EuropeanResearchCouncil: WP2016

(1)

O F I C I N A E U R O P E A

European Research Council:

WP2016

www.eshorizonte2020.es

PROF. JOSÉ LUIS GARCÍA Representante Nacional ERC

MINECO

Pilar de Excelencia de H2020: Las acciones del

Consejo Europeo de Investigación-ERC

(2)

The program we all dream

│ 2

www.eshorizonte2020.es

(3)

Big money

A single partner

All disciplines

Scientists from all countries

Portability of money

Short projects

Grants differentiated by experience

Grants differentiated by disciplines

No previous team required

No previous lab required

Long-term funding

│ 3

(4)

I. ERC basics

II. ERC & Horizon 2020

III. WP2016: Novelties

IV. Evaluation of ERC proposals

V. ERC NCP Services

(5)

oficina europea www.eshorizonte2020.es

(6)

European Research Council

www.eshorizonte2020.es oficina europea

ScC

ERCEA

EC

22 eminent scientists, covering all disciplines

(7)

ERC timeline

2

0

5

2

0

6

2

0

7

2

0

8

2

0

9

2

0

10

2

0

11

Appointment of 22 Scientific Council Members Adoption of FP7 and IDEAS Programme Launch of ERC & 1st_{StG call} 1st_{AdG call} 2nd _{StG and} AdG calls 3rd _{StG and} AdG calls 4th_{StG, AdG calls}

& 1st_{PoC call}

2

0

12

5th_{StG, AdG calls}

2nd _{PoC call &}

1st_{SyG call}

│ 7

6th _{StG, AdG calls}

3rd _{PoC call}

2nd _{SyG call &}

1st_{CoG call}

2

0

13

(8)

[2007-2013] Grants per country

oficina europea

ERC Starting Grant calls 2007-2013 ERC Advanced Grant calls 2008-2013

(9)

ERC basics

oficina europea

Highly recognised by the research community

More than 4 000 top researchers funded (65% are at

an early-career stage); 58 nationalities represented

Highly competitive (average success rate 12%)

Working in >500 different institutions in 29 countries

50% of grantees in 50 institutions : “Excellence

attracts excellence”

Benchmarking effect: impact on national

programmes and agencies; national funding for best

"runners-up"

(10)

(11)

(12)

Budget: 30% of H2020

www.eshorizonte2020.es oficina europea EIT 2% Excellente Science Base 30% Industrial Leadeship 24% Societal Challenges 41% JRC 3% ERC 13.094,81 € FET 2.695,99 € MSCA 6.162,26 € Infrastructures 2.488,01 € TOTAL 24.441,07 € 54% 11% 25% 10%

(13)

Goals

www.eshorizonte2020.es oficina europea 54% 11% 25% 10% Excellent Science

ERC FET MCSA Infrastructures

• Frontier research by the best individual

teams

European Research Council (ERC)

• Collaborative research to open new

fields of innovation Future and Emerging Technologies (FET)

• Opportunities for training and career

development

Marie S. Curie Actions (MSCA)

• (including e-infrastructure) • Ensuring access to world-class

facilities

(14)

Budget

(15)

C O N T I N U I T Y

(16)

European Research Council

ScC

ERCEA

EC

Scientific excellence: sole

evaluation criteria (IP and

project)

Bottom-up approach: All

fields

Individual projects (IP)

Attractive funding

[StG: 1,5

M€] [CoG: 2,0M€] [AdG: 2,5

M€] 5 years

Portability of grants

(17)

ERC Work Programme 2017: Main features

oficina europea

Publication date of first calls: July 19, 2016

Three ERC frontier research grants will be available under Work Programme 2017: Starting; Consolidator; and Advanced Grants

ERC Principal Investigators will also continue to be able to apply for the Proof of Concept Grant, first introduced in 2011

Overhead: 25%

Budget for two years to help the research community to plan applications

Update of panel titles, subtitles and descriptors

Restrictions on applications will apply to the 2017 calls based on the outcome of the evaluation of the 2015 and 2016 calls. A PI whose proposal was rejected on the grounds of a breach of research integrity under Work Programmes 2015 or 2016 may not submit a proposal to the calls for proposals made under Work Programme 2017.

Open access is mandatory

(18)

Resubmission Restrictions

oficina europea

A Principal Investigator whose proposal is evaluated as category C in step 1 of the Starting, Consolidator or Advanced Grant calls for proposals under Work Programme 2015 or 2016 may not submit a proposal to the Starting, Consolidator or Advanced Grant calls for proposals made under Work Programme 2017

A Principal Investigator whose proposal is evaluated as category B in step 1 of the Starting, Consolidator or Advanced Grant calls for proposals under Work Programme 2016 may not submit a proposal to the Starting, Consolidator or Advanced Grant calls for proposals made under Work Programme 2018.

A Principal Investigator whose proposal is finally evaluated in step 2 as

category A or B in the Starting, Consolidator or Advanced Grant calls for

proposals under Work Programme 2016 and it is not funded for budgetary reasons may submit a proposal to the Starting, Consolidator or Advanced Grant calls for proposals made under Work Programme 2017.

(19)

Open access: common obligation for H2020

oficina europea

The ERC supports the principle of open access to the published output of

research, including peer-reviewed articles, monographs, data and data

related products such as computer codes, as a fundamental part of its

mission. The ERC considers that providing free online access can be the

most effective way of ensuring that the fruits of the research it funds can be

accessed, read and used as the basis for further research.

The terms and conditions laid down in the ERC Model Grant

Agreement will address how

scientific publications must be

made available through open access

. The ERC also considers it

essential that data and data-related products, such as computer codes, be

deposited in the relevant databases as soon as possible, although this is not

a formal requirement of the Grant Agreement.

(20)

Open access: ERC guidelines

oficina europea

• requests that an electronic copy of any research article, monograph or other research

publication that is supported in whole, or in part, by ERC funding be deposited in a suitable repository immediately upon publication. Open access should be provided

as soon as possible and in any case no later than six months after the official publication date. For publications in the Social Sciences and Humanities domain a delay of up to twelve months is acceptable.

• strongly encourages ERC funded researchers to use discipline-specific repositories for

their publications (http://europepmc.org, http://arxiv.org/).

• reminds ERC funded researchers that open access fees are eligible costs that can be

charged against ERC grants, provided they have been incurred during the duration of the project.

• encourages Host Institutions to cover open access fees of any research publications that

are supported in whole, or in part, by ERC funding, which arise in the period up to 24 months after the end of the project.

(21)

3 Types of grants + PoC

Starting Grants

starters (2-7 years after PhD) up to € 2.0 Mio for 5 years

Advanced Grants

track-record of significant research achievements in the last 10 years up to € 3.5 Mio for 5 years

Synergy Grants (not in 2014)

2 – 4 Principal Investigators up to € 15.0 Mio for 6 years

Proof-of-Concept

bridging gap between research - earliest stage of marketable innovation

up to €150,000 for ERC grant holders

Consolidator Grants

consolidators (7-12 years after PhD)

up to € 2.75 Mio for 5 years

(22)

STARTING GRANTS: BASIC PROFILE

FUNDING

LEVEL 1,5 M€ [2,0 M€] 5 years

OBJETIVE nurturing the next generation research leaders.

To support excellent Principal Investigators at the career stage at which they are starting their own independent research team or programme

ELEGIBILITY PhD 2 -7 years [ limited reasons for extension].

HI support letter

PROFILE Potential for independence and evidence of maturity Good track-record of early research achievements, appropriate to their research field and career stage

At least one major publication without PhD supervisor

(23)

CONSOLIDATOR GRANT: BASIC PROFILE

SIZE 2,0 M€ [2,75 M€] 5 years

OBJECTIVE Support excellent PI at the career stage at which they may still be consolidating their own independent research team or

programme. PI must demonstrate the ground breaking nature, ambition and feasibility of their scientific proposal.

ELEGIBILITY PhD 7 -12 years [ limited reasons for extension].

HI support letter

PROFILE Independence and evidence of maturity shown

Promising track-record of early research achievements, appropriate to their research field and career stage

Several publications without PhD supervisor

(24)

ADVANCED GRANTS: BASIC PROFILE

FUNDING

LEVEL 2,5 M€ [3,5 M€] 5 years

OBJECTIVE Attract and reward top scientists from anywhere in the world to conduct frontier research in Europe

ELEGIBILITY No conditions

TRACK RECORD

Strong leadership profile (impact, recognition,…) Excellent track record in recent years (10 yrs) 10 selected publications

3 monographs Or if applicable:

Patents/Expeditions/Prizes/Conferences/Academies… 30% of time devoted to the ERC project. 50% in Europe

(25)

ERC: Calendar & Budget 2016

(26)

ERC: Calendar & Budget 2017

www.eshorizonte2020.es oficina europea Starting Grant Consolidator Grant Advanced Grant Call identifier ERC-2017-StG ERC-2017-CoG ERC-2017-AdG

Call Opens 19 July 2016 20 October 2016 16 May 2017

Deadline 18 October 2016 9 February 2017 31 August 2017

Budget million EUR

(estimated grants) 605 (415) 575 (320) 570 (245)

Planned dates to inform applicants

Indicative date for signature of grant

(27)

Host Institution

oficina europea

•

HI must be located in an EU Member State or an Associated

Country

•

Hosts the PI for the duration of the project

•

Is a legal entity: university, research center, business research unit,

etc.

•

Is committed to ensure that the PI may:

o Apply for funding independently

o Manage research and funding project o Publish independently as senior author

o Have access to reasonable space and facilities

•

Signs Grant Agreement

•

Overhead: 25%

(28)

ERC Grant Management

oficina europea

No constraints on eligible costs as long as they are for the execution

of the project

Rules of the HI apply

High flexibility: aims of the project can be modified through

amendments to the grant agreement

Grants have a light reporting along the project life-time: financial

report every 18 months, scientific report at mid-term and end of the

project

Grants have 25-40% pre-financing

PI is empowered to manage the research activity and the funds of

the project

(29)

If you are asked to be an

ERC panel member,

please accept

(30)

Submission of proposals

oficina europea

PART A – online forms A1 Proposal and PI info

A2 Host Institution info

A3 Budget PART B2 – submitted as .pdf • Scientific Proposal 15 p. Annexes – submitted as .pdf • Statement of support of HI • If applicable: explanatory

information on ethical issues; copy of PhD (StG, CoG);

document for extension of eligibility window (StG, CoG)

PART B1 – submitted as .pdf

• Extended Synopsis 5 p.

• CV 2 p.

(31)

Submission of proposals

oficina europea

PART A – online forms A1 Proposal and PI info

A2 Host Institution info

A3 Budget PART B2 – submitted as .pdf • Scientific Proposal 15 p. Annexes – submitted as .pdf • Statement of support of HI • If applicable: explanatory

information on ethical issues; copy of PhD (StG, CoG);

document for extension of eligibility window (StG, CoG)

PART B1 – submitted as .pdf

• Extended Synopsis 5 p.

• CV 2 p.

• Track Record 2 p. • One estrict single deadline

• Proposal complete (A+B1+B2) + HI letter and other docs: readable •Panel identification and

(32)

Panel Structure

oficina europea

Life Sciences

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 and Non-Medical Biotechnology

Social Sciences and Humanities

SH1 Individuals, Markets & Organisations SH2 Institutions, Values, Environment & Space

SH3 The Social World, Diversity, Population SH4 The Human Mind & its Complexity SH5 Cultures & Cultural Production SH6 The Study of the Human Past

Physical Sciences & Engineering

PE1 Mathematics

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

(33)

Evaluation process

www.eshorizonte2020.es oficina europea Panel Members (10-15 experts) Proposal remotely reviewed by 3-4 panel members Panel Meeting A B C Panel Meeting Final Meeting

Interviews

New revision by panel members + external

referees

STEP I: Part B1

STEP2: B1+B2

A B

20% <50%

(34)

(35)

Submissions

Evaluated at Step 2

Funded

Physical

Sciences &

Engineering

1269

324

156 Life Sciences

940

250

114 Social Sciences

&

Humanities

711

175

80 Total

2920

749

350 Success rates

25.65%

11.99%

StG 2015 - Overview of results

(36)

StG 2015 –

Success Rate by HI

country

1 30 28 38 35 53 9 4 4 61 11 6 3 8 10 4 13 22 1 5 2 1 1 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% M T _IL C H N L F R D E A T C Z T R U K S E _IE H U D K B E P T E S _IT R O _FI _PL _EL N O s u c c e s s r a te HI country

STG 2015 success rates

SR (12 %) # funded proposals (350)

(37)

Evaluated Step 1 Evaluated Step 2 Provisional Funded (main list) Success rate Physical Sciences and Engineering

951

329

141 14.8 %

Life Sciences

614

226

94 15.3 %

Social Sciences and Humanities

458

143

67 14.6 %

Total

2023

698

302 14.9 %

(38)

│ 38

COG 2015

Success Rate by HI country

9 26 67 45 9 10 11 1 31 18 6 3 13 2 1 2 1 2 25 14 3 3 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% A T N L U K D E B E D K S E L U F R E S _FI P T _IT _IE E L C Z H U P L C H _IL T R N O EU15 EU13 AC s u c c e s s r a te

host institution country

COG 2015 Success rate by HI country (14.9 %

for call)

SR HI (14.9 %) # funded proposals

(39)

Submissions Evaluated at Step 1 Passed to step 2 Funded Success rate Physical Sciences and Engineering

887

875

314

122 13.9 %

Life Sciences

643

634

211

89 14.0 %

Social Sciences and Humanities

423

421

134

59 14.0 %

Total

1953

1930

659

270 14.0 %

(40)

ADG 2015: Results

Success rate by HI country

1 13 43 21 65 11 7 30 9 2 18 3 12 2 2 1 1 1 18 9 1 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% LU AT DE NL UK BE FI FR SE PT IT DK ES EL IE SI CZ PL CH IL NO EU 15 EU 13 AC countries s u c c e s s r a te

ADG 2015 Success rate by host institution

country

SR HI country # funded proposals

(41)

(42)

Oficina

Europea

ERC NCP MSCA NCP FET follow-up www.eshorizonte2020.es oficina europea

(43)

NCP Services

oficina europea

Proposal pre-screening: Published at

www.eshorizonte2020.es

Who? Any elegible PI asking for a StG or CoG 2017

Evaluators are expert scientist, but not exactly in the same field.

Confidentiality agreement signed.

Proposal sent through the HI project office at

[email protected]

Infodays

Grant writing workshops or interviews (as organized by

local entities)

(44)

Final consideration

oficina europea

B 2018 C 2019

• Think carefully when you should go

for the ERC grant (right timing)

•Do prepare it well in advance!!!

(45)

j l u i s . g a r c i a @ m i n e c o . e s ( N R )

e s t h e r . r o d r i g u e z @ o f i c i n a e u r o p e a . e s ( N C P )

l d r i o @ i s c i i i . e s ( N C P )

w w w . e s h o r i z o n t e 2 0 2 0 . e s h t t p : / / e r c . e u r o p a . e u

(46)

(47)

Para liderar la ciencia en el mundo

(Aumentar el impacto de las

publicaciones de la UE)

Para incorporar el talento

(Reclutar, Rescatar, Retener)

(48)

(49)

Si tengo éxito con mi idea

¿Podré publicar los

resultados en la mejor

revista de mi campo?

(50)

¿Es mi CV competitivo en

mi campo y en relación a

mis años de experiencia?

(51)

Que voy a ser

responsable de

gestionar uno o más

millones de euros

(52)

Que voy a competir con los

mejores investigadores de

mi campo a escala

mundial

(53)

Que las personas que me

van a evaluar son

(54)

Que el objetivo principal

del programa es

incrementar el

(55)

IDEA ROMPEDORA

CV BUENO

INDEPENDENCIA

ORIGINALIDAD

(56)

IDEA ROMPEDORA

CV MUY BUENO

(57)

IDEA INNOVADORA

CV EXCELENTE

RECONOCIMIENTO EN EL

CAMPO

(58)

IDEA INNOVADORA

CV EXCELENTE

RECONOCIMIENTO EN EL CAMPO

ALGO MÁS ???

(59)

oficina europea

Cada proyecto lo ven 3-4 panelistas

A todos les parezca interesante y que no haya alguno muy

en contra

Hay un panelista responsable de tu proyecto

No son necesariamente expertos en tu campo

Tienen muy poco tiempo para ver cada propuesta

Tienen que pasar aproximadamente el doble de los

proyectos a financiar

La nota de la primera fase no es determinante al final

(60)

oficina europea

Hay que poner todo lo mejor de cada uno

Hay que ser algo pedante

No hay que tirarse piedras sobre tu propio tejado (ocultar

lo menos bueno)

Hay que dirigir el CV para que lo valoren bien los de tu

campo

Hay que demostrar la independencia en los jóvenes

Hay que resaltar los grandes logros

Hay que demostrar que uno vive en el mundo y no solo en

su país.

Hay que demostrar la capacidad de gestión

Hay que demostrar la capacidad de formación

Hay que demostrar la capacidad de liderazgo

(61)

oficina europea

Hay que decir donde está el limité del conocimiento Hay que decir quienes están trabajando en el límite del conocimiento

Hay que decir por que se quiere traspasar el límite Hay que explicar como se quiere traspasar el límite

Hay que explicar por que soy la persona adecuada para traspasar el límite

Hay que explicar que voy a hacer si al saltar el límite me la pego Hay que decir si salto solo o necesito ayuda

Hay que decir si tengo algún dato previo de lo que hay mas allá del límite

Hay que explicar algo de la metodología y los recursos a emplear Los esquemas ayudan

El riesgo y los beneficios tienen que ser visibles Evitar la jerga y abreviaturas muy especializadas

(62)

oficina europea

Cada proyecto lo ven los mismos 3-4 panelistas

El proyecto lo ven 0-4 expertos en remoto

Hay un panelista responsable de tu proyecto

A todos les parezca interesante y que no haya

alguno muy en contra

Tienen muy poco tiempo para ver cada

propuesta

La decisión final se toma por consenso

En los AdG si no te conoce nadie tienes un

problema

En los StG/CoG la entrevista es importante para

que te conozcan

(63)

oficina europea

No hay que repetir todo lo dicho en la sinopsis

El estado del arte se debe ampliar

Hay que demostrar una buena organización y estructura del

proyecto con objetivos claros

No es necesario llegar a generar demostradores o patentes

Hay que explicar las tareas con su metodología y los

resultados esperables

Hay que poner los planes de contingencia

Hay que explicar los puntos críticos y sus posibles beneficios

Hay que hacer un presupuesto adecuado

Hay que explicar muy bien las colaboraciones y los recursos

humanos

(64)

1. Research Project

Ground-breaking nature, ambition and feasibility Starting, Consolidator and Advanced

Ground-breaking nature and potential impactof the research project

To what extent does the proposed research address important challenges?

To what extent are the objectives ambitious and beyond the state of the art (e.g. novel concepts and approaches or development between or across disciplines)?

To what extent is the proposed research high risk/high gain? Scientific Approach

To what extent is the outlined scientific approach feasible bearing in mind the extent that the proposed research is high risk/high gain (based on the Extended Synopsis)?

To what extent is the proposed research methodology appropriate to achieve the goals of the project (based on the full Scientific Proposal)?

To what extent does the proposal involve the development of novel methodology (based on the full Scientific Proposal)?

To what extent are the proposed timescales and resources necessary and properly justified (based on the full Scientific Proposal)?

(65)

2. Principal Investigator

Intellectual capacity, creativity and commitment

Starting and Consolidator

Intellectual capacity and creativity

To what extent has the PI demonstrated the ability to propose and conduct ground-breaking research?

To what extent does the PI provide evidence of creative independent

thinking?

To what extent have the achievements of the PI typically gone beyond the state of the art?

Commitment

To what extent does the PI demonstrate the level of commitment to the project

necessary for its execution and the willingness to devote a significant amount of time to the project (minimum 50% for Starting and 40% for Consolidator of the total

(66)

Advanced

Intellectual capacity and creativity

To what extent has the PI demonstrated the ability to propose and conduct ground-breaking research?

To what extent does the PI provide evidence of creative independent thinking?

To what extent have the achievements of the PI typically gone beyond the state of the art?

To what extent has the PI demonstrated sound leadershipin the training and advancement of young scientists?

Commitment

To what extent does the PI demonstrate the level of commitment to the project

necessary for its execution and the willingness to devote a significant amount of time to the project (minimum 30% of the total working time on it) (based on the full Scientific Proposal)?

(67)

(68)

(69)

oficina europea

Leerse las guías para saber que se pide y que se

va a valorar

Elegir bien el panel

No hacer proyectos muy multidisciplinares

Mirar los evaluadores de años anteriores

Mirar los proyectos ya concedidos en tu panel

Enviar el proyecto a revisar a algún colega si es

posible con buen nivel de inglés

Preparar bien la entrevista en los StG/CoG

No dejar el proyecto para última hora

(70)

oficina europea

http://erc.europa.eu

Demo on line/servicio de revisión

http:// www.eshorizonte2020.es

[email protected]

(NR)

[email protected]

(NCP)

[email protected]

(NCP)

(71)

(72)

• Jose Luis Garcia (MINECO-CSIC) • Lucia del Rio (ISCIII) [email protected]

• Esther Rodriguez (OE) [email protected]

ERC

• Borja Izquierdo (Oficina Europea)

• Severino Falcon (MINECO) [email protected]

• Roberto Martinez (UPM) [email protected]

• Pablo Fernández (UPC) [email protected]

FET

• Antonio Skarmeta (MINECO-UM)

• Cristina Gómez Corchete (FECYT) [email protected]

• Jesús Rojo ([email protected])

MSCA

• Inmaculada Figueroa (MINECO)

• Marta March (INTA) [email protected]

• Gloria Villar (ISCIII) [email protected]

INFRAS.

• Rocio Castrillo [email protected]

EuropeanResearchCouncil: WP2016

European Research Council:

WP2016

Pilar de Excelencia de H2020: Las acciones del

Consejo Europeo de Investigación-ERC

The program we all dream

Big money

A single partner

All disciplines

Scientists from all countries

Portability of money

Short projects

Grants differentiated by experience

Grants differentiated by disciplines

No previous team required

No previous lab required

Long-term funding

CONTENTS

I.

ERC basics

II.

ERC & Horizon 2020

III.

WP2016: Novelties

IV.

Evaluation of ERC proposals

V.

ERC NCP Services

European Research Council

ScC

ERCEA

EC

ERC timeline

2

0

0

5

2

0

0

6

2

0

0

7

2

0

0

8

2

0

0

9

2

0

10

2

0

11

2

0

12

2

0

13

[2007-2013] Grants per country

ERC basics

Highly recognised by the research community

More than 4 000 top researchers funded (65% are at

an early-career stage); 58 nationalities represented

Highly competitive (average success rate 12%)

Working in >500 different institutions in 29 countries

50% of grantees in 50 institutions : “Excellence

attracts excellence”

Benchmarking effect: impact on national

programmes and agencies; national funding for best

"runners-up"

Budget: 30% of H2020

Goals

Budget