Programme Defining Workshop, Mainz 2005

The first ERA-Chemistry Programme Defining Workshop was held form 14-19 February 2005 at the Max Planck Institute in Mainz, Germany. The programme, the abstracts, a list of participants and more information on this workshop can be found at publications>WP3. In the summary report below, the outcome of the workshop is described.

Summary of the report of workshops between researchers and administrators

14th-19th February 2005, MPI Mainz

Hierarchically organised chemical structures: from supramolecularity to hybrid materials

The objective of the ERA-NET scheme is to step up the cooperation and coordination of research activities (i.e. programmes) carried out at national or regional level in the Member States and Associated States through the networking of research activities, including their mutual opening' and the development and implementation of joint activities.

Europe 's national chemistry research programmes are extremely diverse, encompassing pure academic research as well as applications that overlap with neighbouring disciplines. Some attempts have been made to coordinate these efforts, but national funding procedures have until now hampered the effective international collaboration. From the outset, ERA-CHEMISTRY links ten national research councils and funding agencies from eight EU Member States and Switzerland , providing a framework for greater coherence and coordination of research programmes across Europe .

ERA-CHEMISTRY's tools include high level staff exchanges between research councils, the development of electronic communication portals, and workshops on the application of new concepts and the definition of research topics for joint programmes. It will develop cooperation agreements on administration, evaluation and joint funding, which should last well beyond the funding of the ERACHEMISTRY network itself constituting the chemical bonds of the European Research Area.

The aim of yearly workshops that address not only junior and senior chemists, respectively, from the different European countries, but also research administrators in charge of chemistry funding in their national research councils, is to conduct discussions between administrators and researchers to initiate new cooperative research programmes.

The purpose of the two successive workshops held at the MPI in Mainz with the topic: Hierarchically organized chemical structures: from supramolecularity to hybrid materials was to gather scientific presentations of the leading European chemists in this field and to align their suggestions in order to optimise and coordinate the procedures for transnational calls for proposals (application, reviewing and funding) nowadays used by their Research Councils, for a progressive achievement of an integrated European Research Area in chemistry.

The challenge of these workshops is to balance the various views of the researchers [1] and the manifoldness of the European funding agencies. [2] The summary of the outcome of the Mainz workshops has therefore to be discussed during the following evaluation workshop held in Leuven ( Belgium , 7./8. April 2005) and the details for the call for proposals with the topic Hierarchically organised chemical structures: from molecules to hybrid materials have to be elaborated.

An overview of the outcome of the discussions between researchers and administrators in Mainz 2005 is given in the following tables: APPLICATION, REVIEWING, FUNDING. Resulting suggestions from junior and senior scientists for transnational calls for proposals:

Applicants and applications

  • 3 years considered as optimal duration of projects
  • 2-3 partners from different countries
  • Preferred new (juniors: no common publications during the last 5 years; seniors: collaboration on a new subject/not necessarily new collaborations) junior-junior collaborations (juniors: maximum 15 years after PhD; seniors: 10 years after PhD)
  • The added value-synergy of the collaboration represents the qualifying criteria
  • The application form should consist of max. 5 pages and be focused on the scientific part (general description of the project, CV, 5 most relevant papers, timetable including milestones, budget as suggested by the juniors. Seniors: CV and 1 page project (first step); 10 pages proposal-only science, including titel, short introduction, project (second step), no budget plan
  • A one-step application process is more appropriate to guarantee rapid decisions if a small number of applications is to be excepted. The senior researchers suggest a two-step procedure if a large number of applications is submitted
  • At least 2 month between the announcement and the closing of the call
  • Juniors: ask for information to be provided to the applicants: date of decision and date of first allocation of funding, amount of available funding per project, ranking of their proposal

Reviewing procedure

  • The added value of the collaboration represents the qualifying criteria. Innovation, originality, novelty. High risk is allowed if the innovation is of a high profile as well. Scientific impact favourable. Former activities and results (background, CV, publications). Feasibility (infrastructure)
  • Minimum 3 referees (not specified by the senior researchers)
  • Worldwide chosen and anonymous referees, no compensation for the referees
  • Deadline for the reviewers (suggestion juniors: 4 to 6 weeks)
  • Referees chosen from an international pool by a scientific panel (suggestion for exclusion of referees by the applicant is optional in the case of a conflict of interests, no volunteers)
  • Scientific panel selects referees and then evaluates the referee reports, ranks the proposals and recommends the decision to the research councils (seniors: invitation of the project leader to the panel discussion, final decision in a round table with an experienced board)

Funding

  • Personnel (PhD or postdoc), consumables, travelling, VAT and overheads (no patent costs, no large equipment) should be funded
  • Flexibility is requested for the disposal of the money (30% of overall amount) suggested by the juniors
  • The size of funding for each group for 3 years should be 100'000.- suggested by the seniors (not specified by the juniors)
  • The juniors suggest yearly and final reports (scientific and financial)
  • Reasonable success rate = 30% (seniors)
  • Funding of the project for 3 years (extension if successful)

A detailed analysis of the suggestions from the young researchers and the senior experts as well as the recommendations of both of the task leaders (CNRS, FCT) are available in the extended report by Cecile Bergouignan, CNRS.

Berne , 29th March 2005

DISSEMINATION OF REPORTS, TASK 3.3

EVELINE KUMLI

[1] Report Mainz workshops extended version (report available at the members section)

[2] Outcome of workpackage 1 (for reports, see publications>WP1)