Transcript Document

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