"Lessons of excellence Learned from the ERC", por José Luís García, Rrepresentante Nacional del Comité de Programas para el ERC.

European Research Council

LESSONS OF EXCELLENCE

Centro de Formación de la Cooperación Española en Montevideo

www.eshorizonte2020.es

PROF. JOSÉ LUIS GARCÍA (CSIC)

National Representative at ERCOE-MINECO

September2017

LESSONS OF EXCELLENCE LEARNED FROM THE ERC

THE POWER OF DREAMS

“I I havehave a a dreamdream … … “

www.eshorizonte2020.esoficina europea

The idea for establishing the ERC first cameout of widespread discussions betweenEuropean scientists, scholars and researchumbrella organisations at a time when noclear European mechanism to support basic

│ 3www.eshorizonte2020.esoficina europea

clear European mechanism to support basicresearch on a broad front existed.

To address this problem, Europe had torecognise the requirement for change andestablish the necessary institutionalstructures for achieving it.

The innovation gap

The performance gap in basic research

The EU share of the top 10 % most cited scientific publications is 37.5 % against a US share of 48.9 % and in the top 1% the figures are 37.3% and 62.76% respectively


“A comparison with its main competitors shows that the innovation gap for the EU has been declining but that the rate of decline is slowing down and the remaining gap is still significant”

European Innovation Scoreboard 2008 (EC, 2009)

The R&D spending gapThe EU is spending every year 0.8% of GDP less than the US and 1.5% less than Japan in R&D

2002The debate gained momentum at politicallevel. European research ministers calledon EU Member States and the EuropeanCommission to discuss the purpose andscope of a Europe-wide researchcouncil. Subsequently, an expert group(ERCEG) group was convened under theDanish EU Presidency to investigate theviability of such a structure.

2003A report from the ERC ExpertGroup (ERCEG) , chaired byProfessor Federico Mayor,described how the ERC might takeshape.

2005


2005ERCEG's recommendations won significant support from both the political andscientific communities, which culminated in 2005 with the European Commissionproposing the establishment and operation of an autonomous ERC through the'Ideas Programme' of the Seventh Framework Programme (2007 -2013).22 renowned researchers were selected as the founding members of the ERCSC.In December, the Scientific Council announced the election of its Chairman, ProfFotis Kafatos , and its two Vice-Chairs, Prof Helga Nowotny and Dr DanielEstève.

2006The European Council gave the seal of approval to the ERC and its seven-year € 7.5 billion budget.

2007The European Research Council was officially launched at an inauguralconference in Berlin hosted by the German EU Presidency and organisedjointly by the German Research Foundation DFG and the EuropeanCommission. Researchers and stakeholders from over 30 countries wereattending the ERC launch to celebrate its establishment and discuss itsstrategic and programmatic objectives.


The very first proposal focused on ERC Starting grants received a massiveresponse; 9167 applications have been submitted. This massive responseclearly underlines the huge expectations in the ERC by Europe's newgeneration of research leaders.

2008The ERC receives over 2000 proposals for the first Advanced Grants call.

OBJECTIVES

� substantially strengthen and shape the European research system

� high quality peer review


� establishment of international benchmarks of success

� provision of up-to-date information on who is succeeding and why

By challenging Europe's brightestminds, the ERC expects that itsgrants will help to bring about newand unpredictable scientific andtechnological discoveries - the kind


technological discoveries - the kindthat can form the basis of newindustries, markets, and broadersocial innovations of the future.

The ERC aims to:

� Support the best of the best in Europe across all fields ofscience, scholarship and engineering

� Promote wholly investigator-driven, or 'bottom -up' frontierresearch

� Encourage the work of the established and next generation of


� Encourage the work of the established and next generation ofindependent top research leaders in Europe

� Reward innovative proposals by placing emphasis on the qual ityof the idea rather than the research area

� Raise the status and visibility of European frontier resear ch andthe very best researchers of today and tomorrow

� The sole criterion for selection isscientific excellence.

� The aim is to recognise the bestideas, and confer status and


ideas, and confer status andvisibility on the best brains inEurope, while also attractingtalent from abroad.

The program we all dreamThe program we all dream


�Big money�A single partner�All disciplines�Scientists from all countries�Portability of money�Short projects�Short projects�Grants differentiated by experience�Grants differentiated by disciplines�No previous team required�No previous lab required�Long-term funding


II. ERC and Horizon 2020

oficina europea www.eshorizonte2020.es

Budget: 30% of H2020

EIT2%

Excellente Science

Base30%

Societal Challenges

41%

JRC3% ERC 13.094,81 €

FET 2.695,99 €

MSCA 6.162,26 €


Industrial Leadeship

24%

Infrastructures 2.488,01 €

TOTAL 24.441,07 €

54%

11%

25%

10%

ERC FET MCSA Infrastructures

Goals

10%

Excellent ScienceERC FET MCSA Infrastructures

• Frontier research by the best individual teams

European Research Council (ERC)

• Collaborative research to open new fields of innovation

Future and EmergingTechnologies (FET)


54%

11%

25%

• Opportunities for training and career development

Marie S. Curie Actions(MSCA)

• (including e-infrastructure)• Ensuring access to world-class

facilities

INFRASTRUCTURES

Budget


THE POWER OF MIRRORS


ERC works as a mirror where the EU countries can compare the structure and competiveness of their

R&D systems

MIRROR [2007-2013] Grants per country


ERC Starting Grant calls 2007-2013ERC Advanced Grant calls 2008-2013

Starting Grants

starters

(2-7 years after PhD) up

to € 2.0 Mio

Advanced Grants track-record of

significant research

achievements in the

last 10 years

Consolidator Grants

consolidators

(7-12 years after PhD)

up to € 2.75 Mio

Standardization of Calls


to € 2.0 Mio

for 5 years

last 10 years

up to € 3.5 Mio

for 5 years

Synergy Grants 2 – 4 Principal

Investigators

up to € 14.0 Mio for 6 years

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

of marketable innovation

up to €150,000 for ERC grant holders

up to € 2.75 Mio

for 5 years

Starting

Grants

2-7 years after PhD

Advanced

Grants

significant research in

the last 10 years

Consolidator

Grants

7-12 years after PhD

SCIENTIFIC AGE VS BIOLOGICAL AGE


2-7 years after PhD the last 10 years

7-12 years after PhD

Standardization of Panel Structure

Life Sciences

� LS1 Molecular & Structural Biology & Biochemistry

� LS2 Genetics, Genomics, Bioinformatics & Systems Biology

� LS3 Cellular and Developmental Biology� LS4 Physiology, Pathophysiology &

Endocrinology

Social Sciences and Humanities

� SH1 Individuals, Institutions & Markets� SH2 The Social World, Diversity and

Common Ground� SH3 Environment ,Space and Population� SH4 The Human Mind and its Complexity� SH5 Cultures & Cultural Production� SH6 The Study of the Human Past


� LS5 Neurosciences & Neural Disorders� LS6 Immunity & Infection� LS7 Diagnostic tools, Therapies & Public

Health� LS8 Evolutionary, Population &

Environmental Biology� LS9 Applied Life Sciences &

Biotechnology

Physical Sciences & Engineering

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

Standardization of Proposal Templates

PART A – online forms

A1 Proposal and PI infoA2 Host Institution infoA3 Budget

PART B1 – submitted as .pdf

• Extended Synopsis 5 p.• CV 2 p.• Track Record 2 p.


PART B2 – submitted as .pdf

• Scientific Proposal 15 p.

Annexes – submitted as .pdf

• Statement of support of HI• If applicable: explanatory

information on ethical issues;copy of PhD (StG, CoG); document for extension of eligibility window (StG, CoG)

Standardization of Evaluation Processes

Panel Members (10-15 experts)

Panel MeetingFinal Meeting

STEP I: Part B1 STEP2: B1+B2

A

B


(10-15 experts)

Proposal remotely reviewed by 3-4 panel

members

Panel Meeting

A

B

C

Interviews

New revision by panel members + external

referees

B

CONCEPT OF EXCELLENCE

At the frontiers of knowledge

Innovation fuelled by radical new knowledge


High-risk/high-gain researchvs

Incremental research

CONCEPT OF RESUBMISSION PENALTIES

Over-subscription causes different

Inclusion of penalties for resubmissions to reduce the over-subscription


Over-subscription causes different problems

• Reduction of the average proposals

quality

• Reduction of the evaluation quality

• Increase of the operational costs

CONCEPT OF INNOVATION

ERC Proof of Concept Grants are designed to support ERC grantees with the commercial or societal application of


societal application of the results of their funded research

MIMETIC CONCEPTS

Severo-Ochoa & María de Maeztu Program

Europe of Excellence Program

Young Researchers Program


Talent attraction Programs• Ramón y Cajal• ICREA• Ikerbasque• Oportunius

INTERNATIONALIZATION


Retain – Repatriate– Recruit

RECRUITMENT IS CLEARLY FAILING

� Limited communication/diffusion activities

RECRUITMENT FAILING REASONS


� Limited communication/diffusion activities� Language problems� Highly R&D endogamic systems� Distrust of research sustainability� Difficulties to obtain a permanent position� Difficulties for inter/intra countries mobility

(language)

SCIENTIFIC CONTROL INDEPENDENCY OF FUNCTIONS

ERC PILLARSERC PILLARS

The Scientific Council


The Scientific CouncilIndependent scientific

governanceThe Agency (ERCEA)

ManagingThe European Commission

Money



Scientific Council

ScC


ERCEAEC

22 eminent scientists, covering alldisciplinesNew President: JP Bourguignon

ADDITIONAL CONTROLS

Working Groups of ScC

� Gender Balance� Open Access


� Open Access� Innovation and Relations with Industry� Widening European Participation� Strengthening International

Participation � Key Performance Indicators

GENDER ISSUES

There are clear There are clear gender gender


gender gender imbalances in imbalances in

the ERC the ERC programprogram

REASONS FOR GENDER REASONS FOR GENDER IMBALANCESIMBALANCES

• Excessive weight of CV vs ideas in the ERC evaluation system


evaluation system• Low number of proposals by a distrust of

female researchers on the evaluation system• Gender bias in the ERC evaluation procedures• Imbalance of females in the evaluation panels• Scientific areas with low attraction for female

researchers

WIDENING EU PARTICIPATION

There are clear There are clear participation participation


participation participation imbalancesimbalances

Concentration in Concentration in few HIsfew HIs

REASONS FOR HI REASONS FOR HI PARTICIPATION PARTICIPATION

IMBALANCESIMBALANCES

• Large imbalances in the structures of the R&D systems


• Excessive weight of CV vs ideas in the ERC evaluation system

• Low communication/diffusion activities • HI bias in the ERC evaluation procedures• Imbalance of reviewers in the evaluation

panels• Unfair “OPAs”

INTERDISCIPLINARITY

There are clear There are clear problems to problems to


problems to problems to promote promote

interdisciplinary interdisciplinary scientific ideas scientific ideas at at

the ERCthe ERC

REASONS FOR REASONS FOR INTERDISCIPLINARITYINTERDISCIPLINARITY

PROBLEMSPROBLEMS

• Classification of science in areas & panels• Endogamic panels/lobbies


• Individuality of the proposals• Solutions through Synergy Grants under

permanent discussion• Solutions through Co-PIs failed• Difficulties to find evaluators• Extremely program competitiveness

INDIVIDUALITY vs NETWORKING

CHANGING THE CHANGING THE CURRENT CURRENT


CURRENT CURRENT EUROPEAN EUROPEAN PARADIGM ABOUT PARADIGM ABOUT THE HIGHER THE HIGHER EFFICIENCY OF EFFICIENCY OF NETWORKING NETWORKING RESEARCHRESEARCH

STILL REMAIN

• SIMPLIFICATION. REDUCING THE BUREAOCRACY


THE BUREAOCRACY

• ELIMINATION OF EQUIPMENT AMORTIZATION

• JUSTIFICATION FLEXIBILITY

• EXCESSIVE REQUIREMENT FOR MARKETING THE PROPOSALS


Funding individuals - changingorganisations : the impact of the ERC on universitiesJakob Edler; Daniela Frischer; MichaelaGlanz and Michael Stampfer

http://erc.europa.eu

Demo on line/servicio de revisiónhttp:// www.eshorizonte2020.es

InformationInformation


http:// www.eshorizonte2020.es

[email protected] (NR)[email protected] (NCP)

[email protected] (NCP)