European research fundingERC: New possibilities for scientific community
Leena Palotie
Akatemiaprofessori
Biomedicum Helsinki
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
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
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
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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)
Novel concepts need new structures
Leroy Hood
Biomedicum lecture 2005
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