Marie Curie Proposal Writing….

Science is not the whole story!!

NUI Galway, 24th January 2005 Conor O’Carroll, Conference of Heads of Irish Universities

Outline of Presentation

General Features of Marie Curie ProposalsHow your proposal is scoredThe inside track on the different sections of a proposals 2-step/phase submission – how to get beyond the 1st hurdle

Part B: General Features

Free-textPre-defined sections correlate to the criteria on which your proposal is evaluatedMake sure to address all the criteriaStay close to page limitsScience underpins the whole proposal, but there’s a lot more to a Marie Curie than just science

Evaluation Criteria – The “B” Headings

Content of the Proposal/ProjectTraining Activities/Transfer of KnowledgeQuality of the HostQuality of the ResearchersManagement and FeasibilityAdded Value and Relevance to the Objectives

ActivityResearch

Training Networks

Transfer of Knowledge

Individual Fellowships

Return and Reintegrat-

ionExcellence

GrantsMarie Curie

Chairs

W=Weighting(1)

T= Threshold W T W T W T W T W T W T W T

Content of the Proposal / Project

15

50

3 15 315

30

3

N/A IEF

15 3 25N/A

20

40

415

30

3

Training Activities / Transfer of Knowledge

20

504

15 4 15N/A N/A N/A

15 4N/A N/A

 

15 

4

Quality of the Host 15

N/A15

N/A15

N/A15

N/A 10 N/A10

N/A 10 N/A

Quality of the Researchers

N/A N/A N/A N/A

15

70

425

3

N/AERG

N/A N/A

20

60

415

70

4

Management and Feasibility

153

153 5

N/A10

N/A 20 N/A 15 N/A 10 N/A

Added Value and Relevance to the Objectives

35N/A

40N/A 35 N/A

35N/A 30 N/A 35 N/A 35 N/A

 Conferenceand

Training Courses

Evaluation Criteria

Content of the Proposal/Project

Training Activities/Transfer of KnowledgeQuality of the HostQuality of the ResearchersManagement and FeasibilityAdded Value and Relevance to the Objectives

General Advice - The Science bit

Essential to get this right - get the evaluators hookedClear S&T objectives (inter/multi-disciplinary, intersectorial and /or fragmentation issues)Is the joint collaborative research project of high scientific quality, realistic and well describedIs the research methodology appropriateoriginal and innovative; sound knowledge of the state-of-the-art

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”

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.

Evaluation Criteria

Content of the Proposal/Project

Training Activities/Transfer of Knowledge

Quality of the HostQuality of the ResearchersManagement and FeasibilityAdded Value and Relevance to the Objectives

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 careerDescribed 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

Training/Transfer…

Example for an RTNRTN 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

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.

Evaluation Criteria

Content of the Proposal/ProjectTraining Activities/Transfer of KnowledgeQuality of the HostQuality of the Researchers

Management and Feasibility

Added Value and Relevance to the Objectives

Management & Feasibility

Who’s in charge? Science and AdminAdvisors?Reporting/communicationsFinancial explanationIPRWorkplanAgreement with Researcher

Evaluation Criteria

Content of the Proposal/ProjectTraining Activities/Transfer of KnowledgeQuality of the HostQuality of the ResearchersManagement and Feasibility

Added Value and Relevance to the Objectives

Added Value and Relevance to the Objectives???

30-40% of the total score (cf 25% for science!)So don’t leave this til an hour before you submitStructure this section wellMake it personal!

Value &

Relevance

Objectives of Scheme

ERA Field of Research

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 ……”

Value and Relevance

Lesson – Don’t be vague and fluffy AND

we are not talking here of your own objectives – its those of

the”scheme” you are submitting toYou can find these objectives in the Work Prog and Handbook

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”

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-projects is an additional objective.

A strong point of the project is to overcome fragmentation of research in Europe.

2-step/stage submission – how to get beyond the 1st hurdle

2-stage: RTNStage 1 = 10-pager on Scientific Content and Training 50:50.This Pre-proposal is evaluated and proposals passing this stage are invited to submit a FULL proposalSuccess rate in 2nd stage will be 40%, so make sure your short proposal is properly prepared

2-step/stage submission – how to get beyond the 1st hurdle

2-step submission= Individual Fellowships, Excellence Grants, ChairsIMP: You only submit once and you submit a complete proposalOnce the proposal reaches Brussels, the evaluators look at the B1 first – Science and the ResearcherThen it is fully reviewed if it is passed to Step 2

EthicsGenderWorkplan for science AND for trainingDissemination plansYour dept/partners’ details really matter Feasibility/sustainability of the projectEPSS – get your password in time and know the ropesSubmit in plenty of time Make sure you can convert your proposal to PDF

“the devil is in the detail”