Marie Curie Information and Proposal Writing Day New Zealand House 12 October 2004

1
Marie Curie Information and Proposal Writing
DayNew Zealand House12 October 2004

• Estelle Kane
• UK Research Office
• mobility_at_bbsrc.ac.uk

2
Host session

• Estelle Kane
• UK Research Office
• mobility_at_bbsrc.ac.uk

3
Overview of session

• UKRO as National Contact Point
• Outline of submission and evaluation process
• Advice on Marie Curie Proposal Writing for Host
  Actions

4
What is UKRO?
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research
Council (BBSRC)
Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research
Council (EPSRC)
Medical Research Council (MRC)
Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)
Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council
(PPARC)
5
UKROs mission
To promote effective UK participation in EU
funded research, higher education training
related activities by alerting subscribers to
the opportunities available providing updates on
developments exchanging information between UK
EU
6
UKRO services

• Web http//www.ukro.ac.uk
• Tailored information services
• Advice to European Officers researchers
• UK Mobility National Contact Point
• UK Briefing visits
• Brussels Meeting room

7
National Contact Point

• First point of contact for applicants
• Advice, guidance and information on applying for
  funding, contract management, report writing etc
• Website and helpline service
• Training events, publicity actions
• Liaison between the Member State and the
  Commission

8
Proposal submission and evaluation

• Estelle Kane
• UK Research Office
• mobility_at_bbsrc.ac.uk

9
Proposal submission (1)

• PLEASE NOTE THE CHANGES TO THE SUBMISSION AND
  EVALUATION PROCEDURES FOR THE 2004 2006 CALLS
  AND DEADLINES

10
Proposal submission (2)

• Hard copy
• Sensible font size
• Electronic Proposal Submission System (EPSS)
• User-name and password in good time
• Send in time
• MEET THE DEADLINE
• 1700 BRUSSELS TIME

11
Proposal submission (3)

• 2 Stage submission process
• Stage 1
• Submit an outline of total project
• Address select criteria in detail
• Stick to page limit (where stated) and font size
  criteria
• Stage 2
• Submit a complete proposal
• The following actions will follow a 2 stage
  submission process
• RTN and EST

12
Proposal submission (4)

• For both 1 and 2 stage evaluation process
• Submit a complete proposal before the deadline
• The following actions will follow a 2 stage
  evaluation process
• IEF, IIF, OIF, EXT, EXC
• The following actions will follow a 1 stage
  evaluation process
• SCF, ToK, EXA, ERG, IRG

13
Outline of the process

• Published as a call
• Submit application before deadline
• Evaluation process
• Notification of results
• Submit full proposal or undergo complete
  evaluation
• Notification of results
• Contract negotiation
• Contract signature and start of project

14
Evaluation process
Proposal
Rejection
Eligibility
Individual Evaluation
Consensus
Ethical Issues
Rejection
Thresholds
Ranking by Commission
Negotiation
Rejection
Negative Result
Commission Funding Decision
15
Key documents

• The Call Text
• A Rough Guide to the Marie Curie Actions
• The Human Resources and Mobility Work Programme
  2004-2006
• The Handbook all actions except IRG
• The Guide for Proposers
• Guidance Notes for Evaluators
• Sources
• UKRO NCP website http//www.ukro.ac.uk/mobility
• Commission http//fp6.cordis.lu/fp6

16
Proposal writing
17
What does the Commission want?

• Breaking down the application form
• Understanding the action
• Finding more information
• Think about your evaluators
• MEET THE DEADLINE

18
Research Training Networks (1) a reminder

• Well defined collaborative research projects
  of recognised international stature
• Minimum 3 partners in 3 Countries
• Flexible framework for the Training and
  Development of Researchers
• (Appropriate mix of Early Stage and Experienced
  researchers)
• Promotion of multidisciplinary research
• Up to 3 year fellowships, including short stays

19
Research Training Networks (2) December 2004

• Indicative budget of 45 million euro.
• The call will be focused,  requesting applicants
  to address the following objectives
• -    bringing together and integrating different
  disciplines, especially towards the derivation of
  novel concepts, approaches and frameworks
• -     establishing/furthering co-operation in
  research and research training between academia
  and industry and/or other relevant economic
  actors.

20
Overall proposal structure for RTNs

• B1 Scientific Quality of the Project or
  Research Training Area
• B2 Quality of Training Activities
• B3 Quality / Capacity of the Host(s)
• B4 Management and Feasibility
• B5 Relevance to the objectives of the activity
• and Added Value to the Community
• B6 Previous proposals and contracts
• B7 Other Issues

21
Weightings and thresholds for RTNs

• RTN
• W T
• B1 Scientific Quality of the Project 15 (50) 3
• New!
• B2 Quality of Training Activities 20 (50) 4
• New!
• B3 Quality / Capacity of the Host(s) 15 -
• B4 Management and Feasibility 15 3
• B5 Relevance to the objectives
• of the activity Added Value to the
• Community 35 New! -
• B6 Previous proposals and contracts
• B7 Other Issues

22
RTNs B1 Scientific Quality of Project/Research
Training Area (1)

• THRESHOLD 3 WEIGHTING 15 (50)
• For the deadline of November 2004 Are the ST
  objectives well specified , including in terms
  of inter-disciplinary content and inter-sectoral
  issues?
• For the 2005 deadline Are the ST objectives
  well specified , including in terms of
  inter/multi-disciplinary, inter-sectoral and /or
  fragmentation issues?
• Is the joint collaborative research project of
  high scientific quality, realistic and well
  described?

23
RTNs B1 Scientific Quality of Project /Research
Training Area (2)

• THRESHOLD 3 WEIGHTING 15 (50)
• Is the research methodology appropriate?
• Is the project original and innovative?
• Does it demonstrate sound knowledge of the
  state-of-the-art?

24
RTNs B2 Quality of the Training Activities/
Transfer of Knowledge (1)

• THRESHOLD 4 WEIGHTING 20 (50)
• Is the training / ToK programme precisely
  described, well articulated and consistent with
  the collaborative research project?
• Does it address important and timely training /
  ToK needs (e.g. multidisciplinary, and
  intersectoral (both mandatory in 2004-call))?
• Is it adapted to the targeted researchers
  (ESR/ER)?

25
RTNs B2 Quality of the Training Activities/
Transfer of Knowledge (2)

• THRESHOLD 4 WEIGHTING 20 (50)
• Does it combine local specialist training with
  network-wide training / ToK activities?
• Benefit to the researcher in terms of the
  acquisition of relevant complementary skills
  (e.g. Management, Communication, IPR, ethics,
  etc.)?

26
RTN Tips Training programme (1)

• MOST IMPORTANT EVALUATION CRITERIA (1/3 projects
  fail here)
• Detailed and exhaustive (credible activities)
• Detail on collaborations between ESR and EXR
• Flexible, adaptable and well monitored
• Secondments
• Ambitious but not tourist exchanges
• Linked well with work plan and exact schedule

27
RTN Tips Training programme (2)

• Complementary and interdisciplinary skills
• RTN newsletter, accessible databank
• Balanced training for all in RTN must be no
  disadvantage for some nodes
• Participation in events while important, does not
  constitute training in itself

28
RTN Tips Training programme (3)

• Variety of implementation (scale, location,
  method, timing)
• Make main decisions well before start
• Ensure does not overlap with existing programmes
  and RTNs in field (in Europe!)
• Distant learning appreciated but must be seen as
  complementary

29
Early Stage Researcher Training

• EST
• W T
• B1 Scientific Quality of the Project 10 (30) 3
• New!
• B2 Quality of Training Activities 15 (70) 4
• New!
• B3 Quality / Capacity of the Host(s) 25 -
• B4 Management and Feasibility 15 3
• B5 Relevance to the objectives
• of the activity Added Value to the
• Community 35 New! -
• B6 Previous proposals and contracts
• B7 Other Issues

30
ESTs B1 Scientific Quality of Project/Research
Training Area

• THRESHOLD 3 WEIGHTING 10 (30)
• Scientific/technological quality of the training
  area. Timeliness and relevance of the research
  training area
• Research methodology including any
  interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary aspects
  of the proposal
• Originality and innovative nature of the training
  area

31
ESTs B2 Quality of the Training
Activities/Transfer of Knowledge (1)

• THRESHOLD 4 WEIGHTING 15 (70)
• Quality of the training programme including
  complementary training offered
• Match and appropriateness of the proposed
  training for the targeted researchers
• Benefit to the researchers of the training in the
  relevant field

32
ESTs B2 Quality of the Training
Activities/Transfer of Knowledge (2)

• THRESHOLD 4 WEIGHTING 15 (70)
• Benefit to the researchers and host from new
  collaborations.
• Mutual recognition of the training acquired by
  multi-partner hosts (where appropriate)

33
EST Tips Fellowships

• Mentor/trainee balance
• Common and well defined selection process
  (equality, criteria defined, publicity, cross
  assessment, recruitment)
• Training programme adaptable to individual
  (career development plan, competence matching)
• Deliverables for Fellow
• Realistic fellowship lengths

34
EST Tips Training programme

• Detailed and exhaustive (credible activities)
• Flexible, adaptable and well monitored
• Complementary and inter-disciplinary skills
• Participation in events while important, does not
  constitute training in itself

35
ESTs Specific Objectives and Added Value (1)

• Relevance of the proposal to one or more of the
  specific objectives of the action - as specified
  in section 2.3.1.2 of this document
• Structuring effects at the European level and if
  relevant extent to which other European policy
  objectives are met.
• Contribution to international recognition of
  research training and diploma recognition

36
ESTs Specific Objectives and Added Value (2)

• Match to the demand for researchers in the
  particular field, and contribution to gender
  balance
• Extent to which other objectives of European
  policies and actions are met (e.g. structuring
  the European Research Area attractiveness of
  science European competitivity intersectorial
  exchanges promoting women in science cohesion
  and regional policy)

37
European Research Policy background documents

• Towards a European Research Area, Jan 2000
• More Research for Europe Towards 3 of GDP, Sept
  2002
• ERA Providing New Momentum, October 2002
• Investing in Research An Action Plan for Europe,
  June 2003
• The Role of Universities in the Europe of
  Knowledge, Feb 2003
• Researchers in the ERA One Profession, Multiple
  Careers, July 2003
• Europe and Basic Research, Jan 2004
• ST, the Key to Europes Future Guidelines for
  Future EU Policy to Support Research, June 2004

38
Example of European Policy Objectives

• Life Sciences and Biotechnology A Strategy for
  Europe, Jan 02
• Environment 2010 Our Future, Our Choice, July
  2002
• Stimulating Technologies for Sustainable
  Development An Environmental Technologies Action
  Plan for the EU, Jan 2004
• Towards a European Strategy for Nanotechnology,
  May 2004
• Security Research The Next Steps, September 2004

39
Transfer of Knowledge Quality of Host (1)

• WEIGHTING 15
• Quality of the host in its current area of
  research
• Quality and relevance of international/
  intersectoral research collaborations
• Quality and adequacy of infrastructure /
  facilities
• Match between project and host's profile
• Capacity of the hosts to receive knowledge

40
ToK - Quality of Host (2)

• Some evaluators comments
• Although host group seems to have good expertise,
  only a summary of CVs of some people involved in
  the project and information on research topics of
  partners are provided.
• The description of the host quality is very
  unsatisfactory and does not include information
  requested for section B3.

41
ToK - Quality of Host (3)

• Evaluators comments continued
• The host's capacity to receive and disseminate
  knowledge is very large.
• The educational dimension of the activities is
  important and substantial.
• The host provides accommodation, and visiting
  positions will be properly advertised.

42
ToK Management and Feasibility (1)

• WEIGHTING 15 THRESHOLD3
• Practical arrangements for the implementation and
  management of the transfer of knowledge project
  including ability to build upon knowledge
  transferred
• Recruitment/exchange strategy, including
  timetable, equal opportunity policy, etc

43
ToK Management and Feasibility (2)

• Feasibility and credibility of the project
• Quality of the collaborative partnership (where
  relevant)
• Appropriate size of requested fellowship project
  with regard to capacity of the host

44
ToK Management and Feasibility (3)

• Some evaluators comments
• The match of the targeted researchers profile to
  the knowledge transfer is not discussed.
• The practical arrangements for the implementation
  of the joint research program and the management
  structure are described, including the sharing of
  intellectual property rights.
• On the other hand, none of the other criteria are
  covered, e.g. the issues of recruitment, the
  ability of each host to absorb transfer, the
  match of the staff to be exchanged to the
  project, etc

45
ToK Management and Feasibility (4)

• Evaluators comments continued
• The management processes and plan are described
  in detail, highly professional and excellent.
• An appropriate size and experienced team is in
  place for managing this complex project (creating
  a CoE) and giving it a high probability of
  success.
• Equally important is the high level commitment
  from the host institutes and its collaborating
  partners.
• However, the recruitment processes and
  coordination between partners should be better
  specified.

46
Series of Events (SCF) Quality of Research
Training

• WEIGHTING 15 THRESHOLD 4
• Quality of training
• Contact building arrangements
• Importance and relevance of the training

47
SCF Tips Quality of Research Training

• Keynote teachers are clearly identified
• Ensure field covered is not too wide or too
  narrow so beneficial to early stage researchers
• Clear link between the events
• Variety of engagement methods e.g. hands-on
  experience presentation of work meet the
  experts, with both theoretical and practical
  training
• The publications will have a reference beyond the
  event itself

48
Marie Curie deadlines for host/excellence actions



49
Further information

• UKRO NCP website
• http//www.ukro.ac.uk/mobilityUKRO NCP contact
  details mobility_at_bbsrc.ac.uk Tel [phone]
  
• Other useful websites
• http//www.europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/mariecu
  rie-actions/home_en.html
• http//www.cordis.lu/rtd2002/home.html
• http//europa.eu.int/geninfo/whatsnew_comm.htm

50

• Questions?