Äîêóìåíò âçÿò èç êýøà ïîèñêîâîé ìàøèíû. Àäðåñ îðèãèíàëüíîãî äîêóìåíòà : http://ideas.msu.ru/docs/CSA_guide_2008.pdf Äàòà èçìåíåíèÿ: Mon Jun 28 01:50:44 2010 Äàòà èíäåêñèðîâàíèÿ: Mon Oct 1 19:29:01 2012 Êîäèðîâêà:

European Research Council
IDEAS Coordination and Support Action (CSA) Call identifier: ERC-2009-SUPPORT

Guide for Applicants
Version: 16 July 2008

The Guide is published by the ERC-DIS on http://erc.europa.eu It can also be downloaded from the CORDIS page on http://cordis.europa.eu

European Commission
FP7 Specific Programme IDEAS


Purpose of the Guide
This Guide for Applicants provides practical information to potential applicants in preparing and submitting an application for a Coordination and Support Action (CSA). The guide provides information specific to the call: ERC-2009-Support within the Ideas Specific Programme.1

1 This Guide is based on the rules and conditions contained in the legal documents relating to FP7 and the ERC (in particular the Seventh Framework Programme and the ERC Work programme), all of which can be consulted via the ERC and CORDIS web-site. The Guide does not in itself have legal value, and thus does not supersede those documents.

2


1. The European Research Council
The European Research Council (ERC) is a newly-created European funding initiative, designed to support the best scientists, engineers and scholars in Europe. The ERC's mandate is to encourage the highest quality research in Europe through competitive funding and to support investigator-initiated frontier research across all fields of research, on the basis of scientific excellence. Grants are awarded and managed according to simple procedures that maintain the focus on excellence, encourage creativity and combine flexibility with accountability. The ERC, which is established by the European Commission and funded through the EU's Seventh Framework Programme with a budget of 7.51 bn for 7 years (2007-2013), complements other funding schemes in Europe, such as those of research funding agencies operating at the national level and those within the EU's Seventh Framework Programme. The ERC consists of a Scientific Council and a Dedicated Implementation Structure. It operates under conditions of autonomy and integrity, guaranteed by the European Commission, to which it is accountable.

1.1. The role of the ERC Scientific Council
The Scientific Council establishes the overall scientific strategy of the ERC, including the annual work programme where the calls for proposals and the corresponding funding rules and selection criteria are defined. The Scientific Council establishes and oversees the ERC's scientific management and the implementation of the Work Programme, including the peer review and project selection processes and the selection of peer reviewers.

1.2. The Dedicated Implementation Structure
The Dedicated Implementation Structure (DIS) implements and manages ERC operations. It executes the annual work programme as established by the Scientific Council, implements calls for proposals and organises peer review evaluation in accordance with methodologies designed by the Scientific Council, and establishes and manages grant agreements. Additionally, it provides information and support to applicants and grant holders. The European Commission is setting up the Dedicated Implementation Structure as an executive agency. Pending the establishment and operability of the executive agency, its implementation tasks are executed by a dedicated service of the European Commission.

3


2.

Areas and Methodology of the Coordination and Support Action
What are Coordination and Support Actions (CSAs)?

2.1.

The CSA funding scheme allows "Coordination (or networking) actions" and "Support actions" to be financed. However, the ERC/IDEAS Work Programme only covers "Support actions" which are in general aimed at contributing to the implementation of the Framework Programmes and the preparation of future Community research and technological development policy. The support actions to be funded under ERC calls will contribute to the implementation of the ERC Work Programme by means of projects, studies, expert groups, seminars, data access and dissemination, information and communication activities; and initiatives for the monitoring, assessment and evaluation of the ERC Activities. Research, technological development or demonstration activities cannot be supported under CSAs. The minimum condition is the participation of one legal entity. Depending on their specific objectives, it is expected that support actions could have a duration from a few months up to 5 years. Reimbursement is based on eligible costs (based on maximum rates of reimbursement specified in the grant agreement for different types of activities within the project); in some cases the reimbursement of indirect costs is based on a flat rate.

2.2

Specific Areas in which CSA may be carried out

As described in the ERC/IDEAS Work Programme (see: http://erc.europa.eu and http://cordis.europa.eu/) the overall purpose of the CSA´s to be funded under the 2009 ERCSUPPORT call is to build up a comprehensive portfolio of projects and studies to support the ongoing monitoring, assessment and evaluation work as well as to the future strategy and policy development. The work foreseen will assist the ERC in engaging in a broad and diverse set of perspectives, to arrive at on this important set of issues and to establish assessment tools both to assure inputs to longitudinal the process of 'learning by doing'. creative and exploratory thinking, from a mature and well-considered position data collection, and monitoring and studies from the outset and to assist in

2.3

Focus of CSAs under the ERC-2009-SUPPORT call

The ERC is a new, ambitious and autonomous entity which aims to establish itself as a world-leading institution for science funding. Expectations about what it can and will achieve

4


are very high. It will therefore be necessary for the ERC to develop methods to assess progress towards its objectives. In the preparation of a monitoring and assessment strategy, the Scientific Council intends to develop a broad ranging understanding of quality standards and contributing topics and methodologies for assessing the qualitative and quantitative impacts of the ERC activities. These activities are part of a set of complementary assessment activities of the Commission, such as the monitoring system of the Framework Programme or the ERC mid-term review. It can draw on good practice and experience from Member States' evaluation activities of national research systems, international research institutions' activities, as well as other existing studies2. For the 2009 Support call, the ERC seeks to complement the project and studies supported from the 2008 CSA call. This will be done within a framework which categorises effects and impacts at four broad levels and which identifies topics on which proposals are invited within each category. However, the ERC operates a flexible and responsive "bottom-up" approach for proposal submissions and is thus open for further suggestions for high quality CSA studies and projects, within these broad categories provided they are of high strategic importance for the ERC. The methodologies proposed for the support activities should be effective and innovative. Proposals need to consider their potential impact on the ERC's operations and effectiveness, rather than addressing purely theoretical or conceptual issues, and be capable of making a real difference to the way the ERC develops from a policy perspective. As described in the Work Programme (see: http://erc.europa.eu and http://cordis.europa.eu/) the ERC-2009-SUPPORT projects should focus on the following objective: Development of a portfolio of projects based on exploratory, state-of the art, scholarly work within a framework which categorises effects and impacts at four broad levels and which identifies topics on which proposals are invited within each category. The focus is on: Studies addressing the direct and indirect impacts of the ERC on the research policy and culture in European research, on careers of researchers, on the performance of research institutions as well as addressing the impact on the exploitation of new, prospective themes. Studies targeting the effectiveness, efficiency and quality of the ERC science management.

See for example: Frontier Research - The European Challenge, High-Level Expert Group Report, February 2005, EUR 21619, European Commission

2

5


Categories of ERC effects and impacts
ERC Science management & organisation Research themes & scientific output
Management efficiency Science management & efficiency Performance development

Emerging research areas

Research output & comparative elements

Impact on themes & output

Researchers & host institutions

Institutional & individual excellence

Careers & mobility

Impact on researchers & institutions

Policy & structures

Changing structures & policies

Funding
complementaritries

ERC & societal impact

Policy impact

ERC Monitoring

For the 2009 call proposals are invited in particular on the following topics in the context of the following four categories : 1: ERC science management and organisation The ERC must be as efficient and effective as possible in its operations. It is also committed to being a "learning organisation", developing and adapting its structures and mechanisms to ensure it delivers its objectives in an effective manner. It must have the capability to link day to day action to the implementation of strategic objectives. Topic: Science Management and efficiency

Frontier research creates new knowledge beyond disciplinary borders and uses approaches outside established trajectories. Consequently, the ERC needs to be rigorous in evaluating the very best science and researchers and in selecting innovative and "high risk/high gain" projects. The ERC's operations are based on scientific governance provided by an independent Scientific Council which, inter alia, is responsible for designing the peer review process and selecting peer review experts. The ERC peer review system is at the very heart of the ERC's operations and a crucial element in realising its scientific strategy. Analysis is needed to monitor the effectiveness and efficiency of the peer review process (including its implementation) and to understand the particular dynamics and considerations at play in the process of selecting successful applicants, taking account of the interplay between scientific and administrative aspects of the process

6


2: Research themes and scientific output ERC projects should be effective in generating important new knowledge; it is also expected that they will exploit new, emerging research opportunities and foster breakthroughs in new areas. Topic: Emerging research areas

The bottom-up approach of the ERC funding schemes is flexible and responsive to new lines of research discovery which may have an impact on the development of dynamic, creative and innovative areas of research in Europe. Tools should be developed and analysis carried out to capture and map ERC-funded research within the landscape of science and draw implications, for example the emergence of new fields, Europe's comparative performance vis-Þ-vis the rest of the world or opportunities for knowledge transfer and uptake. 3: Researchers and host institutions The ERC sets out to attract and support the very best and most promising researchers and to encourage the most excellent research. Individual performance should improve as a result of ERC grants and, via this route and other mechanisms, the institutional performance of host organisations is expected to improve as well.

Topic:

Institutional and individual excellence
Analysis is needed of the ERC's impact at the institutional level (i.e. host institutions of successful and aspiring applicants), arising through the direct contribution of the grants and the research and people supported. Analysis should also consider the ERC's effects, and its impacts on host institutions' performance as well as their strategic responses to European competition and reputational effects.

4: Policy and structures The ERC is expected to affect both national and European research cultures. National policies and strategies of research councils and other funding agencies as are expected to adapt to the ERC and the opportunities it provides for frontier research, in the context of their broader strategies regarding the European Research Area. Topic: Changing structures and policies

Analysis is needed of the ERC's impact on research policies, on the landscape of publicly funded national/regional research programmes, on funding organisations in the Member states and in other countries.

Topic:

Funding complementarities

7


Analysis is needed of the interactions, including possible synergies and/or inefficiencies, between the ERC's activities and those of other national (including the US or Research Foundations) as well as European funding schemes. However, the ERC operates a flexible and responsive "bottom-up" approach for proposal submissions and is thus open for further suggestions for high quality CSA studies and projects, within these broad categories provided they are of high strategic importance for the ERC. Notwithstanding, for the ERC-Support 2009 call, the ERC seeks to complement the project and studies supported from the 2008 CSA call.

2.4. Methodology for the studies and projects
The methodologies proposed for the CSA support activities should be effective and innovative. It is foreseen that a range of different methods (e.g. statistics, case studies, bibliometric studies, surveys, social network analysis) could be appropriate for the projects and studies, recognising that different approaches may be appropriate for different disciplines. In the context of the ERC as an "experimentalist" and "learning organisation", support will also be given to pilot and test methods in projects and studies that could develop new insights into assessment and evaluation techniques. Depending on the nature of the work proposed, but recognising that some longitudinal studies will need to be started, project durations could be of up to 5 years. In all cases, proposals need to consider their potential impact on the ERC's operations and effectiveness, rather than addressing purely theoretical or conceptual issues, and be capable of making a real difference to the way the ERC develops from a policy perspective.

8


3. Applying for the CSA
3.1. When can I apply?
The ERC Work Programme provides the essential information for submitting a proposal to this call. It describes the content of the topics to be addressed, and details on how it will be implemented. The Work Programme is available on the ERC web site (http://erc.europa.eu) and CORDIS call page (http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/home_en.html). You must consult these documents.

3.2. How can I submit an application?
The application involves two distinct components: · Part A will contain the administrative information about the proposal and the participants (see Annex 1 to this Guide). The information requested includes a brief description of the work, contact details and characteristics of the participants, and information related to the funding requested. The information in part A is entered through a set of on-line forms. Part B is in the form of a "template", or list of headings, rather than an administrative form (see Annex 2 to this Guide). You should follow this structure when presenting the content of your proposal. The template is designed to highlight those aspects that will be assessed against the evaluation criteria. Part B of the proposal is uploaded by the applicant into the Electronic Proposal Submission Service (EPSS) described below. Box 1: Proposal submission - Important to know · Proposals cannot be submitted without prior registration (pre-registration), which is required to obtain an EPSS login name and password (see section 3.2.2). · Proposals sent by other means than EPSS will not be accepted. · Proposal formats and page numbers are limited strictly (see section 3.2.1) · Only the material that the proposal contains within the page limits while respecting the indicated layout parameters will be evaluated. · Evaluation is based on a peer review process with a panel composed of internationally renowned scientists and scholars (see section 4.2) · Please note that the working language of the peer review evaluation Panel is English.

·

3.2.1. Preparing a CSA application
Instructions for completing "part A" of the proposal Proposals in this call must be submitted electronically, using the Commission's Electronic Proposal Submission System (see section 3.2.2.).

9


In part A you will be asked for certain administrative details that will be used in the evaluation and further processing of your proposal. Part A forms an integral part of your proposal. Details of the work you intend to carry out will be described in part B. Section A1 gives a snapshot of your proposal, section A2 concerns you and your organisation, while section A3 deals with money matters. Please note: · · The coordinator fills in the section A1 and section A3. The participants already identified at the time of proposal submission (including the coordinator) each fill in their respective section A2 (to ensure the submission of an eligible proposal see also the Work Programme 2009 and its Annex 4 for the minimum requirements on the number of participants). Subcontractors shall not be required to fill in section A2 and should not be listed separately in section A3. The estimated budget planned for any future participants (not yet identified at the time of the proposal) is not shown separately in form A3 but should be added to the coordinator's budget. Their role, profile and tasks are described in Part B of the proposal.

· ·

For further more detailed information see Annex 1. Instructions for completing "part B" of the proposal A description of this funding scheme is given in chapter 2 to this Guide for Applicants. Please read this carefully before preparing your proposal. The research proposal needs to be uploaded electronically on EPSS in PDF format. The sections to be included in the research proposal in each stage and the maximum length of each are: 1. 2. 3. Objectives and impact (max. 7 pages) Quality and effectiveness (max. 8 pages plus tables) Resources (max. 5 pages)

Additionally, the following parameters must be respected for the layout: · · · · Page Format: A4 Font Type: Times New Roman Font Size: At least 11 Line Spacing Margins: Single, at least 1.5 cm

Only the material that the proposal contains within the above-mentioned page limits while respecting the layout parameters will be evaluated. Experts will be instructed to disregard any excess pages.

10


The information provided on each of these components should be sufficiently comprehensive to allow the peer reviewers to assess the scientific excellence of the proposal according to the evaluation criteria. Any ethical issues that may arise should be mentioned in their proposal. In particular, the following special issues should be taken into account: Informed consent: When describing issues relating to informed consent, it will be necessary to illustrate an appropriate level of ethical sensitivity, and consider issues of insurance, incidental findings and the consequences of leaving the study. Data protection issues: Avoid the unnecessary collection and use of personal data. Identify the source of the data, describing whether it is collected as part of the research or is previously collected data being used. Consider issues of informed consent for any data being used. Describe how personal identify of the data is protected. Further information regarding ethical review is available at the Cordis Webpage: http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ethics_en.html 3.2.2 Electronic Proposal Submission Proposals must be submitted electronically via the web-based Electronic Proposal Submission Service (EPSS)3. EPSS can be accessed via the ERC website and the call page on CORDIS, or directly at https://www.epss-fp7.org/epss/welcome.jsp Full instructions are in the "EPSS preparation and submission guide" at https://www.epssfp7.org/epss/EPSS-Userguide.pdf . Before submitting a proposal using EPSS, applicants name and password) and must agree to the conditions application can be prepared, uploaded and submitted early as possible before the deadline for the submission The most important points are: Use of the system by the proposal coordinator As a coordinator you can: · · · register as interested in submitting a proposal to a particular call set up (and modify) your consortium by adding/removing participants complete all of Part A of the proposal, pertaining to the proposal in general, and to your own administrative details must pre-register (to obtain a login of use of EPSS. Following this, the via EPSS. This should be done as of proposals.

In exceptional cases, when an applicant has absolutely no means of accessing the EPSS, and when it is impossible to arrange to do so, an applicant may request permission from the ERC to submit on paper. Such a request, which must clearly explain the circumstances of the case, must be received by the ERC no later than one month before the call deadline, at the following address: European Research Council (ERC), Madou Plaza n°1, Office: MADO 5/52, 1049 Brussels. The ERC will reply to such a request within five working days of receipt. If a derogation is granted, the ERC will send proposal forms for paper submission to the applicant concerned.

3

11


· ·

download the document template for writing Part B of the proposal and, when it is completed, upload the finished Part B submit the complete proposal Part A and Part B.

Use of the system by the other participants Other participants can: · · · complete their own sections A2 (participant details) download the document template for writing Part B of the proposal, in order to assist the coordinator in preparing it (however, only the coordinator can upload the finished version) view the whole proposal

Submitting the proposal Only the coordinator is authorised to submit the proposal. Completing the Part A forms in the EPSS and uploading a Part B does not yet mean that your proposal is submitted. Once there is a consolidated version of the proposal, you must press the button "SUBMIT NOW". (If you don't see the button "SUBMIT NOW", first select the "SUBMIT" tag at the top of the screen.). Please note that "SUBMIT NOW" starts the final steps for submission; it does not in itself cause the proposal to be submitted. After reading the information page that then appears, it is possible to submit the proposal using the button marked "Press this button to submit the proposal". The EPSS then performs an automatic validation of the proposal. A list of any problems ("validation error message") such as missing data, viruses, wrong file format or excessive file size will then appear on the screen. Submission is blocked until these problems are corrected. Once corrected, the coordinator must then repeat the above steps to achieve submission. The coordinator may continue to modify the proposal and submit revised versions overwriting the previous one right up until the deadline. The sequence above must be repeated each time. If the submission sequence described above is not followed, the ERC considers that no proposal has been submitted. For the proposal Part B you must use exclusively PDF ("portable document format", compatible with Adobe version 3 or higher, with embedded fonts). Other file formats will not be accepted by the system. Irrespective of any page limits specified in annex 4 to this Guide, there is an overall limit of 10Mbyte to the size of proposal file Part B. There are also restrictions to the name you give to the Part B file. You should only use alphanumeric characters. Special characters and spaces must be avoided. Proposals must be submitted before the deadline specified in the Call for Proposals. It is your responsibility to ensure the timely submission of your proposal.

12


The EPSS will be closed at the call deadline. After this moment, access to the EPSS will be impossible. Applicants are strongly advised to prepare their submission and upload the proposal in good time before the deadline. Submission is deemed to occur at the moment when the applicant presses the 'SUBMIT' button. It is not the point at which the applicant starts uploading the proposal. Applicants who wait until too near to the close of the call to start uploading their proposal, take a serious risk that the uploading is not concluded in time and thus the `SUBMIT' button is not active anymore in order to conclude the submission process. Proposals are kept under secure conditions at all times. When no longer needed, all copies are destroyed except those required for archiving and/or auditing purposes. 3.2.3 Reception If the submission is technically successful, the co-ordinator receives an automatic computer generated acknowledgement from EPSS. Acknowledgement of receipt is subsequently provided by e-mail after the call deadline. Subsequent to submission, the ERC may contact the submitters if this is necessary to clarify questions of eligibility or to verify administrative or legal data contained in the proposal. 3.2.4 Modifying a proposal Up to the call deadline, it is possible to modify a proposal simply by submitting a new version. So long as the call has not yet closed, the new submission will overwrite the old one. Once the deadline has passed, however, the ERC can accept no further additions, corrections or re-submissions. The last eligible version of your proposal received before the deadline is the one which will be evaluated, and no later material can be submitted.

13


4. Evaluation and selection of proposals
A one-stage evaluation procedure will be followed. Proposals will be evaluated by a peer review panel. The proposals should demonstrate the applicability of the project to the ERC in this first phase of its development and the knowledge on the characteristics of the European Research Area. The Indicative budget for CSA Support Action is 2,500,000. The budget of each CSA study should be defined in relation to the scale and duration of the initiative, with particular attention to cost-effectiveness. In view of the limited call budget for 2009, only a small number of proposals will be selected. The maximum duration of project funding is 5 years.

4.1.

Eligibility Check
registered and acknowledged and their contents evaluation process. Eligibility criteria for each before the evaluation begins. Proposals which do the evaluation.

On receipt by the ERC-DIS, proposals are entered into a database to support the proposal are also checked by the ERC-DIS not fulfil these criteria will not be included in

For this call a proposal will only be considered eligible if it meets all of the following conditions: · · · · · It is submitted via EPSS before the deadline It is complete (i.e. both the requested administrative forms and the proposal description are present) The content of the proposal relates to the topic(s) and the funding scheme. Minimum number of applicants Any other additional eligibility criteria

4.2 Peer Review Evaluation
4.2.1. Peer review evaluation panel and evaluation criteria The Panel Members are selected by the ERC-DIS on the basis of their excellent scientific reputation. The composition of the Panel is outlined in Box 2. Box 2: Composition of ERC Panel · The Panel consists of up to 8 Panel Members moderated by the ERC-DIS. · The ERC-DIS establishes a list of experts capable of evaluating the proposals that have been received. ERC-DIS staff allocates proposals to individual experts, taking account of the fields of expertise of the experts, and avoiding conflicts of interest. · ERC-DIS manages and ensures the quality of the evaluation process for the proposals assigned to his/her panel.

14


Conflicts of interest: Under the terms of the appointment letter, peer reviewers must declare beforehand any known conflicts of interest, and must immediately inform an ERC-DIS staff member if one becomes apparent during the course of the evaluation.. In the "potential" case, ERC-DIS will make decision whether the situation in question constitutes an actual CoI - or no CoI. Confidentiality: The appointment letter also requires peer reviewers to maintain strict confidentiality with respect to the whole evaluation process. They must follow any instruction given by the ERC-DIS to ensure this. Under no circumstance may an expert attempt to contact an applicant on his own account, either during the evaluation or afterwards. Each criterion will be scored out of 5 (half marks can be given) and an overall quality threshold of 80% (12/15) will be used to establish the retained list of proposals which will be ranked in order of priority for funding.4 Box 3: Evaluation criteria 1. Objectives and impact (award) Are the objectives of the proposed project consistent with the requirements specified in the Work Programme and/or call for proposals? Will the project have a substantial impact in the context of the ERC strategic objectives? 2. Quality and effectiveness (award) Is the proposed methodology and work plan effective in reaching the goals of the project? Does it ensure the highest quality and/or utility of results? Does it, where appropriate, correspond to, or go beyond, best current practice? 3. Resources (selection) Are the resources (personnel, experience, equipment, other) appropriate for the goals of the project? Will they be used effectively? Are they properly justified?

Individual Assessment Proposals are distributed to Panel Members who read them "remotely" (i.e. at their place of work). Each proposal will be reviewed by at least three Panel Members. The peer reviewers record their individual opinions in an Individual Assessment Report (IAR), giving scores and also justification against the evaluation criteria. When scoring proposals, peer reviewers must only apply the above evaluation criteria. Peer reviewers will assess and mark the proposal exactly as it is described and presented. They do not make any assumption or interpretation about the project beyond what is in the proposal. Concise but explicit justification will be given for each score in the comments accompanying the marks. Recommendations for improvements to be discussed as part of a possible
PLEASE NOTE: The calibration scheme for the scores may be adjusted during the period of this call. This will entail a modification to the Commission's submission and evaluation rules. The version of the rules in force at the moment of the evaluation session will apply.
4

15


negotiation phase will be given, if needed. The peer reviewers will also indicate whether, in their view, the proposal deals with sensitive ethical issues, or if it requires further scrutiny with regard to security considerations. It is possible that a proposal is found to be completely out of scope of the call during the course of the individual evaluation, and therefore not relevant. If an expert suspects that this may be the case, an ERC-DIS staff member will be informed immediately, and the views of the other peer reviewers will be sought. If the consensus view is that the main part of the proposal is not relevant to the topics of the call, the proposal will be withdrawn from the evaluation, and the proposal will be deemed ineligible. Expert panel evaluation After the individual assessment, proposals are discussed in a plenary session by the Panel during a meeting. The Panel discussion is moderated by the ERC-DIS. The role of the moderator is to seek to arrive at a consensus between the individual views of peer reviewers without any prejudice for or against particular proposals or the organisations involved, and to ensure a confidential, fair and equitable evaluation of each proposal according to the required evaluation criteria. In addition, a Member of the ERC Scientific Council may take part as an observer. The peer reviewers attempt to agree on a consensus score for each of the criteria that have been evaluated and suitable comments to justify the scores. Comments should be suitable for feedback to the applicant. Scores and comments are set out in a consensus report. They also come to a common view on the questions of scope, ethics and security. At the end of the review procedure the Panel formulate its recommendations and draws up the final ranked list of proposals for possible funding. The final selection of the projects will be done by ERC-DIS based on the panel's recommendations, taking account of the available budget.

4.2.2. Ethical Review
The ERC evaluation procedure includes a check of any ethical issues raised by the proposals. After the evaluation and before any funding decision, an review of proposals involving sensitive issues may take place. The objective of this ethical review is to make sure that the ERC does not support research which would be contrary to fundamental ethical principles. A dedicated website that aims to provide clear, helpful information on ethical issues is available at: http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ethics_en.html

4.2.3. Feedback to applicants
Shortly after the call deadline, the Commission will send an acknowledgement of receipt to the e-mail address of the coordinator given in the submitted proposal. Please note that the brief electronic message given by the EPSS system after each submission is not the official Acknowledgement of Receipt.

16


Shortly after the completion of the evaluation, all applicants will receive a letter containing information of the panel evaluation from the ERC-DIS.

17


5. Publication and exploitation of results
5.1 Acknowledging ERC support
Publications arising from study results need the approval by the ERC. achievements resulting from ERC supported research are published (such as patents, presentations, etc.) the ERC's financial support under the Seventh Programme should be highlighted. This may imply a written acknowledgment application of the ERC logo and the European emblem: Whenever in journals, Framework and/or the

"The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Community's 7th Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) / ERC grant agreement n° [xxxxxx]5 To download the image files of the ERC logo and the European emblem, please consult http://erc.europa.eu/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.display&topicID=128 .

5.2 Dissemination, Exploitation and IPR
The ERC may publish information on projects which it supports financially.

6. Further Information and Support
Information day: The DIS will organise an Information Day in Brussels with the aim of providing detailed call information on potential topics to potential applicants from the wider research and evaluation community that are interested in the CSA support call for proposals. The information day will take place on the 16th of September 2008. Further information including registration details will be announced on the ERC website. General information and key documents are available on the ERC website at http://erc.europa.eu and CORDIS at http://cordis.europa.eu. As with other parts of the Seventh Framework Programme, National Contact Points (ERC NCPs) have been set up across Europe6 by the national governments to provide information and personalised support to ERC applicants in their native language. The mission of the ERC NCPs is to raise awareness, inform and advise on ERC funding opportunities as well as to support potential applicants in the preparation, submission and follow-up of ERC grant applications.7 For details on the ERC NCP in your country please consult the ERC website at http://erc.europa.eu/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.ncpList.
This statement will have to be made in the language of the dissemination activity. Translations in all Community languages will be provided. 6 This applies to EU Member States and Associated Countries. Some third countries also provide this service. 7 Note: The ERC will provide its NCPs with information and statistics on the outcome of calls and the evaluation of each proposal. This information is given under strict conditions of confidentiality and allows ERC NCPs to customize their service. 5

18


Technical questions related to the Electronic Proposal Submission Service (EPSS) should be directed to the EPSS Helpdesk by e-mail support@epss-fp7.org or by phone +32-2-233 3760. A general ERC Helpdesk is also available and accessible via the Europe Direct Contact Centre at http://ec.europa.eu/research/index.cfm?pg=enquiries .

19


Annex 1: Submission Forms
Instructions for completing the "administrative forms" (A forms) of your proposal

Section A1: Summary
Proposal Acronym
The short title or acronym will be used to identify your proposal efficiently in this call. It should be of no more than 20 characters (use standard alphabet and numbers only; no symbols or special characters please). The same acronym should appear on each page of part B of your proposal. The title should be no longer than 200 characters and should be understandable to the nonspecialist in your field.

Proposal Title

Duration in months Call (part) identifier

Insert the estimated duration of the project in full months.

[pre-filled] The call identifier is the reference number given in the call or part of the call you are addressing, as indicated in the publication of the call in the Official Journal of the European Union, and on the CORDIS call page. A call identifier looks like this: FP7 IDEAS -??? All activities and topics of FP7 have been assigned unique codes, which are used in the processing of data on proposals and subsequent contracts. The codes are organised hierarchically. The choice of the first activity code will be limited in the drop-down menu to one of the topics open in this call. Select the code corresponding to the topic most relevant to your proposal. The choice for the second code is also limited to topics open in the call in question. Enter a second code if your proposal also addresses another of these. Select `none' if this is not the case. Select a third code if your proposal is also relevant to another theme. This time, the available codes will simply correspond to broad themes. Select `none' if this is not the case. Please enter a number of keywords that you consider sufficient to characterise the scope of your proposal. There is a limit of 100 characters.

Activity code(s) most relevant to your topic

Free Keywords Abstract

The abstract should, at a glance, provide the reader with a clear understanding of the objectives of the proposal, how they will be achieved, and their relevance to the Work Programme. This summary will be used as the short description of the proposal in the evaluation process and in communications to the programme management committees and other interested parties. It must therefore be short and precise and should not contain confidential information. Please use plain typed text, avoiding formulae and other special characters. If the proposal is written in a language other than English, please include an English version of the proposal abstract in part B. There is a limit of 2000 characters. A `similar' proposal or contract is one that differs from the current one in minor ways, and in which some of the present consortium members are involved.

Similar proposals or signed contracts

20


Section A2/ Participants
Participant number Participant Identify Code
The number allocated by the consortium to the participant for this proposal. The co-ordinator of a proposal is always number one.

Applicants possessing a Participant Identification Code (PIC) can use this number to identify themselves in the Electronic Proposal Submission system. On entering the PIC, parts of the A forms will be filled in automatically. Please note hat in the cases where a PIC is not available it will always be possible to submit a proposal by entering the organisation details manually. However, the use of PICs will lead to more efficient handling of the proposal. The process for assigning a PIC is triggered by a self-registration of an organisation at the following website: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/urf. On this website you will also find a search tool for checking if your organisation is already registered (and has thus a PIC). For Public Law Body, it is the name under which your organisation is registered in the Resolution text, Law, Decree/Decision establishing the Public Entity, or in any other document established at the constitution of the Public Law Body; For Private Law Body, it is the name under which your organisation is registered in the national Official Journal (or equivalent) or in the national company register. For a natural person, it is for e.g. Mr Adam JOHNSON, Mrs Anna KUZARA, and Ms Alicia DUPONT.

Legal name

Organisation Short Name

Choose an abbreviation of your Organisation Legal Name, only for use in this proposal and in all relating documents. This short name should not be more than 20 characters exclusive of special characters (./;...), for e.g. CNRS and not C.N.R.S. It should be preferably the one as commonly used, for e.g. IBM and not Int.Bus.Mac. For Public and Private Law Bodies, it is the address of the entity's Head Office. For Individuals it is the Official Address. If your address is specified by an indicator of location other than a street name and number, please insert this instead under the "street name" field and "N/A" under the "number" field.

Legal address

Non-profit organisation Public body

Non-profit organisation is a legal entity qualified as such when it is recognised by national or, international law.

Public body means any legal entity established as such by national law, and international organisations.

Research organisation

Research organisation means a legal entity established as a non-profit organisation which carries out research or technological development as one of its main objectives.

21


NACE code

NACE means " Nomenclature des ActivitÈs Èconomiques dans la CommunautÈ EuropÈenne". Please select one activity from the list that best ventures. If you are involved in more than one that is most relevant in the context of your cont information on the methodology, structure and please consult EUROSTAT at: describes your professional and economic economic activity, please select the one activity ribution to the proposed project. For more full content of NACE (rev. 1.1) classification

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ramon/nomenclatures/index.cf m?TargetUrl=LST_CLS_DLD&StrNom=NACE_1_1&StrLang uageCode=EN&StrLayoutCode=HIERARCHIC .

Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs)

SMEs are micro, small and medium-sized enterprises within the meaning of Recommendation 2003/361/EC in the version of 6 May 2003. The full definition and a guidance booklet can be found at http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/enterprise_policy/sme_definition/index_en.htm An enterprise is considered as an SME, taking into account its partner enterprises and/or linked enterprises (please see the above mentioned recommendation for an explanation of these notions and their impact on the definition), if it: · employs fewer than 250 persons; · has an annual turnover not exceeding EUR 50 million, and/or an annual balance sheet total not exceeding EUR 43 million. The headcount corresponds to the number of annual work units (AWU), i.e. the number of persons who worked full-time within the enterprise in question or on its behalf during the entire reference year under consideration. The work of persons who have not worked the full year, the work of those who have worked part-time, regardless of duration, and the work of seasonal workers are counted as fractions of AWU. The staff consists of: (a) employees; (b) persons working for the enterprise being subordinated to it and deemed to be employees under national law; (c) owner-managers; (d) partners engaging in a regular activity in the enterprise and benefiting from financial advantages from the enterprise. ATTENTION: Apprentices or students engaged in vocational training with an apprenticeship or vocational training contract can not be included as staff. The duration of maternity or parental leaves is also not counted. The data to apply to the financial amounts (e.g. turnover and balance sheet), as well as to the headcount of staff, are those relating to the latest approved accounting period and calculated on an annual basis. They are taken into account from the date of closure of the accounts. The amount selected for the turnover is calculated excluding value added tax (VAT) and other indirect taxes. In the case of newly-established enterprises whose accounts have not yet been approved, the data to apply is to be derived from a bona fide estimate made in the course of the financial year. These organisations must insert "N/A" for the two questions relating to the duration and the closing date of their last approved accounting period. Two participants (legal entities) are dependent on each other where there is a controlling relationship between them: - or - or - A legal entity is under the same direct or indirect control as another legal entity (SG); A legal entity directly or indirectly controls another legal entity (CLS); A legal entity is directly or indirectly controlled by another legal entity (CLB).

Dependencies with (an) other participant(s)

Control: Legal entity A controls legal entity B if: - A, directly or indirectly, holds more than 50% of the nominal value of the issued

22


share capital or a majority of the voting rights of the shareholders or associates of B, or - A, directly or indirectly, holds in fact or in law the decision-making powers in B.

The following relationships between legal entities shall not in themselves be deemed to constitute controlling relationships: (a) the same public investment corporation, institutional investor or venture-capital company has a direct or indirect holding of more than 50 % of the nominal value of the issued share capital or a majority of voting rights of the shareholders or associates; (b) the legal entities concerned are owned or supervised by the same public body. According to the explanation above mentioned, please insert the appropriate abbreviation according to the list below to characterise the relation between your organisation and the other participant(s) you are related with: · · · SG: Same group: if your organisation and the other participant are controlled by the same third party; CLS: Controls: if your organisation controls the other participant; CLB: Controlled by: if your organisation is controlled by the other participant.

Character of dependence

Contact point

It is the main scientist or team leader in charge of the proposal for the participant. For participant number 1 (the coordinator), this will be the person the ERC-DIS will contact concerning this proposal (e.g. for additional information, invitation to hearings, sending of evaluation results, convocation to negotiations).

Title

Please choose one of the following: Prof., Dr., Mr., Mrs, Ms.

Sex

This information is required for statistical and mailing purposes. Indicate F or M as appropriate. Please insert the full numbers including country and city/area code. Example +32-2-2991111.

Phone and fax numbers

Section A3/Budget

Indirect Costs

Indirect directly system project.

costs are all those eligible costs which cannot be identified by the participant as being attributed to the project but which can be identified and justified by its accounting as being incurred in direct relationship with the eligible direct costs attributed to the They may not include any eligible direct costs.

Summary description (as displayed on EPSS) Method of calculating indirect costs
· Participants who have an analytical accounting system that can identify and group their indirect costs in accordance with the eligibility criteria (e.g. exclude non-eligible costs) must report their actual indirect costs (or choose the 20% flat rate option referred to below). For the purpose of calculating the actual indirect costs, a participant is allowed to use a simplified method of calculation of its full indirect eligible costs.

·

23


·

Optionally, participants may opt for a flat rate for indirect costs of 20% of the direct costs (minus subcontracting and third party costs not incurred on the premises of the participant. A specific flat rate of 60% of the direct costs is foreseen for non-profit public bodies, secondary and higher education establishments, research organisations and SMEs, which are unable to identify with certainty their real indirect costs for the project when participating in funding schemes which include research and technological development and demonstration activities. The 60% flat rate will apply for grants awarded under calls for proposals closing before 1st January 2010; for grants awarded under calls closing after 31 December 2009, an appropriate level of flat rate which should be an approximation of the real indirect costs concerned but not lower than 40% of the direct costs will apply.

·

For Coordination and Support actions, whichever method is used, the reimbursement of indirect eligible costs may not exceed 7% of the direct eligible costs, excluding the direct eligible costs for subcontracting and the costs of reimbursement of resources made available by third parties which are not used on the premises of the participant.

International Cooperation Partner Country (ICPC) Lump sum funding method

International Cooperation Partner Country means a third country which the Commission classifies as a low-income, lower-middle income or upper-middle-income country and which is identified as such in Annex I to the work programmes.

Legal entities established in an ICPC may opt for lump sums. In that case the contribution is based on the amounts shown below, multiplied by the total number of person-years for the project requested by the ICPC legal entity. · · · Low-income ICPC: 8,000 Euro/researcher/year Lower middle income ICPC: 9,800 Euro/researcher/year Upper middle income ICPC 20,700 Euro/researcher/year

The maximum EC contribution is calculated by applying the normal upper funding limits shown under "requested EC contribution". This amount is all inclusive, covering support towards both the direct and the indirect costs. More information on ICPC lump sums can be found in the section II.18 of the "Guide to financial issues" http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/find-doc_en.html

Type of Activity

· Support activities may cover activities, depending on their nature such as: monitoring and assessment; conferences; seminars; studies; high level scientific awards and competitions; operational support; data access and dissemination, information and communication activities; specific services activities related to research infrastructures, such as for example transnational access; preparatory technical work, including feasibility studies for the development of new infrastructures; contribution to the construction of new infrastructures; cooperation with other European research schemes; or a combination of these. · Other activities means any specific activities not covered by the above mentioned types of activity such as training, coordination, networking and dissemination (including publications). These activities should be specified in the proposal Part B. Management activities are part of the other activities. They include the maintenance of the consortium agreement, if it is obligatory, the overall legal, ethical, financial and administrative management including for each of the participants obtaining the certificates on the financial statements or on the methodology, the implementation of competitive calls by the consortium for the participation of new participants and, any other management activities foreseen in the proposal except coordination of research and technological development activities.

24


Personnel costs

Personnel costs are only the costs of the actual hours worked by the persons directly carrying out work under the project and shall reflect the total remuneration: salaries plus social security charges (holiday pay, pension contribution, health insurance, etc.) and other statutory costs included in the remuneration. Such persons must: ­ be directly hired by the participant in accordance with its national legislation, ­ be working under the sole technical supervision and responsibility of the latter, and ­ be remunerated in accordance with the normal practices of the participant. Participants may opt to declare average personnel costs if certified in accordance with a methodology approved by the Commission and consistent with the management principles and usual accounting practices of the participant. Average personnel costs charged by a participant having provided a certification on the methodology are deemed not to significantly differ from actual personnel costs.

Sub-contracting

A subcontractor is a third party which has entered into an agreement on business conditions with one or more participants, in order to carry out part of the work of the project without the direct supervision of the participant and without a relationship of subordination. Where it is necessary for the participants to subcontract certain elements of the work to be carried out, the following conditions must be fulfilled: subcontracts may only cover the execution of a limited part of the project; recourse to the award of subcontracts must be duly justified in Part B of the proposal having regard to the nature of the project and what is necessary for its implementation; recourse to the award of subcontract by a participant may not affect the rights and obligations of the participants regarding background and foreground; Part B of the proposal must indicate the task to be subcontracted and an estimation of the costs;

-

Any subcontract, the costs of which are to be claimed as an eligible cost, must be awarded according to the principles of best value for money (best price-quality ratio), transparency and equal treatment. Framework contracts between a participant and a subcontractor, entered into prior to the beginning of the project that are according to the participant's usual management principles may also be accepted. Participants may use external support services for assistance with minor tasks that do not represent per se project tasks as identified in Part B of the proposal.

Other direct costs

Means direct costs not covered by the above mentioned categories of costs.

Total Budget

Note: The "total budget" is not the requested EC contribution.
A sum of all the eligible costs, under the respective types of activity.

Requested EC contribution

The requested EC contribution shall be determined by applying the upper funding limits indicated below, per activity and per participant to the costs accepted by the Commission, or to the flat rates or lump sums.

Maximum reimbursement rates of eligible costs

25


1. 2.

Support activities = 100% Other activities (including management) = 100%

(*) For participants that are non profit public bodies, secondary and higher education establishments, research organisations and SMEs.

Total Receipts

Note: "Receipts" are not the requested EC contribution.
Receipts of the project may arise from: a) Financial transfers or contributions in kind free of charge to the participant from third parties: i. shall be considered a receipt of the project if they have been contributed by the third party specifically to be used on the project. shall not be considered a receipt of the project if their use is at the management discretion of the participant.

ii.

b) Income generated by the project: i. shall be considered receipts for the participant when generated by actions undertaken in carrying out the project and from the sale of assets purchased under the grant agreement up to the value of the cost initially charged to the project by the participant; shall not be considered a receipt for the participant when generated from the use of foreground resulting from the project.

ii.

The Community financial contribution may not have the purpose or effect of producing a profit for the participants. For this reason, the total requested EC funding plus receipts cannot exceed the total eligible costs.

26


Annex 2: Proposal Template
This chapter provides a template to help you structure your proposal. It will help you present important aspects of your planned work in a way that will enable the peer reviewers to make an effective assessment against the evaluation criteria (see Box 3: Evaluation criteria). Sections 1, 2 and 3 each correspond to an evaluation criterion. Please keep to maximum page lengths as specified. The ERC-DIS may instruct the peer reviewers to disregard any excess pages. It is in your interest to keep your text concise since over-long proposals are rarely viewed in a positive light by peer reviewers. Cover Page Proposal full title: Proposal acronym: Name of the coordinating person: List of participants: Participant no. * 1 (Coordinator) 2 3 Participant organisation name Country

*Please use the same participant numbering as that used in section A2 of the administrative forms Table of Contents Proposal 1. 1.1 Objectives and impact Are the objectives of the proposed project consistent with the requirements specified in the Work Programme and Call for Proposals? Explain the concept of your project. What are the main ideas that led you to propose this work? Describe in detail the objectives. Show how they relate to the topics addressed by the call. The objectives should be those achievable within the project, not through subsequent development. They should be stated in a measurable and verifiable form, including through the milestones that will be indicated in table E below. 1.2 Will the project have a substantial impact in the context of the ERC strategic objectives? Describe how your study will contribute towards the expected impacts listed in the Work Programme in relation to the topic or topics in question. Mention the steps that will be needed to bring about these impacts. Explain why this contribution requires a European (rather than a national or local) approach. Indicate how account is taken of

27


other national or international research activities. Mention any assumptions and external factors that may determine whether the impacts will be achieved. Spreading excellence, exploiting results, disseminating knowledge Outline how you intend to achieve these benefits through engagement with stakeholders outside the network, and the public at large. (Maximum length for the whole of Section 1: ­ 7 pages) 2. 2.1 Quality and effectiveness Is the proposed methodology and work plan effective in reaching the goals of the project? A detailed work plan should be presented, broken down into work packages8 (WPs) which should follow the logical phases of the implementation of the project, and include consortium management and assessment of progress and results. (Please note that your overall approach to management will be described later, in section 2). Please present your plans as follows: i) ii) iii) Describe the overall strategy of the work plan. Show the timing of the different WPs and their components (Gantt chart or similar). Provide a detailed work description broken down into work packages: Work package list (table A, see below); Deliverables list (table B, see below); Description of each work package, and summary (table C, see below) Summary effort table (table D, see below) List of milestones (table E, see below) Provide a graphical presentation of the components showing their interdependencies (Pert diagram or similar)

iv) Note: ·

The number of work packages used must be appropriate to the complexity of the work and the overall value of the proposed project. The planning should be sufficiently detailed to justify the proposed effort and allow progress monitoring by the ERC-DIS. Any significant risks should be identified, and contingency plans described.

· 2.2
8

Does it ensure the highest quality and/or utility of results?

A work package is a major sub-division of the proposed project with a verifiable end-point - normally a deliverable or a milestone in the overall project.

28


2.3

Does it, where appropriate, correspond to, or go beyond, best current practice? (Maximum length for the whole of Section 2 ­ 8 pages, plus the tables)

3. 3.1

Resources Are the resources (personnel, experience, equipment, other) appropriate for the goals of the project? Describe the organisational structure and decision-making mechanisms of the study. Show how they are matched to the complexity and scale of the project. Individual participants For each participant in the proposed project, provide a brief description of the organisation, the main tasks they have been attributed, and the previous experience relevant to those tasks. Provide also a short profile of the staff members who will be undertaking the work. Consortium as a whole (only if relevant) Describe how the participants collectively constitute a consortium capable of achieving the project objectives, and how they are suited and are committed to the tasks assigned to them. Show the complementarity between participants. Explain how the composition of the consortium is well-balanced in relation to the objectives of the project. i) Sub-contracting: If any part of the work is to be sub-contracted by the participant responsible for it, describe the work involved and explain why a sub-contract approach has been chosen for it. ii) Other countries: If one or more of the participants requesting EU funding is based in a country that is outside the EU, and is not an Associated country, and is not on the list of International Cooperation Partner Countries9, explain in terms of the project's objectives why such funding would be essential. In addition to the costs indicated in part A3 of the proposal, and the staff effort shown in table D above, please indicate any other major costs (e.g. equipment).

3.2

Will they be used effectively? Are they properly justified? Describe how the totality of the necessary resources will be mobilised, including any resources that will complement the EC contribution. Show how the resources will be integrated in a coherent way, and show how the overall financial plan for the project is adequate.

9

See CORDIS web-site (http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/who_en.html#countries).

29


Maximum length for Section ­ 5 pages Table A:
Work package 10 No

Work package list
Work package title Type 11 activity of Lead participant No12 Person13 months Start month
14

End mont h14

TOTAL
Table B:
Del. no.
15

Deliverables List
WP no.
Nature
16

Deliverable name

Dissemination level17

Delivery date

18

10 11

Workpackage number: WP 1 ­ WP n. Please indicate one activity per work package: Supp = Support activities (including any activities to prepare for the dissemination and/or exploitation of project results, and coordination activities); MGT = Management of the consortium; Other specific activities, if applicable in this call.

12 13

Number of the participant leading the work in this work package. The total number of person-months allocated to each work package. 14 Measured in months from the project start date (month 1). 15 Deliverable numbers in order of delivery dates. Please use the numbering convention .. For example, deliverable 4.2 would be the second deliverable from work package 4. 16 Please indicate the nature of the deliverable using one of the following codes: R = Report, P = Prototype, D = Demonstrator, O = Other 17 Please indicate the dissemination level using one of the following codes: PU = Public PP = Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services). RE = Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services). CO = Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services).
18

Measured in months from the project start date (month 1).

30


Table C:

Work package description for each work package: Start date or starting event:

Work package number Work package title Activity Type19 Participant number Person-months per participant: Objectives

Description of work (possibly broken down into tasks), and role of participants

Deliverables (brief description and month of delivery)

19

Please indicate one activity per work package: RTD = Research and technological development (including any activities to prepare for the dissemination and/or exploitation of project results, and coordination activities); DEM = Demonstration; MGT = Management of the consortium; OTHER = Other specific activities, if applicable.

31


Summary of staff effort
A summary of the staff effort is useful for the evaluators. Please indicate in the table the number of person months over the whole duration of the planned work, for each work package, for each participant. Identify the work-package leader for each WP by showing the relevant person-month figure in bold. Table D: Efforts WP1 WP2 WP3 ... Total person months

Participant no./short name Part.1 short name ... ... ... Total

Milestones
Milestones are control points where decisions are needed with regard to the next stage of the study. For example, a milestone may occur when a major result has been achieved, if its successful attainment is required for the next phase of work. Another example would be a point when the consortium must decide which of several technologies to adopt for further development. Table E: Milestone number List of Milestones Milestone name Work package(s) involved Expected date
20

Means of verification21

20 21

Measured in months from the start date (month 1). Show how you will confirm that the milestone has been attained. Refer to indicators if appropriate. For example: a laboratory prototype completed and running flawlessly; software released and validated by a user group; field survey complete and data quality validated.

32


4. Ethical Issues
Describe any ethical issues that may arise in their proposal. In particular, you should explain the benefit and burden of their experiments and the effects it may have on the research subject. The following special issues should be taken into account: Informed consent: When describing issues relating to informed consent, it will be necessary to illustrate an appropriate level of ethical sensitivity, and consider issues of insurance, incidental findings and the consequences of leaving the study. Data protection issues: Avoid the unnecessary collection and use of personal data. Identify the source of the data, describing whether it is collected as part of the research or is previously collected data being used. Consider issues of informed consent for any data being used. Describe how personal identify of the data is protected. Use of animals: Where animals are used in research the application of the 3Rs (Replace, Reduce, Refine) must be convincingly addressed. Numbers of animals should be specified. Describe what happens to the animals after the research experiments. Human embryonic stem cells: Research proposals that will involve human embryonic stem cells (hESC) will have to address all the following specific points: · the applicants should demonstrate that the project serves important research aims to advance scientific knowledge in basic research or to increase medical knowledge for the development of diagnostic, preventive or therapeutic methods to be applied to humans. · the necessity to use hESC in order to achieve the scientific objectives set forth in the proposal. In particular, applicants must document that appropriate validated alternatives (in particular, stem cells from other sources or origins) are not suitable and/or available to achieve the expected goals of the proposal. This latter provision does not apply to research comparing hESC with other human stem cells. · the applicants should take into account the legislation, regulations, ethical rules and/or codes of conduct in place in the country(ies) where the research using hESC is to take place, including the procedures for obtaining informed consent; · the applicants should ensure that for all hESC lines to be used in the project were derived from embryo's o of which the donor(s)' express, written and informed consent was provided freely, in accordance with national legislation prior to the procurement of the cells. that result from medically-assisted in vitro fertilisation designed to induce pregnancy, and were no longer to be used for that purpose. of which the measures to protect personal data and privacy of donor(s), including genetic data, are in place during the procurement and for any use thereafter. Researchers must accordingly present all data in such a way as to ensure donor anonymity;

o o

33


o

of which the conditions of donation are adequate, and namely that no pressure was put on the donor(s) at any stage, that no financial inducement was offered to donation for research at any stage and that the infertility treatment and research activities were kept appropriately separate;

Identify the countries where research will be undertaken and which ethical committees and regulatory organisations will need to be approached during the life of the project. Include the Ethical issues table below. If you indicate YES to any issue, please identify the pages in the proposal where this ethical issue is described. Answering 'YES' to some of these boxes does not automatically lead to an ethical review. It enables the independent experts to decide if an ethical review is required. If you are sure that none of the issues apply to your proposal, simply tick the YES box in the last row. (No maximum length for Section 4: Depends on the number of such issues involved) Notes: Only in exceptional cases will additional information be sought for clarification, which means that any ethical review will be performed solely on the basis of the information available in the proposal. Projects raising specific ethical issues such as research intervention on human beings22; research on human embryos and human embryonic stem cells and non-human primates are automatically submitted for ethical review. To ensure compliance with ethical principles, the Commission Services will undertake ethics audit(s) of selected projects at its discretion. A dedicated website that aims to provide clear, helpful information on ethical issues is now available at: http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ethics_en.html

22

Such as research and clinical trials , and research involving invasive techniques on persons (e.g. taking of tissue samples, examinations of the brain).

34


ETHICAL ISSUES TABLE (Note: Research involving activities marked with an asterisk * in the left column in the table below will be referred automatically to Ethical Review) Research on Human Embryo/ Foetus
* * * * * Does the proposed research involve human Embryos? Does the proposed research involve human Foetal Tissues/ Cells? Does the proposed research involve human Embryonic Stem Cells (hESCs)? Does the proposed research on human Embryonic Stem Cells involve cells in culture? Does the proposed research on Human Embryonic Stem Cells involve the derivation of cells from Embryos? I CONFIRM THAT NONE OF THE ABOVE ISSUES APPLY TO MY PROPOSAL

YES Page

Research on Humans
* * * * Does Does Does Does Does Does Does the the the the the the the proposed proposed proposed proposed proposed proposed proposed research research research research research research research involve involve involve involve involve involve involve children? patients? persons not able to give consent? adult healthy volunteers? Human genetic material? Human biological samples? Human data collection?

YES

Page

I CONFIRM THAT NONE OF THE ABOVE ISSUES APPLY TO MY PROPOSAL

Privacy
Does the proposed research involve processing of genetic information or personal data (e.g. health, sexual lifestyle, ethnicity, political opinion, religious or philosophical conviction)? Does the proposed research involve tracking the location or observation of people? I CONFIRM THAT NONE OF THE ABOVE ISSUES APPLY TO MY PROPOSAL

YES

Page

Research on Animals
Does the proposed research involve research on animals? Are those animals transgenic small laboratory animals? Are those animals transgenic farm animals? Are those animals non-human primates? Are those animals cloned farm animals? I CONFIRM THAT NONE OF THE ABOVE ISSUES APPLY TO MY PROPOSAL

YES

Page

*

35


Research Involving Developing Countries
Does the proposed research involve the use of local resources (genetic, animal, plant, etc)? Is the proposed research of benefit to local communities (e.g. capacity building, access to healthcare, education, etc)? I CONFIRM THAT NONE OF THE ABOVE ISSUES APPLY TO MY PROPOSAL

YES

Page

Dual Use Research having direct military use
Research having the potential for terrorist abuse I CONFIRM THAT NONE OF THE ABOVE ISSUES APPLY TO MY PROPOSAL

YES

Page

36