European Research Council Grants in H2020

1. European Research Council Grants in H2020 Research Operations Office 8thMay 2014 Presenter: Bethan Jones Email: bethan.jones@admin.cam.ac.uk Research Operations

2. The ERC ‘Ideology’ ‘The ERC encourages in particular proposals that cross disciplinary boundaries, pioneering ideas that address new and emerging fields and applications that introduce unconventional, innovative approaches’. Think: • Ground-breaking nature • Potential impact • Intellectual excellence Scientific Excellence shall be the sole criterion on which ERC grants are awarded

3. Horizon 2020: Three priorities FP7 Horizon 2020 Excellent Science (ERC) Competitive Industries Better Society People Ideas (ERC) Cooperation Capacities

4. ERC Indicative budgets * estimated

5. ERC Call Deadlines * Indicative 2015 calls information also available.

6. ERC Schemes (*) Pro-rata for shorter grants

7. ERC Schemes

8. Eligibility Criteria – Which grant shall I apply? Be realistic! Am I ready to apply? *Prior to the date of the call for proposals of the ERC Starting/Consolidator Grant

9. ERC Re-application restrictions • More restrictions on resubmissions at application stage in H2020:- • Score A at step 1 = able to resubmit to a 2015 ERC call • Score B at step 1 = not able to resubmit to a 2015 ERC call • Score C at step 1 = not able to resubmit to a 2015 or 2016 ERC call

10. Structure of the Applications Part A – Administrative and Summary Forms (completed directly onto system) • A1 Proposal & PI information & HI Legal Representative (including abstract) • A2 Host Institution(s) information & PIC (one A2 form per institution) • A3 Budget (summary financial information) Part B1 – Proposal Details (template from Participant Portal, submitted as .pdf) • Cover page & proposal summary • Extended Synopsis (5 pages) • Curriculum Vitae including Funding ID (2 pages) • Track Record (2 pages) Part B2 – Research Proposal (template from PPSS, submitted as .pdf) Section 2 - Research Proposal (15 pages, excluding ethical issues table and annex) a) State-of-the-art and objectives b) Methodology c) Resources (including project costs) d) Ethical and security sensitive issues (including ethics table) Annexes Commitment of the Host Institution (template from PPSS, submitted as .pdf) PhD Certificate, and (if applicable) evidence of extensions (as .pdf) Ethical Issues Annex (if applicable) (template on PPSS, 2 pages, excl. copies of authorisations) Same

11. 1- Applicant submits full proposal in PPSS • (Chooses Primary Panel (and Secondary if needed) The Application Process

12. What are the reviewers asked to review? 1 PI’s Excellence(intellectual capacity), Creativity and Commitment are central • Intellectual Capacity and Creativity • The PI demonstrates the ability to propose and conduct ground-breaking research. • The PI provides evidence of creative independent thinking. • The PI’s achievements have typically gone beyond the state-of-the-art. • The PI demonstrates sound leadership in the training and advancement of young scientists (Advanced Grants) • Commitment • The PI demonstrates the necessary level of commitment to the project’s execution and willingness to devote a significant amount of time to the project: ≥50% PI time for Starters/Consolidators, ≥30% PI time for Advanced Grants. • PI will work for minimum of 50% time in EU Member State or Associated Country

13. What are the reviewers asked to review? 2 The ground-breaking nature, ambition and feasibility of the project are central • Potential impact of the project • The proposed project addresses important challenges and is high risk/high gain. • The objectives are ambitious and beyond state of the art (e.g. novel concepts and approaches or development across disciplines). • Scientific approach • The outlined scientific approach is feasible and the methodology is appropriate to achieve the goals of the project. • The proposal involves the development of novel methodology • The proposed timescales and resources are necessary and properly justified. Ensure to clearly address every criteria! Reviewers are asked to choose : Fully agree / Agree partially / Disagree partially/ Strongly disagree

14. Proposal Abstract – Part B1 cover & Part A1 What to consider? • Be enthusiastic, ambitious and demonstrate a clear vision (and language) • Abstract will be reviewed by generalist and specialists – make it readable to all • Start with the basics details (so that generalists can understand) …. Go in to more depth • Might consider writing the full description of the proposal (Part B2 Section 2) first! • If possible and appropriate, mention the contribution of the planned research to EU policy objectives! • Be positive • Think of a catchy acronym!!

15. Abstract – Hints and Tips Look at past examples! Make sure to use ‘key’ words Ask colleagues from different fields to review it.

16. Abstract– some examples • Hereditary cancer is an important cause of morbidity and mortality and over the last 20 years the majority of highly penetrant risk alleles such as xxxxin breast cancer and xxxin colon cancer have been identified. However, there are many men and women who have a strong family history of cancer for whom we cannot provide answers because no mutation is found in known genes • To overcome these challenges, we will focus on hereditary breast cancer (HBC) and apply an innovative genome-wide approach which combines exome sequencing technology (EST) with a highly sensitive platform that measures allele specific expression (ASE). • The current project takes a novel approach, arguing that the economic newsroom should be studied as a knowledge site. • Paleomagnetismhas played a pivotal role in developing our modern understanding of the Earth, and remains one of the primary tools used to study the structure and dynamics of the Earth and other planets…… Adopting cutting-edge techniques from physics and materials science… • Some of the most interesting and controversial periods of Earth’s history occur far beyond the current limits of our confidence in the paleomagnetic signals used to study them. xxx will solve this problem by

17. CV – The format – Part B1.b The format CV : Maximum of 2 pages • Academic record • Research record • Fellowship and awards • Supervision of graduate students • Details of current research grants and topics • Also include ongoing applications for work relating to the ERC proposal • Remember: career breaks or unconventional gaps need to be clearly justified!

18. Presenting yourself / CV What to consider? • Remember to address the full requirement of the track record and highlight your best achievements • Include a wide range of research highlights, including extra activities (outreach work and research symposia) • Explain national prizes and well-renowned fellowships… • Explain anything that is unique to your country • Highlight achievements which shows international standing and wider impact of research • Website, scientific blog or podcasts? Add a link to it …. But remember to keep it UP TO DATE SELL YOURSELF!

19. Presenting yourself / CV • Avoid ‘British’ understatement – I am an excellent researcher! ** • Remember it needs to be ground breaking research, so why YOU and why NOW? • Provide evidence of international cooperation and activities, if applicable • Can you lead a team? • Refer explicitly to the criteria used in the Grant Call documents • Have it reviewed by a colleague!

20. Strengthening your CV – with evidence Be creative (and daring) but be concise (you only have 2 pages!) Be very specific about your outcomes!! Use it to demonstrate your leadership

21. CV – some examples • My most important scientific contributions have been my work on the hereditary breast cancer gene xxxxconducted while I was a tenured Assistant Professor at McGill University where I led a research group comprising a research assistant, a research genetic counsellor and a variable number of students. • On the basis of this work I set up an international group of around 20 researchers who study the xxx and I have arranged four meetings of this group since 2009 in the Netherlands, UK, USA and Canada. • As a clinician-scientist who is equally at home in the clinic and the laboratory, I feel that I am especially well positioned to lead research projects on patient-based problems and deliver translational benefits of research back to the clinic. I have both depth and breadth of expertise in the field of hereditary cancer and I have obtained over $600K in grants for hereditary breast cancer research over the last four years …, and I was the local lead investigator for a national trial ….breast and ovarian cancer (Gelmon et al., Lancet Oncology, 2011). • I completed my PhD in 2003 and have not taken any career breaks since then so I would categorise myself as a “consolidator” for this application.

22. ‘Early achievements track record’ – Part B1.c Publications in major international peer-reviewed multi-disciplinary scientific journals and/or in the leading international peer-reviewed journals, peer-reviewed conferences proceedings and/or monographs of their respective research fields, highlighting five representative publications, those without the presence as co-author of their PhD supervisor, and the number of citations (excluding self-citations) they have attracted (if applicable). Granted patent(s) (if applicable). Invited presentations to peer-reviewed, internationally established conferences and/or international advanced schools (if applicable). Prizes and Awards (if applicable).

23. Track record – some ideas • Try to make it interesting to read - think about including pictures ofjournals relating to your work or relate it to current issues! • Find interesting angles on your achievements e.g. “I was the first UK national invited to be editor of XYZ journal…” – it might be happenstance but use it to your advantage! • You have limited space (2 pages) so be creative – use graphs/images to convey information succinctly Citations per year Publications per year

24. Track Record – some examples Publications Total publications in peer-reviewed journals = 74 (first author =25, last author= 10); Research/Clinical articles =562 Reviews = 12 (including 1 invited commentary) Book chapters = 3 h-index = 23 (ISI) Cumulative citation index excluding self-citations (ISI) = 1,729 Average impact factor of first/corresponding publications (excluding reviews) = 7.51 Provide plenty of evidence… of your best achievements. Your ‘Excellence’ needs to stand out, you are competing against the best !

25. EU Team • Renata Schaeffer • Questions on: General queries, funding opportunities and EU policy • Bethan Jones • Questions on: European Research Council (ERC) • Catherine Hill • Questions on: Coordinator grants • Sarah Saemian • Questions on: General queries, Participant Portal and EPSS

26. Structure of PoC Applications Part A – Administrative and Summary Forms (completed directly onto system) • A1 General information about the Proposal (including abstract) • A2 Host Institution(s) information & PIC • A3 Budget (summary financial information) • A4 Ethics • A5 Call Specific Questions (eligibility and data-related questions) Part B – Proposal Details (template from Participant Portal, submitted as .pdf) • B1 The Idea (1 page) • Description of the idea to be taken to proof of concept • Demonstration of the relationship between the idea and the ERC-funded project • B2 Early-stage innovation strategy (2 pages) • Description of the innovation potential • Economic/societal benefits • Commercialisation process • Plans for competitive analysis, testing, IPR strategy, industry/sector contacts • Demonstration of the relationship between the idea and the ERC-funded project • B3 Proof of concept plan (2 pages) • B4 Budget tables and justification (1 page + costing table) Annexes Commitment of the Host Institution (template from PPSS, submitted as .pdf)Ethical Issues Annex (if applicable) (template on PPSS, 2 pages, excl. copies of authorisations)

27. What are the reviewers asked to review? 1 The innovation potential and impact of the project are central • Excellence – innovation potential • The proposal moves the output of ERC research towards a new or significantly improved product, process, form of organisation or methodology, new principle, legislation or social innovation. • Impact • The idea is expected to generate economic and/or societal benefits. • Suitable process to generate economic and/or societal benefits outlined in proposal. • Sound plans for undertaking competitive analysis outlined in proposal. • Suitable plans for seeking confirmation of the technology/product/process identified. • Suitable plans to clarify the IPR position/strategy outlined in proposal • Suitable plans for industry sector contacts, ability to further the development of technology/product/process. • Note: Activities aimed at attracting further funding from non-ERC sources may also be considered.

28. What are the reviewers asked to review? 2 The quality of the proof of concept plan is central • Quality and efficiency of implementation • Sound approach for establishing technical and commercial feasibility. • Reasonable and acceptable plan against clearly identified technical and commercial objectives. • Sound project-management plan presented, including appropriate risk and contingency planning. • Proposal demonstrates that activities will be conducted by persons well qualified for the purpose. • Requested budget is necessary for the implementation and is properly justified. Ensure to clearly address every criteria! Reviewers are asked to choose : Fully agree / Agree partially / Disagree partially/ Strongly disagree