fp7 opportunities & guide to proposal development 12.30 – introduction to fp7 12.45 –...
Post on 27-Dec-2015
219 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
FP7 Opportunities & Guide to Proposal Development
12.30 – Introduction to FP712.45 – Opportunities for Bidding13.00 – ERC (with Case Study)13.45 – Coffee Break14.00 – COOPERATION Programme (with Case study)14.30 – PEOPLE Programme (with Case Study)15.00 – CAPACITIES Programme (with Case Study)15.30 – Coffee Break15.45 – Successful Bidding – Key Tips16.15 – Q&A16.30 - Close
Agenda - Workshop
19/04/23 ©Kite Innovation Europe 2011 Knowledge Innovation Technology Enterprise
The World’s largest source of collaborative research funding
• European Unions principal research funding programme
• January 2007 – December 2013• Budget of more than €50 Billion
Framework Programme
19/04/23 ©Kite Innovation Europe 2011 Knowledge Innovation Technology Enterprise
Four Main “PILLARS”
• CO-OPERATION – Collaborative Research• IDEAS (ERC) – Frontier Research • PEOPLE – Human Potential• CAPACITIES – Research Capacity
FP7 Structure
19/04/23 ©Kite Innovation Europe 2011 Knowledge Innovation Technology Enterprise
Budgets by ProgrammeFP7 Budget Split - 2007-13 in Millions of Euros
€ 32,300€ 7,460
€ 4,720€ 4,390
Co-operation
Ideas (ERC)
People
Capacities
FP7 Budget
Benefits of participation
• Internationalisation of research (All collaborative projects require a Minimum of 3 countries)
• Benchmarking performance in European context• Range of project types (multi-disciplinary, industrial)• Networking opportunities – research and teaching• Opening up new opportunities• Mobility of staff and students• Research capacity• Pan-European university networks• Links to third ‘stream’ activities
19/04/23 ©Kite Innovation Europe 2011 Knowledge Innovation Technology Enterprise
IDEAS Programme (European Research Council)
• New in FP7• ERC grants support frontier research projects
carried out by single research leaders (principal investigators) of any nationality and age. Grant applications are submitted by the principal investigator (PI) and must be supported by a host organisation.
• Awards normally between €1.5M and €2.5M each.
IDEAS
ERC Investigator Grants• Starting Investigator Grants (2-12 years post PhD)• Advanced Investigator Grants• For the pursuit of questions at or beyond the
frontiers of knowledge without regard for established disciplinary boundaries
• Starting Investigator (Starter Grant 0-7 years post PhD)• Starting Investigator (Consolidator Grant 8-12 years post
PhD)
IDEAS
ERC Stg.-Inv. Case Studies• 3 Evaluation Summary Reports
• 1 scored highly (funded)• 1 scored lowly and failed to pass the threshold (not
allowed to re-submit)• 1 scored in the middle ground (potential to be re-
submitted)
• Review all three ESR:• Identify each one, and why• Guess their scores (see Evaluation criteria)
IDEAS
ERC Evaluation System• 5-6 Independent Reviewers• Sole basis for selection is ‘Scientific Excellence’• Two criterion (each scored out of 4)
• Quality of the PI• Quality of the Research Project
IDEAS
ERC Key Points• In a recent analysis of a single institution submitting
61 ERC Starting Investigator Grants, we found ;• In 70% of cases the PI score was greater than or
equal to the Project Score• A cluster in which there were submissions with
good PI scores who fell just short with their Project scores
• Some with overall great scores who should have got funded but didn’t perform at interview
IDEAS
ERC Key Points (2)• Research projects often lack the necessary novelty
• If you think you could get your Research funded by a domestic Research Council, then it won’t interest ERC.
• It should be more than an incremental development of your research trajectory to date
IDEAS
ERC Key Points (3)• Propose novel and interesting research questions
• Check your facts before claiming novelty• Capitalise on your research expertise• Propose innovative but credible research
methodology• Often this entails cross-disciplinary research
activities
IDEAS
COOPERATION – Themes
• 1. Health €6 050 M• 2. Food, Agriculture and Biotech (FAB/KBBE) €1 935 M• 3. Information Communication Tech (ICT) €9 110 M • 4. Nanotech, Material & Production Tech (NMP) €3 500 M• 5. Energy €2 300 M• 6. Environment (including Climate Change) €1900 M• 7. Transport (including Aeronautics) €4 180 M• 8. Socio-Economic Sciences and Humanities (SSH) € 610 M• 9. Space €1 350 M
• 10. Security €1 430 M
19/04/23 ©Kite Innovation Europe 2011 Knowledge Innovation Technology Enterprise
COOPERATION – Structure and terminology
FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME
IDEAS (ERC) PEOPLE CAPACITIES
Health, ICT, SSH, etc.
Details of calls and topics
Published calls for proposals
e.g. Tools, technologies and devices for regenerative medicine.
THEMATIC AREAS
ANNUAL WORKPLANS
CALLS
CALL TOPICS
COOPERATION
COOPERATION
COOPERATION - Analysing the topic
Turn this:HEALTH.2011.1.4-3: Development and production of new, high-affinity proteinscaffolds as an alternative to antibodies. FP7-HEALTH-2011-two-stage. Research should focus on the development and production of new high-affinity protein scaffolds as an alternative to antibodies. Projects should aim at developing new, efficient and safe preventive strategies and/or therapies by combining high specificity and effector function with stable production characteristics. Projects should include preclinical studies, methods for scale-up and GMP as appropriate, should combine academic, clinical and industrial expertise and implement a translational approach towards clinical trials (clinical proof-of-concept and/or phase I/II clinical studies). A strong level of SME participation is required and this will be considered in the evaluation of the proposal. Funding scheme: Collaborative Project (small or medium-scale).EC contribution per project: max. EUR 6,000,000.One or more proposals can be selected.Expected impact: Projects will be judged on the basis of the improvement displayed by the new materials in relation to classical antibodies. Successful projects will demonstrate clinical proof of concept and safety, particularly lack of immunogenicity. Scale-up and production methods should also be demonstrated. Benefits for the SME sector will also need to be displayed.
Analysing the topic - Topic Map
Development and production of new, high-affinity protein scaffolds as an alternative to antibodies.
New, efficient and safe preventive strategies and/or therapies
Preclinical studies
Combined high specificity and effector function
Stable production characteristics
Scale-up methods Translational approach clinical POC and/or phase I/II trials
Improvement in relation to classical antibodies
Demonstrate clinical proof of concept and safety
Analysing the topic – Sketch the WP structure
WP title Partners
Development of high-affinity protein scaffolds
University A; Uni B, SME A
Therapeutic efficiency and safety Uni B, Uni C, SME B
Production and scale -up Industrial; SME B
Assessment in relation to classical antibodies
Uni A, Uni C, Industrial
Preclinical studies Uni A, SME A, Clinician A, Clinician B
Clinical phase I/II demonstration Clinician A, Clinician B, Industrial
Analysing the topic – Draft Partner List
No Name Expertise Country Type
1 University of Huddersfield
High affinity protein scaffolds
UK HEI
2 Karolinska Inst Antibodies SE HEI
3 ImClone Systems Inc.
Antibodies USA SME
4 University of Munch
Artificial receptor protein DE HEI
5 Pfizer Drug development SUI IND
6 Clinmet srl. Clinical trials ES SME
7 Selective Antibodies Ltd
Antibodies UK SME
COOPERATION Case Studies• Topic Decomposition of an SSH Call
• How many partners do you estimate are required?• Two Evaluation Summary Reports (same project)
• The ESR from 1st submission, and Stage 1 from Re-submission
• In groups, advise the consortium on their priorities for developing Stage 2
• Then study their Stage 2 ESR – did they address the key points?
COOPERATION
19/04/23 ©Kite Innovation Europe 2011 Knowledge Innovation Technology Enterprise
PEOPLE Funding SchemesHost Actions Individual Actions Initial Training Networks Industry Academia Partnerships and Pathways
Intra- European FellowshipsIncoming International FellowshipsOutgoing International FellowshipsEuropean Reintegration GrantsInternational Reintegration Grants
PEOPLE Programme
19/04/23 ©Kite Innovation Europe 2011 Knowledge Innovation Technology Enterprise
EU Grant Contribution – Host ActionsBenefits for the researchers
Living allowanceMobility allowanceTravel allowanceCareer exploratory allowance
Benefits for the institutionContribution to research costsContribution to management costsOther eligible costs possible Indirect costs (overheads)
PEOPLE
PEOPLE Case Studies
2 Evaluation Summary Reports• For Each project:
• Review the ESR• Recommend Re-submission strategy
PEOPLE
• Data on the 2010 and 2011 funded ITN projects was retrieved from Cordis and from ranking lists
• Numerous variables were then analysed, both overall and between the 8 panels. This can be generally categorised into-
Proposal variation Consortium variation
• Objective- to understand what the data tells us and how KITE can use this increase the success of ITNs submitted
• This presentation covers the preliminary results of the study
ITN Analysis
PEOPLE
ITN ESR CommentsAnalysis of funded and un-funded ESR:• Important points• Strengths• Weaknesses
• See separate sheet
PEOPLE
Agenda – FP7 Opportunities
12.30 – Introduction to FP712.45 – Opportunities for Bidding13.00 – ERC (with Case Study)13.45 – Coffee Break14.00 – COOPERATION Programme (with Case study)14.45 – PEOPLE Programme (with Case Study)15.30 – Coffee Break15.45 – CAPACITIES Programme (with Case Study)16.00 – Successful Bidding – Key Tips16.15 – Q&A16.30 - Close
Agenda - Workshop
19/04/23 ©Kite Innovation Europe 2011 Knowledge Innovation Technology Enterprise
CAPACITIESSmallest programme area ~ 8%• Research for SMEs• Infrastructures• Open to all areas of science and technology
Benefits of participation
RSMEResearch for SMEs supports small groups of innovative SMEs in solving technological
problems and acquiring technological know-how. Projects must fit into the overall business and innovation needs of the SMEs, which are given the opportunity to subcontract research to RTD performers in order to acquire the necessary technological knowledge. Projects must render clear exploitation potential and economic benefits for the SMEs involved.
Benefits of participation
CAPACITIES Case StudyScience in Society• Topic Decomposition of an SiS call and the implications for
consortium building• Prepare a Topic Decomposition• How many different partners are required?• From how many different sectors are they drawn? (HEI,
Public Sector, SME, Private Sector, Other
Benefits of participation
Preparation1. Clarify your own goals for participation2. Read all Call documentation (ie, GfA and WP) - Also
consider relevant EU policy documents3. Fully appreciate the evaluation criteria4. Discuss with and meet potential partners5. Use appropriate partnership (including balance of budget
and activities)6. Research previous and current projects7. Set aside enough time
Hints and tips
Proposal1. Put yourself in the shoes of the evaluator2. Write clearly and concisely3. Stick to formatting rules (page limits, font, etc)4. Include well worked out plans5. Outline any ‘Plan B’ ( risk analysis)6. Use tables and diagrams where appropriate7. Ask someone to read through your proposal8. Make sure final version is submitted!
Hints and tips
Proposal1. What is the main objective of your proposal?2. How is your proposal unique?3. Whose problem does this solve?4. Why can’t other researchers be expected to carry out this
work?5. Which consortium member will provide which skills?6. What infrastructure and data sets will be needed?7. How will you measure your progress?8. Is this a ‘want to read’ rather than a ‘have to read’ proposal?
Hints and tips
S&T quality1. Show how your domain of expertise connects to broader
objectives in the field / in society2. What will be different when you are done?3. How is your proposed idea different?4. How does it all fit into a plan?5. What data will you use to test your work?
Hints and tips
Evaluator comments: S&T Quality“The WPs and deliverables should be better described”“While the concept is good and novel, it addresses the topics of the
call only partially”“There are missing or removed parts in this proposal. Thus, they
cannot be evaluated”“Does not demonstrate major progress beyond the state of the art” “The work described is not particularly novel”“Proposal is too broad”“Given the extent of previous work and patenting in this area, doubts
were raised as to whether a novel product could be developed”
Hints and tips
ImplementationQuality of management:
Does the coordinator have support to carry out administrative tasks?
Does co-ordinator have good track record?Is there an established & efficient way to exchange information
and resources?Consortium:
Do you have all the necessary skill sets covered?Does every participant contribute?
Hints and tips
Evaluator comments: Implementation
“Role of the Co-ordinator is unclear”“the standard and experience of partners is variable”“the management structure is not sufficiently worked out to
guarantee the success of this project”“unclear how partners will exchange information”“the role of partner is unclear”“the costs are not linked to activities and not well balanced”“no formal planning of assessment of milestones”“the coordinating partner is well experienced in performing
European projects”
Hints and tips
ImpactDoes proposal explicitly address the Impact section in Work
Programme?Impact should be measured against other developments in
research areaInclude clear dissemination/ publication plansDoes it have ‘EU added value’?Include plans on how IPR is to be exploited
Hints and tips
Evaluator Comments on Impact“Exploitation and dissemination plans are not specific to the project”“the European added value of the consortium is limited”“there is no indication of publication plans”“Does not explicitly describe the importance of solving theproblem in a European context”“the list of potential impacts is short and poorly described. There are
no plans for dissemination of the results outside the participants geographical area. It will contribute only partially to a pan-European discussion on these issues”
“has the potential to have an immediate, large scale impact. In turn, the policy change it advocates has the potential to make a huge difference for millions of people world-wide”
Hints and tips
• Write the proposal with a view to it being understood by a non-expert in that field; ask a non-expert colleague to read it
• Bear in mind that the EC is likely to use the abstract to select evaluators
• Consider becoming an evaluator yourself
Hints and tips
Top 5 tips 1. Networking, Networking, Networking2. Find (or be) a good Coordinator and Project Manager3. Start work on the proposal early, meet with partners4. Ensure the proposal educates the evaluator (with facts and figures)5. Proposal must focus on results, Lead Users and Exploitation /
DisseminationAnd,
Hints and tips
top related