Marie Curie Proposal Writing….

Marie Curie Proposal Writing…. Science is not the whole story!! NUI Galway, 24th January 2005 Conor O’Carroll, Conference of Heads of Irish Universities

Outline of Presentation • General Features of Marie Curie Proposals • How your proposal is scored • The inside track on the different sections of a proposals • 2-step/phase submission – how to get beyond the 1st hurdle

Part B: General Features • Free-text • Pre-defined sections correlate to the criteria on which your proposal is evaluated • Make sure to address all the criteria • Stay close to page limits • Science underpins the whole proposal, but there’s a lot more to a Marie Curie than just science

Evaluation Criteria – The “B” Headings • Content of the Proposal/Project • Training Activities/Transfer of Knowledge • Quality of the Host • Quality of the Researchers • Management and Feasibility • Added Value and Relevance to the Objectives

Activity ResearchTraining Networks Transfer of Knowledge Individual Fellowships Return and Reintegrat-ion Conferenceand Training Courses Excellence Grants Marie Curie Chairs W=Weighting(1) T= Threshold W T W T W T W T W T W T W T Content of the Proposal / Project 15 50 3 15 3 15 30 3 N/A IEF 15 3 25 N/A 20 40 4 15 30 3 Training Activities / Transfer of Knowledge 20 50 4 15 4 15 N/A N/A N/A 15 4 N/A N/A 15 4 Quality of the Host 15 N/A 15 N/A 15 N/A 15 N/A 10 N/A 10 N/A 10 N/A Quality of the Researchers N/A N/A N/A N/A 15 70 4 25 3 N/A ERG N/A N/A 20 60 4 15 70 4 Management and Feasibility 15 3 15 3 5 N/A 10 N/A 20 N/A 15 N/A 10 N/A Added Value and Relevance to the Objectives 35 N/A 40 N/A 35 N/A 35 N/A 30 N/A 35 N/A 35 N/A

Evaluation Criteria • Content of the Proposal/Project • Training Activities/Transfer of Knowledge • Quality of the Host • Quality of the Researchers • Management and Feasibility • Added Value and Relevance to the Objectives

General Advice - The Science bit • Essential to get this right - get the evaluators hooked • Clear S&T objectives (inter/multi-disciplinary, intersectorial and /or fragmentation issues) • Is the joint collaborative research project of high scientific quality, realistic and well described • Is the research methodology appropriate • original and innovative; sound knowledge of the state-of-the-art

 Science “the presentation of the science couldbe improved through a more integrated case”; “programme in not presenting a detailed and coherent workplan”; “lacks focus” “rather standard methodology is not related in a satisfactory way tothe state of the art”

 Science • Excellent innovative project • It is very timely: • Addressing highly important, topicalproblems • True intersectorial project, effectively linked and integrated; working schedule is well structured and all participants are involved in several projects.

Training Activities/Transfer of Knowledge • Often has a threshold: 4/5!!! • Specific to the scheme and the target researcher(s) • Stage and development of research career • Described clearly and well planned (as you have described the science) • Will the training be of benefit – is it approprriate? • Generic skills – proj management, IPR etc • “Direction” of training eg TOK – peer to peer

Training/Transfer…  Example for an RTN • RTNpartnership is not described • training program is imprecise; limited details are provided • insufficient focus on state-of-the-art doctoral training; no consensus • project does not offer any specifically designed training program forthe Experienced researchers who would instead be incorporated into a traditional post-doctoral position. • no personal career plans or precise mentoring • RTN offers nothing significantly different to day-to-day science

Training/Transfer…  • Training programme is excellently structured • training courses, summer courses, field trips, and individual instrument courses. (RTN) • giving a strong common scientific ground to researchers coming from or working in very specialized fields. • The transfer of knowledge about sophisticated equipments and advanced techniques (ToK) • Workshops (useful career-growth experience). Although the training workshops are to a large extent for the transfer of scientific knowledge, they also include more job-related aspects, such as management skill and ethical aspects of research.

Management & Feasibility • Who’s in charge? Science and Admin • Advisors? • Reporting/communications • Financial explanation • IPR • Workplan • Agreement with Researcher

Added Value and Relevance to the Objectives??? • 30-40% of the total score (cf 25% for science!) • So don’t leave this til an hour before you submit • Structure this section well • Make it personal!

Objectives of Scheme Value & Relevance Field of Research ERA

Value and relevance – what not to say…. • “This proposal achieves the aims of the European Research Area.” • “This proposal is highly relevant to the Marie Curie Programme.” • “This Proposal will achieve it objectives to elucidate the mechanism of ……”

Value and Relevance Lesson – Don’t be vague and fluffy AND we are not talking here of your own objectives – its those of the”scheme” you are submitting to • You can find these objectives in the Work Prog and Handbook

Value and Relevance – mocked-up example “A recent report by the European Bioindustries Forum described the increasing difficulties being faced by universities and industry alike in the field of bioengineering to source suitable trained post-doctoral level researchers with broad enough skills. The report projects a shortfall of {no.} by 2010. This proposal, though collaboration across engineering and biology depts. Seeks to address the training needs, and is therefore closely alligned with the overarching objectives of the {name} scheme”

Value & relevance  The research infrastructure for this important field of research is largely in place in Europe, but there is a lack of scientists who are properly trained. Training will ensure a critical mass of capable researchers to develop fully all the applications. In this growing field of research, career opportunities will certainly increase, and the Community has an interest in consolidating the scientific foundations of these sophisticated techniques. Coordination with national/EU?international-projects is an additional objective. A strong point of the project is to overcome fragmentation of research in Europe.

2-step/stage submission – how to get beyond the 1st hurdle • 2-stage: RTN • Stage 1 = 10-pager on Scientific Content and Training 50:50. • This Pre-proposal is evaluated and proposals passing this stage are invited to submit a FULL proposal • Success rate in 2nd stage will be 40%, so make sure your short proposal is properly prepared

2-step/stage submission – how to get beyond the 1st hurdle • 2-step submission= Individual Fellowships, Excellence Grants, Chairs • IMP: You only submit once and you submit a complete proposal • Once the proposal reaches Brussels, the evaluators look at the B1 first – Science and the Researcher • Then it is fully reviewed if it is passed to Step 2

“the devil is in the detail” • Ethics • Gender • Workplan for science AND for training • Dissemination plans • Your dept/partners’ details really matter • Feasibility/sustainability of the project • EPSS – get your password in time and know the ropes • Submit in plenty of time • Make sure you can convert your proposal to PDF

Marie Curie Proposal Writing….