The IDEAS Work Programme ****************************************************************************************** * The IDEAS Work Programme ****************************************************************************************** EUROPEAN RESEARCH COUNCIL WORK PROGRAMME 2008 ERC Work Programme agreed by the ERC Scientific Council and transmitted to the Commission 8 November 2007 This Work programme will be implemented by the Dedicated Implementation Structure of the ERC which the Commission intends to establish in the legal form of an Executive Agency. (European Commission C(2007)5746 of 29 November 2007) Page 2 of 26 Table of Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................. 3 2. ERC Grants ................................................................................... 4 3. ERC Advanced Investigator Grants........................................................................... 5 3.1 Background ............................................................................... 5 3.2 Objectives of the scheme.................................................................................... 3.3 Size of ERC Advanced Grants ................................................................................... 3.4 Profile of the ERC Advanced Grant Applicant........................................... 3.5 Submission procedure and peer review evaluation ...................................... 3.6 Reapplications and multiple applications................................................................. 12 3.7 Eligibility Criteria ................................................................................. 3.8 Evaluation criteria ................................................................................. 3.9 Application of Criteria ................................................................................. 4. Coordination & Support Actions (CSA) .................................................. 15 4.1 ERC support via open calls .................................................................................... 4.2 CSA to Named beneficiaries ............................................................................ 4.3 CSA Eligibility Criteria.................................................................................. 4.4 CSA Evaluation Criteria.................................................................................. 4.5 Application of CSA Evaluation Criteria .................................................................. 19 5. Indicative budget for the revised ERC Work Programme .................................. Annex 1 Advanced Investigators Grant Call Information .................................... Annex 2 CSA Call Information............................................................................... Annex 3 Panel structure and description .................................................. 25 Page 3 of 26 1. Introduction The European Research Council (ERC) has a unique position in European research funding to support the best science and scholarship. It is operating at the highest level of ambition generate the maximum benefit to European research from the activities it pursues. The ERC will not be hostage to the conventional wisdom; instead, it will take the best practice wh it can be found. The fundamental principle for all ERC activities is that of stimulating investigator-initi frontier research across all fields of research, on the basis of excellence. Awards will b and grants operated according to simple procedures that maintain the focus on excellence, encourage initiative and combine flexibility with accountability. By using competition on the basis of excellence at the European level, the ERC aims to add value to other funding schemes, such as those of Research Funding Agencies operating at th national level. The ERC also complements other research activities under the 7th framework programme managed by the European Commission, including the Marie Curie schemes, strategic basic research in support of thematic priorities, and support for European infrastructures. The ERC aims to create leverage towards structural improvements in the research system of Europe. For example, since many investigators who will be involved in the funded activitie are likely to be working within universities, academies, research centres and similar establishments, the ERC can have a strong incentive effect on these institutions by: • Offering greater independence to early stage (starting) investigators as an investment i the next generation and towards enhancement and sustainability of the institutions’ research capacity. • Setting quality benchmarks, allowing institutions better to judge their research performance. • Revealing in a bottom up manner the availability of top talent in various fields and emerging areas, and thus assisting the institutions’ strategic thinking and priority setting. • Promoting interaction of European research institutions with similar institutions around the world on the basis of the participation of individual researchers from these institutions in ERC activities. The Scientific Council of the ERC establishes the ERC's strategy. It has full authority ov decisions on the type of research to be funded and acts as guarantor of the quality of the activity from the scientific perspective. Its tasks cover, in particular, the development annual work programme, the establishment of the peer review structure and process, as well as the monitoring and quality control of the programme’s implementation from the scientifi perspective including the development of the ERC's strategy regarding international cooperation. Page 4 of 26 2. ERC Grants Two types of ERC grant are available at present. These two funding streams, operating on a “bottom-up” basis, across all research fields, without predetermined priorities, are expec be the core of the ERC’s operations for the duration of the 7th Framework Programme. • The ERC Starting Independent Researcher Grants (ERC Starting Grants). The objective is to provide adequate support to the independent careers of excellent researchers, whatever their nationality, located in or moving to the Member States and associated countries, who are at the stage of starting or consolidating their own independent research team or, depending on the field, establishing their independent research programme. • The ERC Advanced Investigator Grants (ERC Advanced Grants). The objective is to encourage and support excellent, innovative investigator-initiated research projects by leading advanced investigators across the Member States and associated countries. This funding stream will complement the Starting Grant scheme by targeting the population of researchers who have already established themselves as being independent research leaders in their own right. The Grants will support projects carried out by individual teams which are headed by a sin principal investigator (P.I.) of any nationality and, if necessary, include additional tea These teams could be of national or trans-national character. With the focus on the Principal Investigator, the concept of individual team is fundamentally different from tha traditional “network” or “research consortium”; proposals of the latter type will not be acceptable. To encourage interdisciplinarity, as an exception, when an interdisciplinary proposal is grounded in the necessary combination of knowledge and skills from more than one disciplin ("co-investigator project"), a Principal Investigator (PI) may identify members of his/her individual team, who are active in these disciplines, as co-Investigators. The contributio Principal Investigators and co-investigators must be carried out in the EU or associated countries. In order to appropriately cover the disciplines, the evaluation panel (see belo may, if necessary, invite one or more members of a complementary panel to contribute to th evaluation of the proposal. The evaluation panel will carefully assess the scientific adde value of any co-investigator to the project; in particular the participation of any additi legal entity will only be permitted if it is clearly necessary from the scientific perspec Each Grant will be awarded to the institution (Applicant Legal Entity) that will be engagi and hosting the Principal Investigator, with the attached commitment that this institution will offer him/her appropriate conditions independently to direct the research and manage its funding for the duration of the project. These conditions, including provisions related to the "portability" of the project, will be the subject of an agreement between t principal investigator and the host institution (supplementary to the ERC Grant Agreement) and they are described in the ERC Model Grant Agreement (C (2007)1625, 16/04/2007). It is a condition for all ERC funding that the host institution commits to the following conditions of independence for the P.I.: Page 5 of 26 • apply for funding independently • manage the research and the funding for the project and make appropriate resource allocation decisions • publish independently as senior author and invite as co-authors only those who have contributed substantially to the reported work • supervise team members, including research students or others • have access to reasonable space and facilities for conducting the research Any type of legal entity, including universities, research centres and undertakings can ho Principal Investigator and his/her team as long as the principles indicated above are resp and the Principal Investigator and his/her activity are not constrained by the research st of the enterprise. As experience and the portfolio of funded projects builds up, the Scientific Council will a position to evaluate the programme achievements, adjust mechanisms and procedures as needed, and elaborate its scientific strategy as this is seen to be appropriate. This update of the Work Programme introduces the ERC Advanced Investigator Grant scheme (ERC Advanced Grant). The ERC Scientific Council has incorporated some new elements in the evaluation process. These are based on the experience gained from the firs ERC Starting Grant Call and aim to assure high quality evaluation even in case of heavy oversubscription to the Call. 3. ERC Advanced Investigator Grants 3.1 Background ERC Advanced Grants provide an opportunity to established scientists and scholars to pursu frontier research of their choice. Being highly competitive and awarded on the sole criter of excellence without restriction to particular areas of research, these grants will suppo very best of European research, adding value to research investments at the national level Advanced Grants are intended to promote substantial advances in the frontiers of knowledge and to encourage new productive lines of enquiry and new methods and techniques, including unconventional approaches and investigations at the interface between established discipli The peer review evaluation of proposals will therefore give emphasis to these aspects, in understanding that such research has a high-gain/high-risk profile, i.e. if successful the payoffs will be very significant, but there is a higher-than-normal risk that the research does not entirely fulfil its aims. Page 6 of 26 3.2 Objectives of the scheme The aim is to fund individual teams1 led by established, innovative and active Principal Investigators, regardless of nationality, age or current location. They will include, for example, leading contributors to research advances in Europe, leading scientists of the European "Diaspora" or non-EU nationals who wish to establish themselves in Europe and pursue ground-breaking, high-risk research that opens new directions in their respective research fields or other domains. Applicants must have a track record of research achievements and recognised as such. Assessment of their scientific leadership profile and track record, therefore, will be a significant component of the evaluation. Research proposals of a multi- and inter-discipli nature are strongly encouraged. The ERC Advanced Researcher Grant (ERC Advanced Grant) scheme intends to support research projects to be performed in any Member State or associated country to the Framework Programme. During the period of the 7th Framework Programme, this scheme is expected to become the largest funding activity of the ERC. 3.3 Size of ERC Advanced Grants Depending on the subject, the level of these grants may be up to EUR 3 500 000 for a perio of 5 years2 (pro rata for projects of shorter duration). Normally, however, grants will be limited to a maximum of EUR 2 500 000 unless the application involves specific features requiring a higher level of support: "co-investigator project" (see section 2); a proposal requires the purchase of major research equipment, or the Principal Investigator is coming from a third country to establish a research team and activity at a host institution in a state or associated country. In all cases, the evaluation panels will review the requested and, as appropriate, suggest adjustments using rounded figures. The Community financial contribution shall be in the form of a grant to the budget corresponding to 100% of the total eligible and approved direct costs and a contribution o 20% of the total eligible direct costs (excluding sub-contracting) towards indirect costs. The level of the grant offered will be determined by the peer review evaluation, on the ba of the needs of the project, judged by the panel (see Annex 4 for panel structure and descriptions) against the requested grant to the budget3. 1 It is recognised that in certain fields (e.g. in the humanities and mathematics), resear performed individually, aside from guiding research students. The term “team” is used in the broades including cases where a single individual works independently or conversely in cases when several in working so closely together as to constitute a single team. 2 The level of the grant represents a maximum overall figure – payments must be justified the amounts actually disbursed for the project. 3 The requested grant should reflect the Principal Investigator's estimation of the real p taking account of the nature of the project and team and whether it is intended to set up a new t support to an established team. Evaluation panels will review the requested grant and, as appropriate, s adjustments using rounded figures (increments of EUR 10 000). Page 7 of 26 3.4 Profile of the ERC Advanced Grant Applicant Applicants for the prestigious ERC Advanced Grant are expected to be active researchers an to have a track-record of significant research achievements in the last 10 years which mus presented in the application. There is little prospect of an application succeeding in the absence of such a record, which identifies investigators as exceptional leaders in terms o originality and significance of their research contributions. Thus, in most fields, Principal Investigators of Advanced Grant proposals will be expected demonstrate a record of achievements appropriate to the field and at least matching one or more of the following benchmarks: • Normally 10 publications as senior author (or in those fields where alphabetic order of authorship is the norm, joint author) in major international peer-reviewed multidisciplinary scientific journals, and/or in the leading international peer-reviewed journals of their respective field. • Normally 3 major research monographs, of which at least one is translated into another language. This benchmark is relevant to research fields where publication of monographs is the norm (e.g. humanities and social sciences). Other alternative benchmarks that may be considered (individually or in combination) as indicative of an exceptional record and recognition in the last 10 years: • Normally 5 granted patents • Normally 10 invited presentations in well-established internationally organised conferences and advanced schools • Normally 3 research expeditions led by the applicant • Normally 3 well-established international conferences or congresses where the applicant was involved in their organisation as a member of the steering and/or organising committee • International recognition through scientific prizes/awards or membership in wellregarded Academies 3.5 Submission procedure and peer review evaluation 3.5.1 Proposal Submission Proposals are submitted by the Principal Investigator (PI), who has scientific responsibil the project, on behalf of the host institution which is the "applicant legal entity"4. The proposal contains the following separate elements: 4 Exceptionally, the Principal Investigator may himself/herself act as the "applicant lega she is acting in the capacity of the legal entity in his/her own right. Page 8 of 26 Section 1 Scientific leadership profile: A description of the applicant's scientific leadership prof should include: • a "self-evaluation" of research career achievements demonstrating the applicant's capacity to go significantly beyond the state of the art; • a presentation of the content and impact of the major scientific or scholarly contributions of the applicant to his or her own research field and/or neighbouring research fields and, if applicable, their wider societal impact; • the international recognition and diffusion that these major contributions have received from others (publications, citations or appropriate equivalents/additional funding/ students/international prizes and awards/ institution-building/other); • evidence of efforts and ability to inspire younger researchers towards high quality research (highlights of research mentoring record, information on the careers of supervised graduate and post-doctoral students, etc.); • where applicable: proven ability to productively change research fields and/or to establish new interdisciplinary approaches; Curriculum Vitae: In addition to the standard academic and research record, the CV should include a succinct "funding ID" which must specify any current research grants and their subject, and any ongoing application for work related to the proposal. 10-year track-record: The applicant should list his/her activity over the past 10 years (d from the deadline of the call) as regards: 1. The top 10 publications, as senior author (or in those fields where alphabetic order of authorship is the norm, joint author) in major international peer-reviewed multi-disciplinary scientific journals and/or in the leading international peer-reviewed journals of their respective research fields, also indicating the number of citations (excluding auto-citations) they have attracted. 2. Research monographs and any translations thereof (if applicable). 3. Granted patents (if applicable). 4. Invited presentations to peer-reviewed, internationally established conferences and/or international advanced schools (if applicable) 5. Research expeditions that the applicant has led (if applicable). 6. Organisation of International conferences in the field of the applicant (membership in the steering and/or organising committee) (if applicable) 7. International Prizes/Awards/Academy memberships (if applicable) Page 9 of 26 The applicant will be asked to introduce a summary of the data above as well as a short summary of his/her scientific leadership profile using an electronic template that will be provided. Co-investigator(s): In exceptional cases (“co-investigator projects”) the scientific leade profile, the CV and the 10-year track-record should also be produced for each designated c Extended Synopsis: concise presentation of the scientific proposal, with particular attent to the ground-breaking nature of the research. Section 2: Scientific Proposal: description of scientific and technical aspects of the project, demonstrating the ground-breaking nature of the research, its potential impact and researc methodology. Section 3: Research Environment: description of the research environment and its contribution to the research project/activity. The host institution must confirm its association with and its support to the project and Principal Investigator; the institution must provide a binding statement that the conditio independence are already fulfilled or will be provided to the Principal Investigator if th application is successful5, using the template that will be provided. Proposals that do no include this statement will not be considered for evaluation. In fairness to all applicants, strict limits will be applied to the length of proposals wh respect the indicated page limitations: Section 16 Scientific leadership profile: 2 pages Curriculum Vitae: 2 pages 10-year track-record: 2 pages Extended Synopsis: 5 pages Section 2 Scientific Proposal: 15 pages Section 3 Research Environment: 2 pages Only the material that is presented within these limits will be evaluated. 5 ERC Model Grant Agreement (C (2007)1625, 16/04/2007). 6 In the case of the “co-investigator projects”, the scientific leadership profile, the CV trackrecord should also be produced for each designated co-investigator, focusing on research achievem publications. The maximum is set to 6 pages per co-investigator. Page 10 of 26 Proposal submissions will be done electronically via the Electronic Proposal Submission System (EPSS). Pre-registration of the proposals is strongly recommended and should be done as early as possible in advance of the call deadline. 3.5.2 Peer review evaluation A single submission of the full proposal will be followed by a two-step evaluation. The evaluation will be conducted by means of a structure of high level peer review panels as l in Annex 37. The Panels may be assisted by referees. The applicant must submit the proposal to a primary evaluation panel before the submission deadline of this panel. The proposal will be allocated to this panel. In case that the app has indicated a secondary evaluation panel, the primary panel will determine whether the proposal is indeed cross-panel or cross-domain interdisciplinary and may request additiona reviews by appropriate members of other panel(s) or additional referees who act as reserve evaluators. If the primary panel decides that the proposal is well within the panel's scop it will only be evaluated by this panel. Call budget: The ERC Scientific Council has established the following indicative percentage budgets8 fo each of the 3 main research domains: Physical Sciences & Engineering: 39% Life Sciences: 34% Social Sciences & Humanities: 14% and an Interdisciplinary9 domain with an indicative budget of 13%. Step 1: Following the submission of the proposal, Section 1 will be assessed and marked. If necessary, and in order to assure the quality of the evaluation in the case of heavy ov to the call, the evaluation panels may identify the less competitive applications which do not reach the minimum quality threshold(s) by assessing the proposals on the basi of the Principal Investigator's 10-year track-record (requested summary), the summary of the Scientific Leadership Profile and the project’s Extended Synopsis. With the agreement of the individual reviewers to whom the proposals have been allocated, these proposals wil not be further evaluated and will be rejected, allowing the panel focus on thorough evalua of the retained proposals. At the end of this evaluation of step 1, the panel will rank the proposals according to th marks. 7 Panel members will be compensated on the evaluation tasks they perform. Additional reimb travel and subsistence will be made for assignments involving travel. Referees who may assist the panels will not be compensated. 8 In the case of the ERC, indicative budgets may permit a variation of the budget for each maximum of 10% of the total budget for the call; however for this call the budget proportions allo in the three main research domains will be no lower than the percentages indicated 9 Including cross-panel and/or cross-domain research projects and research with the potent fields Page 11 of 26 In addition, an indicative budget will be allocated to each panel, in proportion to the budgetary demand of its assigned proposals. This indicative budget is calculated as the cumulative grant request of all proposals to the panel divided by the cumulative grant req of all proposals to the domain of the call, multiplied by the total indicative budget of t domain. Each panel will determine its budgetary cut-off level as a multiple of its indicative budg The budgetary cut-off level should be at least 3 times the panel's indicative budget. Proposals with a mark passing the quality thresholds and which lie above the budgetary cut level will be retained and pass to step 2 of evaluation (all proposals with identical mark the cut off level will pass through to the second step of evaluation). Those proposals failing to reach the quality threshold on any of the evaluation criteria o ranked below the budgetary cut-off described above will be rejected. Step 2: The complete version of the retained proposals will be assessed and ranked by the panels during step 2 of the evaluation. Interdisciplinary proposals within a domain or across dom will be flagged as such, and the panel may request additional reviews by appropriate membe of other panel(s) or additional referees who act as reserve evaluators. Following the conclusion of the panel evaluations the following additional steps will be t with the participation of the peer review evaluation panel chairs: Step 2a: Acting in concert, the peer review evaluation panel chairs of each research domai or their deputies, representing their panels, will prepare a consolidated ranked list for domain's proposals which are above the quality threshold and can be funded in order of priority from the respective domain budgets10. Step 2b: Acting in concert across the 3 main research domains, taking account of the forwa looking and innovative nature of the programme, all the peer review evaluation panel chair or their deputies will bring forth and specifically discuss, from an interdisciplinary perspective, the scientific added value of proposals above the quality threshold which are interdisciplinary nature. In order to establish the ranked list of the Interdisciplinary R domain, all peer review evaluation panel chairs will further assess these proposals on the of the second evaluation criterion (Research project). Any funds still available in any of the 4 domains, after exhausting the list of proposals the quality threshold, will be distributed to the other 3 domains according to the initial budget breakdown. Finally, a number of proposals (over the quality threshold) in the 4 domain lists may also kept in reserve to allow for eventualities such as the failure of negotiations on projects withdrawal of proposals, budget savings agreed during negotiation, or the availability of 10 In accordance with the ERC rules for the Submission of Proposals and the related evalua and award procedures relevant to the Ideas Specific Programme Page 12 of 26 additional budget from other sources. Additional funds will also be distributed according the initial call budget breakdown. Based on the information that the peer review evaluation panel chairs will provide, the ER Scientific Council will act as the guarantor of the quality of the activity from a scienti perspective and ensure that the establishment of the 4 domain lists are in accordance with Advanced Grant scientific strategy and priorities it has established in the Work Programme Information on the first ERC Advanced Grant Call for Proposals is provided in Annex 1. The proposed research activities shall respect fundamental ethical principles11. 3.6 Reapplications and multiple applications Rules will apply to reapplications by Principal Investigators for ERC grants whose proposa are not judged to meet the threshold of quality, as well as for multiple applications with same or different type of ERC grants. These rules, which may subsequently be modified by the Scientific Council in light of experience, are as follows: • No principal investigator or co-investigator may be associated with more than one proposal for an ERC-Advanced Grant to either of the first two Advanced Grant calls (ERC-2008-AdG or ERC-2009-AdG). • A Principal Investigator or a co-investigator associated with a proposal for an ERCAdvan Grant to either of the first two Advanced Grant calls (ERC-2008-AdG or ERC-2009-AdG) may not apply for the third ERC-Advanced Grant call (ERC-2010- AdG, expected in 2010) unless the proposal to the first or second call has met the quality threshold on both evaluation criteria - Principal Investigator, Research Project - at the end of step 1 of evaluation (see section 3.9). • A principal investigator or co-investigator who has submitted a proposal for an ERCAdvan Grant in either of the first two Advanced Grant calls may not apply for an ERC Starting Grant during the same period (2008-2009) • Only one ERC grant managed by a Principal Investigator can be active at any time. 3.7 Eligibility Criteria Incomplete proposals (missing parts, forms, and the host institution's commitment statemen are considered ineligible and will not be evaluated12. Eligible Scientific Fields Applications may be made in any field of research13. 11 In accordance with article 3 of the Ideas SP and including those fundamental ethical pr reflected in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The opinions of the European Group on Science and New Technologies are and will be taken into account. Research activities shoul account the Protocol on the Protection and Welfare of Animals, and reduce the use of anima and testing, with a view to ultimately replacing animal use. 12 See also "eligibility check" in ERC rules for the submission of proposals and the relat selection and award procedures relevant to the Ideas Specific Programme Page 13 of 26 Funding of human embryonic stem cell research will be possible within the ethical framewor defined in the EC 7th Framework Programme14 as well as the "Ideas" Specific Programme. Eligible Principal Investigator The ERC actions are open to researchers of any nationality who would like to establish the research activity in any Member State as well as any associated Country. The Principal Investigator can be of any age and nationality and he/she can reside in any country in the world at the time of the application Eligible Host Institution (Applicant Legal Entity) This institution will host and engage the Principal Investigator for at least the duration grant. It must be situated in one of the Member States, or one of the associated countries may also be an International European Interest Organisation (such as CERN, EMBL, etc.) or the European Commission's Joint Research Centre. Normally, the applicant legal entity will be the only participating legal entity. Other legal entities, including those located in t countries, may however be involved and receive funding to support the work of additional team members, if so specified in the grant award or subsequent amendments to the original grant. 3.8 Evaluation criteria Excellence is the sole criterion of evaluation. It will be applied to the evaluation of bo Principal Investigator and the research project. The evaluation will also assess the exten which the research environment enables the excellence of the project to be achieved. The detailed elements applying to the 3 sections of the proposal are as follows: 1. Principal Investigator15 Quality of research output/track-record: How well qualified is the Principal Investigator (and any co-Investigator if applicable) to conduct the project (reviewers are expected to evaluate the quality of the prior work such as published results in top peer review journa well as other elements of the Principal Investigator’s CV). To what extent are the publications and achievements of the Principal Investigator groundb 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 Principal Investigator has attracted during the last ten years demonstrate his/her reputat as a performer of ground-breaking research? 13 Research proposals within the scope of Annex I of the EURATOM Treaty, namely those dire nuclear energy applications, should be submitted to relevant calls under the EURATOM 7th F Programme. 14 In accordance with Commission statement, OJ L 412 of 30.12.2006, p. 42., proposals whic research activities which destroy human embryos, including for the procurement of stem cel submitted to the Regulatory Committee. The exclusion of funding of this step of research w funding of subsequent steps involving human embryonic stem cells. 15 Evaluation panel members should also take into consideration the benchmarks set in sect proposal's elements such as the "Scientific leadership profile" in section 3.5 Page 14 of 26 Intellectual capacity and creativity: To what extent does the Principal Investigator's rec 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? 2. Research project Ground-breaking nature of the research: Does the proposed research address important challenges at the frontiers of the field(s) addressed? Does it have suitably ambitious objectives, which go substantially beyond the current state of the art (e.g. including int 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 (including the host institution)? Methodology: a) is the outlined scientific approach (including the activities to be undertaken by the individual team members) feasible?(step 1) b) 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? (step 2) High-gain/High-risk balance: a) does 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 domain/discipline? 3. Research Environment (to be assessed only during step 2 of the evaluation) Contribution of the research environment to the project: Does the host environment16 provide most of the infrastructure necessary for the research to be carried out? Is it in position to provide an appropriate intellectual environment and infrastructural support an to assist in achieving the ambitions for the project and the Principal Investigator? Participation of other legal entities17: If it is proposed that other legal entities parti the project, in addition to the applicant legal entity, is their participation fully justi scientific added value they bring to the project? 16 The term "research environment" corresponds to the immediate setting of the research te Department (rather than the sponsoring institution as a whole), and when appropriate, the the team's operation, including collaborating laboratories, groups, departments etc. 17 As the AdG scheme is addressed to individual investigators, usually the participation o legal entity will not improve the chances of success. Participation of investigator(s) from anot would be acceptable if they clearly and substantially enhance the scientific value of the proposal. Page 15 of 26 3.9 Application of Criteria Panels and referees will evaluate and mark numerically the proposals under the criteria of Heading 1: Potential of the Principal Investigator and Heading 2: Quality of the proposed research project. The proposals will be evaluated under Heading 3 on a "pass/fail" basis a commented but not marked during step 2 of the evaluation. The evaluation panels will revie the level of the requested grant and, as appropriate, suggest adjustments. Each proposal will receive a mark on a scale of 1 to 4 for each of the 2 evaluation criter (Heading 1 and 2): 4: Outstanding 3: Excellent 2: Very Good 1: Non-fundable A quality threshold of ?2 will be applied on these evaluation criteria used to establish t "retained list" of proposals which will be ranked in order of priority for funding. If a p is marked below the quality threshold on any of the 2 evaluation criteria, it will not be evaluated and will be rejected. At the end of each evaluation step, the proposals will be ranked by the panels on the basi the marks they have received and an overall appreciation of their strengths and weaknesses If a panel decides, during step 1 of the evaluation and in case of over-subscription, to f the assessment procedure described in section 3.5.2, proposals submitted by less competiti Principal Investigators will be immediately rejected. 4. Coordination & Support Actions (CSA) 4.1 ERC support via open calls Background The ERC is a new, ambitious and autonomous entity which aims to establish itself as a "world-leading institution for science funding". Expectations about what it can and will achieve are very high. It will therefore be necessary for the ERC to develop methods to as progress towards its objectives. The Scientific Council has, inter alia, the role of overseeing and ensuring quality contro ERC operations. The establishment of an appropriate monitoring, assessment and evaluation framework will provide the Scientific Council with relevant information to ensure longer-t objectivity in their decision-making relating to ERC activities. In the preparation of a monitoring and assessment strategy, the Scientific Council intends develop a broad ranging understanding of quality standards and contributing topics and methodologies for assessing the qualitative and quantitative impacts of the ERC activities can draw on good practice and experience from Member States' evaluation activities of Page 16 of 26 national research systems, international research institutions' activities, as well as oth existing studies18. Through the Ideas Specific Programme, the ERC has the opportunity to conduct its own strategic studies to prepare for and support its operational activities. The Scientific Co proposes to support independent exploratory work to analyse the impact of the ERC, analyse the functioning and performance of the ERC and to assist in the development of a strategy the monitoring and assessment of ERC activities. This will be done by using the funding scheme "Co-ordination and Support Actions" (CSAs), which gives financial support aimed at co-ordinating or support research activities and policies. These actions may be implemente by calls for proposals, calls for tender (public procurement), appointment of independent experts and identified beneficiaries. The Co-ordination and Support Actions will be subject to the standard procedures (grant agreement and financial implications regarding reimbursement of direct and indirect costs) such actions in FP7. Objectives A monitoring and assessment strategy for the ERC should: ? assist in future strategy development, ? provide for ongoing improvement/ refinement of the operations and quality assurance, ? contribute to ex-post evaluation (e.g. at mid-term and prior to the next funding round). This strategy will be developed in liaison with other programmes of FP7, both to draw experience from the latter and to meet, in a co-ordinated way, the Commission's obligation for programme monitoring and evaluation, as well as the specific evaluation requirements established in the legislation for the ERC (including the mid term review of structures an mechanisms). The work foreseen will assist the ERC in engaging in creative and exploratory thinking, fr a broad and diverse set of perspectives, to arrive at a mature and well-considered positio this important set of issues and to establish data collection, and monitoring and assessme tools both to assure inputs to longitudinal studies from the outset and to assist in the p of "learning by doing". The outcome will be the establishment of an appropriate monitoring assessment and evaluation framework, providing the Scientific Council with relevant information to ensure longer-term quality of decision-making. Types of activities The ERC will provide financial support for establishing a first set of projects, studies, and associated initiatives for the monitoring, assessment and evaluation of the ERC Activi i. Development of a portfolio of projects to understand the impact of the ERC based on exploratory, state-of the art, scholarly work on broadly defined topic areas and questions Projects would be sought by means of a Call for Proposals for CSA (support) and focus on: ? Exploratory and preparatory studies addressing the possible impacts of the ERC on the functioning and quality of the research environment in Europe, 18 for example: Frontier Research: The European Challenge, High-Level Expert Group Report, EUR 21619, European Commission Page 17 of 26 including on policy and research culture in European research, as well as addressing future developments of the ERC in a global context and relevant indicators; ? Exploring novel and innovative methodologies and preliminary data collection for longitudinal assessment and evaluation of the direct and indirect impacts of the ERC. Indicative budget for CSA call for proposals: EUR 2 500 000 for 2008. ii. Preparation for robust longer term monitoring and evaluation by building up sufficient evidence to enable an evaluation of the functioning, performance and processes of the ERC. The following studies and services would be sought by a Call for Tender: ? Commencement of data collection to provide the basis for the effective longitudinal monitoring and assessment of the implementation of the IDEAS programme and performance evaluation of the ERC operations in the global context; The procurement procedure will be launched during the first half of 2008. It is expected t 1-2 grants (service contracts) will be awarded to successful applicants who will collect a analyse data. Note that the activities proposed above are complementary to the statistical data that wil available for analysis following the calls. Indicative budget for CSA call for tenders: of EUR 500 000 for 2008. 4.2 CSA to Named beneficiaries It is foreseen that CSAs (Support Action)19 will be used to provide support and assistance the Chair and vice-Chairs of the Scientific Council, hosted by Imperial College of Science Technology and Medicine (London, UK) [up to EUR 200 000], Vienna Science and Technology Fund (Vienna, AT) [up to EUR 50 000] and Commissariat ? l'énergie atomique (Paris, FR) [up to EUR 50 000], to have dedicated local support for their tasks of prepari the plenary and other meetings of the Scientific Council, or tasks related to the process developing and projecting its policies and activities in interaction with the scientific community and other stakeholders20. The principal activities will be: • to support and assist the Chair in his diverse responsibilities including the preparatio of meetings, the efficient and effective functioning of the ScC, its integrated operation together with the ERC's dedicated implementation structure and effective interfacing 19 In conformity with the provisions of the Specific Programme “Ideas” (annex 1) and in co Article 14(a) of the Rules of Participation and Article 168 of the Implementing Rules of the Finan 20 Activities funded under this CSA must not overlap with the administrative support provi the Dedicated Implementation Structure to the chair and vice-chairs of the ERC Scientific Coun support that is foreseen in the Commission Decision establishing the ERC (2007/134/EC, 02/ Page 18 of 26 with the scientific community, other funding agencies and the political institutions of the EU. • To support and assist the vice-Chairs to ensure their contributing to the efficient operation of the ScC, and the efficient and timely achievement of its objectives in preparing and managing ERC operations under FP7 The named institutions hosting the Chair and vice-Chairs would therefore be direct beneficiaries of up to EUR 300.000 CSAs (Support Action) in compliance with Article 14(a) of the Rules of Participation21. Indicative overall budget of EUR 300 000 for 2008. 4.3 CSA Eligibility Criteria Proposals for co-ordination and support actions must be focused on requirements specified the work programme and/or call for proposals. Co-ordination and support actions (Support) are open to legal entities situated in Member States, or associated countries. Applications from International European Interest Organisations (such as CERN, EMBL, etc.) or the European Commission's Joint Research Centre, and legal entities established in third countries are also eligible. Legal entitie established in third countries can receive funding if their participation is essential for out the action. The minimum participation is 1 independent legal entity (CSA-Support). 4.4 CSA Evaluation Criteria Proposals for Coordination and Support Actions (CSA) will be evaluated on the basis of the following criteria: 1. Objectives and impact (award): Are the objectives of the proposed project consistent with the requirements specified in t work programme and/or call for proposals? Will the project have a substantial impact in th context of the ERC strategic objectives? 2. Quality and effectiveness (award): Is the proposed methodology and work plan effective in reaching the goals of the project? Does it ensure the highest quality and/or utility of results? Does it, where appropriate, correspond to, or go beyond, best current practice? 21 Regulation 1906/2006/EC of 18 December 2006, concerning the rules for participation of research centres and universities in the European Community Seventh Framework Programme (2 Page 19 of 26 3. Resources (selection): Are the resources (personnel, experience, equipment, other) appropriate for the goals of t project? Will they be used effectively? Are they properly justified? 4.5 Application of CSA Evaluation Criteria Each evaluation criterion will be marked on a scale of 0 to 5 (with half-point resolution) an overall quality threshold of 80% will be used to establish the "retained list" of propo which will be ranked in order of priority for funding. Page 20 of 26 5. Indicative budget for the revised ERC Work Programme Call 2008* in EUR million ERC-2008-AdG 516.95 OTHER ACTIVITIES: CSA: ERC SUPPORT CFP CSA: ERC SUPPORT CFT CSA: NAMED BENEFICIARIES [2.50] [0.50] [0.30] EVALUATION COSTS [4.50] ESTIMATED TOTAL BUDGET ALLOCATION (rounded) [524.75] * Under the condition that the preliminary draft budget for 2008 is adopted by the budgetary authority without modifications by the budget authority Page 21 of 26 Annex 1 Advanced Investigators Grant Call Information Call Title: Call for proposals for ERC Advanced Investigators Grant Call identifier: ERC-2008-AdG Date of publication22: 30 November 2007 Electronic proposal submission deadlines23 (single submission of full proposal): 24 Call Closure Dates for proposals submitted to: Panels: PE1 - PE10 (Physical Sciences & Engineering), 28 February 2008, 17.00.00 (Brussels time) Panels: SH1 – SH6 (Social Sciences & Humanities), 18 March 2008, 17.00.00 (Brussels local Panels: LS1 – LS9 (Life Sciences), 22 April 2008, 17.00.00 (Brussels local time) Indicative budget: EUR 516 950 00025 from 2008 budget N.B.: The ERC Scientific Council has established the following indicative percentage budge of the 3 main research domains: Physical Sciences & Engineering: 39% Life Sciences: 34% Social Sciences & Humanities: 14% and an Interdisciplinary26 domain with an indicative budget of 13%. In the case of the ERC, indicative budgets may permit a variation of the budget for each d maximum of 10% of the total budget for the call; however for this call the budget proporti allocated to projects in the three main research domains will be no lower than the percent indicated Activity: European Research Council Advanced Grant Minimum number of participants: At least 1 independent legal entity established in one of Member States, or one of the associated countries (in the case of the participation of mor legal entity the participants are not obliged to establish a consortium agreement) Restrictions on participation: see eligibility criteria in the work programme Topics: Applications may be made in any field of research, other than those specifically e from the 7th framework programme Grant "Portability": applicants should be aware of the portability features of ERC grants described in the ERC model grant agreement (http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/calls-grantagreeme en.html) 22 The Director-General responsible for the call may publish it up to one month prior to o envisaged date of publication 23 At the time of the publication of the call, the Director-General responsible may delay up to two months 24 please consult Annex 3 of the "Ideas" Work Programme for the panel description 25 Under the condition that the preliminary draft budget for 2008 is adopted without modif budgetary authority 26 Including cross-panel and/or cross-domain research projects and research with the poten fields Page 22 of 26 Eligibility criteria27: Incomplete proposals (missing parts, forms, and the host institution's commitment statemen are considered ineligible and will not be evaluated28. Eligible Scientific Fields Applications may be made in any field of research29. Funding of human embryonic stem cell research will be possible within the ethical framewor in the EC 7th Framework Programme30 as well as the "Ideas" Specific Programme. Eligible Principal Investigator The ERC actions are open to researchers of any nationality who would like to establish the activity up in any Member State as well as any associated country. The Principal Investigator can be of any age and nationality and he/she can reside in any world at the time of the application. Eligible Host Institution (Applicant Legal Entity) This institution will host and engage the Principal Investigator for at least the duration must be situated in one of the Member States, or one of the associated countries. It may a International European Interest Organisation (such as CERN, EMBL, etc.) or the European Commission's Joint Research Centre. Normally, the applicant legal entity will be the only legal entity. Other legal entities, including those located in third countries, may howeve and receive funding to support the work of additional team members, if so specified in the or subsequent amendments to the original grant. Evaluation procedure: • The evaluation will take place in two steps following the single submission of a full proposal. • The evaluation is carried out through evaluation panels that may be assisted by referees • The allocation of the proposals to the various panels will be based on the expressed pre of the applicant. In case of interdisciplinary proposals the panel may request additional reviews by appropriate members of other panel(s) or additional referees who act as reserve evaluators. • Proposals may be evaluated remotely. • An indicative budget will be allocated to each panel, in proportion to the budgetary dem its assigned proposals. This indicative budget is calculated as the cumulative grant reque all proposals to the panel divided by the cumulative grant request of all proposals to the domain of the call, multiplied by the total indicative budget of the domain. 27 See also "eligibility check" in ERC rules for the submission of proposals and the relat selection and award procedures relevant to the Ideas Specific Programme 28 See also "eligibility check" in ERC rules for the submission of proposals and the relat selection and award procedures relevant to the Ideas Specific Programme 29 Research proposals within the scope of Annex I of the EURATOM Treaty, namely those dire nuclear energy applications should be submitted to relevant calls under the EURATOM 7th Fr Programme 30 In accordance with Commission statement, OJ L 412 of 30.12.2006, p. 42, proposals which research activities which destroy human embryos, including for the procurement of stem cel submitted to the Regulatory Committee. The exclusion of funding of this step of research w funding of subsequent steps involving human embryonic stem cells. Page 23 of 26 • Each panel will determine its budgetary cut-off level as a multiple of its indicative bu budgetary cut-off level should be at least 3 times the panel's indicative budget. Proposal a mark passing the quality threshold and which lie above the budgetary cut-off level will retained and pass to step 2 of evaluation (all proposals with identical marks at the cut o will pass through to the second step of evaluation). Those proposals failing to reach the threshold on any of the evaluation criteria or ranked below the budgetary cut-off describe above will be rejected. • The complete version of the retained proposals will be assessed and ranked by the panels during step 2 of the evaluation. Interdisciplinary proposals within a domain or across dom will be flagged as such, and the panel may request additional reviews by appropriate membe of other panel(s) or additional referees who act as reserve evaluators. • Following the conclusion of the panel evaluations the following additional steps will be with the participation of the evaluation peer review evaluation panel chairs: Step 2a: Acting in concert, the peer review evaluation panel chairs of each research domain or their deputies, representing their panels, will prepare a consolidated ranked list for the domain's proposals which are above the quality threshold and can be funded in order of priority from the respective domain budgets31. Step 2b: Acting in concert across the 3 main research domains, taking account of the forward looking and innovative nature of the programme, all the Evaluation peer review evaluation panel chairs or their deputies will bring forth and specifically discuss, from an interdisciplinary perspective, the scientific added value of proposals above the quality threshold which are of interdisciplinary nature. In order to establish the ranked list of the Interdisciplinary Research domain, all peer review evaluation panel chairs will further assess these proposals on the basis of the second evaluation criterion (Research project). Any funds still available in any of the 4 domains, after exhausting the list of proposals over the quality threshold, will be distributed to the other 3 domains according to the initial call budget breakdown. Finally, a number of proposals (over the quality threshold) in the 4 domain lists may also be kept in reserve to allow for eventualities such as the failure of negotiations on projects, the withdrawal of proposals, budget savings agreed during negotiation, or the availability of additional budget from other sources. Additional funds will also be distributed according to the initial call budget breakdown. Evaluation criteria: See the work programme for the applicable criteria Information on the modalities of the call and guidance to applicants on how to submit proj available on: http://erc.europa.eu, http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ideas/home_en.html 31 In accordance with the ERC rules for the Submission of Proposals and the related evalua and award procedures relevant to the Ideas Specific Programme Page 24 of 26 Annex 2 CSA Call Information Call Title: Call for proposals for ERC CSAs (Support Actions) Call identifier: ERC-2008-Support Date of publication32: 30 November 2007 Call deadline33: 06 March 2008, at 17.00.00 (Brussels local time) Indicative budget: EUR 2 500 000 34 from 2008 budget Activity: European Research Council Co-ordination and Support Actions Topics called: i. Development of a portfolio of projects to understand the impact of the ERC based on exp state-of the art, scholarly work on broadly defined topic areas and questions Minimum number of participants: At least 1 independent legal entity established in one of Member States, or one of the associated countries (in the case of the participation of mor legal entity the participants are not obliged to establish a consortium agreement) Restrictions on participation: see eligibility criteria in the Work Programme Topics: Applications must address topics specified in the work programme Eligibility criteria Proposals for co-ordination and support actions must be focused on requirements specified programme and/or call for proposals. Co-ordination and support actions (Support) are open to legal entities situated in Member associated countries. Applications from International European Interest Organisations (suc EMBL, etc.) or the European Commission's Joint Research Centre, and legal entities establi third countries are also eligible. Legal entities established in third countries can recei their participation is essential for carrying out the action. The minimum participation is 1 independent legal entity (CSA-Support). Evaluation procedure: • The evaluation is carried out through evaluation panels. • Proposals may be evaluated remotely. Evaluation criteria: See the work programme for the applicable criteria Information on the modalities of the call and guidance to applicants on how to submit proj available on: http://erc.europa.eu http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ideas/home_en.html 32 The Director-General responsible for the call may publish it up to one month prior to o envisaged date of publication 33 At the time of the publication of the call, the Director-General responsible may delay up to two months 34 Under the condition that the preliminary draft budget for 2008 is adopted without modif budgetary authority Page 25 of 26 Annex 3 Panel structure and description Physical Sciences & Engineering (28 February 2008, 17.00.00 Brussels local time) PE1 Mathematical foundations: all areas of mathematics, pure and applied, plus mathematica computer science, mathematical physics and statistics PE2 Fundamental constituents of matter: particle, nuclear, plasma, atomic, molecular, gas, physics PE3 Condensed matter physics: structure, electronic properties, fluids, nanosciences PE4 Physical and analytical chemical sciences: analytical chemistry, chemical theory, phys chemical physics PE5 Materials and synthesis: materials synthesis, structure-properties relations, function materials, molecular architecture, organic chemistry PE6 Computer science and informatics: informatics and information systems, computer scienc computing, intelligent systems PE7 Systems and communication engineering: electronic, communication, optical and systems PE8 Products and processes engineering: product design, process design and control, constr civil engineering, energy systems, material engineering PE9 Universe sciences: astro-physics/chemistry/biology; solar system; stellar, galactic an astronomy, planetary systems, cosmology, space science, instrumentation PE10 Earth system science: physical geography, geology, geophysics, meteorology, oceanogra ecology, global environmental change, biogeochemical cycles, natural resources management Social Sciences & Humanities (18 March 2008, 17.00.00 Brussels local time) SH1 Individuals, institutions and markets: economics, finance and management SH2 Institutions, values and beliefs and behaviour: sociology, social anthropology, politi communication, social studies of science and technology SH3 Environment and society: environmental studies, demography, social geography, urban an studies SH4 The Human Mind and its complexity: cognition, psychology, linguistics, philosophy and SH5 Cultures and cultural production: literature, visual and performing arts, music, cultu comparative studies SH6 The study of the human past: archaeology, history and memory Page 26 of 26 Life Sciences (22 April 2008, 17.00.00 Brussels local time) LS1 Molecular and Structural Biology and Biochemistry: molecular biology, biochemistry, bi structural biology, biochemistry of signal transduction LS2 Genetics, Genomics, Bioinformatics and Systems Biology: genetics, population genetics, genetics, genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics, bioinformatics, computational biology, biostatistics, biological simulation, systems biology, genetic epidemiology LS3 Cellular and Developmental Biology: cell biology, cell physiology, signal transduction developmental genetics, pattern formation in plants and animals LS4 Physiology, Pathophysiology and Endocrinology: organ physiology, pathophysiology, endo metabolism, ageing, regeneration, tumorigenesis, cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome LS5 Neurosciences and neural disorders: neurobiology, neuroanatomy, neurophysiology, neuro neuropharmacology, neuroimaging, systems neuroscience, neurological disorders, psychiatry LS6 Immunity and infection: immunobiology, aetiology of immune disorders, microbiology, vi parasitology, global and other infectious diseases, population dynamics of infectious diseases, veterinary medicine LS7 Diagnostic tools, therapies and public health: aetiology, diagnosis and treatment of d health, epidemiology, pharmacology, clinical medicine, regenerative medicine, medical ethics LS8 Evolutionary, population and environmental biology: evolution, ecology, animal behavio biology, biodiversity, biogeography, marine biology, ecotoxicology, prokaryotic biology LS9 Applied life sciences and biotechnology: agricultural, animal, fishery, forestry and f biotechnology, chemical biology, genetic engineering, synthetic biology, industrial biosciences; environmental biotechnolog remediation;