1 / 16

WP5: Funders Strategy: Update

WP5: Funders Strategy: Update. Dr Alf Game; BBSRC. WP5 Activities. Engaging European research funders Initial phase to understand aims and priorities of funders – 2008 Survey 3 Meetings of WP5 Committee Ongoing process of dialogue Working with Work Package 4 to develop ELIXIR model

fern
Download Presentation

WP5: Funders Strategy: Update

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. WP5: Funders Strategy: Update Dr Alf Game; BBSRC

  2. WP5 Activities • Engaging European research funders • Initial phase to understand aims and priorities of funders – 2008 Survey • 3 Meetings of WP5 Committee • Ongoing process of dialogue • Working with Work Package 4 to develop ELIXIR model • Identify feasible structure which is acceptable to funders • UK Large Facilities Capital Fund Developments • Development and assessment of scientific and business cases • Next Steps

  3. WP5 Committee meetings • 1st meeting (March 08) – consider potential issues for funders against proposed ELIXIR models • 2nd Meeting (Oct 08) – Review outputs of funders survey against developing ‘nodal’ model • 3rd Meeting joint with WP4 (May 09) – Consider potential feasibility of support by funding organisations of proposed structure and governance model (Bird and Bird Report)

  4. Survey to Identify funders’ activities and priorities Aims • To identify current activities, and priorities of funders • To identify and maintain details of relevant contacts within appropriate funding bodies Organisations Interviewed • 31 organisations from 18 countries (different types of funding agencies and other bodies). • Mainly telephone interviews, plus 5 meetings with 10 organisations from 4 different countries (Germany; The Netherlands; Spain and UK) • 15 further organisations contacted Output: Summary of common interests, synergies, overlaps between organisations and ELIXIR

  5. Potential issues for funders Funding Priorities • Funding structure needs to minimise funders’ loss of control of own funds, and level of cross-border funding. • Funders must lead in setting research priorities. • ELIXIR must accommodate the diversity of national approaches. • ELIXIR’s role as infrastructure and involvement in research needs to be set apart.

  6. Potential issues for funders - Scope • ELIXIR must build on current national efforts. • The centre (hub) should be no larger than necessary and as much as possible delivered in the distributed structure • The scope and ambition of data supported for storage and access must be defined.

  7. Potential issues for funders Outreach • As many European countries as possible to be involved in development from the outset

  8. Identifying funders’ activities and prioritiesObservations from Funders via survey • When will there be a more complete model of ELIXIR? • Our national contribution to EMBL supports the EBI, so why pay more? • There is no precedent for ELIXIR. How will it operate? • ERIC mechanism does not seem appropriate for a more nodal structure rather than distinct capital projects.

  9. How Model addresses • Representation of members states via ELIXIR Board. • Funding directed to nodes to remain direct from ‘local’ funding organisations • Central funding focuses on international coordination, and development of Europe-wide expertise base. • Flexible ELIXIR ‘nodal’ model accommodates a wide range of technical activities and ‘local’ priorities.

  10. Ongoing issues for funders • Further details of operation of a phased model for ELIXIR (including timings) • Further details of mutual obligations (via MoU) and payments (via subscriptions). • Funding across borders difficult - primarily support the distributed infrastructures to be established within the respective countries. • Funding for all infrastructures likely to shrink (possible revisiting of international commitments?)

  11. Advocacy • WP5 to oversee development of advocacy plans during 2009 to: • explain the need for sustainable support of data infrastructure. • emphasise added value and benefits expected from the distributed activities over and above the support of existing centralised infrastructure • describe the wider impacts of ELIXIR in addition to the scientific benefit

  12. UK Large Facilities Capital Fund Background • RCUK Large Facilities Roadmap published in 2008 (to be revised in 2010) • Prioritisation complete for 2008 for subset of projects • ELIXIR prioritised highly pending further development of Science and Business cases • Initial estimate for £30M (to be finalised) - plus funding from relevant UK Research Councils

  13. UK Large Facilities Capital Fund Progress and Next Steps • LFCF bid proposed as major contribution to ELIXIR project for UK. To consider data storage needs with respect to support UK HTP sequencing centres • Scientific case for further computing and storage resource for EBI under development - update Summer/Autumn 2009

  14. WP5 – Exemplar Case Studies • Exemplar case studies (Summer/Autumn 09), may include: • HTP sequencing data • Cancer • Fish • Ageing • Explain how ELIXIR can provide pan-European data capacity

  15. WP5 - Next Steps • Conclusions to be summarised in Final project report • LFCF developed over Summer 09 • Ongoing engagement and consultation with funding organisations • Further joint meeting of WP4 and WP5 – Autumn 09 • Advocacy Group of senior scientists to be established Autumn/Winter 09

More Related