A couple of years ago I went to a conference linked in part to an FP7 call with an impending deadline. In one session, a series of delegates who had mostly flown in from other EU member states for this very part of the event, presented outline proposals they'd been working on. These guys were mostly looking for additional partners and this was a chance to attract them.
On the stage too were a couple of National Contact Point officers, one from each of two themes in the call (one from NMP, tother from ICT). After each presentation, they commented. These officers had been involved in the drafting of the call, knew the text almost by heart and, most importantly, knew the meaning that had been intended by the drafters.
The result was embarrassing and eye-opening all at once. After all but one of the presentations, the National Contact Point officers declared the corresponding proposal was out of scope and stood no chance of being funded. The one exception was considered borderline and also highly likely to be rejected.
That was one lesson. But the other was that the wording of the call - so apparently painstakingly constructed, according the the National Contact Point officers - was treacherous. The interpretation that I and many in the audience were putting on what we took to be relatively straightforward, unambiguous terms differed very significantly from the official Commission interpretation. And we in the audience were familiar with the broad field in question. Many were shocked at the disparity between the interpretations.
Now I don't know whether the explanation has to do with the difficulties of drawing up call texts that will work in multiple translations or what. But I left that conference knowing that I would never in future be involved in an application for FP funding without speaking at length directly with the relevant NCP officials, and, if possible, with the Brussels-based Commission staff responsible for the drafting of the call. How much time and effort must be wasted on the writing of FP proposals!
Chris
________________________________
From: psci-com: on public engagement with science [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Francis Sedgemore
Sent: 23 February 2010 12:40
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PSCI-COM] Cutting the red tape around European research funding
It is vital that consortia applying for FP funding adhere to the detailed criteria laid out in the call documents, but what is more important is that they write clear proposals which inspire confidence in the experts hired by the European Commission's Research Executive Agency to peer-review the applications. Those experts are mostly scientists and engineers looking for evidence of vision and creativity in the proposals.
The evaluation process leads to a numerical ranking of proposals, which the REA then matches with available funds, following an initial rough tally carried out by the experts during their consensus meetings in Brussels. It is only following this stage that political box ticking comes into play.
I write from personal experience as an FP expert evaluator. While I cannot go into detail, I will say that I've encountered proposals that tick all the right boxes, but fail at the expert assessment stage owing to deficiencies in scientific and technical vision, and over-reliance on management-speak. Applicants should always remember that in applying for FP funding they are dealing with real human beings, not an abstract bureaucracy.
Francis
On 23 Feb 10, at 11:44, Tim Reynolds wrote:
The best tip for gaining EU FP funding is get involved in the process that shapes the programme in the first place - i.e. Technology Platforms and related organisations. At the very least it will give you a better understanding of what the funders are looking for and a head start in finding appropriate project partners.
Cheers
Tim "Brussels" Reynolds
--
Dr Francis Sedgemore
physicist, journalist and science writer
mobile: +44 (0)7840 191336
skype: francis.sedgemore
web: sedgemore.com <http://sedgemore.com/>
********************************************************************** 1. To suspend yourself from the list, whilst on leave, for example, send an email to mailto:[log in to unmask] with the following message:
set psci-com nomail -- [include hyphens]
2. To resume email from the list, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the message:
set psci-com mail -- [include hyphens]
3. To leave psci-com, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the message:
leave psci-com -- [include hyphens]
4. Further information about the psci-com discussion list, including list archive, can be found at the list web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/psci-com.html
5. The psci-com gateway to internet resources on science communication and science and society can be found at http://psci-com.ac.uk
6. To contact the Psci-com list owner, please send an email to mailto:[log in to unmask] **********************************************************************
**********************************************************************
1. To suspend yourself from the list, whilst on leave, for example,
send an email to mailto:[log in to unmask] with the following message:
set psci-com nomail -- [include hyphens]
2. To resume email from the list, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the message:
set psci-com mail -- [include hyphens]
3. To leave psci-com, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the message:
leave psci-com -- [include hyphens]
4. Further information about the psci-com discussion list, including list archive, can be found at the list web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/psci-com.html
5. The psci-com gateway to internet resources on science communication and science and society can be found at http://psci-com.ac.uk
6. To contact the Psci-com list owner, please send an email to mailto:[log in to unmask]
**********************************************************************
|