Marie Curie Proposal Writing - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Marie Curie Proposal Writing PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 8c7f7-ZDc1Z



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Marie Curie Proposal Writing

Description:

The inside track on the different sections of a proposals ... alike in the field of bioengineering to source suitable trained post-doctoral ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:95
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 27
Provided by: shar86
Learn more at: http://www.nuigalway.ie
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Marie Curie Proposal Writing


1
Marie Curie Proposal Writing.
  • Science is not the whole story!!
  • NUI Galway, 24th January 2005
  • Conor OCarroll, Conference of Heads of Irish
    Universities

2
Outline of Presentation
  • General Features of Marie Curie Proposals
  • How your proposal is scored
  • The inside track on the different sections of a
    proposals
  • 2-step/phase submission how to get beyond the
    1st hurdle

3
Part B General Features
  • Free-text
  • Pre-defined sections correlate to the criteria on
    which your proposal is evaluated
  • Make sure to address all the criteria
  • Stay close to page limits
  • Science underpins the whole proposal, but theres
    a lot more to a Marie Curie than just science

4
Evaluation Criteria The B Headings
  • Content of the Proposal/Project
  • Training Activities/Transfer of Knowledge
  • Quality of the Host
  • Quality of the Researchers
  • Management and Feasibility
  • Added Value and Relevance to the Objectives

5
(No Transcript)
6
Evaluation Criteria
  • Content of the Proposal/Project
  • Training Activities/Transfer of Knowledge
  • Quality of the Host
  • Quality of the Researchers
  • Management and Feasibility
  • Added Value and Relevance to the Objectives

7
General Advice - The Science bit
  • Essential to get this right - get the evaluators
    hooked
  • Clear ST objectives (inter/multi-disciplinary,
    intersectorial and /or fragmentation issues)
  • Is the joint collaborative research project of
    high scientific quality, realistic and well
    described
  • Is the research methodology appropriate
  • original and innovative sound knowledge of the
    state-of-the-art

8
???? Science
  • the presentation of the science could be
    improved through a more integrated case
  • programme in not presenting a detailed and
    coherent workplan
  • lacks focus
  • rather standard methodology is not related in a
    satisfactory way to the state of the art

9
???? Science
  • Excellent innovative project
  • It is very timely
  • Addressing highly important, topical problems
  • True intersectorial project, effectively linked
    and integrated working schedule is well
    structured and all participants are involved in
    several projects.

10
Evaluation Criteria
  • Content of the Proposal/Project
  • Training Activities/Transfer of Knowledge
  • Quality of the Host
  • Quality of the Researchers
  • Management and Feasibility
  • Added Value and Relevance to the Objectives

11
Training Activities/Transfer of Knowledge
  • Often has a threshold 4/5!!!
  • Specific to the scheme and the target
    researcher(s)
  • Stage and development of research career
  • Described clearly and well planned (as you have
    described the science)
  • Will the training be of benefit is it
    approprriate?
  • Generic skills proj management, IPR etc
  • Direction of training eg TOK peer to peer

12
Training/Transfer ?????
  • Example for an RTN
  • RTN partnership is not described
  • training program is imprecise limited details
    are provided
  • insufficient focus on state-of-the-art doctoral
    training no consensus
  • project does not offer any specifically designed
    training program for the Experienced researchers
    who would instead be incorporated into a
    traditional post-doctoral position.
  • no personal career plans or precise mentoring
  • RTN offers nothing significantly different to
    day-to-day science

13
Training/Transfer ??????
  • Training programme is excellently structured
  • training courses, summer courses, field trips,
    and individual instrument courses. (RTN)
  • giving a strong common scientific ground to
    researchers coming from or working in very
    specialized fields.
  • The transfer of knowledge about sophisticated
    equipments and advanced techniques (ToK)
  • Workshops (useful career-growth experience).
    Although the training workshops are to a large
    extent for the transfer of scientific knowledge,
    they also include more job-related aspects, such
    as management skill and ethical aspects of
    research.

14
Evaluation Criteria
  • Content of the Proposal/Project
  • Training Activities/Transfer of Knowledge
  • Quality of the Host
  • Quality of the Researchers
  • Management and Feasibility
  • Added Value and Relevance to the Objectives

15
Management Feasibility
  • Whos in charge? Science and Admin
  • Advisors?
  • Reporting/communications
  • Financial explanation
  • IPR
  • Workplan
  • Agreement with Researcher

16
Evaluation Criteria
  • Content of the Proposal/Project
  • Training Activities/Transfer of Knowledge
  • Quality of the Host
  • Quality of the Researchers
  • Management and Feasibility
  • Added Value and Relevance to the Objectives

17
Added Value and Relevance to the Objectives???
  • 30-40 of the total score (cf 25 for science!)
  • So dont leave this til an hour before you submit
  • Structure this section well
  • Make it personal!

18
Objectives of Scheme
Value Relevance
Field of Research
ERA
19
Value and relevance what not to say.
  • This proposal achieves the aims of the European
    Research Area.
  • This proposal is highly relevant to the Marie
    Curie Programme.
  • This Proposal will achieve it objectives to
    elucidate the mechanism of

20
Value and Relevance
  • Lesson Dont be vague and fluffy
  • AND
  • we are not talking here of your own objectives
    its those of thescheme you are submitting to
  • You can find these objectives in the Work Prog
    and Handbook

21
Value and Relevance mocked-up example
  • A recent report by the European Bioindustries
    Forum described the increasing difficulties being
    faced by universities and industry alike in the
    field of bioengineering to source suitable
    trained post-doctoral level researchers with
    broad enough skills. The report projects a
    shortfall of no. by 2010. This proposal, though
    collaboration across engineering and biology
    depts. Seeks to address the training needs, and
    is therefore closely alligned with the
    overarching objectives of the name scheme

22
Value relevance ????
  • The research infrastructure for this important
    field of research is largely in place in Europe,
    but there is a lack of scientists who are
    properly trained.
  • Training will ensure a critical mass of capable
    researchers to develop fully all the
    applications.
  • In this growing field of research, career
    opportunities will certainly increase, and
  • the Community has an interest in consolidating
    the scientific foundations of these sophisticated
    techniques.
  • Coordination with national/EU?international-projec
    ts is an additional objective.
  • A strong point of the project is to overcome
    fragmentation of research in Europe.

23
(No Transcript)
24
2-step/stage submission how to get beyond the
1st hurdle
  • 2-stage RTN
  • Stage 1 10-pager on Scientific Content and
    Training 5050.
  • This Pre-proposal is evaluated and proposals
    passing this stage are invited to submit a FULL
    proposal
  • Success rate in 2nd stage will be 40, so make
    sure your short proposal is properly prepared

25
2-step/stage submission how to get beyond the
1st hurdle
  • 2-step submission Individual Fellowships,
    Excellence Grants, Chairs
  • IMP You only submit once and you submit a
    complete proposal
  • Once the proposal reaches Brussels, the
    evaluators look at the B1 first Science and the
    Researcher
  • Then it is fully reviewed if it is passed to Step
    2

26
the devil is in the detail
  • Ethics
  • Gender
  • Workplan for science AND for training
  • Dissemination plans
  • Your dept/partners details really matter
  • Feasibility/sustainability of the project
  • EPSS get your password in time and know the
    ropes
  • Submit in plenty of time
  • Make sure you can convert your proposal to PDF
About PowerShow.com