1 / 17

European research funding ERC: New possibilities for scientific community

Explore challenges faced by European research funding, highlighting opportunities and strategies of the European Research Council (ERC) and Marie Curie Fellowships to support scientific excellence.

dalvis
Download Presentation

European research funding ERC: New possibilities for scientific community

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. European research fundingERC: New possibilities for scientific community Leena Palotie Akatemiaprofessori Biomedicum Helsinki

  2. Science and research today • Extremely competitive • International operations necessary • Funding very tight and competitive • Recruitment of top experts and future talents critical and more and more challenging • Dependent of the positive attitudes of public and decision makers

  3. NIH: 28 Billion Dollars • A role model for major European funding bodies (Wellcome trust) • Fair evaluation, professional evaluation and management infrastructure • Funding decisions transparent, based on the peer evaluations • Joint efforts with European (and other) funding agencies in global projects • Excellent interaction and communication with investigators

  4. Problems to be solved by European research funding • No European Investigator-driven grants: only integrated projects/networkd • Relative lack of experts in the review process (inbreeding) • Lack of long term funding (5-7 years) • Small grants distributed ”evenly” • Transparency and feed back of the review process to scientists deficient • Deficient follow up of the progress of projects • Underdeveloped strategic thinking resulting in poor planning • European tradition and training in writing of the proposals is very weak

  5. Marie Curie Fellowships • Post-Doctoral Fellowships Individual Fellowships ( 35 years or younger, 12-24 months) Return Fellowships(previous MC,12 months) Industry Host Fellowships • Senior Researchers Experienced Researchers Fellowships (10 years of postdoctoral research experience, 3-12 months)

  6. European Research Council • On 21th of September 2005 the Commission adopted the ”Ideas” specific program under the 7th framwork program which will implement ERC • Budget 7.46 M €/ 7years) • Scientific Council of ERC was established in summer 2005 and it’s task is to prepare the strategy and operative models of ERC during 2006

  7. Scientific strategy of ERC • Create a European Investigator driven granting system • Funding based solely in excellence • Reverse the brain drain, attract young scientists to Europe • Should there be limits on the size of grants given by the ERC? Yes, size of NIH/NSF R01 ~300K/year) • How will the criterion of excellence be reflected in calls for proposals? By the excellence of review panels • How will the objective of funding ”high risk” research be pursued? Multidisciplinary panels, ”earmarked” funding • Specifically what strategy should be applied to ensure the support of young investigators? The first call targeted to investigators with <10 years from PhD

  8. ERC Funding: Investigator initiated grants • Fixed deadlines : The first call opened in December • Starting Independent Researcher Grants (ERC StG) For young stars, < 10 years from Ph.D • ERC Advanced Investigator Grants (ERC Advanced Grants) For already established investigators • Transparent evaluation, Funding based on the excellence of the applicant and excellence of the proposal • Only one active ERC grant/investigator at one time

  9. ERC Funding: logistics • Registration as an applicant electronically • First round: Letter of intent, ”standardized” information collected, a short description of research • Second round: Full proposal, letters from the institute and background organization(s) • Evaluation by experts panels (cross disciplinary proposals encouraged and evaluated across the panels) • Interviews in Brussels for ERC StG applicants

  10. Panels for peer review (www. http://erc.europa.eu/index_en.cfm) • Physical sciences and engineering (8) • Humanities and social sciences (5) • Life sciences (7) • 10 members for each subpanel, a high profile chair for each (28% of panel members women) • Panels are made known to applicants • Applicant chooses 1-2 panels, most competent to evaluate the application

  11. Funding and reporting • P.I. is the grant recipient, he/she can take the grant with him/her if transferring from an institute to another • Institute is the grant receiver and responsible for fiscal reporting • 20% fixed indirect cost Reporting: • Brief annual scientific progress report and fiscal report (institute) • More extended scientific report at the end of the funding period • No deliverables • IRP rights : Institute of the P.I.

  12. Finnish strengths • Good track record in basic education • Excellent national consensus of the importance of research (Council of Science and Technology) • Center of Excellence and Biocenter Finland-type concepts provide the basis for ”European” competence centers, should facilitate the docking of junior investigators • A small community provides possibilities for national strategies and integration of cross-disciplinary expertise • Special societal and infrastructure-based strengths

  13. Finnish weaknesses • Scanty interactions between funding agencies • Underdeveloped debate- and discussion culture • ”Democratic” distribution of funding but based on institutes, not on individuals • Small grants, no concept of recruitment • Rigid structure of universities (professorships, departmental structure) • Lack of philantropy • Evaporating resource of clinical scientists • Lack of tenure track

  14. Recruitment of international students and scientists still very limited • Centers of excellence in the areas of special strengths (”innovations are societal, not technical”) • Maximal synergy and integration should be created across traditional boundaries • Long term funding of critical infrastructure, better integration of operations of critical ministries and funding agencies • More strategic planning and profiling nationally and locally • Better structured graduate and postgraduate training

  15. Kansainvälinen lääketieteen tutkimuskeskus Meilahteen • Tieteellinen uskottavuus (Neljä Akatemian huippuyksikköä) • Kyky rekrytoida kansainvälisesti (Ulkolaisten tutkijoiden määrä) • Erinomaiset kansainväliset yhteistyöverkot (Nordic Center of Excellence, EU-hankkeiden johtajuus) • Hyvä tutkimuksen infrastruktuuri (HYKS, Biocentrum,GIU,KTL, Biocenter Finland) • Hyvä koulutusmiljöö (Tutkijakoulut ja näyttö tohtorikoulutuksessa) • Strateginen keskittyminen vahvuusalueille (Tiedekunnan tutkimusohjelmat) • Pitkäjänteinen rahoitussuunnitelma: • Voimien yhdistäminen kansallisesti poikki ministeriörajojen (OPM,STM.KTM) • Kansainvälisen rahoituksen hankkiminen (EU,NIH,Suuret säätiöt)

  16. Novel concepts need new structures Leroy Hood Biomedicum lecture 2005

  17. Science • Science is not accounting, it is not pedestrian. Science if actually rather treachurous. It takes a lot of courage, commitment and ego to take an observation or hypothesis that challenges the rest and move it along. Bernanide Healy, Director of NIH 1991-93

More Related