│ 1

European Research Council Grants: To apply or not to apply?

Nicolas Sifakis Research Director IAASARS NOA

Seconded to the ERCEA

Scientific Management Department

3 December 2015

National Observatory of Athens

│ 2

Outline

What does ERC offer?

Funding schemes, opportunities

The Evaluation Procedure/ERC Modus operandi

How to prepare and submit a grant proposal

Tips, rumours and the "truth"

│ 3

ERC in the H2020 Structure

The HORIZON 2020 main components: Excellent Science

World class science is foundation of technologies, jobs, well-being

Europe needs to develop, attract, retain research talent

Researchers need access to the best infrastructures

Industrial leadership

Societal challenges

Excellent Science: European Research Council

Future and Emerging Technologies

Marie Sklodowska Curie Actions

Research Infrastructures

│ 3

│ 4

What is special about the ERC?

• All fields of science and scholarship are eligible

• Investigator driven, bottom up

• High risk – high gain research

• Scientific Excellence is the only criterion

• Individual team + research project

• Irrespectively of nationality, gender or age of researchers

• Attractive grants

• Significant, flexible grants, up to five years

• Under full control of the PI

• Independent individual teams in Europe

• All nationalities can apply

• Host organisation to be located in EU or AC (portable!)

│ 5

• to work on a topic of own choice, with a team of own choice

• to attract top team members (EU and non-EU) and collaborators

• to gain true financial autonomy for 5 years

• to negotiate with the HI the best conditions of work

• to benefit from the possibility of portability of grants

• to attract additional funding and gain recognition

ERC offers to grantees

independence, recognition & visibility

│ 6

Figures and facts

│ 7

StG

starters (2-7 years after

PhD) up to € 2.0 M for 5 years

AdG track-record of significant research achievements in the last 10 years

up to € 3.5 M

for 5 years

Proof-of-Concept Exclusively for ERC grant holders bridging gap between research - earliest stage of marketable innovation, up to €150,000

ERC Grant funding schemes

CoG

consolidators (7-12 years after

PhD) up to € 2.75 M for 5 years

│ 8

Researcher's career development

and complementary funding schemes

Post-docs

Extraordinary track record / achievements

Students

Post Graduates

Junior Researcher Associated Professor

Senior Researcher Full Professor

Marie Curie

ERC AdG

ERC StG

ERC CoG

ERASMUS

│ 9

ERC StG, CoG, AdG 2014

Age of applicants at call publication date

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

26283032343638404244464850525456586062646668707274767880828486

# A

pp

lican

ts

Age of applicants at call publication date

AdG 2014

CoG 2014

StG 2014

│ 10 │ 10 │ 10 │ 10

Who can apply to ERC?

• Excellent Researchers

• Any nationality, any age or any current place of work

• In conjunction with a Host Institution

based in EU or associated countries

│ 11

Applicant legal entity: Institution that engages and hosts the PI

for the duration of the project (25% overheads to HI)

Any type of legal entity: Universities, research centres, business

research units … as long as it is in MS or AC

Commitment of HI to ensure that the PI may:

- apply for funding independently

- manage research and funding for the project

- publish independently as senior author

- have access to reasonable space and facilities

Host institution

│ 12

25 panels for all areas of science

in 3 domains Each panel: PC and 10-15 PMs

Social Sciences and Humanities (SH) 6

SH1 Individuals, institutions & markets

SH2 Institutions, values, beliefs and behaviour

SH3 Environment & society

SH4 The Human Mind and its complexity

SH5 Cultures & cultural production

SH6 The study of the human past

Physical Sciences & Engineering (PE) 10

PE1 Mathematical foundations

PE2 Fundamental constituents of matter

PE3 Condensed matter physics

PE4 Physical & Analytical Chemical sciences

PE5 Materials & Synthesis

PE6 Computer science & informatics

PE7 Systems & communication engineering

PE8 Products & process engineering

PE9 Universe sciences

PE10 Earth system science

Life Sciences (LS) 9

LS1 Molecular & Structural Biology &

Biochemistry

LS2 Genetics, Genomics, Bioinformatics &

Systems Biology

LS3 Cellular and Developmental Biology

LS4 Physiology, Pathophysiology &

Endocrinology

LS5 Neurosciences & neural disorders

LS6 Immunity & infection

LS7 Diagnostic tools, therapies & public

health

LS8 Evolutionary, population & environmental

biology

LS9 Applied life sciences & biotechnology

│ 13

Other

(7%)

Who evaluates the proposals ?

(7%) USA

Panel members: typically 600 / call

High-level scientists

Recruited by ScC from all over the world

About 12-16 members plus a chair person

Referees: typically 2000 / call

Evaluate only a small number of proposals

Similar to normal practise in peer-reviewed journals

│ 14 │ 14

321308

266

194

114105101

85 81 7766 65

55

41 3627 21

9 5 5 5 4 3 3

125

4437

166 4 3

196

15 11 6 5 3 3 3 1 1 1

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

UK DE FR IT ES NL SE BE AT DK FI PL HU CZ PT EL IE RO BG CY SK LT EE SI CH IL NO TR RS HR IS US JP CA AU TW CL HK RU UA AR MX

EU Member States Associated C. International

Men

Women

Nu

mb

er

of

as

sig

nm

en

ts*

Country of Panel Member's Host Institution

Based on the eight ERC StG and AdG calls 2007 - 2011

ERC panel members by country of HI

and gender

ERC StG, CoG and AdG calls 2007 - 2014

│ 15

General impression of review process

• Very fair & professional (careful reviews, careful checks on reviewers & review process)

• Excellent oversight, preparation & screening for possible COIs by ERC staff

• Very many excellent proposals, too small budget highly competitive

│ 16

Excellence as sole criterion, to apply to:

Research Project

Ground breaking nature

Potential impact

Scientific approach

Principle Investigator (PI)

Intellectual capacity

Creativity

Commitment

Evaluation Criteria

│ 17 │ 17

Eligibility check

Step 1 (remote) evaluation on the basis of Part B1 of proposal by panel members

Proposals passing to Step 2

Individual assessment of full proposal by

panel members + referees

AdG : 2nd Panel meeting

Submission of full proposals

Proposals selected for funding

How does it work?

Submission, evaluation and selection

1st Panel meeting

CoG, StG: 2nd Panel meeting

+ interviews of

applicants

│ 18

PART A – online forms

A1 Proposal and PI info

A2 Host Institution info

A3 Budget

PART B1 – submitted as pdf

Extended Synopsis 5 pages

CV 2 p.

Track Record 2 p.

Annexes – submitted as pdf

• Statement of support of HI

• copy of PhD or equiv. (StG & CoG)

If applicable:

• document for extension of eligibility

window (StG & CoG)

• explanatory information on ethical

issues

PART B2 – submitted as pdf

Scientific Proposal 15 p.

(incl. budget table)

Submission of proposals

Proposal structure

│ 19

Extensions of eligibility window possible for StG and

CoG for documented situations of:

• Maternity – 18 months per child

• Paternity – effective time taken off

• Military service

• Medical speciality training

• Caring for seriously ill family members

• No limit to the total extension

Extensions of eligibility window

│ 20

Panel meeting – Step 1 Scoring

Results of Step 1:

A. Proposal is of sufficient quality to pass to Step 2

of the evaluation

B. Proposal is of high quality but not sufficient to

pass to Step 2 of the evaluation

C. Proposal is not of sufficiently high quality to

pass to Step 2 of the evaluation

│ 21

Feedback to applicants

Step 2 results

Results of Step 2:

A. Proposal fully meets the ERC's excellence criterion and

is recommended for funding if sufficient funds are

available

B. Proposal meets some but not all elements of the ERC's

excellence criterion and will not be funded

At the end of both steps, applicants will be informed

about the ranking range of their proposal out of all

proposals evaluated by the panel.

│ 22

Restrictions of reapplications

• Ever increasing number of applications causes low

success rates and high panel workload

• New for 2016 call applicants:

• those who receive a B at Step 1 have to wait

out one year

• those who receive a C will have to wait out

two years

│ 23 │

Questions to ask yourself as an applicant

• Is my project new, innovative, bringing in new solutions? theory?

applications?

• Does it promise to go substantially beyond the state of the art?

• Why is my proposed project important?

• Is it timely? (Why wasn't it done in the past? Is it feasible now?)

• What's the risk? Is it justified by a substantial potential gain? Do I have a

plan for managing the risk?

• Why am I the best/only person to carry it out?

• Am I internationally competitive as a researcher at my career stage and in

my discipline?

• Am I able to work independently, and to manage a 5-year project with a

substantial budget

• How can I prove/support my case?

│ 24

Preparing an application

Choose your Host Institution (to be done well in advance)

Select the "right" Panel – very IMPORTANT, ID explanation

Choose your descriptors and free keywords carefully

Talk to the National Contact Points and your institution's grant office

Register early, get familiar with the system and templates and start filling

in the forms respecting formatting rules and page limits

A submitted proposal can be revised until the call deadline by submitting

a new version and overwriting the previous one. Download and proof-read

the proposal before submitting

Make use of using all help tools and call documents (Information for

Applicants, Work Programme, FAQ)

│ 24

│ 25

In Step 1: Panel members (generalists and with multidisciplinary approaches) see only Part B1 of your proposal: Prepare it accordingly!

Pay particular attention to the ground-breaking nature of the research project – no incremental research. State-of-the-art is not enough. Think big!

Know your competitors – what is the state of play and why is your idea and scientific approach outstanding?

Only the extended Synopsis is read at Step 1: concise and clear presentation is crucial (evaluators are not necessarily all experts in the field)

Outline of the methodological approach (feasibility)

Show your scientific independence in your CV (model CV provided in the part B1 template)

Funding ID to be filled in

│

Submission of Proposals Differences in Part B1 and Part B2

│ 26

Submission of Proposals Differences in Part B1 and Part B2

In Step 2: Both Part B1 and B2 are sent to specialists around the world (specialised external referees)

Do not just repeat the synopsis

Provide sufficient detail on methodology, work plan, selection of case studies etc. (15 pages)

Check coherency of figures, justify requested resources

Explain involvement of team members (ERC proposals are NOT collaborative ones)

Provide alternative strategies to mitigate risk

│

│ 27

Submission of Proposals

Proposal budget considerations

• Budget analysis carried out in Step 2 evaluation (meeting)

• Panels have responsibility to ensure that resources requested

are reasonable and well justified

• Budget cuts need to be justified on a proposal by proposal

basis (no across-the-board cuts)

• Panels to recommend a final maximum budget based on the

resources allocated/ removed

• Panels do not “micro-manage” project finances

• Awards made on a “take-it-or-leave-it” basis: no negotiations

│ 28

It is your choice (in MS or Associated countries)

You can change it during the project's life (e.g. your career)

Negotiate with the HI (your position, equipment, administrative support,

access to infrastructure, etc.)

Rumours

1. The quality /fame of the HI is increasing my chances/scores

2. There is a lobbying from the not so successful countries to introduce a quota

NOT true,

1. the HI is not an evaluation criteria and it is never discussed at the evaluation

meetings,

2. lobbying is firmly rejected, but WG are set-up to support less successful

countries WP

Tips 1- Host Institution

│ 29

Decides on the panel which will evaluate your proposal

Is the basis of allocation to the panel members (with various expertise)

Will determine whether a cross panel evaluation is necessary

Rumours

1. Choose the panel "strategically"

2. The more cross panel descriptors are indicated, the higher the funding chances,

i.e. indicates inter-disciplinarity

NOT really true,

1. Your project might be evaluated by a "wrong" panel" (only with restricted

expertise)

2. If your project is interdisciplinary, decide on the evaluating panel based on the

dominating innovative element of your project

Tips 2- Submission; Descriptors and free keywords

│ 30

Obvious link between Parts B1 and B2 (both evaluated only in step 2)

Clear and logical presentation (keep the recommended length)

Make use of the evaluation criteria (use them as title/subtitle)

Make the project "easy to read and attractive"

Give timeline and show you did your homework (references/literature)

Describe accurately the requested budget vs. the proposed research (

Rumours

1. Ask for more money, the reviewers will anyhow cut it down

2. I need preliminary results

NOT true,

1. Unexplained or non-motivated requests can be cut down

2. If you have preliminary results include them, if they are absent, explain the "hypothesis"

show support in literature

Tips 3- The project

│ 31

As important as your project (almost)

Clear and logical presentation (list all relevant facts)

"guide the reviewer"

Have a Researcher ID that can be generated on the web of science (submit the

web address in the application

If you know that you have gaps or other issues in your CV (e.g. co-authored

publications), explain them

Give trend (if possible)

Describe accurately any other activity which can indicate scientific maturity

Rumours

One needs publications in Nature/Science/Cell high-IF journals to succeed

NOT true, however, publishing with senior scientists (former supervisors) raises doubts

about maturity/scientific independence. Give publishing trend is possible, explain gaps in

the trend (maternity, illness, army, ..), explain publishing habits in your field and country.

Tips 4- The CV

│ 32

Think through your project, have a logical and clear step by step description

Explain risks if you can identify them and have a contingency plan

"Guide the reviewer", use evaluation criteria as title/subtitle

Rumours

1.There is request to include PMs from all Member States in the panels, not all are competent

2.PMs are generalists, with only few real experts, those can influence the panel decision

3.Expert PMs influence the panel decision by lobbying for their own country

NOT true, however,

1.if equal excellence/expertise is present, a positive discrimination might be applied (considering

gender, grantee, geographic location, etc.)

2.PMs are excellent scientists, all used to evaluate projects at national and international level

3.The panel meetings are assisted by ERC scientific officers and independent observers

(including members of the Scientific Council) to assure equal treatment and objective evaluation

│

Tips 5- The evaluation

│ 33

Show your interest and enthusiasm – to be remembered by the PMs

Have clear and representative slides ("Less is more"!), focus on SCIENCE!

Bring additional slides on new supporting data, if you can/have

Look at the panel and not to the wall/slides - to be remembered by the PMs

Answer all questions, if not sure ask back the question

Don't over-explain your CV

Keep the time

Rumours

1. Choose your Acronym in alphabetical order, interviews are planned after alphabet

2.Late PM interviews have less chance, PMs are tired

NOT true, however,

1. Easy to remember acronym helps identifying the project during discussions

2. Tiredness can be there, "shake" the PMs up, place a joke, a comment…

│

Tips 6- Interview: PRACTICE!!!

│ 34

After the interview

Redressing

Before Redressing: don't blame the evaluator, see what could you have

done/explain/present better

Diverting scientific opinions are not motivating a redress

An obvious mistake might result in a re-evaluation

│ 35

Increasing your chances

Address all evaluation criteria carefully

Be clear when describing scientific excellence

Show your ability of thinking outside the box

Show the progress beyond the state-of-the-art

If you have supporting preliminary results, include them

Support (literature) & visualise your hypothesis, if possible use charts, tables, images

Show "proof of maturity", think through the research you propose, identify risks and propose

alternatives to reach the goal (contingency)

Be realistic with your goals (don't over-dimension the Work Plan)

Have a well presented CV

Choose the correct descriptors (key words), don't "overuse" them

Use your own key words

│ 36

To avoid:

• Overdo beefing up your CV

– e.g. 4th co-author on some oral or poster presentations

• Overstate your own contribution, experience, creativity…

• Try to solve all the World’s problems

• Ignore risks

• Write your proposal in a rush.

│ 37

Typical reasons for rejection

Principal investigator • Insufficient track-record

• Insufficient (potential for) independence

• Insufficient experience in leading projects

Proposed project • Scope: Too narrow too broad/unfocussed

• Incremental research

• Collaborative project, several PIs

• Work plan not detailed enough/unclear

• Insufficient risk management

Interview • Discussions/addressing the questions

• Presentation

│ 38

To do:

• Focus on ONE well-defined scientifically-relevant problem.

• Tell a very good story, comprehensible to the non-expert.

• Be frank about risks. If possible, mention fallback options

• Be honest and modest (contributions by you and others, relevance to the research field)

│ 39

Final recommendation

• Tailor your CV well in advance and take the time to prepare and submit your best scientific idea! It’s worth it – ERC puts all efforts into making the review process as fair as possible – though you may still need some luck as well.

│ 40 │ 40

StG 2014 Grantees

Years past PhD

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

# f

un

ded

pro

po

sals

Years passed phD

STG 2014 # years passed PhD

│ 41

Call Planning 2016

• StG 2016 (2-7 years PhD)

• Deadline was 17 November 2015

• CoG 2016 (7-12 years PhD)

• Opened October 2015

• Deadline 2 Feb 2016

• AdG 2016

• Opens end May 2016

• Deadline 1 September 2016

│ 42

Success rates by country of Host Institution

314

249

573

367 969

103 601 155

80 158

36 42 238 35 3 9 35 66 263

1 35 11 2 1 3 13 7

1 2

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

CH IL FR

NL

UK

AT

DE

BE

DK

SE

HU

NO

ES IE EE

CY

PT FI

IT LV

EL

CZ

HR IS

BG

PL

TR

SK SI

Su

ccess r

ate

Host country

ERC STG/ADG/COG Success rate for all calls in FP7:2007-2013

(Overall success rate = 10.4 %)

# - number of grants

│ 43

OGLEIV is an optical gravitational lensing experiment leading to new frontiers in observational astronomy using one of the largest scale sky surveys worldwide (University of Warsaw).

Some examples of recent ERC projects relevant to research activities in NOA

FLOODCHANGE analyses 200-year flood data from selected catchments building a flood-change model to predict how variations in one parameter could affect floods levels, and will attempt predicting how floods will change in the future (Vienna University of Technology).

SIREAL addresses seismology in the ionosphere., and would contribute to determine parameters of seismic source from ionospheric data shortly after an earthquake (Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris)

MODES deals with modal analysis of atmospheric balance, predictability and climate by studying some of the reasons behind the uncertainty of weather analyses and forecasts (University of Ljubljana).

│ 44

Do your HOMEWORK

http://erc.europa.eu

ERC Funded Projects http://erc.europa.eu/erc-funded-projects

│ 45

Subscribe to ERC newsletter and newsalerts:

http://erc.europa.eu/keep-updated-erc

National Contact Points: http://erc.europa.eu/national-contact-points

National Documentation Centre (EKT): Cristina Pascual, Georgia Mazioti

Where to apply:

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/index.html

Follow us on:

Further information

EuropeanResearchCouncil

ERC_Research

Thank you for your attention & Good luck with your future application

Nicolas.Sifakis@ec.europa.eu

European ResearchCouncil

Annex: complementary slides

│ 48

EU -28

Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom

Austria Belgium Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland

│ 49

Associated Countries

• Iceland • Switzerland • Bosnia& Herzegovina • Turkey • Albania • FYR Macedonia • Israel • Montenegro • Norway • Serbia • Faroe Islands • Republic of Moldova • Ukraine but not Crimea/Sevastopol • Tunisia – provisionally • Georgia – provisionally

│ 50

“… to support researchers (Principal Investigators) at the stage at which they are starting their own independent research team or programme.”

• minimum of 50% time in Europe (MS + AC)

• minimum of 50% working time on ERC project

Starting Grants (1/4)

Objective

European Research Council

│ 50

│ 51

• Potential for research independence

• One publication without PhD supervisor

• significant publications as 1st/main author

• invited presentations in conferences

• supervision of students

• mobility

• funding, patents, awards, prizes

Starting Grant (2/4)

Profile

European Research Council

│ 51

Junior Professor/ Junior Researcher

Associated Professor

│ 52

• 2 years ≤ PhD date ≤ 7 years

Counting from 1 January Call's calendar year

Call 2015 counts from 1 January 2015

• Extensions to this period are possible

paternity leave, maternity leave, long-term illness, national military service

Starting Grant (3/4)

Eligibility

European Research Council

│ 52

│ 53

– €1.5M for 5 years

– extra €0.5M

• "start-up" costs PI moving from outside EU+AC

• purchase of major equipment

• access to large facilities

100% total eligible direct costs (salaries, equipment, etc.)

Starting Grants (4/4)

Possible requested amount

European Research Council

│ 53

│ 54

“…to support researchers (Principal Investigators) at the stage at which they are consolidating their own independent research team or programme.”

• minimum of 50% time in Europe (MS + AC)

• minimum of 40% working time on ERC project

Consolidators Grants (1/4)

Objective

European Research Council

│ 54

│ 55

• research independence (very often already

working with own group)

• Several publications without PhD supervisor

Promising track-record of early achievements

• significant publications as 1st/main author

• invited presentations in conferences

• supervision of students

• mobility

• funding, patents, awards, prizes

Consolidators Grant (2/4)

Profile

European Research Council

│ 55

Full Professor

│ 56

• 7 years < PhD date ≤ 12 years

Counting from 1 January Call's calendar year

Call 2015 counts from 1 January 2015

• Extensions to this period are possible

paternity leave, maternity leave, long-term illness, national military service

Consolidators Grant (3/4)

Eligibility

European Research Council

│ 56

│ 57

– €2M for 5 years

– extra €0.75M

• "start-up" costs PI moving from outside EU+AC

• purchase of major equipment

• access to large facilities

100% eligible direct costs (salaries, equipment, etc.)

Consolidators Grants (4/4)

Possible requested amount

European Research Council

│ 57

│ 58

• Take place at Step 2 meetings • Panel evaluates interview + written proposal

• Interviews between 20-30 minutes

(panel dependent)

NOTE: Invited applicants are reimbursed

Consolidators & Starting Grant

Interviews

European Research Council

│ 58

│ 59

• “… Advanced Grants are intended to promote substantial advances in the frontiers of knowledge, and to encourage new productive lines of enquiry and new methods and techniques, including unconventional approaches and investigations at the interface between established disciplines.”

• minimum of 50% time in Europe (MS + AC)

• minimum of 30% working time on ERC project

Advanced Grants (1/3)

Objective

European Research Council

│ 59

│ 60

– Active researchers (any age, nationality, and current place of work)

– Track-record of significant research achievements (last 10 years, extension in case of career breaks possible)

– Exceptional leaders in terms of the originality and significance of their research contribution

Advanced Grants (2/3)

Profile

European Research Council

│ 60

│ 61

– €2.5M for 5 years

– extra €1M

• "start-up" costs PI moving from outside EU+AC

• purchase of major equipment

• access to large facilities

100% eligible direct costs (salaries, equipment, etc.)

Advanced Grants (3/3)

Possible requested amount

European Research Council

│ 61