siomos athens presentation - eccb...

Horizon 2020European Union funding for Research & Innovation

© Art & Build Architect / Montois Partners / credits: S. Brison

The European Research Council: Funding Opportuni8es in Europe for Crea8ve Minds from Anywhere in the World

European Conference on Computational Biology, Athens, Greece

10 September 2018

Dr. Maria Siomos Genetics, 'Omics', Bioinformatics and Systems Biology, LS2

Panel Coordinator, ERCEA


Today’s presenta8on

1.   Introduc8on to the ERC

2.   Applying to the ERC (StG, CoG, AdG, PoC)

3.   Synergy grants

4.   The ERC and Greece

5.  The ERC and LS2: Gene8cs, 'Omics', Bioinforma8cs and Systems Biology


1. Introduc8on to the ERC


Ø Support for the individual scientist – no networks! Ø Global peer-review Ø No predetermined subjects (bottom-up) Ø Support of frontier research in all fields of science and humanities

The ERC supports excellence in frontier research through a bottom-up, individual-based, pan-European competition

│ 2

What is the ERC?

Legi

slat

ion

Stra

tegy

Ø Scientific governance: independent Scientific Council with 22 members including the ERC President; full authority over funding strategy Ø Support by the ERC Executive Agency (autonomous) Ø Excellence as the only criterion

Budget: € 13 billion (2014-2020) - 1.9 billion €/year € 7.5 billion (2007-2013) - 1.1 billion €/year


ERC in the H2020 Structure

Ø  The HORIZON 2020 main components: §  Excellent Science

è World class science is foundation of technologies, jobs, well-being è Europe needs to develop, attract, retain research talent è Researchers need access to the best infrastructures

§  Industrial leadership §  Societal challenges

Ø  Excellent Science:

§  European Research Council (budget under H2020: € 13 billion) §  Future and Emerging Technologies §  Marie Skłodoswka Curie Actions §  Research Infrastructures

│ 5 │ 5


ERC H2020 Budget

ERC Budget €13 billion

│ 6


Opera8on of the ERC

European Research Council Scientific Council

ERC President

Ø  Defines the funding strategy Ø  Appoints all panel members

Ø  Does not participate in the evaluation process

Panel members

Ø  Full independence in the evaluation and ranking of the proposals

Ø  Appoint remote evaluators

ERC Executive Agency (of the European Commission)

ERCEA Director

Ø  Organises the evaluation of the proposals (Scientific Dept)

Ø  Manages all legal and financial aspects of ERC grants (Granting

Dept)

ERC Scientific officers

Ø  Work closely with the panel members Ø  Manage all practical aspects of the

evaluations and scientific project follow-up


ERC Scientific Council Members

•  Prof. Klaus BOCK (Chemistry), ERC Vice-President •  Prof. Jean-Pierre BOURGUIGNON (Mathematics), ERC President •  Prof. Paola BOVOLENTA (Neurobiology) •  Prof. Margaret BUCKINGHAM (Biology) •  Prof. Christopher CLARK (History) •  Prof. Eveline CRONE (Psychology) •  Prof. Athene DONALD (Soft Matter and Biological Physics) •  Prof. Andrzej JAJSZCZYK (Electronics and Communication Engineering) •  Prof. Tomas JUNGWIRTH (Condensed Matter Physics) •  Prof. Michael KRAMER (Astrophysics) •  Prof. Eva KONDOROSI (Plant Biology and Microbiology), ERC Vice-President •  Prof. Kurt MEHLHORN (Computer Science) •  Prof. Barbara ROMANOWICZ (Geophysics) •  Prof. Martin STOKHOF (Philosophy), ERC Vice-President •  Prof. Giulio SUPERTI-FURGA (Medical Systems Biology) •  Prof. Nektarios TAVERNARAKIS (Molecular Systems Biology) •  Prof. Janet THORNTON (Bioinformatics and Structural Biology) •  Prof. Isabelle VERNOS (Molecular and Cell Biology) •  Prof. Reinhilde VEUGELERS (Economics) •  Prof. Michel WIEVIORKA (Sociology) •  Prof. Fabio ZWIRNER (Theoretical and High-Energy Physics)

Horizon 2020European Union funding for Research & Innovation │ 9 * Number of instances that experts of a certain country of origin are contributing to the ERC peer review

ERC Panel Members by Country of HI and Gender

Averaged over 2007-2017 29% of the ERC panel members were women


Star8ng Grants

starters (2-7 years after PhD)

up to € 1.5 million for 5 years

Advanced Grants track-record of

significant research achievements in the

last 10 years up to € 2.5 million

for 5 years

Synergy Grants (re-‐launched 2018) 2–4 Principal Investigators

up to € 10 million for 6 years

Proof-‐of-‐Concept bridging gap between research - earliest

stage of marketable innovation up to €150 000 for ERC grant holders

ERC Grant Schemes

Consolidator Grants

consolidators (7-12 years after PhD)

up to € 2 million for 5 years


Extensions of eligibility window possible for StG and CoG for documented cases of:

§  Maternity – 18 months per child (before or after PhD) §  Paternity – actual time taken off §  Military service §  Medical specialty training §  Caring for seriously ill family members

Extensions of eligibility window for StG and CoG


ERC offers independence, recognition & visibility

•  to work on a research topic of own choice, with a team of own choice •  to gain true financial autonomy for 5 years •  to negotiate with the host institution the best conditions of work

•  to attract top team members (EU and non-EU) and collaborators •  to move with the grant to any place in Europe if necessary (portability

of grants) •  to attract additional funding and gain recognition; ERC is a quality

label

│ 12 │ 12

What do ERC grants offer?


│ 13

Priority to Young Scientists

Two-thirds of ERC grants to early-stage Principal Investigators.

+ 60 000 people working in ERC teams.


Almost 8% of all ERC grants are to principal investigators of non-ERA nationality

Non-ERA Principal Investigators

Starting and Consolidator

grants

Advanced grants Total grants

USA 130 82 212Canada 52 9 61Russia 31 9 40Australia 30 5 35India 33 2 35Japan 20 4 24China 23 0 23New Zealand 11 6 17Argentina 12 0 12Other 48 8 56Total 390 125 515

AYrac8ng researchers to Europe


│ 15

Nationality of ERC project teams (PIs not included) Analysis of 1901 Starting and Advanced Grants

In all ERC grants + 10,000 non-ERA team members

most from China, USΑ, India, and Russia

EU: 71% Assoc. Countries: 10%

non-EU/AC: 17% unknown: 2%

AYrac8ng researchers to Europe


The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2016 was awarded jointly to Jean-Pierre Sauvage, Sir J. Fraser Stoddart and Bernard L. Feringa "for the design and synthesis of molecular machines".

│ 16

Nobel Prizes to ERC grantees

The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2014 was awarded to May-Britt Moser and Edvard Moser, together with John O'Keefe, "for their discoveries of cells that constitute a positioning system in the brain".

Ø  2 other ERC grantees received the Nobel prize in 2010 and 2012

Ø  Other 7 ERC grantees were already Nobel laureates at the moment they received the ERC grant

The Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences 2014 was awarded to Jean Tirole "for his analysis of market power and regulation". Jean Tirole

Nobel 2014

Serge Haroche

Nobel 2012

Konstantin Novoselov

Nobel 2010

Edvard Moser

Nobel 2014

May-Britt Moser

Nobel 2014

Bernard Feringa

Nobel 2016


Publica8on performance


│ 18

research institutionshosting ERC grantees – universities, public or private research centres in the EU or associated countries

Overresearchers and other professionals employed in ERC research teams

ERC budget for 2014-2020 underHorizon 2020

nationalities ofgrant holders

Over

top researchers funded since

the ERC's creation in 2007

Over

in prestigious scientific journalsarticles from ERC projects published

8,500

60,000

€ 13 billion

90,000

> 750

76

After More than 10 Years, a Success Story


2. Applying to the ERC (StG, CoG, AdG, PoC)


ERC 2019 Call Calendar

10/09/2018 10/09/2018


Physical Sciences & Engineering §  PE1 Mathematics §  PE2 Fundamental Constituents of Matter §  PE3 Condensed Matter Physics §  PE4 Physical and Analytical Chemical Sciences §  PE5 Synthetic Chemistry and Materials §  PE6 Computer Science and Informatics §  PE7 Systems and Communication Engineering §  PE8 Products and Process Engineering §  PE9 Universe Sciences §  PE10 Earth System Science

Life Sciences §  LS1 Molecular Biology, Biochemistry,

Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics §  LS2 Genetics, ‘Omics’, Bioinformatics and

Systems Biology §  LS3 Cellular and Developmental Biology §  LS4 Physiology, Pathophysiology and

Endocrinology §  LS5 Neurosciences and Neural Disorders §  LS6 Immunity and Infection §  LS7 Applied Medical Technologies,

Diagnostics, Therapies and Public Health §  LS8 Ecology, Evolution and Environmental

Biology §  LS9 Applied Life Sciences, Biotechnology and

Molecular and Biosystems Engineering

│ 21

Evaluation Panel Structure (WP2019)

Social Sciences and Humanities §  SH1 Individuals, Markets and Organisations §  SH2 Institutions, Values, Environment and Space §  SH3 The Social World, Diversity, Population §  SH4 The Human Mind and Its Complexity §  SH5 Cultures and Cultural Production §  SH6 The Study of the Human Past


Submission to panels

Proposals are submitted to a Panel of PI's choice: §  Can flag one “Secondary Review Panel”. §  PI should explain the interdisciplinary nature of the

proposal. §  Panel chair can request cross-panel review(s) if the main

panel does not have all necessary expertise. §  Panel chair can also request reviews from other active

panel members across all calls (StG – CoG – AdG).

Transfer of proposals between panels may occur if: §  Clear mistake on part of applicant. §  Necessary expertise is available in a different panel. §  Both panel chairs agree on the transfer.


Remote assessment by Panel members of B1

Panel meeting

Proposals retained for step 2

STEP 1

Remote assessment by Panel members and remote evaluators of full proposals

Panel meeting + interview (StG and CoG)

Ranked list of proposals

STEP 2

Feedback to applicants

•  Right balance between generalist + specialised review •  Appropriate treatment of interdisciplinary proposals

How are ERC research proposals evaluated?

B C

A B


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 •  HI support letter •  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. •  Early Achievements (StG and CoG) or 10-year Track Record (AdG) 2 p.

Read the Information for Applicants

Proposal structure


Step 1: Panel members and cross-panel reviewers (if needed) §  Only Part B1 is evaluated! Project §  Focus on the ground-breaking nature – no incremental research. §  Think big! §  Know your competitors – what is the state of play and why is your idea and scientific approach outstanding? §  Outline of the methodological approach. §  Do you have preliminary results? Is it feasible? §  Is it timely? Why wasn't it done already? §  Concise and clear presentation is crucial (many evaluators are generalists).

Submission of proposals: Part B1 -‐ Project


Step 1: Panel members and cross-panel reviewers (if needed) §  Only Part B1 is evaluated! Principal investigator §  Why am I the best/only person to carry out the project? §  Am I internationally competitive? §  Show your scientific leadership in your CV. §  Show your own contribution on your key publications (incl. papers published without your PhD supervisor for StG, CoG). §  Give a realistic picture of your collaborations – show that you can drive the collaborations.

Submission of proposals Part B1 – Principal Inves8gator


Submission of proposals Part B1 and Part B2

Step 2: Panel members + external remote reviewers §  Both Parts B1 and B2 are assessed. §  Do not just repeat the synopsis. §  Provide details on methodology, work plan, selection of case studies

etc. §  Make sure that the quantitative and qualitative differences to the

state of the art are clear and referenced. §  Check coherency of budget figures, justify requested resources. §  Explain involvement/profile of team members. §  Provide alternative strategies to mitigate risk. §  Include a work plan with timeline.


Typical reasons for rejec8on

Principal investigator §  Insufficient track-record §  Insufficient leadership profile

Proposed project §  Scope: Too narrow ßà too broad/unfocused §  Incremental research/continuation of previous work §  Work plan/team composition not detailed enough/unclear §  Insufficient risk management


Some 8ps for the proposal

§  No excessive highligh9ng This is a ground-‐breaking idea. It is the first 9me that this type of

experiment has been tried. This represents high risk/high gain research.

§  Avoid jargon and too many abbrevia9ons §  Don’t try to oversell the proposal §  Make sure to give full references (including names of authors and

ar9cle 9tle) – is not part of page limit! §  Use the full space! §  Explain the budget properly §  Explain your role in publica9ons, trying to highlight your intellectual

independence (for StG, CoG)


Some 8ps for the interview

§  Be natural §  Don’t try to make a business presenta9on – you are talking to

scien9sts §  Bring back-‐up slides – an9cipate ques9ons §  Have data slides ready to show, if available §  Know the details of your proposal, including the methods §  Know your research area – who are your main compe9tors/

collaborators? §  Be able to answer the ques9on: Which 2 sentences could be added to

a textbook about your research in 5 years? §  When the panel asks ques9ons, don’t answer with “excellent

ques9on” – it can come across as arrogant


§  The ERC supports the principle of open access to •  The published output of research, including in particular peer-

reviewed articles and monographs •  Research data and data related products such as computer code

§  Under Horizon 2020, beneficiaries of ERC grants must ensure open access to all peer-reviewed scientific publications relating to their results as set out in Article 29.2 of the ERC Model Grant Agreement.

§  In 2017, for the first time under Horizon 2020, beneficiaries of ERC grants will automatically be covered by the provisions on research data sharing as set out in Article 29.3 of the ERC Model Grant Agreement unless they specifically decide to opt-out (which can be done at any time).

•  Beneficiaries that do not opt-out should also ensure appropriate management (including preservation and curation) of the research data they generate in order to ensure its sustainability. │ 31

Open access


Average success rate: 12%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Star8ng/Consolidator Grant

StG

CoG

13.9%

16.1%

13.8% 13.4% 14.1%

12.3%

8.5%

14.4%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Advanced Grant

Success rate


StG 2015 funded proposals Success rates by years past PhD

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

0 20 40 60 80

100 120 140 160 180

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Years past PhD

# fu

nded

pro

posa

ls

STG 2015 funded PIs by years past PhD M (252)

F (99)

SR Female PIs (10 %)

SR Male PIs (13.4 %)


CoG 2015 funded proposals Success rates by years past PhD

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Succ

ess

rate

# fu

nded

pro

posa

ls

CoG 2015 funded PIs by years past PhD M (208)

F (94)

SR Female PIs (16 %)

SR Male PIs (14.5 %)


Age of grantees and success rates

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74

Succ

ess

rate

# gr

ante

es

age of grantee

STG COG ADG 2015 Age of grantees on 1 Jan 2015 with success rate

ADG COG STG Success rate


3. Synergy grants


Design of the Synergy call in a nutshell

Grant size: up to 10 M€ + 4 M€ for 6 yrs

2018: 25-30 projects 2019: 45-50 projects

2018: 250 M€ 2019:

400 M€

2-3-4 Principal

Investigators

HI to be in EU or Associated Country

SyG2019: possible for one PI to be outside of

EU or AC

No restrictions

on their location

SyG2019: 3 step

evaluation to finish in September

2019

3 Step evaluation: with interviews for all PIs in step 3

SyG2019 call open for submission

until 8/11/2018

≥50% of working time in EU or AC and ≥30% of working time on the ERC project SyG2019: it does not apply to the PI applying with a third country Host Institution


ERC Synergy 2019 Based on core ERC principles

EXCELLENCE AS SOLE CRITERIUM

'BOTTOM-UP'

NO DISCIPLINARY PRIORITIES

NOT 'CONSORTIA' TYPE

•  At project and at PI level •  Encompasses the synergetic aspects

•  Research priorities and the configuration of the group determined by the individual investigators

•  Not loose collaborative projects •  Equality of PIs – but a designated

corresponding PI •  With adequate working arrangements

to suit the objectives of the project

•  Projects expected to cover more than one discipline or research field, but not obligatory


ERC Synergy 2019 - Evaluation process

12-15 Feb 2019 2-5 July 2019 9-12 Sept 2019


Take home messages

•  A highly competitive call è  only exceptional proposals are likely to be funded that will

demonstrate that the truly ambitious research questions could lead to breakthroughs only through the joint effort of the complementary and synergistic group of PIs.

•  ‘Synergy’ is not simply a successful collaboration è  The interaction would yield something more than just the sum of the

individual parts. è  To yield possibly either unforeseen, completely new science, to

cross fertilise disciplines or to solve important research problems that until now could not be dreamt of solving.

•  Tough future restrictions on submissions planned

│ 40


ERC Synergy 2019 Intended restrictions for 2020-2021 calls

Evaluation Can a PI apply to

Result of SyG-2019 Step StG/CoG/AdG

call in 2020? SyG call in

2020? SyG call in

2021?

C 1 no no no

B 1 and 2 yes no yes

B 3 yes yes yes

A 3 yes yes yes


4. The ERC and Greece


│ 43

ERC Funded Projects by Country of HI


│ 44

Success Rate by Country of HI


│ 45

ERC Proof of Concept 2011-2018


│ 46

Grantees at Home and Abroad

87 Greek nationals abroad in 11 European countries, more than half in UK(30), DE(20) and CH(18)

79 of them were already abroad at the time of application


│ 47

ERC Grants versus GERD


│ 48

Host Institutions in Greece


│ 49

1 5 6

2 4 9 12 1

1

2 2

2 2


4. The ERC and LS2: Genetics, 'Omics', Bioinformatics and Systems Biology


Current signatories of the

grant agreement taken into account

Top European Ins8tu8ons Hos8ng ERC Grants


SYNERGY 2012 and 2013 Successful Host Ins8tu8ons


│ 53

Top European Ins8tu8ons: LS2 Grants

Country Host Institution StG CoG AdG Total IL Weizmann Institute 12 8 5 25 FR CNRS 6 4 3 13 DE EMBL 4 3 6 13 UK University of Cambridge 7 1 3 11 DE Max Planck Society 5 0 6 11 UK University of Edinburgh 5 0 5 10 DK University of Copenhagen 5 4 0 9 ES Centre for Genomic Regulation 4 1 3 8 IL Hebrew University of Jerusalem 5 0 3 8 IL Tel Aviv University 6 0 2 8 UK University of Oxford 3 2 3 8 FR Curie Institute 4 2 2 8 BE Flanders Institute for Biotechnology (VIB) 1 4 2 7

CH Friedrich Miescher Institute for Biomedical Research 4 1 2 7

DE German Cancer Research Center 2 1 3 6 NL Radboud University Nijmegen 4 1 1 6 SE Uppsala University 4 1 1 6 NL Netherlands Cancer Institute 1 1 4 6 FR INSERM 4 1 1 6 CH ETH Zurich 2 0 3 5 FR Pasteur Institute 3 1 1 5 SE Karolinska Institute 3 1 1 5


More information on erc.europa.eu

National Contact Point in your country erc.europa.eu/national-contact-points

Follow us on

│ 54

EuropeanResearchCouncil

ERC_Research

The European Research Council

siomos athens presentation - eccb...

Documents