Uwagi recenzenta i uczestnika 6 Programu Uwagi recenzenta i uczestnika 6 Programu Ramowego Unii EuropejskiejRamowego Unii Europejskiej

Dr hab. Józef Dulak Zakład Biochemii Komórki

Wydział Biotechnologii Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego Ul. Gronostajowa 7, 30-387 Kraków

Email: jdulak@mol.uj.edu.pl

Life sciences, genomics and biotechnology for health is one of seven major thematic priorities of the European Union´s Sixth

FrameWork Programme (FP6). The objective is to help Europe exploit, in this post-genomic

era, the unprecedented opportunities for generating new knowledge and translating it into applications that enhance human health.

To this end both fundamental and applied research will be supported, with an emphasis

on integrated, multidisciplinary, and coordinated efforts that address the present

fragmentation of European research and increase the competitiveness of the European

biotechnology industry.

Seven Priority Thematic Areas (M€ 11,285)

1. Genomics and biotechnology for health 2,2552. Information society technologies 3,6253. Nanotechnologies and nanosciences 1,3004. Food quality and safety 1,075 5. Sustainable development, global change and ecosystems 2,120 6. Citizens and government in a knowledge-based society 225

1.1.1.i. Advanced genomics and its application for health

1.1.1.i.a. Fundamental knowledge and basic tools for functional genomics in all organisms

1.1.1.i.b. Applications of knowledge and technologies in the field of genomics and biotehcnology for health

1.1.1.ii. Combating major diseases

1.1.1.ii.a. Application-oriented genomic approaches to medical knowledge and medical technologies

1.1.1.ii.b. Combating cancer

1.1.1.ii.c. Confronting the major communicable diseases linked to poverty

Genomics and biotechnology for Genomics and biotechnology for health health

Combating major Combating major diseasesdiseases

Application-oriented genomic approaches to:

combating cardiovascular disease, diabetes and rare diseases

combating resistance to antibiotics and other drugs

studying the brain and combating diseases of the nervous system

studying human development and the ageing process

Principles of the evaluation Principles of the evaluation

• Quality• Transparency • Equality of treatment • Impartiality • Efficiency

Criteria for choice of experts for Criteria for choice of experts for peer-review evaluation peer-review evaluation

• appropriate range of competencies• appropriately balanced: academic, industrial, gender geography • no conflict of interest (if problems, please alert the moderator)• respect confidentiality (no comments outside consensus group)•Commission officials organise, supervise and moderate the evaluation • presence od independent observer(s)

Flow of evaluation process

Eligibility check

Individual evaluation/review

Consensus meeting(s)

Panel evaluation

Priority list

Comission decision

Reserve list Negotiation Rejection

Not eligibleexclusion

Comission decision

Below a threshold

Proposal submission

Ethical review

Report

eligible

above a threshold

evaluation summary report

consensusreport

Instruments: different type of activitiesInstruments: different type of activitiesto implement FP6 project to implement FP6 project

New instruments:

Integrated Projects (IP) Network of Excellence (NoE)

Traditional instruments

Specific targeted Research projects (STREP) Coordinated Actions (CA) Specific Support Actions (SSA)

Instruments available in the Instruments available in the call reviewed (1.1.1.ii.a)call reviewed (1.1.1.ii.a)

3 topics – IP or NoE1 topic – IP 2 topics - NoE

Antimicrobial drug resistance

Brain research and diseases

Cardiovascular researchDiabetes

Rare diseases

Human development and aging

Instruments available in the Instruments available in the call reviewedcall reviewed

3 topics – IP or NoE1 topic – IP 2 topics - NoE

Cardiovascular researchDiabetes

Rare diseases

Evaluation criteria

Proposals: are evaluated against a set of criteria appropriate for each instrument receive a mark from 0 – 5 have to pass all thresholds to continue for the next step of evaluationIP

Criteria Mark Threshold

Relevance 0 to 5 3 Potential impact 0 to 5 3 S&T excellence 0 to 5 4 Quality of consortium 0 to 5 3Quality of managment 0 to 5 3 Mobilisation of resources 0 to 5 3

OVERALL 0 to 30 24

NoE

Criteria Mark Threshold

Relevance 0 to 5 3 Potential impact 0 to 5 3 Excellence of participants 0 to 5 3 Degree of integration & JPA 0 to 5 4Organisation and managment 0 to 5 3

OVERALL 0 to 25 20

Evaluation criteria

Instrument Approximate budget Number % M€ of topics

IP & NoE 77 84 16(6) STREP & CA 21 23 8(3) SSA 2 2 6(3)

Total 100 109 30

Budget for the topicBudget for the topic „ „Applications oriented Applications oriented

genomics approaches to medical knowledge genomics approaches to medical knowledge and technologies”and technologies”

Number of projects and those Number of projects and those which have passed the thresholdwhich have passed the threshold

Cardiovascular research 15 7

Diabetes 9 3

Rare diseases 2 1

total passed

Results of evaluation Results of evaluation

IP – points awarded

Below threshold5 1023.5

Above threshold25.5 27 28 29

NoE – points awarded

Below threshold1 4.5 4.5 16.5

Above threshold20 23 23.5

Amount of M€ the consortia Amount of M€ the consortia have applied for have applied for

Points awarded Budget NoE

23.5 1523 21.520 23.5

IP

29 12.528 2527 8.5

Comments on the evaluationComments on the evaluation

1. Chance of success 2. Equality of chances3. Assessments of the instruments 4. Others

Comments on Comments on evaluation procedure evaluation procedure

1. Well organized 2. Well moderated 3. Different approaches – some types of calls have only on site evaluation 4. Expert choice seems well balanced, although no

representative of an industry was present5. Well paid

Problems

1. Delays in reimbursement and payment …

Comments on Comments on experienceexperience

of being an expert of being an expert 1. Recognition of the great quality of the proposals;2. Knowledge on how the projects should be prepared,

written and submitted; a) size b) style of writing c) addressing the important issues (ethical, gender)

3. Knowledge which types of consortia seems to be the best structured – size of the consortia

4. Knowledge on the quality and validity of the instruments

Origin of experts Origin of experts

CVD Diabetes Rare diseases

Austria BelgiumHungary Germany (2) Poland (2)Spain Slovenia UK

? ?

4 females6 males

Some facts about expertsSome facts about experts(collected from EU site) (collected from EU site)

Life sciences – 2003 Life sciences – 2003

Total number: 800 Nubmer by selected nationalities: UK – 88 Netherlands 30 Germany 75 Austria 24 Italy 69 Denmark 13 France 54 Hungary 10 Spain 51 Poland 10 Belgium 42 Estonia 5

http://www.cordis.lu/fp6/experts2003.htm

Some facts about Polish Some facts about Polish experts experts

Life sciences – 2003 Life sciences – 2003

Total number: 10 Number by city of origin: Kraków 3 Gdansk 2 Poznan 2 Wrocław 1 Warszawa 1

? 1

http://www.cordis.lu/fp6/experts2003.htm

Is it helpful for a participant to have the reviewer’s experience?

- partially frustrating... - mostly helpful

Our research interestsOur research interests

• role of redox genes in inflammation and angiogenesis: heme oxygenase-1, superoxide dismutase, nitric oxide synthases

• mechanisms of regulation of VEGF expression

• gene therapy in cardiovascular diseases

• role of HMG-CoA-reductase inhibitors in angiogenesis and inflammation

inflammation, angiogenesis, gene therapy

http://www.mol.uj.edu.pl/~jdulak

Experience from beingExperience from being a participanta participant

1. How my group has joined the consortiaa) pre-call work – scientific and organisational

b) expression of interestc) contacts with proper persons (coordinator)

2. Preparation of the projects- NEST-ADVENTURE - Life Sciences – IP

Painful process of pre- and post-Painful process of pre- and post-submission submission

1. Electronic submission – smooth

2. Electronic submission – problems

Results of evaluation

1. ADVENTURE –rejected - thus resubmitted

2. Integrated project – has passed the threshold - results of evaluation - waiting for the decision

Comments on 6 FP

1. Budget not sufficient – too many good projects are rejected

2. NoE – in my opinion it is not a good instrument imp3. Evaluation of projects prepared by huge consortia

is quite difficult4. Some evaluation criteria should be re-evaluated, particularly „quality of managment”5. The most important criterion sould be the scientific excellence