This year the UKRO 2010 Annual Conference was held in the beautiful setting of Het Pand, the conference venue at Ghent University. Delegates from all over the UK and some from the EU attended the two-day conference which was aimed predominantly at European Liaison Officers, European research managers, Research Councils and policy makers. The conference provided an excellent opportunity to hear from key speakers from the European Commission on a range of EU policies and funding opportunities as the EC begin to think about the next Framework Programme.
Plenary Session 1: Update on ERA and Future Framework Programme
James Gavigan
Head of Unit, European Research Area Policy, DG Research, European Commission
The opening session of the UKRO Annual Conference 2010 was given by James Gavigan, the Head of Unit for ERA Policy within the European Commission’s Directorate General for Research (DG RTD.) In his presentation, James Gavigon described the recent and on-going evolution of the European Research Area policy agenda, situating ERA in the context of the EU 2020 Strategy and the Lisbon Treaty, and gave some tentative pointers on the direction of future developments which may be set in motion as follow-up to the forthcoming Research and Innovation Strategy. He also raised a number of important considerations which will need to be taken into account as the debate on the future Framework Programme begins.
What is the European Research Area?
The European Research Area, or ERA as it is more commonly referred to, is a Europe-wide space or ‘single-market’ for research which encompasses all R&D activities, programmes, policies and actors (researchers, institutions, businesses, policy makers) operating in the EU or Member States with a transnational perspective. It covers not only R&D funded at EU level, but also work funded at a national or regional level which has a transnational angle. It crucially involves:
• Research/researcher related free cross border circulation, co-operation and competition – the ‘fifth freedom’
• European-level coordination of the EU, national and regional research activities, programmes and policies
• Implementation of EU level measures and programmes
So why is ERA important? There has been a huge underinvestment in Research and Development at just 1.8% GDP although the target for 2010 is 3%. The fragmentation of national policies and programmes has also been a problem with the duplication of work, the lack of competition within the EU and obstacles to the circulation of researchers and knowledge. The globalisation of research and innovation with the rise of China, India and Brazil threatens the EU share in the world production of knowledge, increasing competition and the need to cooperate.
EU Research Policy Priorities 2005 – 2009
Since the launch of the ERA concept in 2000 it has had a strong impact on the policy agenda in order to tackle the issues described above. The ‘ERA Green Paper’ in 2007 set out the ambitious policy agenda and rationale for ERA and had six objectives which can be seen in the diagram below.
The Green paper was shortly followed by the 2008 ‘Ljubljana Process’, which called for a strong partnership between Member States and the Commission to exchange information in order to coherently steer policy initiatives. The Ljubljana Process also called for better governance and steering at ministerial level, performance indicators to measure the progress, and action plans and roadmaps to implement the ERA vision, leading to the adoption of the ERA 2020 Vision in December 2008.
Since the adoption of these policies there has been an increasing mix of means of action with regards to ERA-related policies. These include the aim to better coordinate national polices and programmes to facilitate mutual learning, peer review and benchmarking; legislation for research infrastructures; coordination with other European policies such as the ‘lead market’ initiative (which supports six high-growth innovative sectors); the European Recovery Plan (which led to the funding of public-private partnerships (PPPs) on Green Cars, Energy Efficient Buildings and Factories of the Future); and structured dialogue with stakeholders through the European Technology Platforms. James explained that the Commission has steadily adopted a more consultative approach since the start of the Ljubljana Process for stakeholders to feed back their opinions and concerns, and they hope to incorporate this into more of their work through more web-based systems.
James briefly touched on the ongoing work related to the 2007 ERA Green Paper, including the work of the researcher’s partnership (SGHRM) which looks at recruitment and the training of researchers, Joint Programming or GPC (there was a separate presentation on this topic, so for more information please see the presentation summery below,) research infrastructures (the ‘ERIC’ (European Research Infrastructure Consortium) legal framework, and work on ESFRI (European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures) projects) and International co-operation (the Strategic Forum for International Scientific and Technological Cooperation (known as SFIC), which is working on two pilots in the area of water research with India and on energy with the USA.
James also highlighted the work of the knowledge transfer working group set up under the European Research Advisory Council (ERAC, which replaced the ‘CREST’ group). Currently about eight EU Member States are in the process of changing their national legislation to bring them in line with guidelines agreed at EU level. This along with the modernisation agenda for universities (which includes peers learning, common principles for funding and the concept of pan-European research schools) is designed to help consolidate ERA.
A transition period 2009-10
The third section of the talk covered the institutional context of 2009-2010. During this period a new European Parliament has been elected along with a new team of European Commissioners. During this period the Lisbon Treaty has also been introduced, which is the first time that research has been a fully-fledged objective of the EU. It is also important to mention the evolving context for ERA such as the current financial and economic crisis, increased global competition, and the need to tackle grand societal challenges such as climate change and the ageing population. Research and innovation have increasingly been seen as major components of a sustainable exit from the crisis and of EU and national efforts to increase smart growth and job creation. In fact there is now a broad consensus that Europe needs to invest in research, development and knowledge in order to respond to the crisis – James highlighted that Europe has been presented with a unique opportunity to try and change the way research is undertaken in the EU.
ERA: where next?
James summarised the future plans for ERA as ‘bigger,’ ‘better’ and ‘bolder.’ The investment in research needs to be increased, European research system performance needs to be improved, and the focus needs to be on the grand societal challenges. To help with these three aims a widening set of rationales needs to be looked at, such as creating a pool of resources, fostering human capacity and excellence in S&T and the further integration of European R&D with coordinated and harmonised policies.
The diagram below shows the hierarchy of policies currently being developed, and a key component of the Europe 2020 strategy is the realisation of ERA. ERA is also to be an integral part of the ‘Innovation Union Flagship Initiative: Transforming Europe for a Post-Crisis World’, which is expected to be launched in the autumn of 2010 and aims to realise a single market and tackle grand societal challenges.
There was a separate session at the conference on the EU 2020 Strategy, so more details will be given in the summery of that presentation, but it essentially has three priorities and five headline targets which include the target to spend 3% of the EU’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on R&D as well as a new indicator on innovation.
James commented on the bottlenecks which need to be addressed, such as the problems with open recruitment (which is a problem in some European countries), social security, cross-border research funding, IP management, Data access and infrastructures (access and funding.) Although there is a lot of mileage left in the ‘partnership approach’ between EU Member States and the Commission, progress is often constrained by national issues. The new ERA initiative which is currently in preparation with a consultation expected around mid-2011 will look at bottlenecks, and assess possible changes in legislation which is now allowed under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty.
The future Framework Programme?
Finally James discussed the future framework programme. Whilst it is still very early days to be discussing the next Framework Programme it will serve the EU2020, Innovation Union and ERA objectives. The EU’s new financial framework (the EU’s spending budget and plans for 2014 onwards, which will be discussed over the coming months) will also have an impact on the future Framework Programme in terms of its size and budgetary distribution. Whilst James said that research programmes will all have to ‘fight their corner’ in the impending discussions, future funding priorities under FP8 are likely to be the role of innovation and grand societal challenges, with a significant bearing on innovation. There are also plans to simplify FP8 delivery modes and accountability. A public consultation on the next framework programme will be held in 2011.
Plenary Session 2: Development of Joint Programming Initiatives
The second session of the day was on the development of Joint Programming Initiatives, which perhaps appropriately was delivered as a joint effort by representatives from the European Commission, the GPC and the BBSRC, which is currently developing a JPI on Agriculture, Food Security and Climate Change with INRA, the French National Institute for Agricultural Research.
Towards Joint Programming in Research: Working together to tackle common challenges more effectively
Giorgio Clarotti
Policy Officer, Co-ordination of national research programmes, joint programming and major European initiatives, DG Research, European Commission
During his presentation the first speaker Giorgio Clarotti from the European Commission explained the development of Joint Programming Initiatives. Over the past two years EU member states and the European Commission have made a joint effort to enhance their partnership in addressing major societal challenges through the joint programming of research. The Joint Programming Initiative began in July 2008 when the Commission issued the Communication ‘Towards Joint Programming of Research’ which proposed a new approach to identifying areas where EU member states could agree on a common vision and a joint Strategic Research Agenda. At the same time a pilot Joint Programming Initiative on Neurodegenerative diseases (including Alzheimer’s) was launched by the Competitiveness Council. Council Conclusions were adopted by the Council in December 2008 which further defined the Alzheimer’s JPI and the overall approach to Joint Programming; out of this came the GPC (Groupe de Programmation Conjointe) a group of high level representatives to identify these areas according to an agreed procedure and criteria. In April 2010 the Commission adopted the recommendations of the GPC to launch Joint Programming Initiatives in the following areas:
• Agriculture, Food Security and Climate Change;
• Cultural Heritage and Global Change: a new challenge for Europe;
• A Healthy Diet for a Healthy Life.
So what are JPIs? The Joint Programming Initiatives build on the idea of the European Research Area and involves Member States engaging in the definition, development and implementation of a common strategic research agenda which is based on a common vision on how to address major societal challenges. It entails putting resources together, not asking for more money for the Framework Programme, or more power at an EU level. The 2008 Communication aimed to implement the Lisbon Strategy, which called for the application of Joint Programming in a strategic manner, and followed on from the ERA Green Paper and request of the Spring 2008 European Summit which called for the continuation of efforts to develop a joint programming of research. It recognised that there are limits to public investment in research so it was essential to use the resources that were available more effectively. In the past a pooling of resources has been highly successful, such as with the Public Research Programmes on the quality of health, and partnerships between Menber States have been growing since the 1950s with intergovernmental organisations such as CERN, ESA and EMBL and in the 1980s with intergovernmental schemes including COST, EUREKA and the European Community Framework Programme, and again in 2000 with the coordination of national research in ERA-NETs.
Joint Programming is therefore a strategic, ambitious process which looks at the long term horizon designed to have a lasting impact on the European research landscape. Key themes for JPIs are identified by the GPC with six supporting criteria:
• JPIs must have sufficient and effective commitment from Member States
• Selected themes address a pan European/global (socio-economic or environmental) challenge (where public research is essential)
• Clear added value to existing national and Community research, with economies of scale and thematic coverage (scope)
• Focussed with clear and realistic objectives (feasibility to deliver)
• JP approach has potential for benefits to citizens and competitiveness, increasing efficiency and impact of public R&D involving key public initiatives in the area.
• Stakeholders (regional, national, European, private, scientific and funding agencies) have been involved in developing the themes.
The implementation of the JP initiatives will be undertaken through a three stage process:
1. The development of a common vision with long term objectives
2. Translate it into a common strategic research agenda (SRA) with SMART objectives based on assessment of existing strengths and capabilities
3. Implementation of the SRA:
• Chose the appropriate mix of instruments from the toolbox of public research instruments (regional, national, and possibly European)
• Regular monitoring and evaluation against SMART objectives
• Regular reporting of results to political level.
The Belgian Presidency and Joint Programming
Pieter De Pauw
Chair of the GPC (Groupe de Programmation Conjointe)
Peter De Pauw, the chair of the GPC gave the second presentation of the session which fell on the first day of the Belgian Presidency. One of the main objectives of the Belgium Presidency is to strengthen the ERA, and as part of this they plan to present a package of ERA-related Council Conclusions at the end of this year with a particular focus on Joint Programming.
The Belgian Presidency has four main objectives: (i) the continuation of JPIs; (ii) the refinement of Framework Conditions; (iii) producing the bis-annual report; and (iv) presenting a political message to the EU Council on the Innovation union, the flagship of the EU2020 Strategy, and how JPIs fit into the research and innovation plan.
The Belgium Presidency intends to support any initiative that is well developed, but at the same time they recognise that attention to the organisation of the management of these initiatives is essential. Whilst some previous initiatives are entering a more concrete phase there are still many questions which need to be addressed with regards to the politics and management of the initiatives. The GPC began a discussion on the 2nd July to identify the issues and begin to address them at the next GPC meeting due to take place on the 16th September where individual Joint Programming Initiatives (JPIs) of the First Wave will be asked to answer these questions. The items on the agenda will also be discussed during the Conference on JPIs on the 18th and 19th October 2010, and will inform the draft report which is to be delivered in November next year.
The fourth objective is at a higher priority level, whereby the Belgian Presidency wishes to formulate a political message by taking Joint Programming as one of the key aspects of the Research and Innovation Plan. They shall be working on this over the autumn and will present their findings to the European Council in December.
The plan of the Belgian Presidency to achieve efficient and effective development of JPIs can be seen in the roadmap below:
EU Joint Programming: Agriculture, Food Security and Climate Change – the challenges
Tim Willis
Head of International Relations Unit, BBSRC
In the context of the Joint Programming Initiatives, BBSRC (UK) and INRA (FR) are jointly developing governance arrangements across 20 European countries to deliver a JPI on Agriculture, Food Security and Climate Change (FACCE-JPI). The development of thus JPI will be a three stage process:
1. Development of a Common Vision with long term objectives
How cooperation and coordination of research at EU level can address the combined challenges of food security against the continuous threat represented by various scenarios of climate change, global population growth and food/non-food demand.
2. Translate it into a Strategic Research Agenda (SRA)
Establishing medium to long-term research needs and objectives in the area of food security through adaption to and mitigation of climate change in agriculture
3. SRA Implementation
Identifying and exchanging information; joint foresight and technology assessment; joint research activities; infrastructure; EU/global aspects; public-private partnerships; needs of consumers and industry
The rising global population has made Food Security a looming crisis with a global shortage of food, energy and water. Last year marked a critical point with more people living in towns and cities than in the countryside which has a huge effect which will only escalate with the estimated growth in population to 9 billion by 2050. Stagnating yields and more projected declines in crop yields threaten food security and as a result induce the risk of political instability in Africa, the Middle-East and South Asia. Climate change will only deepen the crisis, as can be seen in the diagram below:
As a result we are facing a mounting challenge to secure future food supply. By 2050 we must double food supply from less land than is available today (due to the demands for housing) with less fertiliser and pesticide and lower GHG emissions. The aim of the FACCE-JPI is to find solutions to the growing problems to ensure food security. They are planning to scope the challenges at EU level, roadmap research which might need to be supported at EU level in a common vision, and explore current and new ways of supporting research and associated activates.
Parallel Session A1: ERC Mid Term Review and Beyond
Theodore Papazoglou
Policy Analyst, Unit A1 – Support to the ERC Scientific Council, European Research Council Executive Agency
The European Research Council (ERC) is the first pan-European funding body for investor-driven fundamental research which aims to stimulate scientific excellence in European by rewarding innovative research proposals in all fields of frontier research.
Dr Theodore Papazoglou of the European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA) began his presentation by briefly discussing some of the fundamental elements of the ERC construction and philosophy before addressing the findings of the ERC review and the response of the main stake holders. The final part of the session provided delegates with a statistical update on the ERC research grants and a brief look at what the future holds for the ERC. Here is a summery of what Theodore had to say:
Theodore began the session by discussing the establishment of the ERC in 2007 which marked a radical shift in EU policy towards bottom-up frontier research with excellence as the sole criterion. The ERC paradigm is to ensure the independence of early career researchers, facilitate new discoveries through an emphasis on the importance of frontier discoveries and technologies to lead towards innovation (something which is prominent in current wider EU policy initiatives.) Theodore also raised the point that the ERC welcome industry participation, however this is relatively rare at the moment occurring in perhaps just 15 out of more than 1000 funded projects (mainly biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies which are involved in Life Sciences projects.) One possible reason for the lack of industrial participation is that the Scientific Council insists on the principle of the Principle Investigator’s independence, something which may not be easily guaranteed in a private sector environment, where decisions are taken by a company’s management. A working group has been established to see how this issue can be addressed, which has met with large companies to explain the ERC and its schemes, clarifying that industry can apply for ERC grants, and also with the European Industrial Research Managers Association (EIRMA). Theodore told us that there are three main responses from industry: some companies have their own internal investment for research and development whilst others are supportive of the ERC especially as researchers may eventually work in industry, or they do not consider themselves in a position to participate as a host institution.
However the main priority for the ERC continues to be maintaining the independence of researchers. No distinction is made between basic research and basic technology:
‘frontier research’ responds to the blurring boundaries between basic and applied research, and ‘frontier technology’ often emerges in the course of basic research.
The ERC sees itself as offering a new partnership in Europe to support the transition from the individual to institutional excellence; they are committed to scientific excellence while helping dynamic institutions successfully attract high-level researchers. It strives to act as a catalyst for reforms in research funding policies in Europe, raising the standards throughout the EU. The strategy for achieving this is simple. They support excellence irrespective of nationality, age or field through their Starting Grants which support young researchers (2-10 years post PhD) and Advanced Grants for leading scientists. The ERC’s objectives cover the three R’s – to retain, repatriate and recruit researchers. They aim to:
• Improve the career opportunities and independence of researchers, especially young researchers
• Increase the competition, recognition and international visibility for excellent scientists and scholars in Europe
• Raise the aspirations and achievement of basic research in Europe.
Theodore also reminded delegates that the ERC offer funding for high-risk, high-gain projects unlike many national funding bodies that tend to have more specific priorities. The ERC favours the idea of ‘trusting the dynamic of science’ i.e. funding the Principle Investigator and their team. It is also important to remember that ERC grants are portable. In fact a significant amount of work is being undertaken to attract top researchers from outside Europe to carry out ERC projects in the EU. Theodore was also keen to draw attention to the fact that the ERC budget is increasing by around €250 million per year until 2013 (which corresponds to approximately 15% of the overall FP7 budget. The next round of calls (2011) will use 17.8% of the overall budget, rising to 23.4% in 2013 which has an allocated annual budget of just under €1.8 billion.
Theodore also discussed the structure and systems of the ERC. Explaining the ERC’s structure of the ERCEA, ERC Scientific Council (ScC) and European Commission, he documented the gaps in how the three actors were working together, in particular with regards to the clash of scientific and administrative cultures. So whilst the system is highly successful, such as with the international peer review of applications undertaken by experts in their discipline, there are weaknesses which they are trying to address, which can be seen in the recent Review.
The Review of the ERC Structures and Mechanisms, published in July 2009, was designed to help identify and address the issues. In Spring 2009, the European Commission appointed an independent high-level review panel of scientists with high level experience of research policy to carry out an analysis of the ERC’s structures and mechanisms. This review was foreseen in the FP7 specific programme ‘ideas’ to ensure appropriateness and effectiveness of the ERC’s structures and mechanisms. The first review recommendation was the better merging of the scientific and administrative cultures through recruiting a new ERCEA Director, and this has already been acted upon by the Commission and the ERCEA. Since the Review Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, the European Commissioner for Research, Innovation and Science has stated her commitment to working more closely with the ScC and to improving the ERC’s administrative procedures. Theodore also mentioned that an Identification Committee to recommend ScC members would be set up, with an honorarium paid to ScC members in recognition of their work for the ERC.
In the presentation Theodore included the most recent statistics on the ERC grants in addition to a breakdown of success by country of host institution, nationality, mobility from overseas and institutions awarded the most grants. So far approximately 1069 grants have been awarded out of the 19000 proposals that have been evaluated. Obviously this number of proposals (an average of 6000 are received per year) raises many challenges for the evaluation process. To date about 1000 panel members have been appointed, including 10% from outside the EU, and an additional 1000 remote referees used per call. As an indicator of how high-level the panel members are, seven are Nobel Prize winners.
Theodore closed the session with a brief look at the 2011 Work Programme which has since been published. The major change from previous rounds was that the eligibility window for Starting Grants will been extended to between 2 and 12 years post PhD. Concerns were expressed by some delegates at this change that highly qualified researchers with this amount of experience are no longer ‘starters’ in their discipline However, the ERC will continue the streaming of ‘starters’ and ‘consolidators’ for the 2011 calls, with those between 2-7 years as starters and between 7-12 years as consolidators. The extension of the eligibility window is therefore not done in isolation from this streaming and, based on an analysis of the success rates the variation in funding is not significant (so starters and consolidators are not in direct competition). Other changes include:
• Clarification of the treatment of cross-panel proposals
• Further emphasis on supporting high risk, high gain proposals
• The removal of the Research Environment criterion
• A simplification of the evaluation criteria overall
• Progressive removal of resubmission restrictions
• Overall simplification of the text.
Funding this year will be equal for both Starting and Advanced Grants, equating to €660 million each.
Current aims of the ERC include increasing the number of female participants and new Member State nationals without compromising on excellence, to make Europe more attractive for researchers from overseas, to increase awareness in industry for opportunities for ERC funding, and to emphasise real ‘starters’ of 2-6 years post PhD experience through an increase in the Starting Grant budget.
Parallel Session B2: Marie Curie Actions Update
Graham Wilkie
Policy Officer, Marie Curie Actions, DG Education and Culture, European Commission
Graham Wilkie from DG Education and Culture was at the conference to give an update on what’s happening with the Marie Curie Actions and to give an overview of how the UK is doing in each of the actions. Marie Curie is a dedicated programme for structuring training, mobility and career development for researchers designed to encourage people to enter the researcher profession, attract and retain researchers from all over the world for the very best research and to develop European HR potential in R&D. Marie Curie actions are open to researchers at all stages of their career in any field of research and are internationally prestigious, making them extremely competitive. However, the UK does exceptionally well in all the actions, in some cases getting more than 40% of the allocated budget. Here is a brief overview of each of the actions and how the UK is doing:
Marie Curie contains a number of actions both for organisations and for individuals, as can be seen in the diagram:
Initial Training Networks (ITN): ITNs are designed to improve the careers of early stage researchers in both the public and private sector through an international network. In total over 10 000 researchers have been supported so far through the scheme; Graham stressed this could easily have been doubled if the scheme supported studentships but the employability benefits offered through ITNs was important, and could not be offered through studentships.
In 2009 there a total of 7724 applications were made for ITNs, with 574 of these funded. Whilst this does mean that there was quite a low success rate of just over 7% it is important to note that of the funded applications one in seven was from the UK. The call for the next round of proposals opened on the 20th July, as announced on this blog.
The Lifelong Learning and Career Development Actions are for the career development of researchers through a diversification of skills and competencies, along with the reintegration of researchers after a period of mobility. This is operated through the four actions below and currently about 22 000 researchers have been funded:
Intra-European Fellowships for career development (IEF): These are for 12-24 months, but usually will be for the full 24 months (12 months may be more common perhaps for a sabbatical) and are open to any nationals working or living in member states or associated countries moving to another MS/AC. The 2009 round had a 30% success rate for the UK, and of the total applications funded 37% were from UK hosts – so once again the UK is doing very well.
European Reintegration Grants (ERG) and International Reintegration Grants (IRG): These schemes are eligible to researchers who have held a Marie Curie fellowship for at least 18 months and provide a financial contribution of €15 000-€25 000 a year for 2-4 years.
These two schemes are expected to be rolled into a single action next year as a Career Integration Grants scheme (CIG), which aims to provide researchers who have been offered a stable position and who are considering establishing themselves in Europe, with their own research budget, thus contributing to the scientific success of their research career.
Industry-Academic Partnerships and Pathways (IAPP): This action is designed to foster research collaboration between non-commercial (public) research organisations and commercial enterprises, in particular SMEs. They should be based on a common research project, and are to develop inter-sectoral mobility and staff exchange.
The Marie Curie World Fellowships are intended to reinforce the international (or extra-European) dimension of the EU’s human resources in R&D. Three schemes fall under this category:
International Outgoing Fellowships (IOF): This action allows nationals from Member States or Associated Countries to move to a Third Country (i.e. not an EU or an FP7 associated country.) They are for a period of 1-2 years followed by a mandatory period of one year in the EU. The main activities should be based around a research project which is prepared in coordination with the host EU organisation. IOFs are designed to strengthen multi- or interdisciplinary expertise, inter-sectoral experience and complementary skills.
International Research Staff Exchange Scheme (IRSES): The Marie Curie International Research Staff Exchange Scheme is an action aimed at strengthening research partnerships through staff exchanges and networking activities between European research organisations and organisations from third countries with which the Community has an S&T agreement (or are in the process of negotiating one).
Compared to existing Marie Curie actions, which provide mobility possibilities to individual researchers, this action will provide support to research organisations to establish or reinforce long-term research co-operation through a coordinated joint programme of exchange of researcher staff for short periods. This is a great scheme for building research collaboration with an attractive monthly allowance for researchers.
International incoming Fellowships (IIF): The IIF action is open to researchers of any nationality who will be moving from a third country to a Member State or Associated Country. It provides financial support to individual research projects presented by the researcher in liaison with the host organisation, and includes an optional return phase to the country of origin.
Lastly Graham discussed why the programme has been moved from DG Research to DG Education. The Commission has taken the view that Marie Curie is designed to support the knowledge triangle, mobility, lifelong learning of universities, early stage researchers and research, so in their opinion it is very much an educational programme. However Graham stressed that Marie Curie Actions are for the development of researchers and research. Nevertheless, the move is not necessarily bad as the EAC is delighted to have the Marie Curie Actions under their remit as expressed by Commissioner Vassilou:
‘I am delighted that the Marie Curie actions will be under my responsibility. Marie Curie is a byword for achieving excellence through mobility.’
The deadlines and call dates for the Marie Curie schemes are detailed below:
IAPP: Call: 20/07/10
Deadline: 7/12/10
ITN: Call: 20/07/10
Deadline: 26/01/11
CIG: Call: 20/10/10
Deadline: 8/04/11
IRSES: Call: 20/10/10
Deadline: 17/04/11
IEF: Call: 16/04/11
Deadline: 11/08/11
IIF: Call: 16/04/11
Deadline: 11/08/11
IOF: Call: 16/04/11
Deadline: 11/08/11