New and Emerging Science and Technology

1. New and Emerging Science and Technology NEST First call

2. Outline • Scope of New and Emerging Science and Technology within FP6 • NEST basic information and first call • Action lines (ADVENTURE, INSIGHT, Support actions) • Instruments • Evaluation • Timing and information sources

3. FP6Where does NEST fit in? Focusing and Integrating Community research Thematic priorities “Wider field of Research” Support to policies NEST SMEs Genomics IST Nanotechnologies. Food Citizens Aeronautics Sustainable dev. International co-operation JRCc Structuring the ERA Strengthening the foundations of the ERA

4. NEST objectives • Stimulate visionary long term research at the frontiers of knowledge, and at the interface between disciplines • Give researchers freedom to develop and prove their ideas without preconceptions and within the broadest possible limits • Respond rapidly to new problems and opportunities

5. Key characteristics of NEST projects • Open to any area • Research not falling within the Thematic Priorities: multi-disciplinarity • Novel and unconventional • Well focused objectives, which are ambitious but tangible

6. Two modes of operation • Bottom-up: • ADVENTURE projects • INSIGHT projects • Support actions 215 M € Overall Budget • Focused actions: • PATHFINDER initiatives

7. First Call • Call reference: FP6-2003-NEST-A • Call date: 27 Feb. 2003 • Area open: ADVENTURE, INSIGHT and Support Actions • Budget: 28 M € • Closure dates: 14 May and 22 October

8. ADVENTURE projects mandate “research in emerging areas of knowledge and on future technologies, in particular in trans-disciplinary fields, which is highly innovative and involves correspondingly high (technical) risks.”

9. ADVENTURE projects The “spirit of ADVENTURE” • Exciting, pioneering research with the aim of opening up new avenues for progress in science and technology • Freedom for researchers to define new challenges and pursue new ideas • Across a wide scope of science and technology, but lying outside or cutting across the Thematic Priorities • With a special interest in novel multi-disciplinarity • High risk / high gain, with challenging and tangible objectives

10. ADVENTURE (non-exclusive) examples • A “first” in demonstrating a scientific phenomenon, enabling a range of subsequent developments • Development of a new mathematical technique, and proof of practical application in other research domains • Early development / proof of a novel research instrument, opening new prospects for analysis or control • Application of new science in a highly original tool / technique and proof in principle of its applicability • A highly original approach to a known problem, opening the possibility of a breakthrough

11. What ADVENTURE projects are NOT! • Research that falls within the scope of the thematic priorities • Research without clearly identifiable novel aspects • Open-ended research without tangible and challenging objectives • Technology demonstrations • Combinations of existing technologies • Research of interest to a particular industrial sector without broader applicability • Research related to implausible and hypothetical phenomena

12. ADVENTUREIf only ... • Neural networks had been the result of an ADVENTURE project • The atomic force microscope had been developed in an ADVENTURE project • The first in vitro demonstration of motor-proteins had been made in an ADVENTURE project • PCR had been developed in an ADVENTURE project • etc, etc, ...

13. ADVENTURE projects Evaluation criteria • Relevance to NEST objectives [4/5] • Scientific and technological excellence [4/5] • Potential impact [3/5] • Quality of the consortium (FULL proposal only) [3/5] • Quality of management (FULL proposal only) [3/5] • Mobilisation of resources (FULL proposal only) [3/5]

14. ADVENTURE implementation • Specific Targeted Research Projects STREPs • Project budget: indicative funding range from 800.000 to 3.000.000 Euro • Funding period: up to 3 years • Consortium: At least three independent partners from three member states or associated states - of which at least two member states or associated candidate states

15. INSIGHT projectsmandate “research to assess rapidly new discoveriesor newly-observed phenomena, which may indicate emerging risks or problemsof high importanceto European society, and identify appropriate responses to them.”

16. INSIGHT projects : project requirements • Projects should have an anticipatory function allowing the concerned actors to frame strategic choices about necessary future action • New phenomena; high potential risk; significant scientific uncertainties • Need for better scientific understanding at European level • May need to challenge orthodoxy and/or address complex or inter-disciplinary questions

17. INSIGHT projects : common approach • Projects should aim to achieve robust outputs for decision making through: • - Analysis of the new discovery or a newly observed phenomena • - Formulation of strategies for addressing the risk or problem • STREPs or Co-ordination Actions • Could cover many different fields

18. INSIGHT projects : hypothetical examples 1 • Discovery of potential faults to new medical or engineering practices or materials that could cause significant risk for humans in the future • A new chemical, pharmaceutical, bacteria or virus found in the environment or food that could have serious future consequences for humans, wildlife or plants • Elaboration of a new methodology that could prevent spread of newly-observed bacterial or viral infection between humans or livestock • A new phenomenon in genetics that indicates serious ethical or health-related problems in the future

19. What INSIGHT projects are NOT! • Policy evaluation studies • Technology foresight studies or technology assessment studies • Research that legitimately falls within the scope of the thematic priorities • Research addressing topics in on-going “risk debates”, which are “open-ended” or projects without plausible or convincing evidence to their real or potential existence

20. INSIGHT projects Evaluation criteria • Relevance to NEST objectives [4/5] • Scientific and technological excellence [4/5] • Potential impact [3/5] • Quality of the consortium (FULL proposal only) [3/5] • Quality of management (FULL proposal only) [3/5] • Mobilisation of resources (FULL proposal only) [3/5]

21. INSIGHT projects : project characteristics • Implementation mechanism: STREPS and CA’s • Project budget: up to 800.000 Euro Commission funding • Funding period: 1 - 2 years • Consortium: At least three independent partners from three member states or associated states - of which at least two member states or associated candidate states

22. Support Actions: The mandate • … to assist in the development and exploitation of NEST activities • attracting good proposals • shaping and refining modalities • establishing future actions

23. Support Actions: The specific areas • Promotion of interaction with the research community and the identification of opportunities for research under NEST • Analysing the conduct of highly advanced science and technology in the European context, and on a comparative basis, and the specific socio-cultural and economic factors affecting its performance • Analysing the dynamics of scientific and technological change, and management issues specific to high risk and interdisciplinary research • Improving the methodological basis for addressing systemic and societal vulnerabilities to science-based hazards

24. Different actions require different Instruments • Specific Target Research Projects • for ADVENTURE and INSIGHT • Co-ordination actions • for INSIGHT • Specific Support Actions

25. Specific Targeted Research Project (STREP) in NEST • Targeted, well-defined research and technology development • Minimum of three partners from three different Member States or Associated States, of which two must be Member States or Associated Candidate Countries • Typical duration of 2 to 3 years • Typical 50% funding (or 100% additional costs)

26. Specific Support Actions (SSA) in NEST • Main purpose: to support the implementation of FP6 • May cover information and communication, conferences, seminars, expert groups, operational support…. • Typical duration up to 2 years • Grant to the budget up 100% • Scale ~ 50 - 200k Euro • Minimum of one partner from a Member State or Associated State (but generally more)

27. Instruments - Overview

28. Evaluation of ADVENTURE and INSIGHT STREPS - Outline Proposals Outline proposals Anonymous Remote referees Stage 1 panel Prepare full proposal in ~ 2 months NO

29. Evaluation of ADVENTURE and INSIGHT STREPS - FULL proposals Remote referees Full proposals Non-anonymous Stage 2 panel contracts NO

30. Evaluation of Coordination and Support actions - FULL Proposals Remote referees Full proposals Non-anonymous Expert Panel contracts NO

31. Your trial period is over Please register now OK Proposal pre-registrationis strongly recom-mended http://www.cordis.lu/fp6/pre_registration. Before October 1

32. Information sources • Info on contracts: www.cordis.lu/fp6/instruments.htm • NEST Web-site: www.cordis.lu/nest • CORDIS: www.cordis.lu • NEST helpdesk: rtd-nest@cec.eu.int • Evaluators: www.cordis.lu/experts/fp6_candidature.htm

33. New and Emerging Science and Technology NEST Results / lessons from the first evaluation

34. Call: FP6-2003-NEST-A • Following closure date May 14, 2003 • 187 proposals were received • 14 were not evaluated (late or non-eligible) • 173 were evaluated • 166 STREPs (2 stage procedure) • 7 SSAs (1 stage procedure)

35. Approximate breakdown of STREPs • Medical 38 • Biological and environmental 41 • Physical 48 • Applied technologies 5 • Social, cognitive, economic 18 • Mathematics 16

36. Proposal distribution • A good distribution across EU countries, Associated Candidate countries and Associated countries

37. Results • 25 STREP proposers invited to present a FULL proposal by September 24 • 3 SSA proposals have been retained and are being negotiated • Anticipated success rate of the 2’nd stage is about 30%

38. The “5-page OUTLINE proposal” concept has been well-received The transparency of the feedback to proposers (ESRs) appears to have been well-received No need for major changes to the evaluation methodology; remote individual assessment plus a strategic panel Feedback from the evaluation

39. NESTproposals should “lie outside or cut across” the Thematic Priorities Many proposers appears insufficiently aware of the basic principles behind NEST: ADVENTURE: novelty, ambition, risk, impact INSIGHT: risks arising from novel phenomena Support actions must help in implementation of NEST INSIGHT and ADVENTURE are different things. A project must be designed for the one or the other Messages for proposers

40. 5-page OUTLINE proposals are not about describing an idea for an area of work. They should contain a concise description: What exactly is the novelty of the proposal What are you planning to do and how? What may one expect as a result of the project? What would be the impact on science and technology A degree of quantification might be useful Messages for proposers

41. Please read the NEST reference documents from www.cordis.lu/nest; then download. Please specify a single activity code (ADVENTURE, INSIGHT, Support, PATHFINDER) Please use the electronic submission system, EPSS PLEASE DON’T SUBMIT LAST MINUTE Final advice

42. New and Emerging Science and Technology NEST Look-ahead 2004

43. Outline • Open action lines • Pathfinder initiatives

44. Two modes of operation • Bottom-up: • ADVENTURE projects • INSIGHT projects • Support actions • Focused actions: • PATHFINDER initiatives

45. Open action line • Work programme under discussion • Area open: ADVENTURE, INSIGHT and Support Actions • STREPs, CAs, SSAs • No major changes with respect to the 2003 Call • Proposed budget: 30 M € • Proposed closure dates: April, September

46. Build and consolidate European capabilities in promising emerging (interdisciplinary) areas, for the long term. Actions of up to EUR 10m or more; several STREPS annual calls for proposals; several topics per call First call autumn 2003 PATHFINDER initiatives

47. Synthetic biology: engineering new proteins, genes and (ultimately) organisms from scratch, to improve understanding of biological processes and to develop the knowledge and skill base for a true engineering discipline in biology What it means to be human : interdisciplinary research with focus on the unique characteristics of human cognitive capacities, their origins and differences from other organisms Complex systems : focus on complex problems and “generalisable” methods for simplifying and solving them. PATHFINDERCURRENT IDEAS

48. Pathfinder initiatives • Work programme under discussion • STREPs and CAs (select 1 CA per topic) • Proposed budget: 35 M € • Proposed closure dates: April 2004

49. Sept/Oct 2003 - Work-programme discussion in programme committee November 2003 - call launched January 2004 - Information events April 2004 - deadline for proposals Rough timetable for PATHFINDER call