slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Some recommandations to better perform at the ERC Grants PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Some recommandations to better perform at the ERC Grants

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 30

Some recommandations to better perform at the ERC Grants - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Some recommandations to better perform at the ERC Grants. 7th PCRD European Research Council - ERC. Panels - Life Sciences (LS). LS1 : Molecular and Structural Biology and Biochemistry LS2 : Genetics, Genomics, Bioinformatics and System Biology LS3 : Cellular and Developmental Biology

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Some recommandations to better perform at the ERC Grants' - jeroen

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Some recommandations to

better perform at the ERC Grants


7th PCRDEuropean Research Council - ERC

Panels - Life Sciences (LS)

LS1: Molecular and Structural Biology and Biochemistry

LS2 : Genetics, Genomics, Bioinformatics and System Biology

LS3 : Cellular and Developmental Biology

LS4 : Physiology, Pathophysiology and Endocrinology

LS5 : Neurosciences and neural disorder

LS6 : Immunity and infection

LS7 : Diagnostic tools, therapies and public health

LS8 : Evolutionary, population and environmental biology

LS9 : Applied life sciences and biotechnology


starting independent researchers grant
« Starting Independent Researchers Grant »


2007 : 9167

2009 : 2503

Starting Grant 2007

Starting Grant 2009


starting independent researchers grant1
« Starting Independent Researchers Grant »

Selected Projects

2007: 299

2009: 237







Starting Grant 2007

Starting Grant 2009


starting independent researchers grant2
« Starting Independent Researchers Grant »

Résuls - LS

2nd call


hosted country

80 granteds

15 FR

14 DE

9 UK

8 CH

5 NL

1er appel


107 granteds

15 FR

15 UK

14 ES

10 CH

9 DE


advanced investigators grant
« Advanced Investigators Grant »


2008 : 2167

2009 : 1583

Advanced Grant 2008

Advanced Grant 2009


advanced investigators grant1
« Advanced Investigators Grant »

Selected Projects

2008 : 275*

2009 : 236

(*) 29 projets Transversal







Advanced Grant 2008

Advanced Grant 2009


advanced investigators grant2
« Advanced Investigators Grant »

Résultats - LS

2ème appel


Pays de l’institution d’accueil

89 projets

21 UK

15 FR

13 CH

12 DE

6 NL

1er appel


84 projets

18 UK

11 FR

11 DE

9 CH

5 NL


In any case it is a wonderfull experience

What have you done in the past?

Our contribution at the international level

Design a large project over a 5 years period

The needs

The management

You have (should) succeed


  • The “give back” : Teaching, recruitment of student, results, seting up start up, patent, diagnostic, therapy, technical improvement for

It takes 3 to 4 weeks (This is serious)

  • One hesitate to try or to compete
  • We would like to apply but with some one else
  • The agreement of the chairman of the center
principal investigator
Principal Investigator

Quality of research output/track-record:

- How well qualified is the PI (and any co-Investigator if applicable) to conduct the project (reviewers are expected to evaluate the quality of the prior work (published results in top peer review journals , other elements of the PI’s CV).

- To what extent are the publications and achievements of the PI groundbreaking and demonstrative of independent creative thinking and capacity to go significantly beyond the state of the art?

- To what extent does the quality and quantity of funding the PI has attracted during the last ten years demonstrate his/her reputation as a performer of ground-breaking research?

Intellectual capacity and creativity:

- To what extent does the PI's record of research, collaborations, project conception, supervision of students and publications demonstrate that he/she is able to confront major research challenges in the field, and to initiate new productive lines of thinking?


Research project

  • Ground-breaking nature of the research:

- address important challenges at the frontiers of the field

- ambitious objectives, which go substantially beyond the current state of the art (inter- and trans-disciplinary developments and novel or unconventional concepts and/or approaches)?

  • How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity?
  • Potential impact:
  • (a) Does the research open new and important, scientific, technological or scholarly horizons?
  • (b) Will the project significantly enhance the research environment and capabilities for frontier research in Europe
recommandations adg1 section 1 cv of the pi
All items must be considered

to show scientific excellence of the PI

Training of PhD and researchers

« No information about supervision of young researchers »

« There is no mentioning of mentoring students and/or postdocs »

« Although so far, no highly visible scientists have merged from his lab, many fellows are in the early stages of a successful career »

Recommandations - AdG1Section 1 - CV of the PI

List of major publications, not only those in specialized journals

« His seminal papers are published in more specialized journals,mostly in Blood »

« His publication profile is in medium-high profile journals »

« Strong but not outstanding publication record »

«  … highly visible publication record, although a comparison with other applicants does not put him into the highest category. »

« I see somewhat less productivity and publications in lower impact journals after 2000, and with much less citations »

Recommandations - AdG1Section 1

Funding (Prizes) and International recognition

To give all information about International recognition e.g. major funding or prizes, medals, etc.

« No current EC or other international grants »

« In fact a high proportion of the PI’s activities, his board memberships and prizes are positionned in the national rather than international arena… »

« Information on funding of the last ten years was not provided »

« The funding success is rather moderate and the international recognition is limited »

Recommandations - AdG1Section 1

Independence of the PI

Not to be a contributor by proxy

« At present, the proposed project very much overlaps with the …’s lab interests and achievements »

« Always in collaboration with Pr XXX »

Recommandations - AdG1Section 1


Project leader

  • is extremely well qualified,
  • a senior leader in the field of …
  • is one of the world leading experts in the proposed area of research
  • is known for …
  • an impressive and continuous record of important publications in top journal
  • intellectual capacity and creativity:.
  • - possesses long experience of supervising students and directing research.
  • has set up collaborations with other leading experts to assure that the absolute
  • highest lever of expertise

Research project

- Methodology:

Is the proposed research methodology (including when pertinent the use of instrumentation, other type of infrastructures etc.) comprehensive and appropriate to the project?

- Will it enable the goals of the project convincingly to be achieved within the timescales and resources proposed and the level of risk associated with a challenging research project?

- High-gain/High-risk balance:

  • oes the proposed research involve highly novel and/or unconventional methodologies, whose high risk is justified by the possibility of a major breakthrough with an impact beyond a specific research omain/discipline?
recommandations adg1 section 1 synopsis
Precise and attractive description of the project

Not a simple summary of Section 2 - This synopsis is the only scientific part evaluated at the first stage

« Lack of details makes it hard to judge; somewhat superficial »

« The plan itself is quite schematic »

« … there is no indication for innovation, originality or even to how interesting the outcome would be. »

« … it lacks originality, as the research to be performed is absolutely standard… »

« However the precise mechanism remain unclear. »

« … a bit routine… »

Recommandations - AdG1Section 1 - Synopsis
recommandations adg1 section 2
Description of the scientific project

State of the art, methodology,timetable, innovation, Benefits/Risks

« The project is an extension to the research current performed in the lab »

« … there is no indication for innovation, originality or even to how interesting the outcome would be. »

« … which is not described in detail in the application »

« Methods to be developed are ones have been described by others (…) and should perhaps have been tested before the submission of the grant. »

« The chance that this relatively simple approach to organ growth in…seems remote, but it might be worth trying. »

Recommandations - AdG1Section 2
research environment
  • Does the host environment provide most of the infrastructure

necessary for the research to be carried out?

  • Is it in a position to provide an appropriate intellectual environment

and infrastructural support and to assist in achieving the ambitions

for the project and the Principal Investigator?

Research environment

The best conditions to ensure the completion of the project

(Host institution)

« Scientific environment of the institution not well explained »

« It is not quite clear how strong the group is in … »

Recommandations - AdG1Section 3

3rd call for applicationss ERC-2010- AdG


Physical Sciences and Engineering (PE) : February 24, 2010

Life Sciences (LS) : March 17, 2010

Social Sciences and Humanities : April 7, 2010

Ongoing call for

Advanced investigators


Assessment of the Strategyby AERES (September 2008)

3 Core recommendations

1 :France needs to boldly streamline and unify the management system in Life Sciences and Health research

2 : Create a single National Institute for Life and Health Sciences Research

3 : Reevaluate the status, compensation, and career pathways of the French Life Sciences and Health scientists

=> Period of transition needed for implementation


Aviesan: the French Alliance

for Life and Health Sciences

  • Created in April 2009
  • To optimise scientific foresight and put forward scientific programming to Funding Agencies
  • To facilitate the development of top-level clusters and research centers
  • To promote national projects and to set up national core facilities

Membership :

CNRS, CEA, Inra, Inria, IRD, Pasteur Institute, French University and French CHU Associations


Research Unitslocated within Universities and CHU

Aviesan:10 Thematic Institutes (ITMO)



Respiratory diseases

Genetics, Genomics



Cognitive Sciences



Cell Biology





Molecular and Structural Biology









les derniers laur ats fran ais 2 me appel
Les derniers Lauréats français2ème appel

Renata BASTO (Paris) - Liens entre centrosomes, cellules souches et cancer - LS3

Rosa COSSART(Marseille) - Développement des réseaux GABAergiques corticaux - LS5

Gaël CRISTOFARI(Nice) - Mécanismes de larétrotransposition chez l’hommme et conséquences sur la plasticité génomique et cancers - LS1

Jérôme DEJARDIN(Montpellier) - Rôle des enzymes de l’hétérochromatine sur la biologie des télomères - LS2

Christelle DESNUES (Marseille) - Métagénomique des pathologies humaines d’étiologie inconnue - LS7

Sylvain GANDON (Montpellier) - Epidémiologie évolutive des maladies infectieuses - LS8

Mathieu JORON (Paris)- Sélection naturelle et évolution moléculaire des supergènes contrôlant le mimétisme - LS8

Bruno KLAHOLZ(Strasbourg) - Etude intégrative de structure et fonction de la machinerie bactérienne et humaine de la synthèse des protéines - LS1



Les derniers Lauréats français2ème appel

Ana-Maria LENNON-DUMENIL(Paris) - Régulation spatio-temporale de la présentation antigénique et migration cellulaire - LS6

Olivier LOUDET (Versailles) - Décoder la complexité génétique de la variation quantitative chez Arabidopsis - LS2

Sebastiaan LUYSSAERT (Paris) - Est-ce que la forêt refroidit la terre - LS9

Antonin MORILLON (Gif S/Yvette) - ARNs non-codants et épigénétique: régulation de l’expression et de la stabilité des génomes - LS2

Maria Carla SALEH (Paris) - Interférence par l’ARN et immunté virale chez les insectes - LS6

German SUMBRE(Paris) - Perception sensorielle: représentation neuronale et modulation chez l’alevin du poisson Zèbre - LS5

Marco VIGNUZZI (Paris) - Diversité génétique des virus à ARN: virulence, atténuation et approches vaccinales - LS6