UKRO and the National Contact Point (NCP) Policy background and - - PDF document

1

UK National Contact Point for Marie Sklodow ska-Curie Actions m ariecurie-uk@bbsrc.ac.uk

 UKRO and the National Contact Point (NCP)  Policy background and overview of Marie Skłodowska-

Curie Actions

 Individual Fellowships (IF)

• Objectives of the scheme, eligibility criteria, financial issues
• Proposal submission
• Proposal evaluation
• Case studies from the applicant’s perspective
• Q&A session

2

 Mission: Facilitate effective UK participation in EU

research, innovation and HE programmes

 Sponsored by the seven UK Research Councils  Receives subscriptions from around 145 research

• rganisations

 Range of services for sponsors and subscribers  Research Council policy work  Brussels liaison  For more information see www.ukro.ac.uk

‘Core’ subscriber* services Open to non-subscribers

 Query service  UKRO Portal

• Subscriber web pages
• Latest news articles
• Email alerts
• www.ukro.ac.uk

 Meeting room in Brussels  Annual briefing visits

(UK subscribers)

 Training courses and

information events

 Annual Conference  Marie Skłodowska-Curie

Actions UK National Contact Point

 European Research Council

UK National Contact Point

* List of subscribing institutions: http://www.ukro.ac.uk/aboutukro/Pages/subscribers.aspx

3

 Web, email, telephone, events

• http://www.ukro.ac.uk/mariecurie/index.htm
• mariecurie-uk@bbsrc.ac.uk
• Tel: +32 2 230 0318

 Advice on applying for MSC actions:

• Eligibility
• Application help
• Results
• Contractual issues

 Advice to those with MC contracts:

• Social security, tax, visas
• Reporting

Policy background, schemes

• verview and basic

participation rules

4

 The European Union’s funding instrument for research and innovation

from 2014-2020

 Horizon 2020 overarching priority:

Exiting the economic crisis through sustainable growth

• Budget of EUR 70,2 billion
• From research to innovation – from basic research to bringing ideas to

the market

• Focus on societal challenges EU society is facing (e.g. health, clean

energy, food security, integrated transport)

• Concentration of resources on areas of high growth and innovation

potential

• Provides key measures to support industrial leadership, particularly in

innovative SMEs

• Significant investment in excellence

EU-28 Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria , Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, UK Associated Countries to Horizon 2020 Switzerland*, Israel, Norway, Iceland, Turkey, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), Serbia, Albania, Montenegro, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Faroe Islands, Republic of Moldova, Ukraine Other Third Countries (funding will depend on income status) List of eligible third countries in Horizon 2020 ‘General Annexes’:

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/wp/2014_2015/annexes/h2020-wp1415-annex-ga_en.pdf

Note: Brazil, Russia, India, China + Mexico no longer eligible for funding *partially associated to H2020 (inc. MSCA) until 2017

5

Excellent Science

European Research Council (ERC) Future and Emerging Technologies (FET) Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) Research Infrastructures

Industrial Leadership

Leadership in Enabling and Industrial Technologies (LEIT) - ICT, Key Enabling Technologies, Space Access to Risk Finance Innovation in SMEs

Societal Challenges

Health and Wellbeing Food security Transport Energy Climate action Societies Security

Widening Participation; Science with and for Society

European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT)

Joint Research Centre (JRC) EURATOM

 30% of total Horizon 2020 budget  Overall objective: “to strengthen the excellence of

European research”

• New research and ideas are drivers of competition
• Attract and retain high potential individuals
• Fund the most talented and creative researchers
• Develop and maintain world-class research infrastructures

6

“... Ensure excellent and innovativ excellent and innovative research research trai aining ning as well as attractive career and knowledge-exchange opportunities through cr cross- ss- border border and cr cross-sector m ss-sector mobi bility lity of researchers to best prepare them to face current and future societal challenges.”

Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions

Contributing to wider EU policies:

• Europe 2020

http://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/index_en.htm

• Innovation Union

http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/index_en.cfm

• Youth on the Move

http://ec.europa.eu/youthonthemove/

MSCA Work Programme 2014-2015

7

 For institutions

• Opportunities to:
• Run and take part in collaborative cross-border, cross-sector research,

researcher training and/or staff exchange programmes on a research topic and field of their choice

• Employ talented, well-funded researchers in any research field
• Foster international links

 For individuals

• Opportunities for:
• Well-remunerated 1-3 year research fellowships in the best research

facilities in their field in Europe and overseas

• PhD studies in the context of a pan-European research training network
• Exposure to work in the non-academic sector

Early Stage Early Stage Resea Researcher er (ESR) (ESR)

At the time of recruitment (ITN) or secondment (RISE) by the host

• rganisation, must be in the first 4 years (full-time research experience)
• f their research careers and have not been awarded a doctoral degree

Experienced perienced Resea Researcher er (ER) (ER)

At the time of the call deadline (IF (IF) or secondment (RISE) by the host

• rganisation, must be in possession of a doctoral degree or have at least

4 years of full-time equivalent research experience

Academic Academic secto sector

Includes universities and higher education institutions (public and private) awarding degrees, non-profit research institutions (public and private), and international European interest organisations

Non- Non- academic academic secto sector

Includes any socio-economic actor not included in the academic sector

IF

8

Call id Call iden entifier fier Public lication ation date Dead adli line Ca Call budget budget, , €M €M MSCA-IT

• ITN-20
• 2015

02 September 2014 13 January 2015 (Close (Closed) d) 370 MSCA-RI

• RISE-201

E-2015 06 January 2015 28 April 2015 (Close (Closed) d) 80 MSCA- MSCA-IF- F-20 2015 15 12 March 12 March 2015 2015 (Open (Open) 10 Septe 10 Septembe ber 2015 2015 213 213 MSCA MSCA-COFUND- 2015 2015 14 April 2015 (Open (Open) 01 October 2015 80

Objectives of the scheme, eligibility and finances

9

 Individual grant for experienced researchers to support

their mobility, research project and training

 Opportunity to gain new knowledge in and outside

academia, work on research projects in or outside Europe

 Fully-funded fellowships (salary, travel, research costs)

hosted by academic or non-academic organisation

 No nationality, age or career stage restrictions  Specific support for return of researchers to Europe (RI) and

career restart for individuals with high potential who have been out of active research (CAR)

Outgoing Return

10

 Standard European Fellowship

At the time of the call deadline, researchers shall not have resided or carried out their main activity (work, studies, etc.) in the country of their host organisation for more than 12 months in the 3 years

 Reintegration Panel (RI) & Career Restart Panel (CAR)

At the time of the call deadline, researchers shall not have resided or carried out their main activity in the host country for 3 in the 5 years

• Must be nationals or previous long-term residents (>5 years in research role)
• f a MS/AC (RI)
• For those who want to (or recently have) relocated to MS/AC from outside

(RI)

• For those who have not been active in research for at least 12 months prior

to deadline (CAR)

 Global Fellowship

At the time of the call deadline, researchers shall not have resided or carried out their main activity (work, studies, etc.) in the Third Country where their outgoing phase will take place, for more than 12 months in the last 3 years = mobility rule applies to country outside Europe = no mobility rule for the return phase in MS/AC

• Must be nationals or previous long-term residents (>5 years) of a MS/AC

Outgoing Return

11

 Research - completely bottom up – any excellent

research project in any research / innovation field

 Calibre of researcher important  Researcher and host institution work together on

application

 Grant beneficiary is the host institution  Grants can exceptionally be portable and flexible  Expectation of full-tim e research fellow ship but

can incl. some supervision, teaching etc.

 Requests for part-time working may be possible

during grant negotiation / life-time of grant

• ‘Training-through-research’ at the host institution of Fellow’s

choice, with named Supervisor

• Realistic and well-defined objectives in terms of research

project and career advancement, incl. a Career Development Plan (if successful)

• Develop and significantly widen the competences of the

researcher, incl. multi-interdisciplinary expertise, inter-sectoral experience and transferable skills

• Public engagement activities
• Optional secondment (should significantly add to the impact
• f the research project) of up to 3-6 months

12

Durat Duration of IF project

• f IF project

Max.

• ax. secon

econdm dmen ent t durat duration ≤18 months 3 months >18 months 6 months

Secondment ≠ short visit or field work

• Highly recommended as a tool for knowledge transfer and training opportunity
• Must take place in MS/AC (but shorter visits to Third Countries eligible)
• Can be split into shorter periods
• Expected to take place in a different sector (non-academic/academic)

Rese searc archer er unit c t cost st [p [person/ erson/month] nth] EUR EUROs Instituti tional

• nal u

unit t cost st [p [pers erson/m n/mont nth] EUR h] EUROs Scheme Living allowance* Mobility allowance Family allowance Research, training and networking costs Management and overheads IF 4650 600 500 800 650

* A correction co-efficient applies to living allowance, see MSCA Work Programme!

• Funding based fully on unit costs, multiplied by requested person months
• Automated calculation of budget when person months filled into application
• No detailed financial reporting

13

Researcher with family, coming from Netherlands to UK for two years with a European Fellowship: Contribution to researcher:



Living Allowance: 4,650 x 24 months = € 111,600 x Correction factor = 120.3% € 111,600 x 1.203 = € 134,254.80



Mobility Allowance: 600 x 24 months = € 14,400

€160,654.80



Family Allowance: 500 x 24 months = € 12,000 Contribution to host institution:



Contribution to research and training expenses: (managed by the Host institution) € 800 x 24 months= €19,200



Contribution to overheads: € 650 x 24 months = €15,600

Maximum EC grant: € 195,454.80

UK researcher with no family spending an outgoing period of two years in the US followed by the mandatory 12 month return phase in the UK on a Global Fellowship: Contribution to researcher:



Living Allowance: “outgoing phase” 4,650 x 24 months = € 111,600 x Correction coefficient (US) = 99.4% € 111,600 x 0.994 = € 110,930.40 “return phase” 4,650 x 12 months = € 55,800 x Correction coefficient (UK) = 120.3% € 55,800 x 1.203 = € 67,127.40

Total living allowance = 110,930.40 + 67,127.40 = € 178,057.80



Mobility Allowance: 600 x 36 months = € 21,600

€ 199,657.80



Family Allowance: 0 x 36 months = € 0

Contribution to host institution:



Contribution to research and training expenses: (managed by the Host institution)

€ 800 x 36 months= € 28,800



Contribution to overheads: € 650 x 36 months = € 23,400

Maximum EC grant: € 251,857.80

14

Indicative budget Indicative budget €215M €215M

(1 (188M:EF; 2 88M:EF; 27M:GF) M:GF)

Publication date 12 March 2015 Call deadline 10 September 2015 (17:00 Brussels time) Evaluation of proposals October-November 2015 Evaluation Outcome February 2015 Signing of Grant Agreement May 2015

1-stage submission Feedback Report (ESR)

 Intra-European Fellowships (IEF) – Aug 2012

• 3,708 proposals received
• Success rate: 16.6%
• UK success rate: 23.0%
• UK host for 237 fellowships (out of 614 funded)
• Approx. value to the UK € 46M

 International Incoming Fellowships (IIF) – Aug 2012

• 1,447 proposals received
• Success rate: 13.3%
• UK success rate: 18.6%
• UK host for 78 fellowships (out of 193 funded)
• Approx. value to the UK € 16M

 International Outgoing Fellowships (IOF) – Aug 2012

• 955 proposals received
• Success rate: 16.4%
• UK success rate: 29.5%
• UK return host for 36 fellowships (out of 157 funded)
• Approx. value to the UK € 9M

15

 Intra-European Fellowships (IEF) – Aug 2013

• 4,939 proposals received
• Success rate: 12.4%
• UK success rate: 16%
• UK host for 226 fellowships (out of 614 funded)

 International Incoming Fellowships (IIF) – Aug 2013

• 1,959 proposals received
• Success rate: 9.4%%
• UK success rate: 12.2%
• UK host for 78 fellowships (out of 184 funded)

 International Outgoing Fellowships (IOF) – Aug 2013

• 1,225 proposals received
• Success rate: 12.4%
• UK success rate: 22.2%
• UK return host for 36 fellowships (out of 152 funded)

All proposals All proposals Europ European an Fe Fellows llowships hips Standard 5334 1749 Career Restart 425 119 Reintegration 466 58 Global Fe Global Fellows llowshi hips ps 1047 152 TOT TOTAL 747 7472 207 2078

16 Panel

Retained List Threshold Reserve List Threshold Success Rate % CHE CHE 89.6 88 18.40 ECO ECO 86.6 85.4 19.10 ENG ENG 88.6 87 18.80 ENV ENV 90.4 89.4 18.60 LIF LIF 90.6 89.2 18.50 MAT MAT 90.2 88.4 18.80 PHY PHY 90.4 89.4 18.80 SOC SOC 92.8 90.8 18.60 CAR CAR 87.2 85 18.20 RI RI 90.8 89.4 19.00 Pane Panel Retained List Retained List Threshold Threshold Reserve List Reserve List Threshold Threshold Success Rat ccess Rate % ECO ECO 93.2 92 10.30 ENG ENG 93.8 91.2 11.60 ENV ENV 93.4 92.2 10.90 LIF LIF 92 91 11.60 MAT MAT 92.2 86.6 5.90 PHY PHY 93 92.6 11.20 SOC SOC 92.8 92.4 11.90

17

Proposal submission

18

19

20

 Host organisation (‘Supervisor’ or other ‘Contact’) or the

Fellow registers the draft proposal

• PIC code
• Draft acronym, draft summary, choice of panel

 Supervisor, other Contact or Fellow give each other access

• nto the proposal

 Proposal is completed

• Administrative forms (‘Edit forms’)
• Part B (‘Download template’ and ‘Upload’)

 Proposal should be submitted by the Supervisor

• Submission system checks (‘Validate forms’ and ‘Print preview’)
• ‘Submit’ as many times as required until the deadline

(abstract, acronym, evaluation panel, etc.)

21

10 pages

(max 5 pages)

+ Letters of commitment of partner

• rganisations (GF only)

22

 Work with your Supervisor / Fellow  Keep the Guide for Applicants in front of you  Treat the criteria as examination questions  Think about your evaluators

• Clearly address the main objectives
• Use clear and concise language
• Explain country specific jargon
• Provide them with the evidence they need

 Find colleagues to read it through, with the evaluation criteria in

hand Proposal evaluation

23

• Via Participant Portal
• Admissibility/eligibility checks
• 1. Proposal

Submission

• At least 3 evaluators
• Individual reports produced
• ~24 proposals per evaluator in 2014
• 2. Remote

Evaluations

• Consensus reports produced
• Agreement on comments/score
• 3. Consensus

Meetings

• Lists by panel
• Projects funded in priority order until budget is

exhausted

• 4. Ranked list of

proposals

• Max. 5 Months to Outcome!

Marie Skłodowska-Curie Innovative Training Networks Excellence Impact Implementation Scored on a scale of 0-5 50% 30% 20% Weighting 1 2 3 Priority in case of ex aequo Overall threshold of 70% applies to total score

• Though threshold is 70% - competitive proposals need to aim at a score
• f 90+%!
• Evaluation summary reports provided as feedback to applicants along

with score and funding decision

• No restrictions on re-application, but applicants discouraged from making

references to previous evaluation results

24

0 – Proposal fails to address the criterion or cannot be assessed due to missing or incomplete information. 1 –

• Poor. The criterion is inadequately addressed, or there are serious

inherent weaknesses. 2 –

• Fair. Proposal broadly addresses the criterion, but there are

significant weaknesses. 3 –

• Good. Proposal addresses the criterion well, but a

number of shortcomings are present. 4 – Very Good. Proposal addresses the criterion very well, but a small number of shortcomings are present. 5 –

• Excellent. Proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of

the criterion. Any shortcomings are minor.

• Application form reflects evaluation criteria
• Each criterion scored between 0 and 5
• Decimal points can be awarded

 Excellence Evaluation Criteria

• 1.1 - Quality, innovative aspects and credibility of

the research (including inter/multidisciplinary aspects)

• 1.2 - Clarity and quality of transfer of

knowledge/training for the development of the researcher in light of the research objectives

• 1.3 - Quality of the supervision and the hosting

arrangements

• 1.4 - Capacity of the researcher to reach and re-

enforce a position of professional maturity in research

• 4 - CV of the Experienced Researcher

25

 Aims of the Research Project:

• Make it clear why the proposed project is novel, ground

breaking or cutting edge in the area;

• What will be its contribution and how will it advance the area;
• How will this in turn open up career and collaboration
• pportunities for the researcher.

 Make it accessible:

• Evaluators will be experts, but maybe not down to the level of

detail you are;

• Bring the project to life and ensure it is easy to follow – use clear

language and include diagrams, images, tables if appropriate.

 Two-way interaction between researcher and host(s):

• What new knowledge and skills will the researcher develop;
• What existing knowledge and skills will the researcher bring to

the host(s).

 Training-through-research:

• The research project makes up the focus of the Fellowship, but

should be framed in the context of training for the researcher;

• In particular, in terms of multi/interdisciplinary expertise,

intersectoral experience and transferable skills;

• For Global Fellowships, identify how the skills/knowledge

gained during the outgoing phase will be transferred back.

Secondments!

26

 Qualifications and experience of the supervisor(s) (both

for GF):

• Include evidence that the supervisor is suitably

qualified/experienced to ensure the success of the Fellowship;

• For example, participation in projects, publications, patents,

relevant results, international collaborations and experience supervising (no. postdocs mentored);

• If other colleagues will provide mentoring, describe it.

 Hosting arrangements:

• Measures to ensure the successful integration of the Fellow and

transfer of knowledge/skills;

• Is there an institutional Research Development Strategy –

describe it;

• Consider what the Career Development Plan would look like.

European Charter for Research

 Researchers should be able to show that they have an

excellent track record given their career status:

• E.g. Publications, patents, conference papers, chapters,

monographs.

 Highlight all relevant experiences, including teaching,

supervision, or work with industry/non-academic partners.

 The evaluators need to be convinced that the researcher

is right for the Fellowship project and that they will also develop and grow as a result of the training it offers.

27

 You CV can be used for reference to

help with space, but bring out and detail major relevant achievements.

 The proposal is the opportunity to

convince evaluators and the Commission and sell the researcher!

• Demonstrate they have capacity for

independent thinking and leadership;

• Explain how this will have an enormous

positive impact on the researcher’s career.

Strengths

 “The methodological approaches are state of the art and

• riginal. Their application is clearly described and very well

justified for each objective.”

 “The relevant training objectives benefitting the further

development of an independent research career have been articulated in detail.”

 “The potential of the applicant to acquire new knowledge

and skills through the fellowship has been very well identified and justified.”

28

Weaknesses

 “The research objectives are not described in sufficient

detail.”

 “The provisions for mentoring at the outgoing host are

treated superficially.”

 “The match between the researcher’s profile and the

proposed work is not substantial.”

 Impact

• 2.1 - Enhancing research- and innovation-related

human resources, skills and working conditions to realise the potential of individuals and provide new career perspectives

• 2.2 - Effectiveness of proposed measures for

communication and dissemination

29

 Detail the expected impact of the Fellowship on the

researchers career:

• Experience of a new country, culture and way of thinking;
• Development of new skills which may be transferable;
• New experiences in new sectors through secondments, etc.;
• What are the researcher’s goals and how will the Fellowship

contribute during and after the project.

 Be precise as to how this will be achieved through the

project.

 What will be the impact of the project and its outcomes on

European society:

• How might it benefit EU citizens;
• How will it influence the area and science base;
• Lead to a breakthrough;
• Develop new techniques;
• Establish new networks – across sectors (non-academic sector).
• What could be the potential economic impact;
• Does it fit well with EU strategies and policies – e.g. Europe 2020, aims of

Horizon 2020;

• To what extent is it innovative – e.g. could it lead to a product or service.

30

 Where possible, knowledge from the Project should:

• Advance research;
• Foster innovation;
• Promote the research profession to the public.

 Therefore, need to include details on:

• Communication and public engagement strategy of the action;
• Dissemination of the research results;
• Exploitation of results and intellectual property rights.

Highlight when these will take place in the Gantt Chart!

European Charter for Research Think about different audiences Marie Curie Outreach Guidance

ID(1

Strengths

 “The fellowship is likely to have an excellent impact on the

career prospects of the researcher.”

 “…excellent potential for a long-term collaboration

between the outgoing and return host.”

 “The proposed project is likely to have a substantial

contribution to the European excellence and European competitiveness.”

Slide 59 ID(1

Ian Devine (UKRO), 24/04/2015

31

Weaknesses

 “The project has limited socio-economic value.”  “The impact of the scientific outputs has not been

sufficiently demonstrated.”

 “There is not sufficient evidence in the proposal of any

planned outreach activities for the return phase.”

 Implementation

• 3.1 - Overall coherence and effectiveness of the

work plan, including appropriateness of the allocation

• f tasks and resources
• 3.2 - Appropriateness of the management structure

and procedures, including quality management and risk management

• 3.3 - Appropriateness of the institutional

environment (infrastructure)

• 3.4 - Competences, experience and

complementarity of participating organisations and institutional commitment

32

 The project Work Plan should be clear and realistic and

show how the desired impacts will be achieved;

 Include a Gantt Chart as given in application example using

time elapsed by month to show:

• Work Packages titles (for EF there should be at least 1 WP);
• List of major deliverables;
• List of major milestones;
• Secondments (if applicable).

 Work Packages can be included for all activities, i.e.

research, management, training.

 Describe the project organisation and management structure:

• Financial management structure – may even be a transferable skill to

be developed by Fellow;

• What progress monitoring will be in place.

 What are the potential risks that could

jeopardise the project:

• What level of contingency planning will be

in place.

33

 Describe the main tasks and commitment of the beneficiary

and partners (if appropriate);

 Describe the infrastructure, logistics, facilities that will be

available to the researcher and necessary to ensure the successful implementation of the project.

 Describe the active contribution of the beneficiary to the

proposed research and training activities;

• Why is it an appropriate place to conduct the Fellowship;
• Do they have experience in the research field/hosting Fellows;
• Demonstrate commitment by providing the researcher with that

needed to successfully complete the Fellowship.

 Global Fellowships;

• Similar description for the outgoing TC host;
• TC Partners need to provide a letter of commitment (Part B, section

7) – details of what to include in guide for applicants.

NB: Each participant is described in Section 5. This specific information should not be repeated here!

34

Strengths

 “The administrative arrangements and support

for the hosting of the applicant are sufficiently

• utlined.”

 “The workplan of the project is comprehensively

• described. A contingency plan is included.”

 “The available infrastructure in the host

institution is well described and corresponds to the needs set out for the execution of the project.”

Weaknesses

 “The goals to help assess the progress of the

project are insufficiently explained.”

 “Practical administrative arrangements, and

support for the hosting of the fellow (outgoing and return host) are not described in sufficient detail.”

 “No contingency or risk assessment plans are

provided.”

35

 Operational capacity of the organisations

• Use well tables in Section 5 of Part B
• Profile of key staff, description of key infrastructure or technical equipment,

all partner organisations contributing towards the proposed work

 Ethics Issues

• Self-assessment in Part A and strategy in Section 6 of Part B
• Outside the 10-page limit – provide detailed strategy
• Crucial for all research domains  need to identify any potential ethical

issues and describe they will be addressed

• All proposals considered for funding subject to Ethics Review
• Read the Ethics Self-Assessment Guidelines

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/hi/ethics/h2020_hi_ ethics-self-assess_en.pdf

Slightly different information for Beneficiary and Partner, but 1 page each.

 Don’t underestimate this section (gender experts in all

Evaluation Panels)

 Relate to EU policies on Gender Equality – cross-cutting

priority in Horizon 2020

 Equal opportunities (among researchers and decision-

makers/supervisors)

 Gender dimension in the research content (e.g. subjects or

end-users)

 Gender dimension in training activities – where appropriate

36

 For further information see:

• Horizon 2020 IPR Helpdesk (advice, events, articles, webinars)
• www.iprhelpdesk.eu/sites/default/files/newsdocuments/How_to

_manage_IP_in_H2020_at_the_grant_preparation_stage.pdf

www.iprhelpdesk.eu IF - highest submission rate in H2020 during 2014 – submit early!

37

 UK NCP Helpdesk

Email: mariecurie-uk@bbsrc.ac.uk Phone: + 32 2 230 0318 http://www.ukro.ac.uk/mariecurie/Pages/index.aspx

 Individual Fellowship Call Page 2015

https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/calls/h2020- msca-if-2015.html

 Horizon 2020/MSCA website

http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/marie-sklodowska-curie-actions

 Commission’s Marie Curie Actions website (mainly FP7 still)

ec.europa.eu/research/mariecurieactions

 European Charter for Research

http://ec.europa.eu/euraxess/index.cfm/rights/europeanCharter

 Marie Curie Guidance for Outreach

http://ec.europa.eu/research/mariecurieactions/documents/documentation/publications/guideline s_en.pdf

 Europe 2020

http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/index_en.htm

38

Thank you and good luck!