1 / 17

BGRS’2004 : INTAS / FP 6 Event ' EU - NIS Partnering in Bio - Informatics ‘

BGRS’2004 : INTAS / FP 6 Event ' EU - NIS Partnering in Bio - Informatics ‘. Mikhail S. Gelfand. INTAS project 99-1476 (2000-2002) Methods, algorithms and software for functional and structural annotation of complete genomes. Four Russian teams Moscow Pushchino. Four INTAS teams EMBL

iniko
Download Presentation

BGRS’2004 : INTAS / FP 6 Event ' EU - NIS Partnering in Bio - Informatics ‘

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. BGRS’2004: INTAS/ FP6 Event'EU-NIS Partnering in Bio-Informatics‘ Mikhail S. Gelfand

  2. INTAS project 99-1476 (2000-2002)Methods, algorithms and software for functional and structural annotation of complete genomes • Four Russian teams • Moscow • Pushchino • Four INTAS teams • EMBL • France • Germany • Austria • Established history of collaboration • Diverse, but common interests in bionformatics: • functional annotation of genes • comparative analysis of regulation • protein structure and folding • Algorithm development and biological applications

  3. Publications Russian – all journals Russian – internatio-nal journals INTAS

  4. Joint publications(Russian+INTAS) + “in press”

  5. Observation Increased productivity: • of single groups (immediately) • of collaborative projects (with some delay)

  6. An attempt to extend and re-apply

  7. Outcome Score 84 with threshold 87

  8. Sour grapes:Personal impressions about the procedure • Electronic system too formal and rigid, the structure of the proposal too detailed and not flexible • Formal insistence on collaboration and diversity => the need to filter out “token” groups=> many purely “management” evaluation points • Obscure requirements for “dissemination”, “application”, “impact” etc. Is not scientific novelty and importance of the project and competence of the groups sufficient in an academic (as opposed to industry-oriented) competition? • Too many evaluation points, some duplicating each other, without clear distinction between them => confused referees. E.g. what is the difference between • is the project adequately focused in terms of research objectives • how well targeted is the research programme or between • how realistic it is that the research objectives can be achieved • how realistic and feasible is the proposed research programme

  9. One more story: collaboration from scratch New oligogalacturonate transporter E. chrysanthemi Y. pestis K. pneumoniae

  10. Prediction … … and (independent) confirmation

  11. What happened then: July 2002 – July 2004 • Dmitry Rodionov went to an International Summer School “From Genome to Life” on Corsica instead of BGRS’2002, • and met there Nicole Hugouvieux-Cotte-Pattat, • and they’ve established a collaboration, first by e-mail, • but then in 2003 applied for a travel grant from the ESF programme on Integrated Approaches to the Functional Genomics and got it, • and in October-December of 2003 >10 genes from this regulon have been identified and confirmed (D.R., M.G., N.H.-K.-P., Microbiology , in press) • although the application to the INTAS Young Research award in 2004 was unsuccessful. We will try again.

  12. Problems with FP6 • Two main problems: • it is difficult to understand, what initiatives are relevant to one’s group/research/collaboration • even if it seems that a call/initiative is relevant, it is not clear what are the next steps: what/when/how should be done • Reasons: • Structure of the FP6 site • difficult to find relevant information • Merging of political issues and technical descriptions • a lot of unnecessary “motivational” stuff • insufficiently clear instructions for project preparation

  13. Successful programs • International Science Foundation (the Soros Fund) • Eastern Europe / CIS program of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute Features: • Calls with clearly defined eligibility criteria and well-described submission procedure • One group per project (not applicable here) • Minimum formalities • Simple structure of the proposal • No need for planning far ahead on the timescale of months • Funding decisions independent from Russian authorities

  14. Some suggestions • The submitting procedure, starting with the announcement, needs to be simplified, made more clear and transparent • The evaluation criteria should be more merit-oriented and less formal: • simpler criteria: importance, novelty, feasibility, competence • detailed plans do not necessarily mean good projects:the entire management / cost description / overall planning sections may have only two possible grades, clearly inadequate or adequate (everything else)

  15. suggestions cont’d • Decision-making should be independent from Russian agencies • opening programs and establishing objectives • distribution of individual awards • Preference to • established collaborations with good record or • new collaborations among clearly complementary groups • Less emphasis on “networking” • huge collaborative projects, “networks of excellence” , etc.: are not they somewhat artificial? • Allow projects with small number of participants • One Russian and one INTAS lab might suffice for a strong project: larger projects need to be justified

  16. and more suggestions • Three ways to start a successful project: • had a long history of collaboration • started from direct communication via e-mail • knew about each other and met at a conference => The need to support conferences,especially international conferences in Russia (e.g. BGRS in Novosibirsk in even years, MCCMB in Moscow in odd years): • that’s where real contacts form and collaborations start • important for students and young scientists (who cannot en masse go to conferences abroad) • for young scientists and senior scientists with good record: support presentation at international conferences, if strong results. Matching funds? • Creation of a traditional natural environment is more productive than establishing partnerships by formal “matchmaking”

  17. Disclaimer • of course, all this does not mean that INTAS is not doing an important job and doing it well: it does.

More Related