIS PRIZE 2012 Uffe HAAGERUP - AdG 2009 KELVIN PRIZE 2012 Colin McINNES - AdG 2008 WOLF PRIZE 2010 Anton ZEILINGER, David BAULCOMBE - AdG 2008, Alain ASPECT - AdG 2010 LEIBNIZ PRIZE 2012 Michael BRECHT - AdG 2008 MILLENIUM AWARD 2010 Michael GRATZEL - AdG 2009 & Joerg WRACHTRUP - AdG 2010 9

Established by the European Commission Essential features maintained: ERC in H2020 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 Established by the European Commission H2020 budget 77 billion ERC budget 13.1 billion FP7 budget 50.5 billion ERC budget 7.5 billion Co-operation (65 %) JRC nonnuclear (3 %) Capacities (8 %) People (9 %) Ideas (15 %) 11

ERC in H2020 Work program 2014, summary of main features Established by the European Commission 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 Established by the European Commission ERC calls Budget Call Publication Submission Deadline(s) Starting Grants ERC-2014-StG Consolidator Grants ERC-2014-CoG 485 M 11 December 2013 713 M 11 December 2013 25 March 2014 20 May 2014 Advanced Grants ERC-2014-AdG 450 M 17 June 2014 21 October 2014 Proof of Concept ERC-2014-PoC 15 M 11 December 2013 DL1: 1 April 2014 DL2: 1 Oct. 2014 13

Established by the European Commission Belgium at ERC 14

ERC achievements Grants per country of host institution ERC Starting, Consolidator, Advanced Grant calls 2007-2013 Established by the European Commission 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 Established by the European Commission 16

Belgium at ERC Success rates per domain Established by the European Commission

Belgium at ERC Mobility of researchers ERC StG, CoG and AdG calls 2007-2013 Established by the European Commission 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 Established by the European Commission 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 IL Technion - Israel Institute of Technology 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 SE Karolinska Institute 16 18 12 30 28 2 Country Research Organisation 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 31 Top European Institutions hosting Established at by least the European Commission 30 ERC Grantees by funding Schemes StG/CoG 2007-2013 AdG 2008-2013 First legal signatories of the grant agreement Data as of 16/12/2013

Established by the European Commission 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 Established by the European Commission 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 Established by the European Commission 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 Established by the European Commission 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 Established by the European Commission First deadline 2011 73 Eligible submissions 30 Retained for funding 41% success rate First deadline 2012 60 Eligible submissions 33 Retained for funding 55% success rate First deadline 2013 139 Eligible submissions 33 Retained for funding Second deadline 2011 66 Eligible submissions 22 Retained for funding 33% success rate Second deadline 2012 60 Eligible submissions 27 Retained for funding 45% success rate Second deadline 2013 140 Eligible submissions 34 Retained for funding

Areas of application of ERC projects 2011-2012 Established by the European Commission 26

Belgium at ERC- PoC PoC grants by country of host institution ERC PoC calls 2011, 2012 and 2013-1 Established by the European Commission Current host institutions; data as of 16/12/2013 27

% of Awarded PoCs PoC 2011-2013 % awarded vs % submitted HI country (@ call publication time) 20% NL UK 15% 10% CH DE FR IL ES 5% BE IE IT AT SE PL HU DK FI EL NO CY 0% PT BG CZ 0% LU 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% % of Evaluated PoCs

% of PoC grants PoC 2011-2013 : % of PoC grants vs % of ERC main grants - HI country (@ call publication) 20% 18% 16% 14% 12% NL UK 10% 8% DE IL CH FR ES 6% BE 4% IE SE IT AT 2% PL FI DK HU EL CY PT 0% CZ BG NO 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% % of ERC main grants

The European Research Council Established by the European Commission 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

The European Research Council Established by the European Commission ERC 2014 Calls Monique Smaihi Call Coordinator ERC Executive Agency Scientific Department Brussels, 22 January 2014 1

ERC Grant schemes Established by the European Commission 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 2

Outline Established by the European Commission Evaluation Process Preparing an application Statistics 3

Submission, evaluation and selection Starting, Consolidator and Advanced Grants Established by the European Commission Submission of full proposal (strict deadline!) Eligibility check (PI, HI, submission restrictions) Individual assessment of full proposal by panel members & referees Step 1 (remote) evaluation on the basis of section 1 of proposal* by panel members 1st Panel meeting AdG: 2nd Panel meeting StG, CoG: 2nd Panel meeting incl. interviews of applicants Proposals passing to step 2 Proposals selected for funding based on call budget *) Profile of PI, project extended synopsis (Part B1) 4

Eligibility and Re-submissions Established by the European Commission 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 Established by the European Commission 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? Established by the European Commission Panel members: typically 600 / call Ł High-level scientists Ł Recruited by ScC from all over the world Ł About 12 members plus a chair person USA (7%) Other (7%) Referees: typically 2000 / call Ł Evaluate only a small number of proposals Ł Similar to normal practise in peer-reviewed journals 7

Reviewer Exclusion Established by the European Commission 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 Established by the European Commission End of Step 1: A B C Proposal is of sufficient quality to pass to Step 2 of the evaluation. 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). 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 Established by the European Commission 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 Established by the European Commission Evaluation Process Preparing an application Statistics 11

StG 2014 Important changes from last year Established by the European Commission More stringent resubmission restrictions Eligibility rules for MDs Simplified budget table (Parts A and B) Ethics table Part of the online submission forms Funding ID changed format Model CVs provided Reason for exclusion of reviewers and other changes 12

StG/CoG Applicants with MDs (1) Established by the European Commission 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) Established by the European Commission 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 Established by the European Commission 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 Established by the European Commission 16

New Funding ID table for Part B1 Established by the European Commission 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 Applications Project Title Funding source Amount (Euros) Period Role of the PI Relation to current ERC proposal 17

New Model CVs for Part B1 Established by the European Commission Provided as examples in the Guide for applicants Available in the participant portal 18

Simplified budget table Part B2 Established by the European Commission Cost Category Direct Costs 1 Personnel PI 2 Senior Staff Postdocs Students Other i. Total Direct costs for Personnel (in Euro) Travel Equipment Other goods and services Consumables Publications (including Open Access fees), etc. Other (please specify) ii. Total Other Direct Costs (in Euro) A Total Direct Costs (i + ii) (in Euro) B Indirect Costs (overheads) 25% of Direct Costs 3 (in Euro) C1 Subcontracting Costs (no overheads) (in Euro) C2 Other Direct Costs with no overheads 4 (in Euro) Total Estimated Eligible Costs (A + B + C) (in Euro) 5 Total Requested EU Contribution (in Euro) 6 (Provisional example) Financial reporting periods disappear Detailed budget breakdown will be asked at granting indirect costs : 25% Only bottom two figures will be asked in A forms 19

Reviewer Exclusion Established by the European Commission 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 Established by the European Commission Possibility to provide a Researcher ID (e.g. ORCHID) in A- and B-forms Interdisciplinary projects : justification paragraph in partb1 The security scrutiny procedure will be abandoned Changes in the panel descriptors for all SH panels (please see the WP and the GfA when published) 21

Preparing an application (1) Established by the European Commission 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) Established by the European Commission 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 Established by the European Commission 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 Established by the European Commission 25

2014 : Indicative planning Established by the European Commission ERC calls Budget Call Publication Submission Deadlines Starting Grants ERC-2014-StG Consolidator Grants ERC-2014-CoG 485 M 11 December 2013 713 M 11 December 2013 25 March 2014 20 May 2014 Advanced Grants ERC-2014-AdG 450 M 17 June 2014 21 October 2014 Proof of Concept ERC-2014-PoC 15 M 11 December 2013 DL1: 1 April 2014 DL2: 1 Oct. 2014 26

Outline Established by the European Commission Evaluation Process Preparing an application Statistics 27

ERC STG, COG, ADG 2013 Age of applicants at call publication date Established by the European Commission # submissions 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 ADG 2013 COG 2013 STG 2013 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 Established by the European Commission 29

ERC panel members by country of HI and gender ERC Starting and Advanced Grant calls 2007 2012 Established by the European Commission * Number of instances that experts of a certain country of origin are contributing to the ERC peer review 30

THANK YOU! Established by the European Commission 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)

Support services for applicants EU Liaison Officers (ELO) and National Contact Points (NCP) Who are we? FWO F.R.S.- FNRS Other funding BELSPO BOF R&D Policy IPR Your institution Finance HR EU research funding ELO Research community NCP

Support services for applicants Services from your ELO Info Idea Proposal Project Providing you with (early) information Am I eligible for an ERC Grant? Does my idea fit into the call? Any alternative internal & external funding? Proposal writing guidelines and templates Advice on administrative issues, budget, IPR, HR, Administrative eligibility check Proofreading your proposal Training sessions 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

Support services for applicants Services from your ELO Info Idea Proposal Project Providing you with (early) information Am I eligible for an ERC Grant? Does my idea fit into the call? Any alternative internal & external funding? You need a Host Letter signed by your rector! Contact your ELO well in advance! Proposal writing guidelines and templates Advice on administrative issues, budget, IPR, HR, Administrative eligibility check Proofreading your proposal Training sessions 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

Support services for applicants Services from your NCP Collective actions : INFORMATION Website & newsletter Targeted mailings Information sessions In collaboration with ELO Individual services : HELPDESK FOR APPLICANTS Specific questions & answers From idea up to your project & beyond In collaboration with ELO

Support services for applicants 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

Support services for applicants Contact your ELO : Flemish academia and research centers Stijn Delauré, EU team KU Leuven idea > proposal : tel +32-16-320-944/446, H2020@kuleuven.be proposal > project : tel +32-16-320-631/621, eu@lrd.kuleuven.be Ilona Stoffels, Saskia Vanden Broeck, Nathalie Vandepitte, EU team UGent tel +32-9-264-3029, eu-cel@ugent.be Anne Adams, Ann Aerts, Caroline Sage, EU team UAntwerp tel +32-3-265-3028, eu-cel@uantwerpen.be Nik Claesen, R&D Department VUB tel +32-2-629-3808, elo@vub.ac.be Nele Nivelle, Ilse Haeldermans, Research Coordination Office UHasselt tel +32-11-268-050, EUresearch@uhasselt.be

Support services for applicants Contact your ELO : Flemish academia and research centers Karen Vercammen, Scientific Relations tel +32-14-335-550, karen.vercammen@vito.be Wendy Ruys, Katrien Van Gucht, Innovation Policy tel +32-9-331-4813, wendy.ruys@iminds.be, Katrien.VanGucht@iminds.be Anne Van den Bosch, Director Public R&D Policies & Programs tel +32-16-281-682, Anne.VandenBosch@imec.be Lieve Ongena, Science Policy Manager tel +32-9-244-6611, lieve.ongena@vib.be Ann Verlinden, Research Coordinator tel +32-3-247-6686, averlinden@itg.be

Support services for applicants Contact your ELO : FWB academia Natacha Wittorski, Research Administration tel +32-10-47-2922, Natacha.wittorski@uclouvain.be Nadia El Mjiyad, Research Administration tel +32-4-366-5596, nelmjiyad@ulg.ac.be Christine Courillon, Véronique de Halleux, Europe Cell tel +32-2-650-6718, ulb-europe@ulb.ac.be Caroline Artoisenet, Research Administration tel +32-81-72-5523, caroline.artoisenet@fundp.ac.be, christine.culot@fundp.ac.be Barbara Marchi, Europe Cell tel +32-65-37-4776, barbara.marchi@umons.ac.be

Support services for applicants Contact your NCP Flemish academia and research centers : Ann Moerenhout, NCP ERC tel +32-2-550-1570, ncp_fwo@fwo.be Website : www.fwo.be/nationalcontactpoint.aspx FWB academia : Monique Septon, NCP ERC tel +32-2-504-9351, monique.septon@frs-fnrs.be Website : www.ncp.fnrs.be Federal institutions : Laurent Ghys, NCP ERC tel +32-2-238-3752, laurent.ghys@stis.belspo.be 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 conny@ster.kuleuven.be 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?INNOVATIVE WHY? RELEVANCE / GROUND-BREAKING HOW? METHODOLOGY / RISKY WHY NOW? TIMELINESS WHY ME? 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 X, Z, M, τ, α ov TIME SERIES OBSERVATIONS STELLAR EVOLUTION CODE STELLAR MODEL FOR SPECIFIED INPUT PHYSICS FREQUENCY ANALYSIS MODE IDENTIFICATION PULSATION CODE THEORETICAL PULSATION MODE PROPERTIES χ 2 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

TIPS FOR THE INTERVIEW: 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?...

TIPS FOR THE INTERVIEW: 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 katrijn.clemer@ster.kuleuven.be