fp7 opportunities & guide to proposal development 12.30 – introduction to fp7 12.45 –...

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


Four Main “PILLARS”

• CO-OPERATION – Collaborative Research• IDEAS (ERC) – Frontier Research • PEOPLE – Human Potential• CAPACITIES – Research Capacity

FP7 Structure


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


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

Coffee Break

15 minutes

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


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


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


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


CAPACITIESSmallest programme area ~ 8%• Research for SMEs• Infrastructures• Open to all areas of science and technology


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.


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


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

Use the services of the University of Huddersfield Research & Enterprise office

to support you.

fp7 opportunities & guide to proposal development 12.30 – introduction to fp7 12.45 –...

Documents

kite innovation europe

principal investigator

people programme

case study15

frontiers of knowledge

capacities programme

cooperation programme

billionframework programme