Support for early-stage researchers in Europe: a view from three countries

1. Support for early-stage researchers in Europe: a view from three countries Frantisek Stepanek Chemical Robotics Laboratory Institute of Chemical Technology, Prague Czech Republic

2. Personal background Post-doc, 2000-2002 - Marie Curie Industry Host Fellowship - funding: FP5, Unilever R&D Lectureship/Readership, 2002-2008 - Imperial College London - funding: industry, EPSRC, charities PhD, 1997-2000 - thèse en co-tutelle, UPMC (Paris VI) - funding: BGF Assoc. Prof., 2008-present - ICT Prague - funding: ERC, industry, GAAV

3. Europe without barriers? - FP7 instruments - Bilateral schemes - National schemes (outgoing, incoming) Other barriers Between disciplines: Engaging in cross-disciplinary activities and collaboration Geographicalbarriers within EU - essentially non-existent - we are “spoilt for choice” Inside us: Creativity and adventure vs. incremental, predictable research Between research cultures: Academia vs. industry Within institutions: How can we minimise admin work and spend more time doing research?

4. Overcoming barriers inside us… • Why does incremental/predictive research often prevail? • 1) Risk aversion / High cost of “failure” • “…I don’t have the luxury of spending X months investigating something that I’m not even sure will work…” • “…I’ll start taking risks once I get a full professorship; right now I can’t afford to fail…” • 2) Reporting requirements / expectations • “…If I have to produce X publications per year, I rather opt for a safe topic with a guaranteed stream of results…” • 3) Project proposal evaluation • “…If I have to specify milestones and deliverables 3-5 years in advance, how can I work on a topic where I don’t know what’s waiting behind the next corner?…”

5. Individual predispositions Working environment Research funding instruments Overcoming barriers inside us… Factors influencing degree of risk aversion: undergraduate education (projects, assignments, etc.) enlightened PhD supervisor failure-tolerant research culture role models: risk-taking has lead to success self-confidence based on past successes

6. Overcoming barriers inside us… Examples of interesting funding schemes: “Speculative Engineering” call (EPSRC) - eligibility: industrial funding to demonstrate practical orientation - reward: funding for trying out ‘crazy’ ideas Philip Leverhulme Prize (The Leverhulme Trust) - based on evaluating the person, not a project - rigorous selection procedure (Departmental nomination, University nomination, national-level selection) - “here’s the money, we trust you to spend it wisely” ERC grants - based on evaluating the person AND project - high-risk, high-gain research encouraged

7. Barriers within the host institutions Barrier 1: Efficiency of business processes • Support units: • Finance and accounting • HR • IT • Building & facilities management “Core business”: - Research - Teaching Common sense: - support units provide service so that academics can focus on the core business Reality (very often): - support units keep introducing ever more complicated internal rules that eat on academics’ time

8. Barriers within the host institutions Barrier 2: Internal redistribution of resources • - External grants: PI has freedom to manage within rules set by sponsor • “Internal grants” (redistribution) • research infrastructure funds (larger equipment, lab refurbishment) • top-slicing of contracts with industry, etc. • directly allocated PhD studentships • Can be a great motivational factor for staff and used to leverage or complement external funding • Often quite the opposite… • non-always-transparent allocation process • used to ‘prolong the agony’ of inactive academics • source of internal quarrels between ‘big egos’ What can be done?

9. Barriers within the host institutions Funding agencies have more power than they perhaps realise… …they can attach strings to grants awarded: - by requiring minimum standards of support to PI’s - by making research climate an evaluation factor Examples: “First grant scheme” (EPSRC) - letter of support from HoD is integral part of proposal - level of support is part of evaluation criteria “Starting independent researcher grant” (ERC) - Environment at host institution is part of proposal evaluation - Basic requirements on PI’s freedom are part of contract - Supplementary Agreement between PI and host Improved business processes  everyone benefits

10. Barriers between academia and industry Curiosity-driven exploratory research vs. Applied, practically-oriented research Complementary: - industry needs are source of inspiration - solid fundamentals enable new solutions Industry: “…we’ve already paid for this through taxes…” University: “…we want to be rich like MIT and Caltech…” - greedy overhead rate - want full ownership of IPR

11. Barriers between academia and industry What can be done to improve research climate? Grant agencies can facilitate collaboration - special funding schemes (e.g. 50-50 co-funding) - “standard” forms of contract to shorten negotiation - especially important for SME’s • Example of a very good scheme: • Industrial CASE PhD awards (UK) • Wish list: • automatic co-funding up to a yearly limit • schemes for dual career (sabbatical in industry), like RAEng • use of industry in peer-review, evaluation panels etc.

12. Barriers between disciplines • relatively lowest form the four ‘barriers’ discussed • communication and collaboration usually not a problem • but still some work to do • examples: • researcher from an engineering department trying to publish in a medical journal? • or apply for a research grant from a medical charity, NIH, etc.? • “not a chance…” • What can be done? • schemes for short, initial exploratory projects with simplified and faster peer review, to develop full proposal • not for all projects, i.e. do not “impose” artificial collaborations where it does not make technical sense

13. Summary • geographical barriers not really an issue • other barriers still prevail • in our minds • in the research institutions • industry-academia collaboration • interdisciplinary collaboration • key role of funding agencies • not only providing a choice of funding schemes • also to help push for more efficient and supportive research institutions

14. Current research project Classical robots used for: - performing mechanical tasks - in the macroscopic world Their function is based on electro-mechanical principles How can we perform “chemical” tasks on microscopic scale? - in nature: microorganisms - equivalent not available - we try to design & make one

15. Challenges Proposed architecture of a chemical robot 1) semi-permeable protective outer shell 2) controlled molecular transport across shell 3) system of internal compartments/reservoirs 4) application specific reaction chemistry 5) adaptive surface properties 6) bottom-up synthesis, “power-up”, remote control 10-100 μm

16. Progress so far Stimuli-responsive “smart” gels Silica-based particles (hard porous shell) Liposome-based systems (soft membrane) Computer-aided design and process simulation Reaction chemistry, diffusion & controlled release

17. Thank you