Transcript Output analysis of AMR EU funding 5FP-6FP

Output analysis of AMR EU funding 5FP-6FP-7FP
-Quantitative data• Coordinators of 117 AMR-related EU projects contacted,
yielding 54 submissions
• Survey was open between August 1 and September 10, 2013
• Questionnaire designed by SAB members Herman Goossens
and Stephan Harbarth together with Arjon van Hengel (EC)
and the JPIAMR secretariat
Research Activities
Has the project finished?
1. Yes
36 (67%)
2. No
18 (33%)
Research Activities
What was the main research activity of the project?
1. Basic research
25 (46%)
2. Drug discovery/development
of novel antibiotics
15 (28%)
3. Treatment of AMR infections
5 (9%)
4. Prevention of AMR infections
8 (15%)
5. Clinical trials (observational
and intervention)
10 (19%)
6. Transmission dynamics
6 (11%)
7. Diagnostic tools
13 (24%)
8. Antibiotic resistance
surveillance
11 (20%)
9. Environmental aspects (drug
pollution, reservoir function,
transfer etc)
2 (4%)
10. Other (e.g. Molecular
studies of AMR bacteria,
antibiotic stewardship,
immunology, pathogenicity,
animal models…)
OTHER
"Prevention of healthcare-associated infections" ([email protected])
"animal models" ([email protected])
"molecular studies, pathogenicity" ([email protected])
"Risk Assessment" ([email protected])
"Evolution and spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria and their resistance genes"
([email protected])
"(Re)development of old antibiotics" ([email protected])
11 (20%)
"economics of resistance" ([email protected])
"epidemiology, pathogenicity, virulence strategies of Streptococcus pneumoniae"
([email protected])
"pathogenicity" ([email protected])
"Molecular studies of AMR bacteria" ([email protected])
Research Activities
How many peer reviewed publications have resulted from the project?
Number of peer-reviewed publications (from 50 replies):
TOTAL:
AVERAGE:
MEDIAN:
MAXIMUM:
1784
35,7
20,5
176
Research consortium
Was/is the consortium, or a subset of it, a continuation of a previous cooperation? If yes, please indicate the kind of
cooperation. If not applicable to your project, please specify "other"
1. Cooperation based on EU
funding
25 (47%)
2. Cooperation based on
national funding
4 (8%)
3. Cooperation without
collaborative funding
2 (4%)
4. No previous cooperation
16 (30%)
5. Other
6 (11%)
OTHER
"Limited collaboration between some partners" ([email protected])
"ERC young investigator award" ([email protected])
"Collaboration within the ESDPP " ([email protected])
"I sdo not understand the context of this questions" ([email protected])
Research consortium
Did/will the consortium, or a subset of it, continue to operate after the end of the project? If so, please indicate how. If
not applicable to your project, please specify "other".
1. Cooperation based on followup EU funding
17 (32%)
2. Cooperation based on
national funding
7 (13%)
3. Cooperation without
collaborative funding
15 (28%)
4. No continued cooperation
5 (9%)
5. Other
9 (17%)
OTHER
"Not applicable" ([email protected])
"not applicable" ([email protected])
"Cooperation based on available funding" ([email protected])
"N/A" ([email protected])
"will be decided in 2015" ([email protected])
"to early to say, but projects as a spin-off have already emerged." ([email protected])
"no relevant program found" ([email protected])
"Not finished" ([email protected])
Employment and career progression
How many new jobs (approximately) did your project generate (for early stage researchers (pre-doctoral level), postdoctoral research fellows or technicians)? (not including permanent personnel that were employed prior to the EU
contract).
Number of new jobs (from 50 replies):
TOTAL:
AVERAGE:
836
16,72
Employment and career progression
Has the research work on this grant played a key role in any qualifications gained by the researchers involved in the
project?
1. Yes
47 (92%)
2. No
4 (8%)
Industrial partners
Did your consortium include industrial partners?
1. Yes
39 (76%)
2. No
12 (24%)
Number of industrial partners:
TOTAL:
AVERAGE (if ”Yes”):
AVERAGE for all 51 replies:
118
3,03
2,31
Industrial partners
If your consortium included industrial partners, please specify within what area they were involved.
1. Research
28 (70%)
2. R&D service provider (e.g.
technology development, GMP
production)
26 (65%)
3. Training
1 (2%)
4. Administration/Management
5 (12%)
5.
Communication/Dissemination
9 (22%)
6. Other
2 (5%)
OTHER
"3 hard working SMEs/2 Universities working somehow more relaxed" ([email protected])
"Development of vaccine" ([email protected])