Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Uwagi recenzenta i uczestnika 6 Programu Ramowego Unii Europejskiej Dr hab. Józef Dulak Zakład Biochemii Komórki Wydział Biotechnologii Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego Ul. Gronostajowa 7, 30-387 Kraków Email: [email protected] Life sciences, genomics and biotechnology for health is one of seven major thematic priorities of the European Union´s Sixth FrameWork Programme (FP6). The objective is to help Europe exploit, in this post-genomic era, the unprecedented opportunities for generating new knowledge and translating it into applications that enhance human health. To this end both fundamental and applied research will be supported, with an emphasis on integrated, multidisciplinary, and coordinated efforts that address the present fragmentation of European research and increase the competitiveness of the European biotechnology industry. Seven Priority Thematic Areas (M€ 11,285) 1. Genomics and biotechnology for health 2. Information society technologies 3. Nanotechnologies and nanosciences 4. Food quality and safety 5. Sustainable development, global change and ecosystems 6. Citizens and government in a knowledge-based society 2,255 3,625 1,300 1,075 2,120 225 Genomics and biotechnology for health 1.1.1.i. Advanced genomics and its application for health 1.1.1.i.a. Fundamental knowledge and basic tools for functional genomics in all organisms 1.1.1.ii. Combating major diseases 1.1.1.ii.a. Application-oriented genomic approaches to medical knowledge and medical technologies 1.1.1.ii.b. Combating cancer 1.1.1.i.b. Applications of knowledge and technologies in the field of genomics and biotehcnology for health 1.1.1.ii.c. Confronting the major communicable diseases linked to poverty Combating major diseases Application-oriented genomic approaches to: combating cardiovascular disease, diabetes and rare diseases combating resistance to antibiotics and other drugs studying the brain and combating diseases of the nervous system studying human development and the ageing process Principles of the evaluation • Quality • Transparency • Equality of treatment • Impartiality • Efficiency Criteria for choice of experts for peer-review evaluation • appropriate range of competencies • appropriately balanced: academic, industrial, gender geography • no conflict of interest (if problems, please alert the moderator) • respect confidentiality (no comments outside consensus group) •Commission officials organise, supervise and moderate the evaluation • presence od independent observer(s) Flow of evaluation process Eligibility check Proposal submission eligible Not eligible exclusion Individual evaluation/review Consensus meeting(s) Below a threshold consensus report above a threshold Panel evaluation evaluation summary report Comission decision Priority list Comission decision Rejection Reserve list Ethical review Report Negotiation Instruments: different type of activities to implement FP6 project New instruments: Integrated Projects (IP) Network of Excellence (NoE) Traditional instruments Specific targeted Research projects (STREP) Coordinated Actions (CA) Specific Support Actions (SSA) Instruments available in the call reviewed (1.1.1.ii.a) 3 topics – IP or NoE 1 topic – IP 2 topics - NoE Cardiovascular research Diabetes Rare diseases Brain research and diseases Antimicrobial drug resistance Human development and aging Instruments available in the call reviewed Cardiovascular research Diabetes Rare diseases 3 topics – IP or NoE 1 topic – IP 2 topics - NoE Evaluation criteria IP Proposals: are evaluated against a set of criteria appropriate for each instrument receive a mark from 0 – 5 have to pass all thresholds to continue for the next step of evaluation Criteria Mark Threshold Relevance Potential impact S&T excellence Quality of consortium Quality of managment Mobilisation of resources 0 to 5 0 to 5 0 to 5 0 to 5 0 to 5 0 to 5 3 3 4 3 3 3 OVERALL 0 to 30 24 Evaluation criteria NoE Criteria Mark Threshold Relevance Potential impact Excellence of participants Degree of integration & JPA Organisation and managment 0 to 5 0 to 5 0 to 5 0 to 5 0 to 5 3 3 3 4 OVERALL 0 to 25 3 20 Budget for the topic „Applications oriented genomics approaches to medical knowledge and technologies” Instrument Approximate budget % M€ Number of topics IP & NoE STREP & CA SSA 77 21 2 84 23 2 16(6) 8(3) 6(3) Total 100 109 30 Number of projects and those which have passed the threshold total passed Cardiovascular research 15 7 Diabetes 9 3 Rare diseases 2 1 Results of evaluation IP – points awarded Below threshold 5 10 23.5 Above threshold 25.5 27 28 NoE – points awarded Below threshold 1 4.5 4.5 16.5 Above threshold 20 23 23.5 29 Amount of M€ the consortia have applied for Points awarded Budget NoE 23.5 23 20 15 21.5 23.5 29 28 27 12.5 25 8.5 IP Comments on the evaluation 1. 2. 3. 4. Chance of success Equality of chances Assessments of the instruments Others Comments on evaluation procedure 1. Well organized 2. Well moderated 3. Different approaches – some types of calls have only on site evaluation 4. Expert choice seems well balanced, although no representative of an industry was present 5. Well paid Problems 1. Delays in reimbursement and payment … Comments on experience of being an expert 1. Recognition of the great quality of the proposals; 2. Knowledge on how the projects should be prepared, written and submitted; a) size b) style of writing c) addressing the important issues (ethical, gender) 3. Knowledge which types of consortia seems to be the best structured – size of the consortia 4. Knowledge on the quality and validity of the instruments Origin of experts CVD Austria Belgium Hungary Germany (2) Poland (2) Spain Slovenia UK 4 females 6 males Diabetes ? Rare diseases ? Some facts about experts (collected from EU site) http://www.cordis.lu/fp6/experts2003.htm Life sciences – 2003 Total number: 800 Nubmer by selected nationalities: UK – 88 Netherlands Germany 75 Austria Italy 69 Denmark France 54 Hungary Spain 51 Poland Belgium 42 Estonia 30 24 13 10 10 5 Some facts about Polish experts http://www.cordis.lu/fp6/experts2003.htm Life sciences – 2003 Total number: 10 Number by city of origin: Kraków 3 Gdansk 2 Poznan 2 Wrocław 1 Warszawa 1 ? 1 Is it helpful for a participant to have the reviewer’s experience? - partially frustrating... - mostly helpful Our research interests inflammation, angiogenesis, gene therapy • role of redox genes in inflammation and angiogenesis: heme oxygenase-1, superoxide dismutase, nitric oxide synthases • mechanisms of regulation of VEGF expression • gene therapy in cardiovascular diseases • role of HMG-CoA-reductase inhibitors in angiogenesis and inflammation http://www.mol.uj.edu.pl/~jdulak Experience from being a participant 1. How my group has joined the consortia a) pre-call work – scientific and organisational b) expression of interest c) contacts with proper persons (coordinator) 2. Preparation of the projects - NEST-ADVENTURE - Life Sciences – IP Painful process of pre- and postsubmission 1. Electronic submission – smooth 2. Electronic submission – problems Results of evaluation 1. ADVENTURE –rejected - thus resubmitted 2. Integrated project – has passed the threshold - results of evaluation - waiting for the decision Comments on 6 FP 1. Budget not sufficient – too many good projects are rejected 2. NoE – in my opinion it is not a good instrument imp 3. Evaluation of projects prepared by huge consortia is quite difficult 4. Some evaluation criteria should be re-evaluated, particularly „quality of managment” 5. The most important criterion sould be the scientific excellence