│ 1 European Research Council The European Research Council: Vision, Strategy, and Challenges Professor Fotis C. Kafatos ERC President.

│ 1

European Research Council

The European Research Council: Vision, Strategy, and Challenges

Professor Fotis C. Kafatos ERC President

│ 2



│ 3


3

Europe Can Only Compete Through the Knowledge Triangle

Education

Research Innovation

Leadership in Science, the Endless frontier

Central Role in the Knowledge Triangle: Education / Research / Innovation

E.g. Note the emergence of Molecular Medicine

Investment in excellent people & researchis an imperative, not an option

│ 4


4

• Generate, Attract and Retain Top Talent

• Integrate and Internationalize our Efforts

• Encourage and Trust the Young

• Create Attractive Career Paths

• Create a Competitive “Champions League”

that sets standards

To Become More Competitive, Europe Must

│ 5



│ 6


• ERC consists of an independent Scientific Council

• Supported by a Dedicated Implementation Structure

• Debate: ERC under the European Commission or Article 171?

EC solution (Executive Agency) adopted, to be reviewed 2009

• EC guarantees ScC autonomy /ERC functionality

• Review of the structure of ERC planned for 2009

Central concepts

│ 7


The Scientific CouncilMembers & Role

22 highly respected researchers reflecting the wide scope of European research and scholarship

Proposed by an independentidentification committee

Appointed by the Commission(for 4 years, renewable once)

Role: Establishes:

Scientific strategy Annual programmes and calls, evaluation structure

Controls quality of operations and management (?) ERC Executive Agency to be fully established in 2009

│ 8


ERC strategy

• Keep it simple, flexible and focused

• “Starting Grant”: Opportunities for young investigators

• “Advanced Grant”: Support for leading scientists

• Promote excellence irrespective of nationality, age, or field

• The 3 “Rs” – recruit, repatriate, retain

• Trust the dynamic of science

• Encourage interdisciplinarity

│ 9


First Call for Starting Grants:First Call for Starting Grants:

Unexpected, huge participationUnexpected, huge participation

• Call launched February 2006, deadline April 2007

• Budget 300 Mi€

• Two-stage evaluation

• 9167 applications from 88 nationalities

• 559 top PIs selected for Phase 2 evaluation

• Female / male applicants: 30/70%

• ~300 funded

• Large number of comparable candidates could not be included (budget limitation)

│ 10


ERC Advanced Grant Rules (From 2008)

• Any field of research

• Active researchers with a track-record of significant

research achievements in the last 10 years

• Researchers of any nationality, to establish research activity

in any Member State or Associated Country

• Depending on the subject, the level of grants may be up to

3.5M€ for a period of 5 years

• ERC funds 100% of the total direct costs + 20% overhead

• Level of grant determined by peer review evaluation

│ 11


ERC Grants are portable:

• “Money follows the researcher”

• PI is entitled to transfer the grant to another institution,

normally after a minimum 2 years at the sponsoring

institution

• Proper justification and ERC approval required

ERC Grants:Portability

│ 12


ERC / National Funding Organizations Interactions

• Mutual support and cooperation

• NFO responsible for building up excellence

in the national research community

• ERC responsible for building up excellence

across Europe without regard to nationality

• Substantial opportunities for synergy

• E.g., national support for StG runners-up (CH, IT, SE, FR, CY, AT,

Flanders, …)

• NFO contributes National Detached Experts

• ERC preselects worthwhile candidates for NFO

│ 13


StG Finalists: mobility of researchers (top 300 proposals)


Incoming, from any country

Remaining, from outside EU/AC

Remaining, from within EU/AC

From host country

Num

ber

of s

ucce

ssfu

l pro

posa

ls

Host countryUK FR DE NL IT ES IL CH BE SE FI HU EL ΑΤ DK PT CY IE BG CZ NO

│ 14


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

UK FR CH DE IT NL IL ES SE FI AT BE EL DK HU NO PL TR CZ BG PT CY IS

No

. of

Ap

plic

ants

Incoming non-Europeans

Incoming Europeans (non-citizens)

Incoming Citizens

Staying non-Europeans

Staying Europeans (non-citizens)

Staying Citizens

AdG Finalists: mobility of researchers(top 256 proposals)

│ 15


2007 Starting Grants Repatriation and Recruitment to Europe (5%)

(TOP 300, Nov. 07)

│ 16


2

59

252

38

26

4

24

1

6

1127

17

1

414

4

2

10

32

Source: 300 proposals, 02.10.2008

2007 Starting Grants:

Selected proposals by host country

9167 submissions300 grants

hosted by 21 countries

│ 17


1

56

131

32

18

4 1

14

1

4

516

29

1

1

826

4

1

13

25

Source: 256 proposals (Oct 2008)

2008 Advanced Grants:

Selected proposals by host country

2167 submissions256 grants

hosted by 23 countries

│ 18


Fostering pan-European competition Fostering pan-European competition among among individualindividual scientists scientists

6 Low

10 High

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

FR UK NL ES BE DE FI AT DK SE IT IE EL PT CY HU BG CZ IL CH NO

EU - 15 EU - 12 Assoc. C.

in %

Source: All submitted proposals (9167) and 300 selected proposals (02.10.2008)

2007 Starting Grants Acceptance rates by host country(21 countries)

% a

cc.

rate

Country’s population, economy, # of submissions not pertinent:Fundamental commitment of ERC to individual excellence

Low

High

Medium

│ 19


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

SE AT UK FR NL DE FI DK ES BE IT PT EL CY HU BG CZ PL CH IS IL NO TR

EU - 15 EU - 12 Assoc. C.

in %

Social Sciences & Humanities

Pysical Sciences & Engineering

Life Sciences

Source: All submissions (2167) and top 256 proposals (29.09.2008)

Fostering pan-European competition Fostering pan-European competition among among individualindividual scientists scientists

2008 Advanced Grants Acceptance rates by host country(23 countries)

Domain at submission

% a

cc.

rate

High

Medium

Low

│ 20

European Research Council 2007 Starting GrantGeographical distributionof principal investigators Top 300 proposals / 21 countries

Physical Sciences& Engineering

Social Sciences& Humanities

Life Sciences

│ 21

European Research Council 2008 Advanced GrantGeographical distributionof principal investigators

Top 256 proposals / 23 countries

Status 02.10.2008

Social Sciences & Humanities

Life Sciences

Interdisciplinary

Physical Sciences& Engineering

│ 22



│ 23


Submitted proposals

Funded proposals

Success rate

Fundable proposals of

excellent quality, but

beyond budget

StG 9167 304 3.3% 100-250

AdG 2167 ~276 (*) 12.7% 110-350

(*) 256 by EU funds + 20 (est.) by AC funds

Challenge # 1 Large demand / limited funding / runners up?

│ 24


% GDP spent on R & D in EU27Sweden (3.82% of GDP) Finland (3.45%) Germany (2.51%) Austria (2.45%)

Denmark (2.43%) France (2.12%)

UK (1.76%) (*) Italy (1.10%) (*)

… Slovakia (0.49%). Bulgaria (0.48%) Romania (0.46%)

Cyprus (0.42%)

Challenge # 2 Low national funding in some countries

Europe must be competitive as a continent, but also as individual member states

(2006 data) (*) (2005 data)

10-fold differences

│ 25


Many researchers willing to repatriate, but often,

home countries do not offer attractive opportunities

Working conditions and salaries vary widely within EU/AC

Individual countries need to do their part

for making Europe competitive:

at the continental and national level

Challenge # 3Repatriating Europeans

& recruiting non-Europeans

│ 26


Challenge # 4Ranking lists: Institutional reputation

There is much quality scattered in EU/AC,

but only a limited number of world-leading institutions

World university rankings (Times Higher Education Supplement, 2007)

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 10 20 30 40 50

Top n universities

Top

un

ivers

itie

s

in e

ach

reg

ion

EU/AC

US

Other

USA has the largest share in world-leading institutions

│ 27


The ERC has addressed effectively several external challenges.

The Commissioner, Director General and DIS have given us strong cooperation, support and autonomy.

We must now also tackle some challenges intrinsic to the present ERC structure.

Are fixed, general EC procedures compatible with the needed specific improvements in science policy?

External & Internal Challenges

│ 28


The EU has granted full autonomy to the ERC in matters of scientific strategy and design of the evaluation structure

&The ScC is strongly focused on pursuit of excellence,

simplifying and inventing new instruments as necessary

BUT

Some aspects of implementation are compromised by long-established “one-size-fits-all” EC legislation & procedures

Full success may depend on ERC autonomy, not just in vision and strategy,

but also in implementation and ERC integration

Challenge # 5Full operational autonomy for a world-leading ERC?

│ 29


Continuous innovation is necessary, in administration as well as in science

“It is just as important to make knowledge live and to keep it alive as to solve specific problems.”

(Albert Einstein, 1954)

Challenge # 5Enhanced autonomy for a world-leading ERC

│ 30


Conclusions

1. ERC has succeeded in gaining European & worldwide recognition as a world-class research-funding agency

2. ERC has made pioneering steps towards research innovation (e.g., interdisciplinarity) & attracted many very-high-quality proposals

3. Success rate of applicants is limited by the current funding level

4. Wide variations exist within EU/AC in excellence, research support, and institutional reputation

5. Full success for ERC may require operational autonomy

│ 1 European Research Council The European Research Council: Vision, Strategy, and Challenges Professor Fotis C. Kafatos ERC President.

Documents