erc – european research council · european research council │ 3 erc grant schemes strategic...

ERC – European Research Council

Alejandro MARTIN HOBDEYERC

Florence, 24 November 2010

Overview:ERC Starting Grants

Main Points

• Opportunities for funding Emphasis on the Starting Grants With practical considerations

• Overview of the Outcome of StG-2010 Call

• Policy considerations?

European Research Council

│ 3

ERC Grant SchemesERC Grant SchemesStrategic principles

All fields of science and scholarship are eligibleInvestigator-driven, bottom-up

Excellence is the only valid criterionIndividual team + research project

Investment in research talentAttractive, flexible grants, up to five yearsUnder control of the lead researcher (Principal Investigator)‏

Independent individual teams in EuropeNationality and Age of researchers is not relevantHost organisation to be located in MS or ACPortability of grants


│ 4│ 4

ERC Grant SchemesERC Grant SchemesFunding Strategy

Aim: Retain – Repatriate – Recruit Favour “brain gain” and “reverse brain drain”

improve career opportunities and independence - especially foryoung researchers

increase competition, recognition and international visibility - forexcellent individual scientists and scholars in Europe

raise aspiration and achievement of basic research in Europe

Activities: Two complementary funding schemes

ERC Starting Grant (StG)

ERC Advanced Grant (AdG)

StG grant


│ 5│ 5

ERC Grant schemesERC Grant schemesTwo complementary funding schemes

ERC Starting Grant (StG):• Researchers starting or consolidating their own independentresearch team (or research programme)• Transition from working under a supervisor to an independentresearch leader• Up to €2M over 5 years

ERC Advanced Grant (AdG):• Established independent research leaders• Track record over the last 10 years• Up to €3.5M Million over 5 years


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76

Age

Num

ber

of s

ucce

ssfu

l pro

posa

ls

• A"ract/retainnext‐genera)onleaders

• Establishindependentresearchteam&program

• A"ract/retaincurrentworld‐leaders

• S4mulateinves4gator‐driven,breakthroughresearch

Star)ngGrants AdvancedGrants

Call for proposalsTwo calls

Num

ber o

f gra

ntee

s

Age of grantees

StG 2007/2009

AdG 2008/2009


│ 7

StG & AdG Call 2011: deadlines

• Total budget for Call (2011): ~€660M (StG & AdG) StG Deadlines:

• PE: 14 October• LS: 9 November• SH: 24 November

AdG deadlines:• PE: 9 February 2011• LS: 10 March 2011• SH: 6 April 2011


│ 8

Scientific domainsScientific domains

For operational reasons : 25 panels in 3 main domainsPE: Physical Sciences, Engineering (10 panels)LS: Life Sciences (9 panels)SH: Social Sciences and Humanities (6 panels)

Allocation of Call budget per domain as follows:

PE domain: 40%LS domain: 35%SH domain: 15%Interdisciplinary domain: 10%

Within domains, indicative budget is allocated to panels on a demand basis► probability of success independent of panel



│ 9│ 9

ERC GrantsPanel structure : 25 panels

Social Sciences and Humanities SH1 Individuals, institutions & markets SH2 Institutions, values, beliefs and behaviour SH3 Environment & society SH4 The Human Mind and its complexity SH5 Cultures & cultural production SH6 The study of the human past

Physical Sciences & Engineering PE1 Mathematical foundations 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

Life Sciences LS1 Molecular & Structural Biology &

Biochemistry LS2 Genetics, Genomics, Bioinformatics &

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

Endocrinology LS5 Neurosciences & neural disorders LS6 Immunity & infection LS7 Diagnostic tools, therapies & public health LS8 Evolutionary, population & environmental

biology LS9 Applied life sciences & biotechnology

Each panel : Panel Chair and

10-15 Panel Members


│ 10

Submission is to Panels

• Applicant submits to a Targeted Panel (of PI choice) Can flag one “Alternative Review Panel”

• Applicant chooses his/her panel, that panel is “responsible”and takes ownership for the evaluation of that proposals

• Only switch proposals between panels in case of clearmistake on part of applicant

• Switching proposals between domains (deadlines) notpossible

• But: In case cross-panel or cross-domain proposals,evaluation by members of other panels possible


│ 11

• Single submission “1 stage, 2 step” evaluation

• Electronic submission via EPSS only• Deadlines strictly enforced• Proposals have two parts:

Part A: Administrative forms Part B: Scientific proposal itself

Submission of proposals


│ 12

Proposal structure: Part A

• Part A: “Administrative forms” containing A1 Information on PI

• Request for change of stream (StG only)

A2 Information on Host Institution A3 Budget breakdown by year and partner

• Not detailed


│ 13

Proposal Structure: Part B

• Section 1 = “The PI”• Scientific Leadership profile (1 page)• CV (including “funding ID”) (2 page)• 10-year track record (or “early achievements” for StG) (2

page)• Extended synopsis (5 page)

• Section 2 = Full Scientific proposal (15 page)• Ethical Review information (where appropriate)• Separate additional document:

Host Institution Support Letter (compulsory StG + AdG) Copy of Ph.D. (compulsory StG) Documents to prove extension to 10 year eligibility window (StG)


│ 14

ERC Grant SchemesERC Grant SchemesEvaluation: Scientific Excellence is the sole criterionEvaluation: Scientific Excellence is the sole criterion

Evaluation of Excellence at two levels:• Criterion 1: Quality of Principal

Investigator• Criterion 2: Quality of Research Project

Referees and panels evaluate and score criterianumerically which will result in the ranking of the projects:

− 1- 4 per criterion− Threshold : ≥ 2 for both criteria


│ 15

Two step evaluation

• Step 1: Section 1 of Part B evaluated against Criterion 1 (PI)

and 2 (Research Project) Proposal needs to pass threshold for both criteria to

pass to second step Evaluated by Panel Members + possibly “alternate”

panel members where necessary• Step 2:

Sections B1 + B2 evaluated Evaluated by Panel Members + Remote Referees StG: Step 2 includes interviews in all cases


Eligibility check

Step 1 (remote) evaluation onthe basis of section 1 of

proposal* by panel members

Proposalspassing to step 2

Individual assessment of fullproposal by panel members &

referees

AdG :2nd Panelmeeting

Panel chairs´ meetingConsolidation of 3 main domains &

interdisciplinary/high risk – high gainprojects rank lists

Submission offull proposals

Proposalsselected for funding

ERC Grants: how does it operate?Submission, evaluation and selection

* Profile of PI, projects extended synopsis

1st Panel meeting

StG: 2ndPanel meetingincl. interviewsof applicants


│ 17

Remote part of evaluation

• Remote part of evaluation takes part completelyelectronically

• Step 1: proposals assigned to ~4 PMs

• Step 2: proposals also sent to specialized remoteexperts (to be determined at Step 1 panelmeeting)


│ 18

What are panels looking for in an interview? (StGonly)

• Maturity, leadership and vision

• Proposal is the applicant’s (not his/hersupervisor’s)

• Answer lagging technical questions anduncertainties / feasibility

• Mastery of detail


│ 19

Interdisciplinary Proposals

• Primary approach for Interdisciplinary proposals: “mainstreaming”• Proposal submitted to a target panel primarily responsible for its

evaluation• Both Step 1 and Step 2:

Assigned for reviews from PMs outside primary panel, ifnecessary

• Step 2: Remote reviewers: any reviewer in the world (hence any domain)

• If panel not comfortable in Step 2 meeting to take final decision, this isleft to a final Panel Chair Meeting

• Interdisciplinary Research domain (cross-domain & cross-panel) indicative budget of 10% total budget

• Decision taken by combined panel of all Panel Chairs


│ 20

Approach taken for “streaming” (StG only)

• “By default”: people fall into the stream that corresponds by thenumber of years past Ph.D. (covers 90-95% of cases) Starters 2 – 6 years past Ph.D Consolidators: 7 – 12 years past Ph.D

• Can request of change of stream: take rather strict / conservativeapproach

• Applicants need to argue their case for different consideration.• All “objective” (parental leave, military service, long term illness, etc)

reasons that apply for extending the eligibility window apply by analogyto extending the “starter” window.

• Subjective reasons: “Career break” outside science/research (e.g. volunteerwork, professional activity completely unrelated to research career,unemployment, etc)

• Applicant requested needs to attach a minimum amount of documentation tomake claim credible


Distribution of proposal by year past PhD.

StG2010 vs StG2009 Submitted proposals distribution

by PhD Year from Call date

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14+

StG2009 Submitted proposals StG2010 Submitted Proposals


Funded proposals by years past Ph.D.

StG2010 vs StG2009 Fundable (Main+Reserve) proposals

distribution by years past Ph.D.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

StG2009 Fundable proposals StG2010 Fundable proposals


Success rate as years past Ph.D.

StG2010 vs StG2009 Success rate distribution by PhD Date

Main List + Associated States (tentative data)

0,0%

5,0%

10,0%

15,0%

20,0%

StG2010 StG2009

StG2010 8,5% 16,5% 12,5% 17,0% 17,7% 14,8% 16,6% 17,0% 15,6%

StG2009 0,0% 6,1% 8,6% 10,7% 10,8% 11,5% 12,7% 0,0% 0,0%

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10+


Overall success rate by panel (440 proposals)

StG 2010 % Success rate (average 15.32%)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

LS

1

LS

2

LS

3

LS

4

LS

5

LS

6

LS

7

LS

8

LS

9

PE

1

PE

2

PE

3

PE

4

PE

5

PE

6

PE

7

PE

8

PE

9

PE

10

SH

1

SH

2

SH

3

SH

4

SH

5

SH

6

Allocated panel

success r

ate


StG 2010 Proportion of grants by country of HI

ERC STG 2009-10 % Funded Proposals by Country of HI(preliminary analysis)

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

UK

FR

DE

CH IL NL

ES IT SE

BE

AT

PT

DK FI

HU IE CZ

EL

NO PL

CY

EE

Country of HI

2009

2010


StG 2010 – Proportion of grants by nationality

ERC STG 2009- 10 %Funded proposals by PI Nationalitypreliminary analysis

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

DE

FR IT IL

UK

NL

ES

BE

SE

EL

US

AT

AU

CH

HU IE PL

PT

RU

CZ

DK FI

IN AR

BG

HR

JP

TR

% of Grantees 2009

% of Grantees 2010

European Research Council ERC Starting Grant: 2010 callGrantees by country of host institution & domainSource: 427 proposals

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

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

Country of host institution

Nu

mb

er

of

Gra

nte

es

Social Sciences &

Humanities

Physical Sciences &

Engineering

Life Sciences

ERC 2010: StG-10-427

21 countries

European Research Council ERC Starting Grant: 2010 callMobility: Incoming & staying candidatesSource: 427 proposals

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Country of host institution

Nu

mb

er

of

Gra

nte

es

Grantees moving to another country ("European" & "non-European" nationals)

Grantees staying in the country: "Non-European" nationals

Grantees staying in the country: other "European" nationals

Grantees staying in the country: nationals of that country

ERC 2010: StG-10-427


Gender distribution by panel for fundedproposals

ERC STG 2010 Funded Proposals - % Gender Distribution

(Average % - 25.9 % female, 74.1 % male)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

LS

1

LS

2

LS

3

LS

4

LS

5

LS

6

LS

7

LS

8

LS

9

PE

1

PE

2

PE

3

PE

4

PE

5

PE

6

PE

7

PE

8

PE

9

PE

10

SH

1

SH

2

SH

3

SH

4

SH

5

SH

6

Allocated Panel

M

F


Grantees by Country of HI and Gender

StG 2010 Funded Proposals

by Country of Host Institution and Gender

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


Country of Host Institution

M

F


StG 2010 - Success of female grantees

StG 2010 Domain

% Female Applicants vs % Female Grantees

19,75%

43,04%

29,59%32,75%

22,89%

38,27%

25,91%23,42%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

LS subtotal PE subtotal SH subtotal ERC STG

TotalDomain

% Female Applicants

% Female Grantees


Age distribution Grantees

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

Age at Call Closure

% F grantees

% M grantees

ERC STG 2010 Age of GranteesAverage: Men: 35.34 yrs; Women: 35.28 yrs


StG 2011 – Average size of requested andawarded amount of funded proposals by domain

ERC STG 2010 Average Grant

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

LS PE SH

10

00

!

Domain

average amt requested

average amt awarded


StG 2011 – Average size of requested and awarded amountof funded proposals – SH Domain

ERC STG 2010 Average Amount Requested and Awarded

SH Domain

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

SH1 SH2 SH3 SH4 SH5 SH6

10

00

!

Allocated Panel

average amt requested

average amt awarded


StG 2009 - 2010 – Success rate by country of HI

ERC STG 2009-10 % Success rates by Country of Host Institution(preliminary analysis)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

CH IL

FR

DE

UK

AT

SE

PT

BE

NL

CZ

HU

CY

ES

DK

PL

NO EL IE FI

IT EE

Country of Host Institution

% o

f A

pplic

atio

ns funded

success rate 2009

success rate 2010


StG 2010 – Number of applications vs. Successrate by Country of HI

ERC STG 2010 Submissions by Country of Host Institution Vs

Success Rate(excluding countries with less than 10 submissions; preliminary analysis )

TRSI

RO

IT

FIIE

EL NO PLDK

ES

HUCZ

NL

BE

PT

SE

AT

UK

DE

FR

ILCH

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Success rate

Su

bm

issio

ns


StG2010 – Success rate by nationality

ERC STG 2009-10 % Success Rate by Nationality(preliminary analysis)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

AR

LU

AU

KR IL

HR IN

US

FR

AL

BR

DE

CH

NL

JP

HU

EE

AT

BE

SE

EL

PL

PT

UK

CZ IE

RU

CY

BG

ES IT

DK

CA

TR SI

FI

NO

CN

RO

success rate 2009

success rate 2010


StG 2010 – Number of applications vs. Successrate by nationality of PI

ERC STG 2010 Submissions by Nationality Vs Success Rate(excluding nationalities with less than 10 submissions; preliminary analysis )

US

UK

TR

SKSI

SE

RU

ROPT

PL

NO

NL

JP

IT

IN

IL

IEHU

FR

FI

ES

EL

DK

DE

CZCNCH

CABG

BE

AU

AT

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Success rate

Num

ber

of S

ubm

issio

ns