The Marie Skłodowska- Curie Actions: recommendations for Horizon 2020

Transcription

1 Note from the League of European Research Universities 1 June 2013 The Marie Skłodowska- Curie Actions: recommendations for Horizon 2020 LERU members: University of Amsterdam Universitat de Barcelona University of Cambridge University of Edinburgh University of Freiburg Université de Genève Universität Heidelberg University of Helsinki Universiteit Leiden KU Leuven Imperial College London University College London Lund University University of Milan Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München University of Oxford Pierre & Marie Curie University Université Paris-Sud University of Strasbourg Utrecht University University of Zurich The League of European Research Universities (LERU) strongly supports the Marie Curie Actions (MCA) in Framework Programme 7 (FP7) and their continuation as the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions in Horizon The continuity of aims across the actions is welcomed. With this in mind, LERU would like to highlight what it sees as the key benefits of the FP7 MCA and make the following specific recommendations for the action lines proposed under Horizon The proposed simplification of the MCA into four actions (ITN, RISE, IF and CO- FUND) is a welcome development. The Marie Curie scheme had become too complex over the course of the previous frameworks and had rendered it fragmented and hard for researchers to understand. It is hoped that the implementation of the four actions is also kept as simple as possible; it would be counterproductive, for example, to implement sub-schemes within each action. Regarding the suggested changes to the Commission s proposal for MCA under Horizon 2020, LERU acknowledges the European Parliament s (EP) suggestion that involvement of industry in training is important, but stresses that this is not applicable across all fields of research and should not be a mandatory element of any action. Indeed, the requirement to have a commercial body involved in certain current actions should be expanded to allow more organisations to take part non-academic would be a better designation. The EP also suggests a voucher scheme to encourage researcher mobility, but it is difficult to see how this might work in practice without the establishment of an entirely new instrument in the MCA. The current Individual Fellowships are based on this concept of mobility and achieve the aim of mobilising excellent researchers. 1 This LERU Note was prepared by James Lloyd (Imperial College London, contact james.lloyd@imperial.ac.uk), with support of Stijn Delauré (KU Leuven), Angela Noble (Edin burgh) and the other members of the LERU Community of European Research Project managers (ERP). 2 Please refer to the Annex for a detailed discussion of LERU s recommendations.

2 LERU recommends that this remains the primary means of awarding funding for researchers who move from one EU country to another. It is furthermore important that Marie Curie funding goes only to the best researchers to use this programme to build capacity in less developed regions would both harm the Commission s aim of simplifying the MCA and would confuse the message of the actions, which should fund excellent research only. Removing barriers to participation of female researchers and researchers who have had a career break are also recommendations made by the European Parliament, although it is not clear how these aims are to be achieved. LERU supports both of these aims and suggests that rather than being the subject of dedicated actions, which again would complicate the MCA, they become clearly stated goals that operate horizontally across all appropriate actions. Regarding the current actions under FP7: The Initial Training Networks are very successful in funding Early-Stage Researchers and should not be changed. LERU would like to see a continuation of this action with similar-sized projects under H2020. The recently introduced Innovative Doctoral Programmes (IDPs) sub-scheme clearly demonstrates that there is a need in the research community for single-site doctoral training, a fact borne out by the large number of submissions to the first and second calls. The Individual Fellowships have benefitted from the drive for simplification under FP7 but further steps could still be taken, most notably by removing the requirement for a return phase in International Outgoing Fellowships. The Career Integration Grant has met its remit of supporting leading researchers in the EU and should continue in its current format in Horizon The COFUND schemes are usually run via national or Europe-wide organisations leading to inconsistencies in their implementation. This can be to the detriment of researchers who seek funding through the action, and LERU recommends that a change in the regulations of the scheme is made to ensure greater consistency in the use of the funds by the beneficiary bodies. This is particularly important if the current single-site Early-Stage Researcher action (currently funded by the IDP scheme) is moved under the COFUND heading. LERU believes that it is vital that there is flexibility within the scheme in order that it is able to fund actions such as the IDP, but also individual fellowships at both Experienced Researcher and Early-Stage Researcher level. Furthermore, the flexibility to allow both individual institutions as well as national and regional funding bodies to apply must be maintained in order to ensure the widest possible uptake of the scheme across Europe. The Commission s current plan to limit the number of the COFUND actions available to an individual institution would also be severely detrimental to multidisciplinary universities and should be reconsidered. 2

3 Frequent changes to correction coefficients across the Marie Curie Actions should be avoided. The large disparity in salaries from one year to the next is unfair to researchers and administratively difficult for their host institutions to deal with. A less frequent change to the coefficients would mitigate this problem. Although the Marie Curie Actions are already well known and successful in FP7, LERU believes the programme s attractiveness and international reputation could be further improved by a better communication and marketing strategy. This is particularly important at the beginning of Horizon 2020, to ensure that the industrial sector, whose interest level has traditionally been low in certain areas of the programme, is aware of the simplified structure and the new opportunities that the Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions present under Horizon In addition, moving from categorising participants as either commercial or non-commercial under FP7 to academic and non-academic under Horizon 2020 should encourage a further widening of participation by allowing the involvement of previously ineligible institutions. However, the Commission must capitalise on this opportunity by ensuring that these institutions, and their potential partners, are fully aware of the change. To develop and implement this strategy a separate, specific unit or sector is desirable. LERU also believes that the MCA in general could benefit from a closer link between the policy unit and the REA, which will ensure that policy goals are put into practice by the REA in a way which is simple and transparent to applicants and grant holders. Given the popularity of the current Marie Curie Actions and the changes that are proposed for the Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions under Horizon 2020, it is vital that training and guidance are given to the appropriate individuals: evaluators must be clear on the goals of the scheme and the priorities that they need to assess, as applicants will have more freedom within each scheme to decide on which partners to involve and how to structure their projects. Project Officers must be briefed on the implementation of each action to ensure consistency not just between their projects, but across the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions as a whole. Finally, all documentation intended for applicants and grant holders must be clear and consistent in order to avoid confusion and to allow projects to be implemented in a timely and straightforward way. Overall, LERU believes that it is vital that that the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions remain one of the cornerstones of Horizon The programme is well understood by researchers and has developed prestige over the recent Framework Programmes by funding excellent researchers at all stages of their careers. The increase in applications to the actions in recent years is evidence that there is a need for excellent training actions within a research programme. These should not become marginalised as the next programme of EU research funding is developed. 3

4 ANNEX Detailed description of issues and recommendations for Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions Action 1: Early-stage Researchers (ITN) Initial Training Networks (ITN) The networks are an attractive way of funding Early-Stage Researchers (ESRs). LERU welcomes the move in FP7 towards reimbursing the majority of cost categories on a flat rate basis, which has helped to simplify the administration of the scheme. Whilst we understand that the Commission plans to allow recruitment of ESRs only under the ITN scheme in Horizon 2020, it is worth pointing out that in LERU s opinion the Experienced Researchers appointed in FP7 ITNs added value to their networks by facilitating the transfer of knowledge to the ESRs. The current maximum of 500 researcher-months is realistic for the scope of the projects which are usually proposed, and this should not be reduced. LERU understands that Joint Doctorates will be included in the successor scheme to the ITNs under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions in Horizon Although LERU supports Joint Doctorates and has even developed a template to facilitate them between LERU member institutions, we wish to emphasize that Joint Doctorates in ITNs should be made optional and not become a mandatory requirement of any scheme. Joint Doctorates add a significant layer of bureaucracy and making these mandatory would preclude a large number of institutions from participating. LERU supports a change in the definitions of the different sectors required to participate in this type of scheme from academic and commercial to academic and non-academic. The scheme would benefit from a widening of the scope of partners, allowing viable consortia to be formed with non-governmental organisations (NGOs), local government bodies and non-profit organisations. Innovative Doctoral Programme (IDP) The Innovative Doctoral Programme introduced towards the end of FP7 is welcome as a concept as there is clearly strong interest among researchers for a single-site training action under the Marie Curie scheme. However, it is felt that more could be made of its potential by altering the way in which it is assessed. It is a significant disadvantage that the IDP scheme is reviewed alongside the multi-site ITN scheme. The structure and aims of the two schemes are very different, and the substantially lower success rate of the IDPs compared with the ITNs suggests that the schemes are difficult to compare alongside each other. In Horizon 2020 s Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions, we understand that the Commission plans to move the IDP scheme under the COFUND action, which would address this concern. However, it also raises the issue of access to this funding; without the matched funds, it will be impossible to apply. In order to minimise this risk, the Commission must ensure that there is as much flexibility in the scheme as possible, meaning that applications should be welcome from individual institutions as well as national or regional funding bodies. 4

5 It is also the experience of LERU members who are involved in the scheme that running a single-site training action is in practice no less expensive than a multi-site training network. This level of expense would not be recognised within the current COFUND scheme, so we suggest that in order to meet the high additional financial burden of carrying out an IDP, the Commission should cover research costs, management and overheads in addition to researcher salaries. Action 2: Experienced Researchers (IF) Individual Fellowships (IEF, IIF, IOF) The individual fellowship schemes are an excellent way of facilitating mobility and bringing high-quality postdoctoral researchers to Host Institutions. As a mature scheme, the conditions of each fellowship type are clear to applicants. LERU welcomes the simplification efforts during FP7, which have made administering the scheme significantly easier for Host Institutions. The IOF scheme presents significant problems for many Host Institutions due to its immediate mandatory return phase to Europe and the legal issues around seconding researchers to non-eu countries. LERU welcomes the proposal for a change to the legal implementation of the Individual Fellowships scheme under Horizon 2020, allowing for the freedom to decide on a format for each fellowship which would be appropriate for its aims. A duration of 6 to 24 months in total should be established, but within that limit candidates should be able to choose where to take their mobility, should they choose to do so, at application stage. Similarly, intersectoral secondments could be included to involve a broader range of institutions, but these should also be optional. Evaluators should decide on the appropriateness and usefulness of any proposed mobility or secondment at assessment stage. Furthermore, the mandatory return phase (currently instituted in the IOF scheme) should be dropped. It would thus remove the barriers to take-up of the actions that some European institutions currently experience due to the legal difficulties of signing a Grant Agreement which obliges them to ensure a return phase is completed. Furthermore, due to the difficulty in regulating the relationship between home and host institution during the Outgoing phase, LERU requests that a framework is put into place by the European Commission, preferably in the format of a template for a partnership agreement. Career Integration Grant (CIG) This action has achieved its aim of assisting in the integration of leading researchers, at varying stages of their careers, into European institutions. Although the Commission has proposed that the aims of the CIG scheme could be met under a more flexible Individual Fellowship action in Horizon 2020, LERU s experience in FP7 suggests that the CIG serves researchers with a different set of needs from those who apply for IFs. CIG researchers already have their salaries funded from other sources and the fellowship model would not be suitable for them. LERU would therefore like to see this action continue, though with recognition that applicants to this scheme may be at very different stages of their careers and have a wide range of experience. Additional clarity in the Guide for Applicants would also be welcomed as the description of the content of the project that applicants are expected to provide is currently vague. 5

6 Action 3: Exchange of Staff (RISE) Industry-Academia Partnerships and Pathways (IAPP) The current IAPP action is a viable means of funding cross-sector projects in particular areas. However, the scheme is complicated and requires a lot of administrative effort to set up. For instance, the figures shown on the GPFs 3 show the salaries for seconded researchers as going to the Host, rather than Home Institution, which is not usually how the projects are administered in practice. The necessity to reallocate the budget is a significant burden on the Coordinator in particular. This is compounded by rules that require participants to only second a member of staff who has been active at the home institution for twelve months or more and also to offer him/her a contract for at least twelve months on returning after the secondment. The Commission s reasoning for this is understandable: the intention is to ensure effective transfer of knowledge acquired on the secondment. But in a university environment the planned secondments can become impossible to carry out, for example if the individuals identified to undertake them have changes in their funding source or employment status. Under the future Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions, a relaxation in the rules of the successor programme would make it easier to promote the scheme to the research community. International Research Staff Exchange Scheme (IRSES) The IRSES scheme has had some success under FP7. The fact that it is only intended to support n et working rather than a defined research project can be useful in order to formalise or establish new relationships between groups of researchers in different countries whose interests are closely aligned. A major drawback of the scheme is its funding modality. In cases where travel is to a region far from Europe, the amount available per person-month may not even cover the cost of a return flight between the countries involved, particularly when management costs are included in this figure and may therefore be retained by the Coordinator. This is a major disincentive to involvement and is borne out in the relatively low interest in this scheme compared with the rest of the Marie Curie programme. LERU supports in principle the proposal to combine the IAPP and IRSES schemes to form the RISE action in Horizon We understand that the Commission s proposal is to reimburse costs on the basis of a fixed amount per researcher-month like the current IRSES, whereas LERU would prefer a salary for each seconded researcher, in line with the current IAPP scheme. If a fixed amount were to be used, it would need to be a realistic estimation of the actual additional cost to a researcher of carrying out his or her secondment, and should include consideration of travel costs and the expense of renting accommodation in a third country on a short-term basis. Making costs pro-rata for secondments shorter than a month is reasonable, but the financing involved must make up for the potentially high costs of return travel. Without a sound financial model, this scheme risks the relatively low levels of uptake that IRSES has seen under FP7. Applicants should have the flexibility to decide the size (i.e. in total number of person-months) of each RISE project. 3 Grant Preparation Forms 6

7 Action 4: COFUND The bottom-up nature of the Marie Curie programme is one of its main attractions. The COFUND action risks diluting this, as the funding is only available to researchers in the specific areas for which funding providers have applied. Because the scheme is managed by the national or pan-european organisations, the rules and available funding varies significantly. This does not present simplification to the individual researchers; instead it fragments the research landscape further and adds a significant layer of bureaucracy to the schemes. LERU would not wish to see an extension of the COFUND action line to the detriment of the individual fellowships as they exist in FP7. The COFUND scheme would be more attractive to researchers and also easier to administer if rates of funding per person-month awarded to the host institutions were fixed. As previously mentioned, if the IDP action is to move under COFUND in Horizon 2020, the high cost of running the action must be considered, including reimbursement of research, management and overhead costs. LERU also understands that the Commission is considering allowing an institution to hold only one COFUND action at any given time under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions. We would like to point out that this could severely impact multidisciplinary universities, as it would mean that a university could only run, for example, one IDP at a time and would have to turn down potential applications from any other researchers who are interested in setting one up, despite the fact that these researchers may work in a separate field of study from the existing project. Many universities are well capable of hosting several of these projects concurrently and indeed have the consistently high level of quality across their faculties and departments to do so. The only criterion for the success of this type of application should be excellence; taking away an excellent institution s freedom to legitimately carry out several COFUND projects at the same time risks jeopardising the excellence of this action as a whole. Therefore we request that no such restriction is put in place by the Commission under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions. General comments In FP7, correction coefficients for salaries change annually. This adds an unnecessary complication for two reasons: firstly, project budgeting and reporting is made more difficult due to each year s figures being different. Secondly, the Coefficients can vary significantly from year to year, meaning that Marie Curie fellows can receive very different salaries depending on the year in which they apply. This is unfair when they are assessed on the same criteria. LERU would therefore support a less frequent update to the correction coefficients and greater transparency as to how these coefficients are derived. It is also felt that there is an imbalance in the structure of the current panels for the Marie Curie Actions; there are six dealing with physical and life sciences and engineering, but only two for social sciences and humanities (SOC and ECO). We suggest that the panels are restructured along the same lines as currently used by the ERC to ensure evaluation has a better balance under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions in Horizon

8 LERU Facts and Figures Together LERU member universities account for more than 550,000 students, including 50,000 PhD candidates. Each year about 55,000 master s degrees and 12,000 doctorates are awarded at LERU universities. The total research budget of LERU s members exceeds 5 billion. More than 1 billion is granted by research councils, while over 1.25 billion comes from contract research. The total sum of research grants from EU projects to LERU universities is approximately 300 million. More than 20% of ERC grants have been awarded to researchers at LERU universities. Over 230 Nobel Prize and Field Medal winners have studied or worked at LERU universities. 55,000 academic staff and 55,000 non-academic staff work at the member institutions (hospital-only staff not included). LERU publishes its views on research and higher education in several types of publications, including position papers, advice papers, briefing papers and notes. LERU notes are short, timely statements providing concise analysis and specific advice in response to a pressing issue related to European research and higher education policies. They are often a product of LERU s standing engagement with certain issues and a result of intensive consultation among experts from the LERU universities. All LERU publications are freely available at LERU Office Huis Bethlehem tel Schapenstraat 34 fax info@leru.org B-3000 Leuven Belgium