European Research Council Grants: To apply or not to apply? Nicolas Sifakis Research Director IAASARS NOA Seconded to the ERCEA Scientific Management Department 3 December 2015 1 National Observatory of Athens
Outline What does ERC offer? Funding schemes, opportunities The Evaluation Procedure/ERC Modus operandi How to prepare and submit a grant proposal Tips, rumours and the "truth" 2
ERC in the H2020 Structure The HORIZON 2020 main components: Excellent Science World class science is foundation of technologies, jobs, well-being Europe needs to develop, attract, retain research talent Researchers need access to the best infrastructures Industrial leadership Societal challenges Excellent Science: European Research Council Future and Emerging Technologies Marie Sklodowska Curie Actions Research Infrastructures 3 3
What is special about the ERC? All fields of science and scholarship are eligible Investigator driven, bottom up High risk high gain research Scientific Excellence is the only criterion Individual team + research project Irrespectively of nationality, gender or age of researchers Attractive grants Significant, flexible grants, up to five years Under full control of the PI Independent individual teams in Europe All nationalities can apply Host organisation to be located in EU or AC (portable!) 4
ERC offers to grantees independence, recognition & visibility to work on a topic of own choice, with a team of own choice to attract top team members (EU and non-eu) and collaborators to gain true financial autonomy for 5 years to negotiate with the HI the best conditions of work to benefit from the possibility of portability of grants to attract additional funding and gain recognition 5
Figures and facts 6
ERC Grant funding schemes StG starters (2-7 years after PhD) up to 2.0 M for 5 years CoG consolidators (7-12 years after PhD) up to 2.75 M for 5 years AdG track-record of significant research achievements in the last 10 years up to 3.5 M for 5 years Proof-of-Concept Exclusively for ERC grant holders bridging gap between research - earliest stage of marketable innovation, up to 150,000 7
Researcher's career development and complementary funding schemes ERC CoG ERC AdG Extraordinary track record / achievements ERASMUS Students Marie Curie Post Graduates ERC StG Post-docs Junior Researcher Associated Professor Senior Researcher Full Professor 8
# Applicants ERC StG, CoG, AdG 2014 Age of applicants at call publication date 600 500 400 300 AdG 2014 CoG 2014 StG 2014 200 100 0 26283032343638404244464850525456586062646668707274767880828486 Age of applicants at call publication date 9
Who can apply to ERC? Excellent Researchers Any nationality, any age or any current place of work In conjunction with a Host Institution based in EU or associated countries 10 10
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 11
25 panels for all areas of science in 3 domains Each panel: PC and 10-15 PMs Social Sciences and Humanities (SH) 6 SH1 Individuals, institutions & markets SH2 Institutions, values, beliefs and behaviour SH3 Environment & society SH4 The Human Mind and its complexity SH5 Cultures & cultural production SH6 The study of the human past Physical Sciences & Engineering (PE) 10 PE1 Mathematical foundations PE2 Fundamental constituents of matter PE3 Condensed matter physics PE4 Physical & Analytical Chemical sciences PE5 Materials & Synthesis PE6 Computer science & informatics PE7 Systems & communication engineering PE8 Products & process engineering PE9 Universe sciences PE10 Earth system science Life Sciences (LS) 9 LS1 Molecular & Structural Biology & Biochemistry LS2 Genetics, Genomics, Bioinformatics & Systems Biology LS3 Cellular and 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 & biotechnology 12
Who evaluates the proposals? Panel members: typically 600 / call High-level scientists Recruited by ScC from all over the world About 12-16 members plus a chair person USA (7%) Other (7%) Referees: typically 2000 / call Evaluate only a small number of proposals Similar to normal practise in peer-reviewed journals 13
ERC panel members by country of HI and gender 350 300 250 321 308 266 ERC StG, CoG and AdG calls 2007-2014 Men Women 200 194 196 150 114 105101 125 100 85 81 77 66 65 50 55 41 36 27 21 44 37 0 16 15 9 5 5 5 4 3 3 6 11 4 3 6 5 3 3 3 1 1 1 UK DE FR IT ES NL SE BE AT DK FI PL HU CZ PT EL IE RO BG CY SK LT EE SI CH IL NO TR RS HR IS US JP CA AU TW CL HK RU UA AR MX EU Member States Associated C. International Country of Panel Member's Host Institution 14 Based on the eight ERC StG and AdG calls 2007 14-20
General impression of review process Very fair & professional (careful reviews, careful checks on reviewers & review process) Excellent oversight, preparation & screening for possible COIs by ERC staff Very many excellent proposals, too small budget highly competitive 15
Evaluation Criteria Excellence as sole criterion, to apply to: Research Project Ground breaking nature Potential impact Scientific approach Principle Investigator (PI) Intellectual capacity Creativity Commitment 16
How does it work? Submission, evaluation and selection Submission of full proposals Eligibility check Individual assessment of full proposal by panel members + referees Step 1 (remote) evaluation on the basis of Part B1 of proposal by panel members 1st Panel meeting AdG : 2nd Panel meeting CoG, StG: 2nd Panel meeting + interviews of applicants Proposals passing to Step 2 Proposals selected for funding 17 17
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) 18
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 speciality training Caring for seriously ill family members No limit to the total extension 19
Panel meeting Step 1 Scoring Results 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 sufficiently high quality to pass to Step 2 of the evaluation 20
Feedback to applicants Step 2 results Results 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. 21
Restrictions of reapplications Ever increasing number of applications causes low success rates and high panel workload New for 2016 call applicants: those who receive a B at Step 1 have to wait out one year those who receive a C will have to wait out two years 22
Questions to ask yourself as an applicant Is my project new, innovative, bringing in new solutions? theory? applications? Does it promise to go substantially beyond the state of the art? Why is my proposed project important? Is it timely? (Why wasn't it done in the past? Is it feasible now?) What's the risk? Is it justified by a substantial potential gain? Do I have a plan for managing the risk? Why am I the best/only person to carry it out? Am I internationally competitive as a researcher at my career stage and in my discipline? Am I able to work independently, and to manage a 5-year project with a substantial budget How can I prove/support my case? 23
Preparing an application Choose your Host Institution (to be done well in advance) Select the "right" Panel very IMPORTANT, ID explanation Choose your descriptors and free keywords carefully Talk to the National Contact Points and your institution's grant office Register early, get familiar with the system and templates and start filling in the forms respecting formatting rules and page limits A submitted proposal can be revised until the call deadline by submitting a new version and overwriting the previous one. Download and proof-read the proposal before submitting Make use of using all help tools and call documents (Information for Applicants, Work Programme, FAQ) 24 24
Submission of Proposals Differences in Part B1 and Part B2 In Step 1: Panel members (generalists and with multidisciplinary approaches) see only Part B1 of your proposal: Prepare it accordingly! Pay particular attention to the ground-breaking nature of the research project no incremental research. State-of-the-art is not enough. Think big! Know your competitors what is the state of play and why is your idea and scientific approach outstanding? Only the extended Synopsis is read at Step 1: concise and clear presentation is crucial (evaluators are not necessarily all experts in the field) Outline of the methodological approach (feasibility) Show your scientific independence in your CV (model CV provided in the part B1 template) Funding ID to be filled in 25
Submission of Proposals Differences in Part B1 and Part B2 In Step 2: Both Part B1 and B2 are sent to specialists around the world (specialised external referees) Do not just repeat the synopsis Provide sufficient detail on methodology, work plan, selection of case studies etc. (15 pages) Check coherency of figures, justify requested resources Explain involvement of team members (ERC proposals are NOT collaborative ones) Provide alternative strategies to mitigate risk 26
Submission of Proposals Proposal budget considerations Budget analysis carried out in Step 2 evaluation (meeting) Panels have responsibility to ensure that resources requested are reasonable and well justified Budget cuts need to be justified on a proposal by proposal basis (no across-the-board cuts) Panels to recommend a final maximum budget based on the resources allocated/ removed Panels do not micro-manage project finances Awards made on a take-it-or-leave-it basis: no negotiations 27
Tips 1- Host Institution It is your choice (in MS or Associated countries) You can change it during the project's life (e.g. your career) Negotiate with the HI (your position, equipment, administrative support, access to infrastructure, etc.) Rumours 1. The quality /fame of the HI is increasing my chances/scores 2. There is a lobbying from the not so successful countries to introduce a quota NOT true, 1. the HI is not an evaluation criteria and it is never discussed at the evaluation meetings, 2. lobbying is firmly rejected, but WG are set-up to support less successful countries WP 28
Tips 2- Submission; Descriptors and free keywords Decides on the panel which will evaluate your proposal Is the basis of allocation to the panel members (with various expertise) Will determine whether a cross panel evaluation is necessary Rumours 1. Choose the panel "strategically" 2. The more cross panel descriptors are indicated, the higher the funding chances, i.e. indicates inter-disciplinarity NOT really true, 1. Your project might be evaluated by a "wrong" panel" (only with restricted expertise) 2. If your project is interdisciplinary, decide on the evaluating panel based on the dominating innovative element of your project 29
Tips 3- The project Obvious link between Parts B1 and B2 (both evaluated only in step 2) Clear and logical presentation (keep the recommended length) Make use of the evaluation criteria (use them as title/subtitle) Make the project "easy to read and attractive" Give timeline and show you did your homework (references/literature) Describe accurately the requested budget vs. the proposed research ( Rumours 1. Ask for more money, the reviewers will anyhow cut it down 2. I need preliminary results NOT true, 1. Unexplained or non-motivated requests can be cut down 2. If you have preliminary results include them, if they are absent, explain the "hypothesis" show support in literature 30
Tips 4- The CV As important as your project (almost) Clear and logical presentation (list all relevant facts) "guide the reviewer" Have a Researcher ID that can be generated on the web of science (submit the web address in the application If you know that you have gaps or other issues in your CV (e.g. co-authored publications), explain them Give trend (if possible) Describe accurately any other activity which can indicate scientific maturity Rumours One needs publications in Nature/Science/Cell high-if journals to succeed NOT true, however, publishing with senior scientists (former supervisors) raises doubts about maturity/scientific independence. Give publishing trend is possible, explain gaps in the trend (maternity, illness, army,..), explain publishing habits in your field and country. 31
Tips 5- The evaluation Think through your project, have a logical and clear step by step description Explain risks if you can identify them and have a contingency plan "Guide the reviewer", use evaluation criteria as title/subtitle Rumours 1.There is request to include PMs from all Member States in the panels, not all are competent 2.PMs are generalists, with only few real experts, those can influence the panel decision 3.Expert PMs influence the panel decision by lobbying for their own country NOT true, however, 1.if equal excellence/expertise is present, a positive discrimination might be applied (considering gender, grantee, geographic location, etc.) 2.PMs are excellent scientists, all used to evaluate projects at national and international level 3.The panel meetings are assisted by ERC scientific officers and independent observers (including members of the Scientific Council) to assure equal treatment and objective evaluation 32
Tips 6- Interview: PRACTICE!!! Show your interest and enthusiasm to be remembered by the PMs Have clear and representative slides ("Less is more"!), focus on SCIENCE! Bring additional slides on new supporting data, if you can/have Look at the panel and not to the wall/slides - to be remembered by the PMs Answer all questions, if not sure ask back the question Don't over-explain your CV Keep the time Rumours 1. Choose your Acronym in alphabetical order, interviews are planned after alphabet 2.Late PM interviews have less chance, PMs are tired NOT true, however, 1. Easy to remember acronym helps identifying the project during discussions 2. Tiredness can be there, "shake" the PMs up, place a joke, a comment 33
After the interview Redressing Before Redressing: don't blame the evaluator, see what could you have done/explain/present better Diverting scientific opinions are not motivating a redress An obvious mistake might result in a re-evaluation 34
Increasing your chances Address all evaluation criteria carefully Be clear when describing scientific excellence Show your ability of thinking outside the box Show the progress beyond the state-of-the-art If you have supporting preliminary results, include them Support (literature) & visualise your hypothesis, if possible use charts, tables, images Show "proof of maturity", think through the research you propose, identify risks and propose alternatives to reach the goal (contingency) Be realistic with your goals (don't over-dimension the Work Plan) Have a well presented CV Choose the correct descriptors (key words), don't "overuse" them Use your own key words 35
To avoid: Overdo beefing up your CV e.g. 4 th co-author on some oral or poster presentations Overstate your own contribution, experience, creativity Try to solve all the World s problems Ignore risks Write your proposal in a rush. 36
Typical reasons for rejection Principal investigator Insufficient track-record Insufficient (potential for) independence Insufficient experience in leading projects Proposed project Scope: Too narrow too broad/unfocussed Incremental research Collaborative project, several PIs Work plan not detailed enough/unclear Insufficient risk management Interview Discussions/addressing the questions Presentation 37
To do: Focus on ONE well-defined scientifically-relevant problem. Tell a very good story, comprehensible to the non-expert. Be frank about risks. If possible, mention fallback options Be honest and modest (contributions by you and others, relevance to the research field) 38
Final recommendation Tailor your CV well in advance and take the time to prepare and submit your best scientific idea! It s worth it ERC puts all efforts into making the review process as fair as possible though you may still need some luck as well. 39
# funded proposals StG 2014 Grantees Years past PhD 160 STG 2014 # years passed PhD 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Years passed phd 40 40
Call Planning 2016 StG 2016 (2-7 years PhD) Deadline was 17 November 2015 CoG 2016 (7-12 years PhD) Opened October 2015 Deadline 2 Feb 2016 AdG 2016 Opens end May 2016 Deadline 1 September 2016 41
CH IL FR NL UK AT DE BE DK SE HU NO ES IE EE CY PT FI IT LV EL CZ HR IS BG PL TR SK SI Success rate Success rates by country of Host Institution 25% 314 ERC STG/ADG/COG Success rate for all calls in FP7:2007-2013 (Overall success rate = 10.4 %) 20% 15% 10% 249 573 367 969 103601 155 80 158 36 42 238 35 3 9 35 66 263 # - number of grants 5% 0% 1 35 11 2 1 3 13 7 1 2 Host country 42
Some examples of recent ERC projects relevant to research activities in NOA OGLEIV is an optical gravitational lensing experiment leading to new frontiers in observational astronomy using one of the largest scale sky surveys worldwide (University of Warsaw). FLOODCHANGE analyses 200-year flood data from selected catchments building a flood-change model to predict how variations in one parameter could affect floods levels, and will attempt predicting how floods will change in the future (Vienna University of Technology). MODES deals with modal analysis of atmospheric balance, predictability and climate by studying some of the reasons behind the uncertainty of weather analyses and forecasts (University of Ljubljana). SIREAL addresses seismology in the ionosphere., and would contribute to determine parameters of seismic source from ionospheric data shortly after an earthquake (Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris) 43
Do your HOMEWORK http://erc.europa.eu ERC Funded Projects http://erc.europa.eu/erc-funded-projects 44
Further information Subscribe to ERC newsletter and newsalerts: http://erc.europa.eu/keep-updated-erc National Contact Points: http://erc.europa.eu/national-contact-points National Documentation Centre (EKT): Cristina Pascual, Georgia Mazioti Where to apply: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/index.html Follow us on: EuropeanResearchCouncil ERC_Research 45
Thank you for your attention & European ResearchCouncil Good luck with your future application Nicolas.Sifakis@ec.europa.eu
Annex: complementary slides
EU -28 Austria Belgium Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom 48
Associated Countries Iceland Switzerland Bosnia& Herzegovina Turkey Albania FYR Macedonia Israel Montenegro Norway Serbia Faroe Islands Republic of Moldova Ukraine but not Crimea/Sevastopol Tunisia provisionally Georgia provisionally 49
Starting Grants (1/4) Objective European Research Council to support researchers (Principal Investigators) at the stage at which they are starting their own independent research team or programme. minimum of 50% time in Europe (MS + AC) minimum of 50% working time on ERC project 50 50
Starting Grant (2/4) Profile European Research Council Potential for research independence One publication without PhD supervisor Junior Professor/ Junior Researcher Associated Professor significant publications as 1 st /main author invited presentations in conferences supervision of students mobility funding, patents, awards, prizes 51 51
Starting Grant (3/4) Eligibility European Research Council 2 years PhD date 7 years Counting from 1 January Call's calendar year Call 2015 counts from 1 January 2015 Extensions to this period are possible paternity leave, maternity leave, long-term illness, national military service 52 52
Starting Grants (4/4) Possible requested amount European Research Council 1.5M for 5 years extra 0.5M "start-up" costs PI moving from outside EU+AC purchase of major equipment access to large facilities 100% total eligible direct costs (salaries, equipment, etc.) 53 53
Consolidators Grants (1/4) Objective European Research Council to support researchers (Principal Investigators) at the stage at which they are consolidating their own independent research team or programme. minimum of 50% time in Europe (MS + AC) minimum of 40% working time on ERC project 54 54
Consolidators Grant (2/4) Profile European Research Council research independence (very often already working with own group) 55 Several publications without PhD supervisor Full Professor Promising track-record of early achievements significant publications as 1 st /main author invited presentations in conferences supervision of students mobility funding, patents, awards, prizes 55
Consolidators Grant (3/4) Eligibility European Research Council 7 years < PhD date 12 years Counting from 1 January Call's calendar year Call 2015 counts from 1 January 2015 Extensions to this period are possible paternity leave, maternity leave, long-term illness, national military service 56 56
Consolidators Grants (4/4) Possible requested amount European Research Council 2M for 5 years extra 0.75M "start-up" costs PI moving from outside EU+AC purchase of major equipment access to large facilities 57 100% eligible direct costs (salaries, equipment, etc.) 57
European Research Council Consolidators & Starting Grant Interviews Take place at Step 2 meetings Panel evaluates interview + written proposal Interviews between 20-30 minutes (panel dependent) 58 NOTE: Invited applicants are reimbursed 58
Advanced Grants (1/3) Objective European Research Council Advanced Grants are intended to promote substantial advances in the frontiers of knowledge, and to encourage new productive lines of enquiry and new methods and techniques, including unconventional approaches and investigations at the interface between established disciplines. minimum of 50% time in Europe (MS + AC) minimum of 30% working time on ERC project 59 59
Advanced Grants (2/3) Profile European Research Council Active researchers (any age, nationality, and current place of work) Track-record of significant research achievements (last 10 years, extension in case of career breaks possible) Exceptional leaders in terms of the originality and significance of their research contribution 60 60
Advanced Grants (3/3) Possible requested amount European Research Council 2.5M for 5 years extra 1M "start-up" costs PI moving from outside EU+AC purchase of major equipment access to large facilities 61 100% eligible direct costs (salaries, equipment, etc.) 61