WORKSHOPS

Wednesday, March 27

Workshops fee: Member/Non Member price 465 euro + vat 22%

 

WS1: Getting Ready for Horizon Europe by Hyperion (Dr. Seán McCarthy and Sylvia McCarthy)

Getting Ready for Horizon Europe by Hyperion

http://www.hyperion.ie/fp9-gettingready.htm

Course Presenters:
Dr. Seán McCarthy www.hyperion.ie/seanmccarthy.htm  
Sylvia McCarthy (EU Policy Analyst)

Content
The workshop covers the following items:
- the proposed structure of Horizon Europe
- from Horizon 2020 to Horizon Europe
- the formal process for  preparing the Next Framework Programme, 
- the Organisations that will be consulted in the preparation
- the documents that will used at the different phases of the preparation
- the issues (Political, Economic, Social and Technical) that will influence the content

Number of Participants: Maximum 25

The course is designed for Researchers and Research Support staff from Universities and Research Centres.

Private consultants, trainers or NCPs (National Contact Points) cannot attend this course.

WS2: Coaching Researchers to Write Successful Grant Proposals (Dr. Robert Porter)

Coaching Researchers to Write Successful Grant Proposals by Dr. Robert Porter
Grants specialists are often called upon to edit grant proposals or even to coach researchers on good writing techniques. To be effective in this role, one must be familiar with the major stylistic differences between traditional academic prose and strong grant writing. This highly interactive workshop will feature key characteristics of successful grant writing, illustrated with numerous practical examples. We will explore what constitutes a fundable idea, what reviewers are looking for, how to write a persuasive case for funding, and how to get rid of some bad habits of academic prose. Highlighted throughout will be twelve common pitfalls that cause good ideas to be rejected and how to avoid them. By the end of the workshop, participants will be more confident of their ability to help researchers obtain funding in an increasingly competitive environment.

Workshop Leader: Robert Porter, PhD, has presented grant writing workshops at leading universities and medical schools internationally. Formerly Director of Research Development at the University of Tennessee, Dr. Porter has received the Distinguished Faculty Award by the Society of Research Administrators International.  With thirty years' experience as a tenured professor, private consultant and research administrator, his proposals have won more than $8 million in awards from government agencies and private foundations. A national leader in the growing field of research development, he has presented papers and workshops on grant writing at international conferences and has published prize-winning articles in the Journal of Research Administration and Research Management Review. Dr. Porter has previously taught at Virginia Tech, Swarthmore College, Susquehanna University and Eastern Washington University. He holds graduate degrees in Speech Communications from the University of Michigan.

WS3: MSCA Individual Fellowships by Yellow Research (Lotte Jaspers)
  1. Workshop

In this Masterclass we follow the template in the programming but for each part we need to ask ourselves the critical questions for how we want to proceed with this in Horizon Europe? Because now is the time to influence that agenda, while at the same time maintaining a clear focus on how our scientists need to write for the next deadline. 

Marie Curie Individual Fellowships in H2020 involve European and Reintegration Fellowships (held in Member States or associated countries) as well as Global Fellowships (based on a secondment to a Third Country). Even though the budget of the Marie Curie actions is increased in H2020, the competition is fierce.

With introduction of a new evaluation system at the beginning of H2020 it is key to understand which points are deducted when evaluation criteria are not fully met, this is the core of why an MSCA IF grant is a true challenge; a good idea is simply not enough.

In order to be successful the Applicant and his/her host Supervisor both need to have a detailed understanding of the evaluation criteria and how these impact on the different sections of the template.

In this detailed, in-depth understanding requires a new way of training the masterclass will not only discuss the specifics on how to write a MSCA IF combined with the policy issues to be discussed in Horizon Europe.

  • Is a deduction of point system the best evaluation system?
  • Is the MSCA not overly focused on early stage careers
  • Should the MSCA IF be a stepping stone for ERC?
  • How does the ERC mindset currently impact on how to write the IF?
  • How does this effect capacity building and therefore career development, versus being outstanding already?

 

  1. Programme Outline

We provide you with solid background information about the objectives, the policy context and the basic principles of the Marie Curie Individual Fellowships of H2020. We will focus on the evaluation procedure and the 3 new (consolidated) evaluation criteria: Excellence, Impact and Implementation. We aim to increase your understanding of the overall evaluation process by explaining the expectations of the European Commission and by giving examples of best practices.

 

  1. Outcome

Participants obtain general and latest information about the H2020 Marie Sklodowska Curie actions, in particular about the Individual Fellowships. Participants receive strategic and practical input for writing competitive Individual Proposals.

 

  1. Programme

Introduction

Introduction Marie Sklodowska Curie Actions of H2020 with focus on  Individual Fellowships, including aims and policy objectives and differences with FP7

Eligibility criteria, evaluation process and evaluation criteria for H2020 MC Individual Fellowship grant proposals 

Excellence: this is the most important evaluation criteria, to be addressed in your proposal and includes:

  • The Research proposal,
  • The Training Programme
  • The Supervision
  • The PI’s maturity or ambition

 

Expected Impact of the proposed project to be addressed in Chapter B2 of your proposal pays attention to the impact on the career of the fellow as well as how the project results will be disseminated and exploited. But also the communication of the activities to different audiences is an important aspect of impact.

Implementation of your project to be addressed in Chapter B3 of your proposal.

 

  1. Trainer

Lotte Jaspers: Lotte is a founding partner of Yellow Research. She has extensive experience with individual grant applications for Marie Curie as well as within the framework of the prestigious ERC grants.

She has been running workshops on individual grants at numerous universities as well as assisted in the pre-submission review of ERC Starting, Consolidator and Advanced grants. Her knowledge and experience in pre-submission review of individual grants is an important aspect of her success with this training. Number of

 

Participants: Maximum 22

WS4: NIH and other US Federal research funding workshop – learning to swim in the acronym soup

Trainers:
Olaf Svennigsen (Lund University), Eva Björndal (King’s College London)

Target group: research managers and administrators with limited to intermediate experience of applying for and managing research funding from US Federal funding agencies.

Learning objectives: After having actively engaged in this workshop, participants will:

  • Have an understanding of the US Federal research funding system.
  • Understand the requirements to prepare a European organization to successfully apply for and manage research funding from US Federal funding agencies.
  • Be able to decode a call from the National Institutes Health and determine:
    o   Whether or not it is possible and/or a good idea to submit a proposal in response to the call;
    o   Risks, including the pros and cons of prime award vs. subaward.
    o   How to proceed in preparing the proposal and submitting it.
  • Be oriented on the procedures and requirements for post-award management of US Federal research funds.

 

Description
Applying for research funding and managing grants from foreign countries may be daunting for both the scientists and the administrative staff involved in the process. If the foreign country is the USA and the funding agencies are federal – for example the biggest of them all, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) – the challenge and complexity of setting an institution up in the many required systems may be overwhelming, and some very real risks are indeed present. However, with patience, persistence, knowledge, and some forethought, administrative staff may save their institution (and themselves) much work and grievance.

A Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) from the NIH is generally 20-30 printed pages, contains all the information needed to apply (or decide not to), but presumes knowledge of a number of rules, guidelines and legislation that may not be familiar for a foreign research manager. There are different types of FOA—with acronyms like e.g. RFA, CFA, PA and more—with implications for how to read the FOA. In addition, the NIH has a vast number of funding instruments, and knowing the difference between for example an R01, an R21 and an U01 is very important.

The application procedure of US federal funders is highly standardized, using a common format. The logic and technology behind the US Federal application format is easy and practical, but different from most European proposal systems, not least the EU Commission’s Participant Portal.

Once a US award has been obtained, the post-award processes need to be addressed, too. Just as with the pre-award processes, surviving post-award assumes knowledge about…

 PART I, background:  The characteristics of the US Federal research funding systems and processes will be outlined, based on insider experience—the speaker worked at the National Science Foundation for a number of years—trying to answer the question(s): “But why do they do it like that?”

The process and requirements for setting up a foreign (non-US) institution to apply for and manage NIH and other US federal grants will be explained. Dealing with the Public Policy Requirements or “compliance” will be addressed, including, among other, audit requirements, protection of human research subject, data management, indirect costs and other challenges.

PART II, pre-award:  Hands-on training on two key issues when considering whether or not to apply for funding from the NIH:

  1. Reading and understanding the Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) to decide whether or not to apply, and;
  2. Setting up and submitting the grant proposal in the US systems.

The exercise focuses on the NIH, but the principles are generally applicable to other US funders.

 PART III, post-award: What are the main processes and requirements that must be addressed when managing US Federal funds in Europe? How do they differ from the requirements of the EU Commission, and what are the biggest risks? Focus will be on:

  • Financial management, including financial conflicts of interest, reporting requirements and audits.
  • Compliance…
  • Who to talk to at the funding agency (NIH), and when and how to get in touch.
  • Maintaining a good relationship with the prime awardee (US organization).
  • Closing out a project.

 

 IMPORTANT! To get the most out of this workshop, participants should bring a laptop or tablet with Internet access. In PART II, participants will work in small (2-3 individuals) groups to solve challenges designed to enhance the learning outcome of the workshop.

Number of Participants: Maximum 30