How the NIH uses the US government’s billions to shape the world of biomedical research

The National Institutes of Health is in many ways in a league of its own as a public research funding agency. With a budget of $45.1 billion in 2022, it is the largest non-military government research spender in the United States and claims to be the largest public funder of biomedical research in the world.

Its history begins in 1887 and the establishment of the US Marine Hospital Service, which was originally tasked with checking passengers arriving at ports for disease. Since then, it has grown into a behemoth that has supported over 150 Nobel prizewinners, along the way becoming first the National Institute of Health in 1930 and then expanding to multiple institutes in 1948.

While the NIH conducts its own in-house research, more than 80 per cent of its funding is awarded externally, largely through competitive grants. These are channelled through 27 separate institutes and centres, covering all areas of medical research and public health.

Rising tide

Except for a moderate decline between 2012 and 2013, the NIH’s budget has steadily risen since the turn of the millennium and has increased more rapidly since around 2015. While external grants are awarded across a variety of categories—including career development fellowships, training awards and business R&D contracts—research project grants consistently account for between 50 and 60 per cent of the NIH budget.

However, the picture of inexorable rise looks somewhat different from the perspective of individual researchers who win grants. When inflation is taken into account, there has been little difference in the average size of research grants since 1998.

Big spenders

The NIH does not spread its spending evenly across its various centres. The five top-spending centres together account for over 50 per cent of spending in recent years. Those centres cover cancer; allergies and infectious diseases; heart, lung and blood; general medical sciences; and ageing.

At the other end of the scale, the institutes with the smallest research budgets are the National Library of Medicine, the National Institute of Nursing Research and the John E Fogarty International Center, which focuses on global health.

The majority of centres spend more than 95 per cent of their budgets on research project grants, but there are some exceptions. The National Institute of General Medical Sciences, for instance, spent nearly 7 per cent of its budget on research training grants in 2020, while the Office of the Director reserves around half of its budget for special awards.

Higher education focus

The NIH is a hugely important funder for the expansive US academic community, with medical schools around the country relying on it hugely. In line with this, higher education institutions win the largest share of NIH grants compared with independent research institutes, hospitals, non-profits and companies.

Higher education institutions won nearly three-quarters of research project grants in 2019, the last year for which data are available. They claimed an even higher proportion of career development fellowships and training grants.

Institutions attracting the most NIH funding are located in the research heartlands of the east and west coasts of the US. The north-east cities of Boston and New York—home to world-leading research institutes including Harvard and Columbia—came out top in geographical concentration of funding in 2020. But when it comes to individual institutions, Seattle’s Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and Baltimore’s Johns Hopkins University top the leaderboard.

Most NIH awards go to US institutions, with those overseas winning less than 1 per cent of the total grant funding in 2020. Even so, non-US grant funding amounted to more than $290 million and over 600 grants were parcelled out to 66 countries. Top among these were South Africa, Canada, Australia, Germany and the UK.

Win or lose

Since 2016, success rates for research project grants at the NIH have been fairly static, at about 20 per cent, having fallen from nearer 30 per cent around 2000. When the NIH budget dropped between 2012 and 2013, success rates hit their lowest level—about 17 per cent—but they have since improved moderately.

The gap between men and women, in terms of the proportion of grants won, has shrunk considerably since the turn of the millennium. In 2000, men won around 75 per cent of research project grants and women took around 25 per cent, but in the past three years, men have won around 65 per cent of grants, with women taking around 35 per cent. Success rates, too, have improved, and have mostly been fairly even since around 2003, although it is notable that the success rate for women dropped further than that of men when the NIH budget was restricted in 2013.

In other areas, funding is much more even between genders. For instance, women were awarded at least 50 per cent of career development fellowships from 2016 through to 2020.

Diversity gap

When it comes to race and ethnicity, the NIH has made it clear it wants to see the proportion of non-white award-winners rise, but there has been only a small amount of movement in this area in recent years.

In 2016, the proportion of non-white  winners was 23 per cent, rising to 25 per cent in 2020.

Outside non-white winners, by far the largest proportion of grants are won by people of Asian origin: consistently around 20 per cent since 2016. In contrast, only around 2 per cent of research project grant winners have been Black or African American. Hispanic researchers have consistently made up 5 per cent of research project grant winners in recent years.

Looking forward

The NIH occupies a critical position at the centre of US research—and therefore, to a large extent, at the centre of world research. Even small shifts in how much it has to spend and what it chooses to spend it on can have huge consequences for entire disciplines, let alone individual researchers.

As well as a change in leadership, with former director Francis Collins stepping down in late 2021 after 22 years at the helm, another major change on the horizon is that the NIH will be housing the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health, a new funder geared to deliver medical breakthroughs.

While lawmakers have set aside an extra $1bn for the agency, known as Arpa-H, in 2022, it remains to be seen whether its creation could put pressure on core NIH funding in the long term.

Originally published as part of Research Professional News’ Special Report: Research Funding’s Big Players in April 2022

The post Focus on NIH: The big beast appeared first on Research Professional News.

Velux Stiftung offers project grants in an eclectic range of subjects linked to daylight

Velux Stiftung is a grant-giving foundation that is perhaps less well known than it should be, especially by researchers in fields linked to light, vision and healthy ageing whose interdisciplinary ideas may not easily find favour with national funders. Ophthalmology researchers with ideas for projects in low- and middle-income countries should also be aware of this funder.

The 2023 round of the foundation’s Research Grants schemes is open now, with up to CHF100,000 (€101,000) for applicants to the daylight and healthy ageing stream, and up to CHF400,000 available in the ophthalmology stream. Projects in both can last for up to four years. The deadline for daylight and healthy ageing applicants is 30 April and for ophthalmology 7 May.

In April 2021, the foundation’s senior scientific officer Kirstin Kopp shone a light on these grant programmes.

Top tips

• Connecting different fields is strongly encouraged in bids, especially when this isn’t supported by other funders
• Velux Stiftung likes to see the transfer of results from previous research
• Grants applications in ophthalmology should focus on low- and middle-income countries

For researchers with ideas for projects a little different from the norm, Velux Stiftung might provide a welcome ray of light. The Swiss funder, founded by the inventor of Velux windows, awards grants on an annual basis for projects lasting up to four years. It specifically asks applicants to explain why their project is not eligible for funding by other sources.

Velux Stiftung awards grants in three specific areas: ophthalmology, daylight research and healthy ageing.

The funder recently held a strategic review that led to some important changes in its grants programme. Senior scientific officer Kirstin Kopp tells us more.

How long has Velux Stiftung had a research grants programme?

Velux Stiftung was founded in 1980 and it’s been giving out grants ever since. From the early 2000s it really took off. The Danish engineer Villum Kann Rasmussen had the idea that people needed to have more light and air within built environments. With his Velux roof windows, he made a fortune and founded several foundations.

Tell me a bit more about the three funding areas.

First, there is daylight research, as we call it, which brings together many different disciplines, including chronobiology, psychiatry and architecture—considering the built environments where we spend 90 per cent of our time—but also topics in daylight and nature as well as daylight technology. Second, there is healthy ageing, where we also try to focus on this interdisciplinary approach. The third area is ophthalmology.

Are you open to applications from any country?

We give out international grants but I should point out that as a charitable Swiss foundation, we are tax exempt and that requires us to spend 50 per cent of our money in Switzerland. So 50 per cent of our funding is open to international research grants. Broadly, we receive more applications from within Europe, but we have also been getting applications from overseas.

How many grants do you award each year and what are your success rates?

In the past five years, it’s been around 20, with an average success rate of 23 per cent. It does vary. In 2019, we had over 100 applications, so the funding rate was below 20 per cent, but usually it’s around 20 to 25 per cent.

Is there a total budget?

In the past couple of years we gave out around CHF7 million in total, but it depends on the financial markets.

Do you tend to fund more projects in any one of the three main areas?

No, it’s actually quite variable. When you look at our funding history, in some years there is more money going to healthy ageing and in other years there is more into daylight research. There is no fixed quota, and it’s not split into equal parts for the three different funding areas—it really depends where the best ideas come in.

Are all three areas distinct or do you like to see some crossover?

We are genuinely quite fond of interdisciplinary approaches. This might be within one of these areas but reaching out to another discipline which is not in our funding portfolio, but it also might be an interdisciplinary project at the intersection of the three areas we fund, and these projects are of particular interest.

You ask for applications not to be eligible for funding by other sources. How should applicants show this?

Not all national funding agencies have programmes for proof-of-concept studies, for example. So that’s something where you could demonstrate that you’re not eligible for funding. Another example would be interdisciplinary projects that fall between categories. And some funding agencies continuously fund a certain research stream but once you start to reach out and want to try something new or apply your work to a different field, it becomes more difficult to find funding.

Can people apply with proposals that have been turned down by their national funders?

Well, you need to be within our funding areas and your research question should be relevant but also neglected in that nobody else wants to fund it. And then scientific quality is important, of course. It’s not like if you have fallen through your national funding agency’s selection procedure then we will cover you—that’s not the case.

Could you give an example of a project that would be the right fit for Velux Stiftung?

It could be that you have a great idea and a great research partner, but this partner is in a country that is not supported by other funding sources. We’re also interested in how much applicants are invested in transferring research results. Obviously, if you’re doing basic research, the next level might not be developing a product, but you might want to go on and see who else is interested and who you could collaborate with. I think that this kind of transfer step is very important.

Velux Stiftung has recently had a strategic review—has this changed your funding priorities in any way?

When we did a bit of background research on where funding for ophthalmology went in general, we saw that there was a lot of funding for diseases that were common in high-income countries but that the majority of visual impairment was actually in low-income and middle-income countries and was due to diseases for which solutions existed. Often these solutions work well in high-income countries but are not adapted to the local situation in low-income and middle-income countries. As we are a rather small foundation, we wanted to know where we could make a difference, so the focus is now set on ophthalmology research in the context of low-income and middle-income countries where there is less funding available.

And are there any other changes to your funding programmes on the horizon?

As a sneak peek I can tell you that the foundation is actually looking at starting a funding programme in forestry and climate change. But we’re still at the very beginning and at the moment we are considering what we should focus on. We’re trying to set it up this year so by next year there should be some more details.

The post From the archive: Cross-cutting projects shine for Swiss funder appeared first on Research Professional News.

This year the Zeit-Stiftung Foundation’s Beyond Borders scheme is for PhD students interrogating conflict

Top tips

• These scholarships serve to supplement the work of doctoral researchers by means of joint activities and conferences
• This is a scheme which requires tailored proposals—do not copy and paste
• Having the right language competencies to enable the project to be carried out is important
• Mention what you will gain from the scholarship beyond financial resources

The Zeit-Stiftung Foundation is a private charity based in Hamburg, Germany. The foundation runs several fellowship programmes, conferences and exchanges throughout the year, mostly aimed at PhD students.

One of those programmes is Beyond Borders, a scheme for PhD students that supports research on borders and boundaries within the social sciences and humanities. This year, in light of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the foundation is looking for projects that cover borders, contestation and conflict.

A total of €500,000 is available through the scheme, and projects will last for up to three years. The foundation expects to award 15 to 20 scholarships. The deadline for applications is 1 March and applications are accepted from any country.

Anna Hofmann, academic director of the programme, tells us more.

What is Beyond Borders?

It is an international PhD scholarship programme that has been running for three years. Every year we focus on a particular aspect of border and boundary studies. We started with a programme on borders, democracy, and security for the first generation of scholars. They were dealing mostly with national borders, and the whole question of negotiating democracy or statehood at the border.

Last year we focused on borders, migration and knowledge, looking at the production of knowledge about boundaries and border-making, and how different perceptions influence the way we learn about borders. This year the focus is much more on conflict and physical borders. We hope to get more projects on history and inter-ethnic relations. What happens in everyday life and everyday border management, and in the everyday experience of borders for different people?

Why was it set up?

The decision to focus more on borders and boundaries came out of our previous research funding programmes, where we noticed more and more emphasis on transnational aspects of research. At the same time, the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic in Europe highlighted a rising awareness of borders. We turned away from the process of reducing barriers and having borders dismantled in the process of European integration; for example, with free movement. But with Covid, those borders came back very quickly.

For this call, what type of support is available?

Three types of scholarships are available: Dissertation Completion scholarships for advanced PhD students; PhD scholarships for PhD students at any stage of their studies; and Start Up scholarships for advanced master’s students or PhD students who are at an early stage of their studies.

Are there restrictions on who can apply?

They must be doctoral students, or, for the Start Up fellowships, master’s students. Applicants also must work in social sciences and humanities in a broad sense, and their work has to involve the study of borders or boundaries. In the past we have accepted some people from a law background because their research goes beyond classical law.

Do applicants need to move to Germany for the scholarships?

No. They stay at their home institution and we will bring them together at least twice a year for a conference with everybody on the programme. They will present their project and discuss it with the advisory board and their peers from the programme. During the pandemic we moved communication online, and now that we are back doing physical conferences students still want to keep more regular online communication.

We also try to have one additional workshop or field trip, or another meeting during the year, and this is smaller and the offer is more diversified. For example, we might offer our Start Up scholars a workshop on proposal writing and research design development. For those who are much more advanced, we might propose a workshop on science communication, so going beyond the research work and thinking about how they may have more impact with their research. These are tailor-made to the needs of the individual group and people can register for them and apply if they want to participate.

Do participants work alone on their projects?

Yes and no. Participants work on their own projects, but they will also work with other members of their cohort for group discussions and so on. We try to create diverse groups with an interdisciplinary focus, but to have some kind of framework for productive work in the group discussions, we focus one overall topic or theme so that people can get into discussions with each other.

How many people do you expect to fund?

For this call we estimate we will select between 15 and 20 people. Our overall budget is around €500,000 for all participants, and that includes conferences, travel, workshops and so on. The funding covers the projects for up to three years.

What makes a good application?

The first thing we look at is the research question. Then we look at the candidate and their skills, their preparation for this research. For example, we look at language competencies, which are always a big factor in international projects. Can you access the literature in the archives? Are you prepared in terms of academic qualification? We consider whether this person can deliver on the topic they are proposing.

What advice would you give to applicants?

I would also say that applicants should make their proposals as specific as possible to this programme. In my experience, people often apply with a standardised research proposal that is more suitable to a graduate school. But usually for us it is much too long; we deal with a huge number of applications, so we are looking for a maximum of seven pages. The application for the Start Up fellowships is even smaller at five pages.

It is also very important to explain why you want to join the research programme and how it will be beneficial to you beyond the financial support.

Is Zeit-Stiftung the organisation that runs this scheme?

Financially speaking, we are a classical endowment charity. The founders, Ebelin and Gerd Bucerius, donated their wealth to the foundation after they died in the 1990s. As an institution, we are linked to the Die Zeit newspaper, which Gerd Bucerius founded in 1946.

Do you run any other calls throughout the year?

Yes, several. This is the only fellowship programme for PhD students, but we regularly advertise workshops or summer schools for interdisciplinary exchanges. Currently, the call for our Hamburg Summer School in Social Research is open. We also run a fellowship programme for international postdocs at the HafenCity University Hamburg in Germany which covers urban research.

The post Opportunity profile: Crossing borders, breaking boundaries appeared first on Research Professional News.

Leo Foundation offers skin disease grants with enviable success rates and is increasing its funding

Top tips

• Read and check eligibility requirements and requests for supporting documentation—this often catches people out.
• Familiarise yourself with the Leo Foundation’s philanthropic scope and show how your bid is in tune with that.
• Feasibility is an important criterion; partner with other groups if you do not have the necessary experience in-house.
• Skin cancer is out of scope for applications, but skin cancer models can be used in methodology.

For dermatology researchers, the Denmark-based Leo Foundation is a particularly valuable funder. The philanthropic organisation manages financial assets of around €2.3 billion and is accelerating its annual funding upwards of €20 million.

The Leo Foundation owns the pharmaceutical company Leo Pharma, which focuses on dermatology.

As part of its funding portfolio, the foundation offers Research Grants of around €270,000 to €540,000, lasting one to three years. The grants are available to researchers in any country and there are three funding rounds per year. The next deadline is on 28 February, followed by 23 June and 31 August.

Projects in basic, translational or clinical dermatology are welcomed but the Leo Foundation does not fund projects on skin cancer.

Chief scientific officer Anne-Marie Engel says the Leo Foundation is upping its funding and planning new options for clinical and translational researchers. Engel explains more about the Research Grants scheme and its encouraging success rates.

How much funding is the Leo Foundation expecting to award this year?

For this year, we expect to give altogether around €27m, and our aspiration and ambition is that by 2025, it will be €33.5m. We are also increasing the number of different grant-making instruments.

What is the aim of the Research Grant scheme for the foundation?

The idea behind a scheme like this is to give an opportunity to as many researchers as possible. The grants are not very large, but they are there to help and support researchers with excellent ideas and innovative ideas within dermatology research, in a very broad sense, going from basic to clinical.

How many grants are you expecting to award this year?

Somewhere between 25 and 30 grants. That, of course, depends on how many excellent applications we get.

Is there a fixed amount of funding or does it depend on the quality of applications?

We have an agreement with our board about how we expect to distribute funding across the different grant-making instruments we have. But it also depends on the applications we get, so for this particular instrument we can agree with the board of directors that if there’s more quality than expected, we can add a bit to the budget. And if there’s not enough quality, we won’t award as many grants. We usually get around 30 applications per round.

With three rounds a year and an estimated 25 to 30 grants, that’s a pretty good success rate.

Yes, although the success rate was quite high in 2022, but it may vary. The average success rate over the past five years is 19 per cent. But our scope in the foundation is very clear: it’s dermatology research, from basic to clinical, so it’s important for us to see that we are still getting a fairly high number of highly qualified applications within this field.

Is it possible to apply more than once, potentially in the same year?

If you do not get funding for your application, you can reapply once, and you’ll have to add a page or two explaining how you have worked on the project since you first applied. If it still doesn’t get funded, you can apply to the foundation again but with a different project.

Do you give feedback on applications that aren’t successful?

Regrettably not. We do give an indication to people of whether they were in the top, middle or bottom third of the applications when it came to ranking by our international expert committee.

Why are projects about skin cancer not eligible for funding?

As it’s easier to get funding from other agencies for cancer research than for other kinds of skin disease-related research, it’s been decided here to focus on the other skin diseases to give them a chance of getting funding for good projects. However, we do permit applications where skin cancer is used as a model to look into other mechanistic hypotheses and ideas for other skin diseases. So you can use skin cancer models in your skin research applications, but if it’s fully focused on skin cancer, you will have to apply elsewhere.

Grants are open to researchers worldwide, but do you get more applications from any particular country or region?

We do get most of our applications from Europe and from North America, but we’re seeing increasing numbers of applications from the Asia-Pacific, specifically Australia, which we’re thrilled about.

What proportion of grants awarded are for basic research against clinical research?

It’s not level, let me put it like that. We get more applications for basic research and thus we’ve also given out more grants for basic research, but we very much invite applications from people who do translational research and clinical research as well. In the future, as we increase our grant amounts, we will also have some thematic grants that invite, in a more focused way, researchers within translational and clinical research.

What level of ambition are you expecting to see in applications?

We’re really looking for excellence, and whether a project is something that can potentially jump to a whole new stage of knowledge within an area. Our board asks us about the potential for leaps forward every time we meet with them. At the same time, it’s also important to make sure that really good research groups and research environments can continue on course towards new knowledge and, hopefully, new treatments.

Are there any common mistakes that applicants should avoid?

A common mistake is that people fail to read the small print in the instructions to applicants. They sometimes forget to attach some of the mandatory documents so that when we screen the applications for eligibility, we have to reject them for administrative reasons, which is really a pity because there can still be a great idea in there. Also, we have a very clear scope for our philanthropic activities, so if people are very far away from that scope in what they’re applying for, the likelihood that they’re getting funding is close to zero.

Is there a minimum level of experience required to apply?

People must have PhDs or equivalent experience, and what we see is that we mostly award grants to people who are assistant professors and above that. Your experience as a research leader is, of course, something that is part of the evaluation.

Are there any elements that would make an application stand out?

What’s important for us is that when people apply they have some kind of feasibility analysis of the project that they are suggesting. So if they don’t have all the expertise and infrastructure in-house, within their group, it’s important for us to see in an application who they are teaming up with, to make sure that they cover all the expertise needed.

What would your top advice be to applicants?

The main advice would be: read the application guidelines carefully, then ask us if there’s something you think is unclear. It’s a pity if people think they are a fit for the Leo Foundation and it turns out that they are not, and that kind of question can very easily be clarified by an email or a phone call.

The post Opportunity profile: Danish funder delivers for dermatology appeared first on Research Professional News.

The Human Frontier Science Program is an international funder focused on the new

Top tips

• Novelty and innovation are watchwords for this funder
• Consider how you can leverage novel technology in your project
• Be proactive in networking—strong bids are likely to grow out of organically generated partnerships

The Human Frontier Science Program (HFSP) is an international organisation dedicated to boosting collaboration on basic research into fundamental biological problems. Founded in the late 1980s, it comprises the G7 nations and Australia, India, Israel, South Korea, Singapore, Switzerland, New Zealand and the non-G7 members of the European Union, which are represented by the European Commission.

The HFSP invites research proposals that take novel approaches to problems via interdisciplinary and international projects. It offers two types of research grants: Early Career Grants and Program Grants.

The Early Career Grants were previously known as Young Investigator’s Grants. Candidates must be within five years of recruitment into an independent position in academia, and they must have finished their PhD no more than 10 years ago.

The Program Grants, meanwhile, allow teams of independent researchers to conduct research through new international collaborations. Each project needs two to four members and there are various amounts of funding available depending on the size of the team.

The deadline for submitting letters of intent for both programmes—which were profiled in Funding Insight in 2022—is 30 March (and applicants must obtain a letter of intent ID number by 21 March).

Christine Cheung, an assistant professor at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, won a Young Investigator’s Grant in 2019. She discusses her project and how she won funding through the HFSP.

What is your background as a researcher?

My own research programme is around vascular disease biology. We are biologists trying to address the basic mechanisms of endothelial dysfunction, which underlies vascular abnormalities in many inflammatory conditions or degenerative aging conditions.

What does your HFSP project involve?

For the HFSP, the project actually takes a different flavour. The funder requires us to work with investigators from other continents, and the reason for that is because they want investigators to be funded who would otherwise not be supported by local public funding. They value that creativity and that convergence of different disciplines, so it is not just a continuation of our own research programme.

While I am a vascular disease biologist, my co-principal investigator is from a developmental biology background. The funded project looks into developmental aspects of the brain, and how the intertwined relationship of blood vessels and brain development inform and guide each other’s development during our lives. In the project, we use mice and human pluripotent stem cells as our experimental models.

What’s the overall aim of the research?

Whether it’s for regeneration or as part of disease progression, blood vessels are very plastic. There’s a concept called foetal reprogramming that suggests that even in disease, or when the tissue is stressed or vulnerable to trauma, blood vessels can kickstart regeneration and the cells actually enter a foetus-like programme. They actually go back in development and reactivate to help the tissue rebuild. By understanding the early beginnings of the brain and blood vessel development, it may inform other mechanisms that may interplay during disease as well as regeneration and offer some insights for tissue regeneration.

What is the grant’s duration and size?

Young Investigator’s Grants usually run for three years, but we have a one-year extension because of the pandemic. It finishes at the end of this year. Teams are usually between two and five people; we had two people. In total we won US$750,000 (€690,400).

Would the project be difficult to fund locally without the HFSP?

I can’t speak for other countries but in Singapore, our public funding cannot be used outside of the country. Another funding mechanism that allows both myself and my international collaborators to be funded is usually thematic grant calls co-funded by both institutions—say, if my university had an agreement with another university.

It’s very hard to run an international collaboration where all the principals can be funded appropriately to do the research programme together. This is where the HFSP has been very valuable.

So you found your international collaborators before you applied for the HFSP grant?

Yes. We knew each other beforehand, but this grant facilitated us working together. Without it, we would still try to collaborate within our own means. But we would probably only be able to run a pilot project because of funding restrictions.

Was it the first time you applied to the HFSP?

No, I applied once and failed, but it was several years ago. Then in 2019 we tried again but I went in with no expectations. For a winning proposal, maybe one ingredient is to adopt really advanced or emerging technology. Whether you are the developer of a new platform or not, you should be bold enough to leverage new technology.

How far did you mould your research to fit in with the HFSP grant requirements?

In terms of the research scope they’re broad, as long as it’s in life science or biomedicine. We didn’t feel constrained in what we wanted to research. I didn’t give up my fundamentals—my passion is doing vascular biology, and my colleague is into developmental biology. But the research must be interdisciplinary; they want to see novelty and creativity.

How long did it take you to put together your proposal?

For us, the initial conceptualisation stage was around four months. There were two stages: the letter of intent and the full proposal. The letter of intent is a shorter format; they use that to shortlist candidates for the full proposal. With the letter of intent, they look at the scientific merits of the project and also the idea itself—whether it is a novel idea and whether it adheres to the criteria. If you are shortlisted, you have to write something longer and more detailed with your methodology, your implementation plan.

What advice do you have for people considering an application this year or next?

Be proactive. We need to develop our networks and hone our skills—the more applications we make, the better we get. The pandemic has really made us slow down in networking, so maybe it’s time to start again. Go to conferences, build a network, meet other investigators. Because there are many opportunities, and the opportunities lie with the people who have the will to succeed together.

Would you apply to the HFSP again?

Yes. When this project has finished, we want to go for one of the Program Grants but we are still deliberating whether it should be an extension of this current proposal. We could go in as a brand new proposal altogether, because the science has evolved in the three years since we won the previous grant.

The post My winning proposal: Pushing the frontier appeared first on Research Professional News.

Eight tips for funding-call information sessions and networking workshops

Major funders, be they national or international, seem to have been pushing towards larger and more strategic grants for a few years now. And these are often attended by town-hall meetings and sometimes networking sessions that aim to inform researchers of what the call is about and, in the latter case, facilitate partnership-building.

In August 2018, Funding Insight columnist Adam Golberg gave potential attendees eight tips on getting the most out of such events. His first is somewhat unlikely, bearing in mind his day job in research management and his having written this article after a UK Research and Innovation call workshop: “Don’t send research development staff.”

Nowadays many major grant calls include workshops or networking events, and this is increasingly true of calls from UK Research and Innovation. These typically aim to do two things: first, to publicise the call and answer questions from potential bidders; and second, to facilitate networking and develop consortia, often including non-academic partners.

Space is often limited. There’s an application process to gauge demand and to allocate or ration places (if required) between disciplines and institutions. These events are different from ‘sandpits’, which have a more rigorous and competitive application process and which may result in direct research funding. They’re also distinct from scoping meetings, which define and shape future calls. The advice below focuses on the call-information day, but could also be applicable for sandpits and scoping meetings.

I recently attended my first UKRI call-information event and have come up with hints and tips that might help other first-time attendees.

1.       Don’t send research development staff

Research managers like me are more experienced at recognising how different calls vary, and understanding the specific focus of each, but we can only go so far when it comes to networking and representing academics. Regardless of how well we are briefed, there will come a point at which we can’t answer further questions because we’re not academics. Send an academic if you possibly can.

2.       Hone your pitch

A part of me dies inside every time I use a phrase like “elevator pitch”, but you’re going to be introducing yourself, your team and your ideas many, many times during the day. Prepare a short version and a long version of what you want to say. It doesn’t have to be crafted word for word, but prepare the structure of a clear, concise introduction that you can comfortably reel off. 

3.       Be clear about what you want and what you’re looking for

If you’re planning on leading a bid, say so. If you’re looking to add your expertise on X to another bid to be confirmed, say so. If you’re not sure yet, say so. I’m not sure what possible advantage could be gained about being coy. You could finesse your starting position by talking of “looking to” or “planning to” lead a bid if you want, but it’s much better to be clear.

4.       Don’t just talk to your friends  

Chances are that you’ll have friends or former colleagues at the event who you may not see as often as you’d like, but resist spending too much time in your comfort zone. It’ll limit your opportunities and will make you appear cliquey. Consider arranging to meet before or after the event, or at another time to catch up properly. 

5.       Be realistic about what’s achievable

Although these events shape the composition and focus of bids, I doubt that any collaboration starting from ground level at one of these events has a realistic chance of success.

6.       Do your homework

Most call meetings invite delegates to submit information in advance, usually a brief biography and a statement of research interests. It’s worth taking time to do this well and to read the information submitted by others. Follow up with web searches about potential partners to find out more about their work and, of course, what they look like. Follow them on Twitter too: it’s not stalking if it’s for research collaboration.

7.       Brush up on your networking skills 

If networking is something you struggle with, have a quick read of some basic networking guides. The best tip I was ever given was to regard networking as a process to identify “how I can help these people” rather than “how I can use these people to my advantage”. Also, I’ve found that saying “I think I follow you on Twitter” is an effective icebreaker.

8.       Don’t expect any new call info

There will be a presentation and a Q&A, but don’t expect major new insights. As not everyone can make these events, funders avoid giving any unfair advantages. Differences in nuance and emphasis can emerge in presentations and through questions, but don’t expect radical additional insights or secret insider knowledge.

If your target call has an event along these lines, you should make every effort to attend. Send your prospective principal investigator if you can, another academic if not, and your research development staff only if you must. Do a bit of homework: be clear about what you want to achieve, prepare your pitch and identify the people you want to talk to. In this way you’ll have a much better chance of achieving your goals.

Adam Golberg is research development manager in the faculty of social sciences at the University of Nottingham. He tweets as Cash4Questions and blogs at www.socialscienceresearchfunding.co.uk

The post From the archive: Getting the most from town-hall meetings appeared first on Research Professional News.

Japanese universities can be excellent bases for research in many fields

The Japan Society for the Promotion of Science works with funders and agencies around the world to bring early career scientists to Japan via its Postdoctoral Fellowships scheme. These are available for researchers of every discipline and in the UK are administered and assessed by the Royal Society (for the natural sciences, with the next deadline on 8 March) and the British Academy (for social science and arts and humanities, with the next deadline in December).

Fellowships provide a subsistence allowance of 362,000 yen (£2,250) a month and offer a settling-in allowance of Y200,000, as well as a return air ticket and insurance. Japanese hosts may also apply for a research grant to cover cooperative research-related expenses.

As Luigi Germinario, a heritage science specialist and 2018-19 postdoctoral fellow, told us in January 2020, these fellowships are always competitive and liaison with potential hosts can be difficult, but most applicants will find a department interested in collaborating quite easily.

Top tips

• Success rates on these fellowships are low but do not be put off; the application is not onerous and much will be handled by the host university.
• Japan-based researchers in fields that are less of a strategic priority in the country may be particularly welcoming of collaboration. Do not be afraid to reach out.
• Be prepared for difficulties liaising with your host university, as many university administrators and staff will not speak English.
• The fellowship is often generous but be aware that it will be administered by the university and you are unlikely to be given much autonomy in managing your funds.

For postdoctoral researchers keen to gain experience working in Japan, the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science’s (JSPS) Postdoctoral Fellowships are a lifeline. 

The fellowships are open to early career researchers in any discipline and can be held for up to two years. 

Applications are often via national agencies and this is the case in the UK, where the Royal Society oversees applications for the natural sciences and the British Academy for humanities and social science applications.

Luigi Germinario, a 2018-19 JSPS postdoctoral fellow, is researching stone weathering in underground heritage at Saitama University. He applied via the Italian Ministry of Education, Universities and Research.

In a few words, what do you study?

My research field is midway between geology and cultural heritage. I study stone materials—their deterioration, interactions with the environment, aspects fundamental to preserving them. In Japan, I am studying historical man-made caves. These are artificial caves dug for specific reasons. For instance, one was made by Buddhist monks because they wanted to build an underground temple where they could meditate and pray. Another was created for underground burials for aristocrats and emperors 1,500 years ago.  

How did you hear about the fellowship?

At the beginning I did some research online, since I was trying to move abroad for my postdoctoral studies and was thinking about going to east Asia. I then started emailing with a professor, who would eventually become my host researcher. Later we met at a conference—this was in spring 2017. But I waited a bit before applying to the fellowship because I had a short-term position in Hungary, which I had to finish before I could consider myself free. 

What was the application process like?

I applied in August 2017 and the fellowship started in December 2017. The process itself wasn’t too difficult—as for similar applications, there’s a little paperwork to deal with. There’s a structured form you need to fill out with your qualifications, and the most lengthy part was the research project section, which was two pages long. They give you that page limit, so you need to condense all your ideas. The project description is pretty brief but, of course, it needs to be organic and your thoughts need to be clear. 

Did you need to make a presentation to the committee?

There was no interview for this application. When you’re a JSPS researcher, the management of your research funds is made through the professor. So, the professor I’m working with dealt with the paperwork and sent everything with JSPS through the university.

How did you find a professor to work with?

After coming across the professor’s work, I simply sent her an email. Later, we met up at the conference. At the early stage it was a very informal chat—I just said I’d done my PhD and I’d like to go to Japan, and I’d seen that not many people in my field were doing this work. So we began to have a chat. We didn’t really get any further because I was about to move to a different country for a short-term postdoctoral degree.  

Did you find building that partnership was quite easy?

Yes. In general, at least, my field is not well represented in Japan and as a result Japanese researchers tend to be very enthusiastic about collaboration. International collaborations are vital to them. 

What sorts of expenses does your JSPS fellowship cover?

Of course, I get a stipend. I use research money for field trips to do things such as rock sampling and environmental monitoring, since I study the microenvironment at caves—factors such as temperature, humidity and water quality. I also use research funds for lab analysis—for example, studying chemical composition of rocks. Labs at my university are not free and you need to pay by the hour for machines, which the fellowship covers. A large part of research funds are for conferences.

Where is your work based?

I live near Tokyo, in Saitama—roughly 30 kilometres away. My work is based more or less in the same area. The caves I’m studying are within a day’s trip from Tokyo. 

Will your fellowship contribute to funding travel further afield?

Yes, this year I’ll be in India, Austria and Portugal. Travel for conferences requires quite a lot of money because most scholars in my field are generally in Europe and I need to present my research.

Were there any limitations to the fellowship?

Very often you cannot communicate directly with university offices in Japan because the English level is usually very low. That’s one of the limitations in working in Japan. You’re not very autonomous in managing your funds. So your professor directly asks for refunds and writes paperwork that justifies money they need for conferences and trips. Of course, you agree upon expenses together, but you don’t have a webpage that you can check to see you’ve got Y100,000 left for next month and plan what you’re going to do with that money.

Is it your first time working in Japan? Would you recommend it?

Yes. I’ve been here one and a half years out of my two-year fellowship now. I’d recommend a short-term stay like this. It’s a good taster to living in Japan, and if you’re studying Japanese culture, there’s no substitute for actually working here.

What tips might you give someone applying for the fellowship?

One of the things that discouraged me was the success rate on JSPS calls—it’s pretty low. But a professor told me, Luke, don’t let it get you down if you don’t pass in your first application—in general, you need a few tries before you get it. And I wound up getting it on my first try. I would say: just don’t think about it.

Anything else?

The next deadline is in March, so depending on your professor’s schedule, it would be a good idea to start as soon as possible—also, every university has an internal deadline to submit documents before the official deadline. So be mindful of internal deadlines.

The post From the archive: Uncovering a postdoc in Japan appeared first on Research Professional News.

How the French foundation supports research-led outreach and dissemination activities

Agropolis Foundation is dedicated to researching agriculture and sustainable development. Established in 2007, the foundation is based in Montpellier, France, and has a number of international partners.

It is funded primarily by the French National Research Agency (ANR) and works with a network of 41 research units in France, split into five disciplinary areas.

The foundation offers several funding opportunities throughout the year, primarily to researchers in its network, including with its One-time Support Grants. These grants are designed to fund activities related to research, such as events, rather than research itself.

Two rounds of the One-time Support Grants run each year. There is a maximum overall budget of €150,000, and each project can receive up to €20,000. The next deadline is 31 January, and projects will start between March and November. Pierre Péré, scientific programme officer at Agropolis Fondation, explains what the grants hope to achieve and how researchers from outside the foundation’s network can get involved.

What is Agropolis Fondation?

We are a private foundation, but around 80 per cent of our funding comes from the French government. The rest of our funding comes from private partners. Since 2007, we have funded more than €43 million worth of projects. We aim to promote the agriculture of tomorrow through our networks and international partners.

What kind of research do you support?

We support projects that explore agriculture and sustainable development. We have three research axes, or themes, which are: climate change—adaptation and mitigation; conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity; and responsible production and consumption.

What funding do you offer?

As well as the One-time Support Grants, we also offer two types of funding calls for research proposals. We use what we call commissioned projects, where we gather ideas from our scientific networks, and then we will choose some of them to develop. They are usually big projects between just over €500,000 and €3m. We also offer calls for projects, which have up to €1.8m available for specific topics.

Why do you need the One-time Support Grants?

We have a network of around 1,600 researchers. Some of our researchers found that although they could find ways to fund their research, the same funding was not available for their research-linked activities, like events. About 10 years ago, we decided to set up the One-time Support Grants to help with these one-off costs.

Do you mostly fund events through this call?

Yes—in the last session, we had mostly conferences. We had one on microbial toxicology, we funded a congress in Senegal about fixation of nitrogen, and another in Africa about the preservation of soils. But we also support the dissemination of our projects, notably through book translations and games related to research.

What kind of games?

We do fund some board games, but we also fund serious games that are designed to educate and focus on problem-solving. They are like a bridge between science and society. In the last session, we funded a serious game about the management of agroforestry systems in Madagascar. It was mostly directed at farmers in a precise area of Madagascar. Researchers want to change hearts and minds and influence the people, and usually if you have really formal meetings it’s hard. So if you develop a serious game, you can take the community with you and help to make change.

And how much funding is available?

Overall, there is €150,000 available. But this is split between two One-time Support Grant calls per year. Each project can win up to €20,000 and last for up to a year.

Is there just one application stage?

You apply for the grants through our platform, and then there is a committee that will assess your application. The selection rate is quite high, around 60 per cent. Those projects then go through our board, which selects the final projects.

Who can apply?

Researchers who are part of our network can apply. It is also restricted to established academics, so PhD students and postdocs are not eligible. You need to be a full-time researcher to propose a project.

Can researchers include partners in industry?

Yes, it’s allowed. We have a rule in France that only 30 per cent of a public grant can be transferred outside of our network. But there is a trick we can sometimes use—on co-funded projects, we need to apply the rule to the funding that we are providing. On the funding from our partners, the rule does not apply.

What advice would you give to researchers who want to apply to a One-time Support Grant?

Make sure the information you are giving about the project is current. For example, if you say that you want to work with a partner at the University of Cambridge, but in your financial plan—where you describe what money you need for the project—they are not mentioned, then how can we understand how they are involved?

Also, make sure you have read the call documents properly. We don’t fund research per se through this scheme, so applications for research funding will not be successful. And only researchers from our network are eligible as lead applicants, so make sure you are part of the network before applying.

The post Opportunity profile: Agropolis works from the ground up appeared first on Research Professional News.

Be bold to have your international life-sciences collaboration funded by the Human Frontier Science Program

The Human Frontier Science Program (HFSP) has been in the business of encouraging international, interdisciplinary collaboration on fundamental health challenges since the late 1980s. Its main mechanism for doing this is via its annual research grant schemes: its Early Career Grants and Program Grants, which provide funding for three years for teams of two to four people from a mix of countries.

This year, those applying to either of these schemes must obtain a letter of intent ID number by 21 March and submit the letter of intent on 30 March. Full proposals for invited teams will be due in mid-September. The application system will open later this month.

Last year, Almut Kelber, director of research grants at the HFSP, explained the funder’s rationale and gave advice on how applicants can curry favour.

Top tips:

• Think carefully about whether you need two team members from the same country: you will have to work hard to convince the reviewers that this is necessary.
• Emphasise the fact that your question is new and fundamental, rather than the next step in your existing research.
• Interdisciplinarity is strongly encouraged and each team member should be integral to the project.

The HFSP is an international organisation designed to push the boundaries of research in the life sciences. Founded in the late 1980s, its comprise the G7 nations and Australia, India, Israel, South Korea, Singapore, Switzerland, New Zealand and the non-G7 members of the European Union, who are represented by the European Commission.

The HFSP offers funding for basic research into fundamental health challenges or biological issues, with an emphasis on interdisciplinary research. It runs two annual grant programmes, one for early career researchers—Early Career Grants—and another for academics at any stage of their careers—Program Grants. Both provide funding for three years for teams of two to four people, who must be from a mix of countries.

The deadline for submitting a letter of intent to either scheme this year is 24 March. Almut Kelber, director of research grants at the HFSP, talks about the need for interdisciplinary and international collaboration to push the boundaries of biology.

What is the aim of the HFSP?

Today you would call it science diplomacy: to bring people together to study basic life science questions in an international context, where people collaborate between the many different countries that are members of the HFSP. Since it began in 1990 we have funded about 7,000 scientists.

Why are the grants split into Program and Early Career categories?

Initially, the early career researchers may have been intimidated. What the organisation wanted to achieve is that people who have just started their own labs feel encouraged to apply for an HFSP grant.

The Early Career category has been renamed. It used to be called Young Investigator Grants, but ‘young’ sounds like it’s linked to age, which is not the point. The Early Career scheme is restricted to five years after each team member started their own lab, and 10 years after their PhDs

Can early career researchers apply for the Program scheme too?

Yes. We do have many early career members in the Program grants. The average age is below 50.

Are you looking to fund a specific area of research with the grants?

It’s about fundamental questions. There is no need to have an applied aspect to the project. It doesn’t hurt if there is an applied aspect to the project, but the funding will be awarded for the originality and the character of the basic scientific question asked. We are not that interested to hear about the next step in the laboratory, which is what the national funding agencies usually fund.

Are you looking for interdisciplinarity in research teams?

We say ‘interdisciplinarity’ loudly, but we don’t want it for its own sake. What we want to achieve is that scientists from other research disciplines come to the project with a completely different view to a question.

What kind of interdisciplinarity is encouraged? Is there a role for humanities?

It depends on the question. There has been a project that is pretty far from what you usually read or write about, which was on climate control in termite mounds. There was an architect involved, because the termites built their mounds in a way that was air conditioned and inside the mound was cooler than outside.

But often team members which are not biologists are in physics, engineering, mathematics, computational sciences. Occasionally they are in social sciences, but that’s rarer. Humanities are not excluded—there have been projects funded on cognition, and they can have a member from a completely different discipline that comes from the humanities.

How many teams are you looking to fund through the calls?

That depends on the budget for 2023, which isn’t set yet. Normally, around 30 projects are funded. The number of applications is in the range of 700, sometimes 800, so the success rate is not extremely high.

We have a two-step application process. The first step is to send a letter of intent, which is what we are asking for now. The success rate to be invited to send a full application is about 10 per cent. In the second step, which is the full application, about half or a third of the proposals are funded.

How much teams can expect to win?

The amount of money they win is set by the team size. It used to be $250,000 (£184,000) per year for a two-member team, $350,000 for three members and $450,000 for four members. That is increasing. People who start writing the application in the next round and will have their funding awarded in 2023, they will get $300,000, $400,000 or $500,000 per year for the team. We expect them to divide that more or less evenly between team members. But they can decide that.

What does the funding cover?

It can cover everything except studentships. They can pay for PhD students, but not for study fees. They cannot pay the principal investigator’s or any senior colleagues’ salaries. That should come from institutions. But it can cover the salaries of PhDs, post-docs, lab assistants.

What are you looking for in the letter that would make you want to see the full proposal?

There are a few things to do, and a few things to avoid. Do not apply with what would be the next logical step for research in any team members’ lab. The reviewers will see from the CV that is sent in, or the publications, whether what they suggest as an HFSP project is actually just along the lines of what they are already doing, or whether it’s new. Of course, they have to have the knowledge and the methods of their field, but they should step out of their current research.

For the letter of intent, it is important that the reviewers can see that the competence of all team members is required, and that close collaboration is planned between the team members—not four team members working in parallel on similar projects.

Any more tips?

It shouldn’t be teams of good, old friends and collaborators; it should be new teams and new collaborators. And it should be an international team. It’s interesting, if you talk to people who have been collaborating, say, in the US and Japan, the way of thinking is different even within the same field.

Are teams with two members from the same country eligible to apply?

Yes, but teams with two members from the same institution are not. It’s still possible to have more than one team member from the same country, unless it’s a two-member team. But if there is more than one team member in the same country, we ask teams to explain why that second member from the same country is needed.

Is it hard to convince reviewers why two people from the same country are needed?

I’m not 100 per cent sure how our reviewers determine this. Really, if it’s a national partner, it should be someone who has got such a specific and competence for the project, and a method and knowledge that you can’t easily find it somewhere else.

The HFSP is funded by 14 nations and the European Union. Of course, each of them wants to see international collaboration, so there should be as little national collaboration as possible. We know that if you are a team of four, it can be easier to have a fourth member from the same country, but they need to argue it a bit.  They also get a little less funding if they have two members in the same county.

They count as 1.5 members rather than two, don’t they?

Yes. They get 50,000 USD less in the team if two members are from the same country.

Can people who have previously applied put in another application?

Yes. In contrast to many organisations, we don’t have a formal re-application procedure. We do give feedback at the full application stage.

The post From the archive: Crossing the frontier appeared first on Research Professional News.

The British Ecological Society’s funding is open to scientists all around the world

Top tips

• The society only supports projects where it can be the majority funder.
• Grants are open to all members, regardless of career stage.
• Track record is considered but is balanced by assessment of impact an award would have on the applicant’s career.
• Grants are relatively small so ensure your proposal is realistic.
• Show evidence-based impact and clear methodology—these are highly valued by reviewers.

The British Ecological Society is now into its 110th year of existence—but this is its first profile in Funding Insight. The BES’s Research Grants are an important part of its work and ensure not only that the society maintains an active role in ecological science but also that it supports the next generation of ecologists as they build their careers.

The society holds two rounds of funding each year offering three types of Research Grants

• Small Research Grants of up to £5,000, open to members of the BES.
• Large Research Grants of up to £20,000, open to those who have been members for at least two years prior to application.
• Ecologists in Africa Grant of up to £8,000, open to citizens of African countries classed as a ‘low-income economy’ or ‘lower-middle-income economy’ in the World Bank categorisation, who are working in Africa, with no membership restrictions.

The first round for all three grants is open now and closes on 15 March. Outreach Grants—open to members and worth up to £2,000—are also available. The second annual round of funding will open in early July. With the exception of the Ecologists in Africa Grants, all schemes are open to ecologists in any geographical location.

BES chief executive Hazel Norman and grants and community engagement officer Dylan Byrne describe how the grants work and key elements reviewers like to see.

How would you summarise the call?

Hazel Norman: We invite ecologists from around the world to apply for our Research and Outreach Grants. We usually award about 50 grants per year and try to help early career ecologists in particular because they struggle to get funding. But the grants will support any ecologist who wants to advance ecological science and the understanding of ecology via a project. The BES sees funding as a crucial way to support a thriving ecological community and thriving ecological science.

How many are given out for each type of grant typically each year?

Dylan Byrne: We usually award about six to seven Large Research Grants each year. For the Small Research Grants, it is around 14. Similar for the Outreach Grants. For the Ecologists in Africa it is around seven to eight awards per year. Our success rate is around 15 per cent across all our grants. Overall, we have got £400,000 of funding that we award every year.

Can grants be used as bolt-ons to larger projects?

DB: If you apply for a BES grant, we must fund the majority of the project. If you have already got a project in the works and you require some additional funding, we would not fund that. We basically fund projects where people have an idea but they need funding to be able to do it. We do not want to act as a top-up fund and so we have to be the majority funder.

HN: People often build projects from different funding pots, but we don’t like to fund that kind of research. We are much more interested in being a main funder on a particular project.

If a researcher wants to get money from elsewhere, should they make that clear in the application?

DB: When someone applies, we have a budget table that breaks down all the costs. For example, equipment and accommodation if they need it. If it is a Large Research Grant, for example, and their costs came to £26,000 and they can only request £20,000—the maximum we award—they would have to justify where the other £6,000 would come from, and there is space to do that. But, again, we would still need to be the majority funder.

Who are the grants primarily intended for?

DB: Our grants are open to most people in membership although there are some eligibility criteria that must be met. One of the main ones is that we would not fund to complete a PhD project but we would fund a project that compliments a PhD. It generally tends to be early career researchers applying for the Small Research Grants especially but those are still open to anyone.

How much is track record considered on bids and is it balanced by other criteria for early career researchers?

DB: Track record is scored so we do look at evidence of what a researcher has done in the past. But we also look at impact as part of the scoring criteria, which includes how much of an impact would this funding have on a person’s career.

What would make a proposal stand out in the calls?

DB: For all our grants, evidence-based impact with a strong understanding of methodology will always make an application stand out. That is, make sure that whatever you are doing has an impact that you can evidence, that you understand the methodology you are using and that your evidence can be achieved in a realistic timeframe.

Beyond that, we always look for a good, clear breakdown of your costs in the budget table. Being realistic about how much a project will cost is also important. For example, the Small Research Grant, which is maximum £5,000—what can you do with that £5,000?

You need to know and show what you are going to do, how you are going to do it, why you are going to do it and the impact that it is going to have. On the BES website, we have examples of successful grant applications that can help in understanding what a high-scoring grant looks like.

HN: I’d second that the peer review college is always interested in seeing that the proposal is realistic within the time frame and the resources asked for.

Are there any geographical restrictions on where the research can be carried out?

DB: Apart from the Ecologists in Africa scheme, there are no geographical restrictions either on location for the research or the researcher’s home base. We see ourselves as supporting the global ecological community.

How do you assess applications?

DB: Our review college is made up of 350 members who have completed a PhD or are undertaking one. We match up the topics of the application with the topics of the Review College members. Three members review and comment on each grant. 

If a person is successful or not, they get to see those reviewer feedback comments. We also have a grants committee made up of 12 members who will review the highest scoring grants and have the final say on what projects get funded. 

This committee also regularly reviews our grant application process and eligibility criteria to ensure our grants meet the needs of the global ecological community and align with our society’s values and strategy.

What are the available topics for BES grants?

HN: Our grants can cover over 30 topics, all relating to different branches of ecology, from agroecology to urban ecology. Selecting three topics relevant to your grant application helps us ensure that the most relevant members of the review college assess and score your application.

Do you have any other advice for potential applicants?

DB: Don’t be afraid to apply even if the competition is tough. We use Flexigrant, which is a user-friendly online grants platform. Starting the process helps to understand the process and what type of questions are asked.

All applicants get feedback whether their grant is successful or not. We accept modified reapplications; the original proposal should be 80 per cent different and they must take the reviewers’ feedback on board.

If potential applicants have questions, is it easy to get in touch with you?

DB: I am the BES grants and community engagement officer. If anyone ever has any questions, they come directly to me. They are not dealing with multiple people, they are just dealing with one person through the whole process.

HN: I would really encourage anyone with eligibility or any other questions to reach out to BES and Dylan before they put their application. One question can often save a lot of time and effort.

The post Opportunity profile: Tending to ecology research appeared first on Research Professional News.

Use your prep time wisely, says the winner of a Farm to Fork forerunner call

At the end of last year, the European Commission signed off on €13.5 billion in EU R&D spending for 2023-24.

A swathe of calls were opened by the bloc in December, addressing some of the biggest challenges facing the EU. The strand for Food, Bioeconomy, Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environment splits its calls into “destinations”, one of which is “fair, healthy and environment-friendly food systems from primary production to consumption”, or Farm to Fork, also the name of an EU strategy. The latest slate of calls under Farm to Fork closes on 12 April.

An important strand here is exploring ways to develop cultivated meat—meat grown in laboratories—and fermentation-based foods, which could offer a more environmentally friendly way to use meat.

Christophe Courtin, a professor in the laboratory of food chemistry and biochemistry at KU Leuven in Belgium, won funding through a similar set of calls in 2021. He is now project coordinator for HealthFerm, a research project exploring the benefits of fermentation. Here, Courtin shares his tips for winning funding—as well as what not to do.

What is HealthFerm?

It is a European project exploring fermented pulse- and cereal-based foods, which looks at the health benefits of fermentation and the public perceptions of novel fermented foods. The project aims to enable an evidence-based transition in society and industry from traditional to sustainable plant-based fermented foods and diets that deliver health benefits to consumers.

Why is this work important?

There is an environmental aspect. We know that we need to change at least part of our dietary pattern from animal-based products into plant-based products. The issue is that functionality like gelling, foaming and structure formation is mostly easy to achieve with animal-based proteins—think of milk or egg proteins—while it’s much more difficult to achieve in the same way with plant-based proteins. We believe that fermentation can help us to achieve more functionality, more solubility and so on of those plant-based proteins.

Plus, plant-based materials have higher fibre levels. There’s quite a significant fibre gap in our diets in the Western world. We consume too little fibre: around 15 to 18 grams per day, when it should be between 25 and 40 grams. Fibre in our diet comes from cereals and pulses, next to fruits and vegetables. Boosting consumption of plant-based foods provides an opportunity for increasing fibre in our diet.

So, it’s a combination of fermentation technology, of plant-based materials, sustainability and, of course, very importantly it’s also about health.

How did HealthFerm start?

Originally, it was a smaller group of people that was interested in having an EU Marie Skłodowska-Curie training network. We applied for that several times but it didn’t work out, although we had incredibly good scores. Then we saw this other call and we decided to direct our efforts towards winning funding through the scheme. Based on that, we applied for a project and we were successful.

After you were not successful with Marie Skłodowska-Curie, did you want to give up?

The competition for those grants is fierce. We got a score of 95 per cent, which in any normal circumstance would mean that you get a project, but we needed to reach something like 97 per cent. We resubmitted a few times, and then we turned our attention towards this call.

Which project did you apply for under Horizon Europe?

The topic we applied for was “Microbes for healthy and sustainable food and diets”.

Did you change your idea to fit with the new call?

Yes. The topic for this project was fermentation, whereas for the Marie Skłodowska-Curie call we were looking more at cereal fibres.

How many groups are involved in this project?

We have 23 partners. We have universities, we have research institutes, we have smaller companies and larger companies.

Have some groups joined since the project started?

No. The project is one where you have a consortium and that’s it. There are no openings for additional partners. The initial consortium was one from the European training network, where we had six or seven of the participants. Then we expanded it based on the need for specific types of researchers, for example on the gut microbiome, on clinical trials and on consumer behaviour. It’s really a combination of different networks, coupled to the expertise that was needed for the project.

How much funding did you win?

We won €13.1 million through the Horizon Europe call, just over €11.3m from the EU and €1.8m from the Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation that provided money for the Swiss partners. The project began in September 2022 and it will last for four years.

What was the application process like?

The application process was just one stage. You know which documents you have to supply, so in that sense it’s quite clear. What is challenging is that the call text itself mentions a lot of different elements you have to take into account. If you want to have a successful project then you have to adhere to as much of the things that are mentioned in the call text as possible.

What kind of thing?

For example, in the call text we responded to, you had to incorporate consumer science but you also had to define what a healthy gut microbiome is. You have to develop specific methodologies and you had to link the project with several of the Commission’s new missions.

So, there’s the core of the scientific research, but there’s also a lot of links and a lot of aspects that you also have to take into account when writing the project. And that makes it sometimes very difficult to check all the boxes, and you really need to check them. Understanding the call text is half of the success of a project, trying to figure out what they are actually looking for.

Did you go through several application drafts?

Absolutely. The whole process of defining and writing the project took us six months. I think that was a factor in the success of this project, that we spent so much time building the consortium and the project and writing new versions. Sometimes I hear that people who submit projects have only been working on them for four to six weeks. Looking at the complexity involved, if you only prepare for four to six weeks then I don’t see how it’s possible to get a grant for projects like this.

What advice would you give to others who want to apply for similar calls?

Just that—prepare thoroughly. The more a project is discussed beforehand, the better it will score and the smoother it will run afterwards. For us, the application could not be more than 45 pages. It can seem a lot, but it’s actually very little if you have to explain how you will impactfully spend €13.1m. At one point we were at 60 or 70 pages, and then we had to reduce that to 45. But it’s better to write too broad and then narrow it down than not have sufficient substance to your text.

I would also say that you have to be careful about who you invite to be a partner in the project, because once a person is invited it’s very difficult to uninvite them. If you decide after months of discussion that you don’t need that partner, it’s too late. So be very restrictive in who you invite in the first instance.

The post My winning proposal: Letting a bid ferment appeared first on Research Professional News.

Last-minute bids can succeed, but need careful planning before the late burst of activity

For all of those planning to use the end-of-year holidays to finish up a bid whose deadline is looming in early 2023, we republish Adam Golberg’s advice on last-minute applications from August 2020. A frantic burst of activity as you near the finishing line is fine and potentially even good, says Golberg, but do keep everyone involved with the bid—co-applicants, external partners, research support—informed of what you’re doing. 

And then, ask yourself: “Do I have ‘agent of chaos’ tendencies?” If the answer is yes, then Golberg has some special—pleading—words of advice for you.

What’s the problem with submitting last-minute research grant applications?

Well, it depends exactly how last minute, and it depends on whether your approach is controlled or chaotic. The mayhem caused by chaotic last-minute applications is one good reason why most universities don’t permit them, and often have strict timescales for proposal preparation and approval. A second reason is that the chances of success are very, very low. Chaotic last-minute applications are almost always a waste of everyone’s time.

However, some of the stricter timescales and notice periods imposed by some universities can be counter-productive. Provided an application is appropriately planned and controlled, why wouldn’t you want to use as much of the available time to produce the strongest possible application? After all, academic work patterns tend to be lumpy, moving from intensive focus on one task (and deadline) to the next: finish the marking by date X, then turn to revisions on the paper by Y, leaving enough time to write the grant application by Z. The idea that grant proposals will develop in a linear and regular fashion between call launch and deadline is just wrong. The bulk of the work—or at least the writing—will be done in the final few weeks. That’s pretty much inevitable.

A quick and obvious point to make is that literal last-minute applications are a terrible idea. Online submission systems can fall over, your internet connection can fail, there’s no time for checks—never mind proper internal review—and little slack to deal with unexpected issues. Don’t do it to yourself.

Your institution will have its own policies, but my view is that normally being ready for submission by close of play the day before a late afternoon deadline, or at a push in the first few working hours of deadline day should be fine. This may vary depending on how busy your support team is, particularly if there are multiple bids for the same deadline or multiple deadlines on the same day, which is very common.

Control is Key

If you want to use as much time as is available, your approach must be controlled. Paradoxically, it takes preparation to be able to successfully bring an application to fruition in a short space of time.

Here are seven elements of that preparation that need to be completed before you attack the main body of work for your (relatively) last-minute bid:

1. Relevant people at every university involved know that your bid is coming. Research administrators preparing costings, research managers carrying out detailed checks or giving last-minute feedback, heads of school giving approval and central research staff signing off. All these people can and will block out time and work quickly because they want you to succeed, but only if they know your bid is coming in good time.

2. You’ve had a sense-check discussion with your research development manager to make sure that the scheme and funder is right for your idea. Ideally you should also have had time for comments and feedback on early drafts.

3. Application requirements have been thoroughly checked for anything that takes time and planning to arrange. I call this ‘minesweeping’: checking to make sure there’s no unexploded ordinance that could sink the bid at the last minute. Such explosives may include requirements for letters of support from the pro-vice chancellor research, sign-off from the tech transfer office, letters or other documents from project partners, or checks with HR for any bullying or harassment complaints. These can be hidden away in the ‘notes for applicants’, and your research administrator or manager will be able to identify them and sort them out for you. The less familiar the funder—for you and your institution—the more important the minesweeping.

4. The idea is more or less complete, even if the application is not. There’s a huge difference between ‘writing up’ a well-developed idea and fitting it into the application requirements and trying to define and scope out your project as you write it. The process of writing the application forces clarity—or at least it should—so it’s almost inevitable that writing it up will expose unclear or underdefined areas that need clarifying or pockets of stray fudge that need unsticking. But you can’t complete the summary section of the application form if you don’t know what you’re summarising.

5. Your partners are on board. That means they have bought into the project and will provide you with what you need from them in terms of letters of support and so on. Remember: all organisations need time to produce a good letter of support.

6. You’ve had some external input from senior academic colleagues. Ideally this will be from a formal internal peer review process, but if not, from informal discussions or comments on a concept note or draft outline.

7. You’ve left time for final checks. These will include checks that all the documents are present and correct and in the right format and, closer to deadline, time to sleep on a complete draft and review it fresh in the morning—one final readthrough.

Agents of Chaos

Fortunately, most researchers, and certainly grant-winners, do follow this planned approach. But those who don’t—the ‘agents of chaos’—can wreak so much havoc for so little reward that institutional rules end up getting written to attempt to regulate them, rather than to empower those who write controlled last-minute bids. I tend to think that a better approach to dealing with the agents of chaos is to tell them that their approach is a minority one and seldom if ever leads to success.

If you have ‘agent of chaos’ tendencies, remember that your research support team are unlikely to be twiddling their thumbs awaiting your genuinely last-minute call. They’ll have a full slate of other applications that they’re carefully project-managing through to submission and may not have the capacity to support your bid. If you don’t notify your research support team that you’re planning to apply until it is almost too late, you may be forcing them to choose between your application and someone else’s. Your research support team would far rather be forewarned about potential applications that don’t come to fruition—this happens all the time, no one will judge you negatively—than not be told about one that does.

The list of features of a controlled approach may look long, but really it’s just about carving out enough time early enough to look at the practicalities and to form a plan intensive and effective work later on and, then secondly, letting colleagues know you intend to apply. That way, you can still enjoy the creative maelstrom brought about by putting the finishing touches to your bid at three in the morning, but also give it a fighting chance of actually getting funded.

Adam Golberg is research development manager in the faculty of social sciences at the University of Nottingham. He tweets as @Cash4Questions and blogs at socialscienceresearchfunding.co.uk

The post From the archive: The final countdown appeared first on Research Professional News.

US funders and agencies forced to confront an inconvenient truth

In the last year the problem of harassment in isolated research environments has caught the US scientific community’s attention and garnered considerable mainstream interest thanks to two publications.

The first was an article on the Buzzfeed News website in December 2021, which carried the testimony of 16 female scientists who had suffered sexual harassment and assault at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, a research station in Panama.

This was followed, in August this year, by a report from the National Science Foundation (NSF) and its linked bodies the Office of Polar Programs (OPP) and the United States Antarctic Program (Usap).

The report revealed widespread assault, harassment and stalking at Usap sites and during Usap missions. It makes for harrowing reading. “Every woman I knew down there had an assault or harassment experience that had occurred on ice,” one interviewee is quoted as saying.

The report notes: “This was a sentiment or experience echoed by many of the members of the USAP community we spoke to”. The NSF and the National Science Board—which sets policy for the NSF—have both since responded with emergency actions for assault and harassment prevention in Usap.

Concern over the situation has now risen to the summit of US politics. Last month the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy brought together senior scientists, agency officials and survivors of assault and harassment for an online roundtable on preventing this behaviour in isolated scientific research environments.

During the discussion, the director of the OPP Roberta Marinelli said that what was revealed by those two publications is the tip of the iceberg of problematic behaviour occurring in such locations. And, of course, while it is misconduct at US-linked sites that has so far garnered headlines, the problem is likely to be far more widespread.

Here are five takeaways from the roundtable.

1. ‘Isolated research environments’ does not just mean fieldwork

Asmeret Berhe, the director of the office of science at the US Department of Energy, opened with an observation that many of the preventative measures under discussion should not only be considered by those organising projects in remote corners of the earth.

“Isolated research environments can still exist in proximity to bustling campuses or large metropolitan areas,” Berhe said. “[They] can come in many forms, wherever people might feel threatened or unsafe because of their identity and when they can’t find others to seek help from.”

Ellen Stofan, undersecretary for science and research at the Smithsonian Institution, agreed, saying that there can be “risk…in a laboratory late in the evening or early in the morning”.

However, she added: “Remote fieldwork presents an especial risk we have to address head on.”

2. Effective systems to report harassment are vital

A key finding of the Antarctic research report was that NSF bodies lacked adequate reporting and response systems. The first point of action in the NSF’s response to that report was to set one up. The Sexual Assault/Harassment Prevention and Response office will now act as a single communication endpoint for all complaints.

While having a single communication point is sensible, so that reports of harassment do not get lost in the system, Stofan added that there should be multiple ways to reach it. For the Smithsonian this now includes “a 24-hour reporting line so that anywhere in the world, any time of day, someone can pick up a phone a report what’s happened to them”.

Of course, there is no point in having established channels for reporting harassment if researchers are unaware of them, she added. In addition to training, she said all field stations now have posters up displaying the steps to take if somebody wants to report an incident.

3. Training is essential

There was general consensus among participants that good specialist training of all staff and supervisors who work in isolated research environments was not a magic bullet, but it was nonetheless essential—“a minimum”, in Stofan’s words.

Training for those who will not be victims or perpetrators of harassment, but will become aware of it—bystander training—was deemed particularly crucial.

Amelia Shevenell, an associate professor of geological oceanography at the University of South Florida and survivor of harassment aboard Antarctic research ships, said: “We aren’t born knowing how to intervene and that is a critical part of good training—to be able to develop that sort of mental recall to be able to intervene.”

Training should be imbued with a sense of urgency, Stofan added. “We need to be training supervisors on how to have difficult conversations with people, not the 400th time but the first time [they suspect inappropriate behaviour],” she said. “How does a supervisor, a community enforce standards from the beginning, so these things don’t get to the level that they do?”

4. Power dynamics must be addressed

When it came to addressing the wider cultural issues that enabled harassment, there was broad consensus on the need to pluralise and flatten the linear and hierarchal power structures that exist in isolated research units—and within science more generally.

In Stofan’s words, victims will often not report harassment “because they feel the harasser has power over their career and they fear retaliation”. This is, of course, often a legitimate fear. To deal with this, Stofan said, the Smithsonian had begun breaking up reporting lines so that there is at least two people for a staff member to turn to in the event of harassment.

Both Stofan and Shevenell referenced a 2021 article in the journal Issues in Science and Technology by Lindy Elkins-Tanton, the managing director of the Interplanetary Initiative at Arizona State University, that argued it was time for science to rid itself of the hero model.

In the article, Elkins-Tanton argued this was as much to improve the quality of science than anything else. The roundtable participants reasoned that having teams with several leaders and mentors should also help reduce the power imbalances that allow harassing behaviour to continue.

5. Now is the time to discuss and examine the complex issues around this topic

When Marinelli said that what has emerged about harassment in isolated environments is only “the tip of the iceberg”, she clarified that we are starting to hear of “very highly visible, extraordinarily damaging activities that tend to make headlines and are often criminal in nature”.

Even if such offences are not addressed in court, the responsible bodies will have a disciplinary procedure to deal with those, she added. (Although, as others pointed out, this too was frequently weak.) But “below the waterline”, Marinelli said, there was a vast amount of assault and harassment that was happening that was not so immediately visible but was nonetheless extremely damaging. This included gender harassment and “conduct which is hostile, exclusionary”. This, Marinelli urged, needed more attention.

But dealing with it can be even harder than dealing with the most flagrant cases. Erika Marín-Spiotta, professor of geography at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, asked: “What happens if there is not a finding of a violation of a code of conduct but there’s knowledge [of problematic conduct from an individual] and there are decades of evidence of harassment?”

There was consensus among attendees that it was presently too easy for such people—mostly, but not always, men—to slip through the cracks, and it became easier the more powerful they were. The institutions that employed them had a habit of turning a blind eye as long as the reputational damage they caused could be limited and did not exceed the reputational benefit they brought via their renown, the participants warned.

“How do we make sure [these people] don’t keep being recognised as leaders and keep getting funding?” Marín-Spiotta asked. This is an urgent question without an adequate answer.

The post Freezing out harassment in remote research environments appeared first on Research Professional News.

Don’t be overawed by Wellcome’s Early Career Awards—help is always at hand

Top tips

• Consider splitting your time between research environments if appropriate
• The Wellcome Trust’s grants team is very helpful
• The costings and project management aspects are likely to be unfamiliar; do not be afraid to ask your host institution for help
• Hone your central research question so you can express it with total clarity
• Fully research the interview panel if you get that far

The fruit of the Wellcome Trust’s overhaul of its funding schemes in 2021 to give researchers “more freedom, time and financial resources to pursue their ideas”, the Early Career Awards are some of the most generous grants available to researchers with a maximum of three years’ postdoctoral experience (allowances are made for personal circumstances).

Each award provides a salary for the grantee and up to £400,000 in research expenses to cover up to five years of research. The goal of the awards is that by the end of the project, the research will have advanced understanding of human health and wellbeing, and the researcher will be ready to lead their own independent programme.

Awards can be undertaken at host institutions in the UK, the Republic of Ireland or low- and middle-income countries, excluding India and mainland China.

The scheme has deadlines every three or four months, with the next one on 21 February 2023.

Sara Mederos, a neuroscientist who completed a PhD in the Cajal Institute in Madrid, Spain, before moving to the Sainsbury Wellcome Centre in 2020, won her Early Career Award earlier this year. She discusses her path to a successful application here.

What is your project about?

Brain circuits in an area called the ventral lateral geniculate nucleus (vLGN) have been shown to have strong control over fear reactions. I’m testing the hypothesis that the vLGN is a crucial hub for integrating external sensory signals with the internal state and knowledge of an animal. This integration regulates fear-related behaviour depending on the perceived threat level.

How is this relevant, or potentially relevant, to human health?

While it is normal to experience fear in certain situations, we can adjust our fear responses depending on our knowledge and circumstances. Such control is crucial since its impairment can lead to anxiety disorders such as phobias or post-traumatic stress disorder, in which the circuits in the brain associated with fear and anxiety are thought to become overactive, leading to pathologically increased fear responses.

Where are you carrying out your grant?

My host institution is the Sainsbury Wellcome Centre. Part of the project is going to be carried out at the Champalimaud Centre for the Unknown in Lisbon, Portugal. I think working in both centres is good because it allows me to have the two different perspectives.

Do you think it helped your application?

Yes, and I think it will also help the research itself. During the application process, involving both centres means I got input from both sides. The more input you can get, the better. Conveying in your proposal that you will be exposed to different research environments also helps because this award tries to encourage you to develop in preparation for an independent career. Having the possibility of visiting two labs and learning the different ways of dealing with the science does help.

How did you find the application?

Wellcome had good guidelines and are super helpful. If at any time during the application process there is something you do not know how to deal with, they are responsive and try to give you a hand. The example model proposal they provide is also really useful.

My personal feeling towards the application process changed throughout. At first, I thought there were so many sections I needed to fill in and found it stressful. But in terms of learning and for your project, no matter what the outcome of the application process, I think it is really worth doing. Following the application actually makes you think about your project: your elevator pitch, what you are going to do and why it is important. 

Did you find costing the project and determining its duration difficult?

If you have not been exposed to these kinds of things before, you might find it tricky. At first, I was overwhelmed but I learned a lot and, again, it is interesting to know how much the resources for your experiments cost and how best to manage the money. I asked for a bit less than half a million pounds. I received the full amount requested. You can ask for up to five years of funding but I asked for four.

Did you get any advice on this section and how did you tackle it?

I got lots of help from Brian Fenelon [a finance manager] at the Sainsbury Wellcome Centre. If you apply for a grant where detailed costings are required, most research centres will have someone involved in project management who can help. Brian gave me an Excel template of how these things are generally done. I worked on it and then he reviewed it.

Who else did you ask for advice?

It is important to ask as many people as you can about the different parts of your application. For the sections that are not scientific, you can normally find someone who specialises in that area. A few tips will save you lots of time. But try to plan with time to make sure you can integrate the advice into the proposal.

Wellcome encourages applicants to move away from their current research environment, but you are mostly staying at the Sainsbury Centre. Did you have to work hard to justify this in the application?

I think the main focus of Wellcome with this award is not so much to move away from your research environment but to demonstrate your proposal is in line with developing your own research identity. In any case, at the moment I applied I had only been in the lab for a year and it still felt like a novel research environment to me. 

Also, I did change the focus of my science from my PhD, which was not the same topic that I am now working on. In line with both aspects, in the proposal and at interview I stressed that the research environments and collaborations proposed were those that would be the best support for reaching the goals of the research.

How applicants will be building to independence is something that applicants should definitely work on in the proposal and at interview. You need to specifically set out what you are bringing in terms of perspectives, ideas and research ideas.

What do you think made your application stand out?

First, it’s super important that you clearly convey what your main research question is. You need to explain why it is important and how you are going to convey it to a broader audience. You also need to think who your audience is. Have in mind your aims and set out how you are going to do each of them. It can be short but needs to be clear. It’s fine if your proposal is risky and it’s something that has not been explored, I think this helps and makes an application stand out. But it needs to be well backed up. There needs to be a balance between those two things.   

How did you find the interview?

In the interview, you still need to be clear, but you need to change how you convey this message. It is no longer a written proposal; you want to convince the panel members that what you are doing is interesting. So try to enjoy it and show you are passionate about your research question.

How did you prepare for the interview?

I did a lot of mock interviews, which was important because I got a lot of great feedback from lab colleagues and supervisors. If you give your mock presentation to people who have the same background as you, which is normally the case, they might be able to understand you better but I think it is important that you get as much input as possible from different people.

The other thing in preparing for the interview is that it is important to be yourself. You can put more of your personality forward in the interview. This helps as you will be more relaxed. During my interview, I had fun discussing the project. It did not feel like an interview at all.

Who was the interview with?

Wellcome will let you know who is on panel. It is important to research your panel because you need to know who you are conveying the message to and what sort of background you need to give them so they can follow you. If you cannot make them follow from the beginning, it won’t work. That is true whether you are giving an interview or writing a proposal, of course.

The post My winning proposal: Reaching out appeared first on Research Professional News.

Suggestions on how to move forward when you’re stuck in a rut

As senior managers at three UK universities, we are often asked to advise research support colleagues on options for career progression. Promotion is rarely routine for our staff group. Regrettable though this is, and while we wait for the sector to implement more sustainable career paths, here we offer five steps that will hopefully set you on a career journey and take you where you want to go.

1. Slow down to achieve success

Yes, that’s right, slow down. The pressure around you to progress can be such that you lose sight of where you are at present.

Learn to differentiate the core, important part of your job from its less relevant activities, and focus on doing the important things well, on time and on budget. Note that important tasks needn’t be the more skilled ones. For example, being on the door as host at a conference is a fantastic way to meet people and learn about what they do.

Make sure you understand the broader context of your role—the interrelation with other university departments, other institutions, the funding landscape, national and international policy frameworks, the role of lobby groups and learned societies. Sign up to alerts and newsletters, so you keep on top of developments, and read expert analysis.

That may be found on the very website you’re reading this on, but there’s also, for example, Wonkhe, LSE Blogs, the Campaign for Science and Engineering, Royal Society and more. The national and international context for research is lively right now: without knowing this context, it can be harder to spot the opportunities for development.

Equipped with this knowledge, reflect on what your team, department or institution could do better, and what can be learnt from peers. Take opportunities to advocate for your suggestions and incorporate them into your day-to-day work. For example, if asked for a status report on your work, include a look ahead, recommendations for ‘what next’, or contextual ‘things to note’.

2. Identify a path

It’s normal for your future career trajectory to lack coherence. Again, be patient and systematic. Resist the urge to go for any and every professional development opportunity, such as secondments or qualifications. Instead, feel your way forward according to your growing understanding of context and environment that you developed when taking the first suggested step.

Importantly: talk to people. Seek feedback from a critical friend. Make sure you choose someone who will tell you the hard truths, which will help you to recognise your strengths and weaknesses. Speaking to colleagues about what you are interested in helps you to convert fuzzy aspirations into tangible plans. By sharing your aspirations, you will stand a greater chance of people thinking of you or mentioning you when a relevant opportunity comes along.

Most people will be happy to help you. Identify the opinion-formers in your institution who have a reputation for opening doors. Look for your local network and grow your knowledge, understanding and relationships.  

However, don’t make your career someone else’s problem; be specific about where you are heading and what you need in the way of insight or advice.

3. Create opportunities

You will be able to do a half-decent job sitting at your desk, but opportunities are less likely to come knocking—and you are less likely to grow your experience, knowledge and visibility.

Once you have identified a career path that attracts you, seek informal professional development opportunities to test the waters. Maybe ask to collaborate on a project plan, be ‘seconded for a day’ to a relevant area, or ask to listen in on a committee discussion. Observe how others work. Where they have skills that you would like to develop (for example, as a good chair or facilitator), ask them how they developed these skills.

Identify where resource exists, whether human or financial, and see how you can draw on that by suggesting collaboration, gaining buy-in from your partners by identifying the project’s shared benefits and importance in the wider context. Make yourself available and easy to work with, be professional and reliable. In this way you will hopefully be able to build a team delivering on a project, and you will raise your profile at the same time (see step five).

If your workplace does not have a professional development budget, then ask why and consider what other options may be on offer (for example, institutional subscriptions to online resources, self-learning modules, mentoring or coaching).

4. Remove invisible barriers

Once you have committed to progressing, make sure you act. Uncertainty over exactly where we are heading, or fear of failing, means we are sometimes unable to turn plans into action, but don’t recognise why—an attitude that, over time, can build up unhelpful resentment. It can be tempting to attribute lack of recognition or progression to external barriers. It’s easy to immediately say something ‘can’t be done’ because there’s no team to help, or budget, or sufficient levels of ‘clarity’ around your role. Show a future manager what you have been able to do with the opportunities that were available to you. If you really need funds to make something happen, try applying for some from university or external sources.

5. Get yourself seen 

People seeking to hire new talent really do struggle to find it. Now that you have taken steps one to four, it’s time to get your work seen so that new opportunities become real options for you.

Research support is a small field and, as in any network, people talk. Make sure that your peers know which opportunities you are looking for. Check out networks in your institution that allow you to note interest in other positions. Approach those people you are keen to work with and offer to work on a challenge they’re dealing with; be clear about how you could contribute.

Approach one or two people, then build up that relationship over time. Be wary of over-exposure, of becoming that person who wants a new job so badly that the sector knows their CV like a canonical text.

When thinking about your current and future role, focus not just on what you know and are able to do but also what you are able to contribute. If you pride yourself on working independently or leading in your area, practise collaborating on projects led by others. If you normally work in a specialised area, work on activities that are institution- or sector-wide. Opportunities to expand your knowledge and skills base need not involve a huge time commitment; choose relevant activities rather than the first thing that comes along. Don’t wait to be asked; approach the leads of projects that interest you and tell them what you can offer.

Carlos Galan-Diaz is acting director, research and innovation services, University of St Andrews

Rose-Marie Barbeau is head of research impact and engagement (research and innovation services), University of Glasgow

Tanita Casci is director of the research strategy and policy unit, University of Oxford

The post Five steps to career progression in research support appeared first on Research Professional News.

How a PhD student followed the learning curve to win a Leakey Foundation grant

Funding for research on human evolution that will cover both palaeoanthropology and behavioural studies is hard to come by, which makes the US-based Leakey Foundation’s work highly valuable. The foundation’s Research Grants scheme is open to bids from scientists anywhere in the world and encourages applications from early-career researchers. PhD candidates can apply for up to $20,000 while senior scientists and post-doctoral researchers can ask for up to $30,000. There are two rounds of funding each year and the next deadline is 10 January.

In November 2020, Funding Insight caught up with Matilda Brindle, then a PhD student at University College London and now an assistant researcher there, following her Leakey Foundation grant win. She spoke about her attitude to her first grant application and also her approach to studying and communicating a topic that the general public might view as eccentric—her PhD was on masturbation in primates.

Top tips

• Treat reviewers’ comments as input to improve your submission.
• Stress how your bid matches the funder’s remit, especially in parts that do not align superficially.
• Highlight previous work showing that you are uniquely positioned to undertake the project.
• Ask for feedback from collaborators, peers and colleagues.

The Leakey Foundation is a California-based not-for-profit organisation that funds research related to human origins and evolution. Its research grants cover research expenses directly related and essential to projects for early-career researchers. The foundation issues a call twice a year, with the next deadlines on 10 January and 15 July 2021. Researchers affiliated with an academic or research institution anywhere in the world may apply.

As Paddy Moore, the foundation’s grants and programme officer, explained in Funding Insight in 2016, grants tend to fall into two major categories: palaeoanthropology—including fossil excavations, DNA studies and molecular anthropology—and behavioural studies investigating all aspects of behaviour in primates, including humans.

Matilda Brindle, a PhD student at University College London, won $14,700 for a project whose unlikely focus is masturbation among monkeys.

Question time

Brindle’s PhD centres on the evolution of masturbation in primates, including humans. Masturbation, Brindle says, is something of a puzzle for evolutionary theorists. It is energetically costly behaviour and therefore “shouldn’t be retained by evolution if it doesn’t have a benefit to the individual”—so what is that benefit?

As for Brindle’s choice of study subjects—macaques—she says: “Masturbation, like other sexual behaviour, is difficult to study in humans because of the cultural taboos that surround it, which means that people are often reluctant to be totally open about it. Non-human primates, on the other hand, aren’t burdened by any of these taboos and so make great research subjects.”

Brindle’s successful bid came off the back of two failed pitches to the funder. Luckily, she had the self-assurance to be spurred on by those failed bids to improve her applications the next time around. “Responding to reviewer comments is something most people will have experience of from writing scientific papers, and I did not treat the grant application process differently,” she says. “The peer review process allowed me to improve the quality of my research proposal and helped me become confident that our fieldwork protocol would be a success.”

She says she knew that persistence would be important and that she has since been told that it is very rare for applicants to get their first Leakey proposal funded.

Her first bid had six pages of reviewer feedback. She read it all carefully. That some reviewers knew first-hand the island where she planned to do the fieldwork meant their advice was particularly useful, she adds.

Clear view

The foundation’s website advises applicants to state clear, testable hypotheses and specifies that “all applicants must explicitly demonstrate that the research is related to understanding human evolution”.

Brindle’s task to achieve these goals was complicated by the fact that she had three parallel hypotheses for the evolutionary function of masturbation in male macaques to examine: that it boosts their arousal, that it refreshes sperm supply and that it offers a remedy to sexually transmitted diseases.

Whether the monkeys masturbate to ejaculation, and whether they do so before or after sex, would provide evidence to test all three hypotheses. “We thought it’d be a really nice study system to have these three interacting hypotheses with separate predictions,” she says.

“We made really clear that people had conducted similar data collection and that it would work. We had really clear hypotheses and clear predictions and underlined how we would test each of those predictions, down to the statistical analysis we would use.”

Shoring up the theoretical grounding of her proposal was made more difficult by the dearth of systematic studies looking at masturbation in primates. However, Brindle used a database of the scant masturbation literature built for her PhD, which may have helped convince reviewers that she was uniquely well positioned to carry out this research. Brindle says she was also careful to explain why macaques were a suitable model for ancient human masturbation, citing the similar size of males and females and their habit of living in mixed groups.

Ask around

She adds that over the course of her three applications, she became increasingly aware of the importance of input from peers. “Asking for feedback from collaborators, peers and colleagues is so useful when writing a grant application. It’s easy to miss little mistakes, and sometimes even the bigger picture, when you’ve spent a long time working on something—getting a second or third opinion can make a huge difference.”

She gives particular thanks to her collaborator James Higham, associate professor at New York University, who gave her “insights into how to make my proposal stronger, as well as more technical details like what would constitute a reasonable budget and how we will analyse our data after the field season”.

Brindle’s project involves fieldwork on Cayo Santiago, an islet off the east coast of Puerto Rico. It is home to macaque colonies and an overseas territory of the United States. Unfortunately, however, UK Foreign Office advice against non-essential travel due to Covid-19 invalidated the insurance provided to Brindle by University College London. A separate constraint is that the mating season of the isolated troops of rhesus macaque monkeys on the island peaks from January to April.

“Whilst I could probably get away with going in the summertime Covid-wise, the macaques won’t be masturbating frequently then,” says Brindle. “Macaques do occasionally masturbate outside of the peak mating season, but not enough to systematically study.” Luckily, the foundation was happy to offer an extension to the grant period, although the project must wind up before the end of Brindle’s doctoral training.

Brindle also mentions the importance of one of her collaborators being one of the field managers on Cayo Santiago. The fact that he was able to provide copies of the requisite permits and explain the facilities available—which included a comprehensive genetic database of the monkeys—was very helpful, she says.

Does Brindle have any advice to other young scientists who are working on what the general public might perceive as eccentric topics? In her experience, a frank, straight-faced approach is best: “I’m always very upfront about what I study. I try to tackle it with a sense of humour, but not making any smutty jokes at the expense of the topic.”

The post From the archive: Let your bid evolve appeared first on Research Professional News.

Cancer Research UK readies for next year’s Cancer Grand Challenges call

Just over seven years ago, Cancer Research UK announced that it would be launching a grand challenges international funding scheme, which would offer successful teams more money, more time and more scope to get to grips with some of cancer research’s most intractable problems.

Since then, there have been three grand challenges funding calls, with 11 projects funded and more than 700 scientists involved. To give a further idea of the size of these projects, the four winning projects of the most recent call will receive a total of $100 million in funding.

Ahead of the fourth call, which is set to launch in March 2023, CRUK and its partners have set up a suggestions box in the lobby and are asking all those with experience of cancer care or research to come forward with what they think the programme—now named simply Cancer Grand Challenges—should tackle next. You’ll have to move fast, though, as submissions close on 28 November.

To help any researchers mulling over a possible suggestion, David Scott, director of Cancer Grand Challenges at CRUK, spoke about the history of the challenges at the charity, why it continues to pursue them as part of its strategy and, for those wondering if they might be part of a bid in the next round, what the winning teams to date have understood about the scheme.

How did grand challenges come to play a role in CRUK’s offering?

It happened when we were reviewing our funding offer. There was a lot of discussion with the external cancer research community nationally and internationally and we really felt that there was space in our portfolio for a challenge-based initiative, which we hadn’t had previously. It was then logical to think that if we were going to go down that road, why would we restrict that only to the UK? Why not go international? Today, the concept is very much the same as when it started. We’re trying to make progress against the most complex problems in cancer via international, team-oriented science. 

How have the calls unfolded?

Under the umbrella of the CRUK Grand Challenges initiative, we ran two funding rounds, and across those we funded seven teams with several different partners, including KWF Dutch Cancer Society and the [US-based] Mark Foundation for Cancer Research. The programme then evolved to become Cancer Grand Challenges, which represents a foundational long-term partnership between CRUK and the National Cancer Institute and other foundations as well. The first funding round ultimately funded four teams, which were announced in June this year. Currently we have 11 teams working on 10 challenges involving scientists from 10 different countries. And of course, we’re now running the consultation for the next one.

Tell me about that.

We have a scientific committee that ultimately recommends which challenges will form the funding call. But it’s important that we throw this open to the community in the broadest sense—that includes scientists, other funding agencies, patients and the advocate community. We need to bring their ideas into the mix as to what the tough, complex problems in cancer that require this international approach are.

What has the grand challenges intiative brought to CRUK?

To be honest it’s less about CRUK and more about the research community we’ve historically funded. Science is collaborative and scientists instinctively want to collaborate with their peers. One of the barriers that’s traditionally got in the way of that happening is that most funding agencies don’t operate internationally. We’ve been able to provide a new avenue to facilitate international collaboration with this approach. I get a lot of positive feedback about the opportunity this provides for scientists to collaborate with international peers and get joint funding. 

What results has the programme produced this far?

The teams funded in round one haven’t finished their work, so there’s no formal readout as yet. But, yes, this is the big question, isn’t it? You set a challenge, you gave teams considerable funds to solve the challenge… Has it worked? We’ll start a thorough analysis of the teams from the first round next year as they start to wrap up their work.

But our initial metrics, and also anecdotal evidence, suggest that, yes, this is very high quality research that is progressing well in the specific challenge areas. For example, in the first round, one of the challenges was to develop a way to map tumours at a molecular and cellular level, so a ‘tumour atlas’ approach. We funded two teams for that challenge. Anecdotally, those teams are at the point where they have both constructed different methodologies to map those tumours, reflective of the different interdisciplinary approaches taken.

Have you found that the grand challenges approach fosters more adventurous interdisciplinarity?

Interdisciplinarity is something we’re trying to push where it’s important for the problem. As an example, one of the teams working on tumour mapping is led by Greg Hannon, at the University of Cambridge. He is actually involving an astronomy department to bring in their methodologies on how you map the stars and apply it to how you map data points for a tumour. For the other mapping project, Josephine Bunch at the National Physical Laboratory is an expert in mass spectrometry who had not worked in cancer before and is bringing her instrumentation expertise, working with cancer biologists.

Do you think that the rise of grand-challenges-style funding is in danger of squeezing out researcher-led, curiosity-driven schemes?

For a large organisation like CRUK, as for most other funding agencies, I’d argue you need a sweep of different mechanisms to fund science. We have an intramural programme, which is very much investigator-led, and an extramural programme and whole range of funding schemes to support career development, and those to support development of drugs and diagnostics. Cancer Grand Challenges fits into this wider portfolio. It represents 5-10 per cent of CRUK’s overall portfolio.

In addition, while we do set the broad questions, I’d argue the approach is still investigator-led. We don’t tell investigators how to solve these problems. We throw these challenges out to the community and what happens is based on how the community chooses to address them.

Is there an approach to responding to the grand challenges call which tends to favour success?

The scale of funding that is on offer does provide the opportunity for scientists to think extremely creatively about what they can put forward. All of the teams we’ve funded have embraced that. In addition there’s a certain degree of tech innovation and development that has been an important component each time.

In terms of the composition of the teams, we’re looking for teams that have embraced those wider possibilities and look far and wide in terms of the team members and expertise they bring on board. That’s a large part of the idea—you can’t just be a team from the same university or country even.

Added to that, and we pushed this in the last round, is that the teams might put some of the junior faculty in prominent roles. This shouldn’t be seen as something that’s just about funding the more established investigators. Of course, there are many of those involved, but increasingly more junior members are stepping up.

The post Up to the challenge appeared first on Research Professional News.

How to construct a truly ghastly grant bid

Our archive selection this week is from last year, when Funding Insight prepared for a Christmas with a difference. Emulating Jack Skellington, the lead in the stop-motion film The Nightmare Before Christmas, Funding Insight editor James Brooks concocted a cautionary tale of how bids can go badly awry. Much more trick than treat, we republish his questionable advice to all seasonal grant writers now.

Like everyone says, the build-up to Christmas seems to start earlier every year. And so it is for Funding Insight. But this year we are preparing for some end-of-year festivities with a difference and are taking our cue from stop-motion animation classic, The Nightmare Before Christmas. In this film, the antihero Jack Skellington leads a band of ghoulish miscreants from Halloween Town in an attempt to hijack traditional Yuletide celebrations and turn them into the biggest fright-night the world has ever seen.

I won’t spoil the film to say whether Jack is successful, but I promise you, if you follow these instructions, stitched together from grants advice past, you will be able to celebrate your own funding nightmare in time for the festive season. I make no excuse for the fact that these instructions are only prompts, because to fully realise your nightmare vision there must be little planning and a whole lot of improvisation. Which brings us to the first prompt….

Don’t bother reading the call documents

I mean, you’ve got the vague idea, right? It’s a call in your area, you’ve understood the main requirements, and now you can twist your research idea into the approximate shape required. This is, of course, a recipe for disaster (or at least a wasted grant bid). The reason why “applicants should ensure they read the call documents” is the most frequently dispensed piece of advice from funders we speak to—it gets edited out of many interviews because it gets too repetitious—is because many applicants will not do this and their bids will sink.

For sure, reading call documents cover to cover, which is what Funding Insight columnist and grants guru Adam Golberg recommends, may be boring but can give bids an edge. This goes as well for small calls—where ‘fit’ will be vital—as larger, complex ones. For the latter, it pays to remember that “the reviewers may be confused, too,” Golberg writes. When this is the case, if you have thoroughly absorbed the call literature, you have the opportunity to “quote the funder’s framing language back at them” and appear as the logical grantee.

Speak to no one

If The Funding Nightmare Before Christmas were given a film treatment, it would have to be a silent film. Funding Insight’s pages are awash with tales of bids only being possible after chance discussions with peers and then becoming finessed when a non-researcher friend says they don’t understand certain elements. But while most researchers will turn to colleagues and friends or family to discuss their ideas, some may still be reluctant to talk too early to the research office or to staff in the funder itself.

An early chat with a research manager can save a lot of time on a bid that would never make the grade. In the words of Golberg again, “When academics look at funding calls, they notice and emphasise the elements of the call that suit their agenda and often downplay or fail to notice other elements.” A seasoned research manager will be able to talk you out of making a similar mistake and possibly present you with an alternative scheme. If you have called it right and your idea is a good fit for the scheme, then a research manager is the perfect person to connect you to a previous winner or forward you a copy of a winning bid from an earlier round.

Speaking direct to the funder may seem forbidding, but almost always pays dividends. Almost every time an early career grant-winner featured in Funding Insight who ever answered “yes” to the question “did you speak to the funder before you wrote the bid?” also followed that up with “and it was massively helpful” or words to that effect. What’s more, even speaking to a funder who you’re not sure would fund your work can yield surprising results. This was the case for Ahmed Izzidien, a postdoctoral research associate at the University of Cambridge’s Judge Business School, when he contacted the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, which does not does specifically fund academic research. However, this conversation ultimately led to a valuable £14,000 grant.

Blind them with science

Your bid will be assessed by some of the most eminent researchers in your field, possibly even in your subfield, so they will be impressed with your grip of the intricate nomenclature and complex arguments your bid involves. Not quite. Even if we ignore the fact that many of the people who will cast their eyes over your bid will not be experts in your specialty area, it’s worth taking time out to think about who such people actually are. In the words of columnist Phil Ward, “Generally, panellists are eminent academics with a long and distinguished career in their field. Generally eminent, generally distinguished—and, as a result, generally time-poor. It’s almost certain that they won’t have had time to look at your application in any detail.”

Even the most brilliantly smart panel member or peer reviewer will be in a rush. They, just as well as the lay member of the panel, need to be able to understand the grant rapidly, and this requires clarity and the simplest language that is reasonably possible. That said, concision is also at a premium. Yes, the context is vital, but if it goes on for too long, your audience will switch off. Ward again: “Within the first two sentences the reader should understand the question, why it’s important and how it will deliver a ‘step change’ in the discipline. This is not the moment to be a shrinking violet; this should not be a slow build.”

Combine grand ambitions with unexamined insecurity

From my reading of half a decade of Funding Insight articles, I can surmise that for a grants nightmare to be truly terrifying it must be directed with a paradoxical combination of wild ambition and deep insecurity. I’ll deal with the second item first. Imposter feelings and indeed full-blown imposter syndrome are rife among early career academics. To quote Ward again, “It is almost part of the job description. Everyone else seems to know more than you. Everyone else is more effective. Everyone else is just, well, better than you. And it won’t be long until you are exposed as the sham you clearly are.”

These feelings can have deep-rooted effects, which include not stepping outside your comfort zone and not going for grants that are, in fact, achievable. Imposter feelings may also lead to self-sabotage, to not doing the groundwork for a grant because of an underlying assumption that the hard work will lead to failure. And so ultimately, thanks to this mechanism, insecurity can combine with ambition to produce a ghastly bid that would make Jack Skellington proud.

How to stop this happening? In his article, he gives three pointers, the first of which is “do your homework”, which involves admitting to and confronting insecurity by committing to doing that essential groundwork on a subject. And we can extend this to making a commitment to engaging with the practical nature of a project. Ambition is all very well but it must be underpinned with realism.

The tale of Andrew Futter, associate professor of international politics at the University of Leicester, who scooped one of European funding’s biggest prizes in 2019—a European Research Council Consolidator Grant—is relevant here.

Futter had previously fallen short with an earlier Starter Grant bid. And in the aftermath of his disappointment, he worked out why. Many bids, he concluded, fail because that practical groundwork is lacking: “It’s not that the idea isn’t great and the research could be really significant, it’s the failure to convince the reviewers that it’s doable and that every aspect has been thought out.”

For his successful Consolidator Grant bid, he spent more time thinking about project and personnel management and ensuring that the panel would be convinced that everything was in place. “If you’re managing a team, you have to think hard about ‘what is this person going to be doing at a certain point, and how does that then feed into where the project needs to be at certain times?’”

Only once this engagement with the nitty-gritty is complete can a grantwriter adopt the devil-may-care attitude of the witches in The Nightmare Before Christmas as the ‘send submission’ button is pressed: “Say it once, say it twice, take a chance, and roll the dice. Ride with the moon in the dead of night.” 

The post From the archive: The funding nightmare before Christmas appeared first on Research Professional News.

A recent European Research Council Synergy Grant shows that degrowth research has come of age

The European Research Council’s Synergy Grants are highly prized among researchers. Unlike other ERC grants, which fund individual academics, Synergy Grants support teams of two to four principal investigators with up to €10 million.

Any field of research is eligible for funding. Competition for the grants is fierce: in October, the ERC announced that 29 groups had won funding totalling €295m out of almost 360 proposals. One of those winners was the anthropologist Jason Hickel of the Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona in Spain.

Hickel and his fellow principals Giorgos Kallis, also based at the Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, and Julia Steinberger, of the University of Lausanne, will investigate pathways towards “post-growth”, which aims to move away from economic growth as a societal goal and towards a future where human and environmental wellbeing is prioritised. Despite being a framework backed by robust evidence, post-growth—a term often used interchangeably with “degrowth”—research has rarely been favoured by funders. Here, Hickel reflects on why that is and what his grant sets out to do.

What is post-growth or degrowth, and why do we need to explore it?

We have known for a long time now that the global ecological crisis is being caused overwhelmingly by rich countries, which have extremely high levels of energy and material use. We know that these need to be brought down to more sustainable levels. But how? One approach is to rely on efficiency improvements, and certainly this can help, but it is clearly not enough. We also need to directly scale down less necessary forms of production (SUVs, private jets, mansions, fast fashion, industrial beef, advertising, planned obsolescence, to name a few) and reduce the purchasing power of the rich, while focusing the economy around securing human needs and wellbeing.

Existing evidence suggests that with these steps, we can decarbonise fast enough to keep global warming to below a 1.5ºC rise above pre-industrial levels, and reverse ecological damage, while improving social outcomes at the same time. It’s hopeful news. But how do we get there? What policies are necessary? What kinds of social movements will it require? These are the questions we intend to explore.

What specifically will you be researching?

The research covers several critical issues, but one of the main outputs has to do with the climate mitigation scenarios represented in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports. The existing scenarios all assume continued economic growth in rich countries for the rest of the century, increasing industrial production and consumption, with high levels of energy use.

To square this pathway with the Paris Agreement limits, existing scenarios resort to two tricks. First, they rely on speculative technological change—including negative emissions technologies—to a degree that is not supported in the scientific literature, and which represents a dangerous gamble with the future of human and non-human life. Second, they constrain energy use in poorer countries to maintain energy excess in richer countries, which is clearly unjust and immoral. 

We plan to produce alternative post-growth climate mitigation scenarios, with energy convergence between the global North and South, which would allow the world to achieve the Paris Agreement goals without relying on speculative technology, and without sabotaging human development. We want to put forward the possibility of a truly just transition, to broaden the horizons of our collective imagination.

What do you want to achieve beyond the science with this grant?

One of the outputs we’re aiming for is to create post-growth deals, which will be informed by scientific evidence as well as participatory planning input, and which can be taken up and adapted by social movements and policymakers across a variety of local and national contexts.

Isn’t degrowth the opposite of what the EU wants, as a pro-growth organisation?

The EU as a political body is mostly pro-growth, yes, although there are many growth-critical politicians and parties within the EU. But the EU as such does not control the scientific grants. The grants are made through the ERC by independent committees comprised of leading scientists who decide which projects are most necessary and most rigorous.

How unusual is it for the ERC to fund research into degrowth?

It’s true that the ERC has not funded much research into post-growth in the past, but that’s changing. It’s not just our grant, there are two other major projects on post-growth and degrowth that the ERC is now funding. This indicates an important shift. There is a growing scientific consensus around the need for post-growth and degrowth research. And it is filtering into the political space. In the spring the European Parliament will be hosting a major conference on this issue, bringing together leading scientists and policymakers.

Did you address this clash of aims in your bid?

No, we did not address it. Our proposal is strictly about science. The questions are obvious and they speak for themselves: how do we ensure good lives for all within planetary boundaries? What does a just transition look like? We don’t have all the answers and we need to explore it.

How confident were you that your proposal would be funded?

I was extremely pessimistic, I thought our chances were very slim. We knew we faced an uphill battle and we worked for months on the proposal.

Given the low Synergy Grant success rate, did you feel the topic itself was a risk?

It was a risky pitch, yes, but we are passionate about these questions and we feel they are urgent and necessary, so we did it. We were all surprised by the result. I think a few years ago it wouldn’t have been so positive. But things are changing, scientists are increasingly aware of the urgency of the problems we seek to address.

How much funding did you receive?

The total budget is just under €10m, for a six-year project. We will hire a team of about 30 PhD and postdoc researchers, across a range of disciplines.

What are your takeaways from the application process?

The Synergy Grant requires two main things in addition to the usual process. First, you have to demonstrate real synergy between the principal investigators, showing that you need this particular range of disciplines and expertise in order to do the work, that the results of your collaboration will yield more than the sum of its parts, and that the questions cannot be answered adequately with the usual single-principal-led or consortium structure. Second, you need to demonstrate that the project is “high-risk, high-gain”: the grants are intended to support research that pushes boundaries and could yield revolutionary insights.

Until recently you were based in the UK—is there a future for degrowth research in the UK?

There is already post-growth research happening in the UK, specifically at Leeds and Surrey, which are home to world-leading experts in this field. But this research has only a small fraction of the resources that are devoted to neoclassical economics, and clearly needs much more support. I would hope that the UK Research and Innovation will follow the lead of the ERC and increase funding for this work.

The post My winning proposal: Growing up appeared first on Research Professional News.

‘Science showoff’ Steve Cross on using humour wisely

To accompany our interview with Tom Richards, recipient of a grant from the Royal Society’s public engagement fund and originator of the ‘Tadpole Doctor’ project tracking a new disease in larval frogs, we republish some serious advice from a public engagement funny-man, Steve Cross.

Cross is the founder of Science Showoff, which aims to take science engagement from learned societies to pub basements—a few steps down in literal terms, but maybe not in figurative ones?

In this interview from February 2019, he promises that public engagement can benefit from the incorporation of humour, but “how can I be funny?” is not a good starting point to achieve that end.

Steve’s top tips

• Comedy can be a great help in public engagement as it builds a connection between the researcher and the public.
• When searching for comedy material, think about how your work affects you personally.
• Do not think you are going to be a gifted comedian straight away; comedy is a skill that takes a lot of practice.
• When addressing delicate topics, the targets of any jokes should be people of higher status.

Steve Cross understands that scientists and the general public may have certain misgivings about ‘science comedy’, but he is indignant in its defence: “We’re not cynically slipping science facts in as people do comedy, we’re building relationships between audiences and researchers.”

And, he argues, science really needs a push to get it to meet large sections of the general public. At present, most public engagement exercises are consumed by a small minority of the population. “There’s a group of people and they go to everything science-related,” he says. “They watch [BBC science television programme] Horizon, they go to science festivals.”

Opening line

Cross first hit upon the idea of deploying comedy to drive engagement during his time as head of public engagement at University College London. He was challenged by his steering group at UCL to find a project where people between the ages of 18 and 40 could listen to researchers.

Working with comedy producer Miriam Miller, he put together the template for Bright Club, a training programme and comedy night where researchers perform alongside a professional comedian.

The concept has since spread across the UK and Europe and now pops up further afield without any involvement by Cross or UCL. “I don’t even know who started the one in France, for example,” he says.

Cross left UCL in 2015, after seven years, to become a freelance science engagement consultant and trainer. He continues to travel worldwide with his comedy workshops.

“All the stuff I do is one thing, even though it’s a lot of different things,” he says. “It’s all helping clever people to be funny.”

Breaking it down

His most prominent project these days, Science Showoff, started as a themed version of the Bright Clubs but has morphed to include one-off panel shows and improvised comedy games.

Cross sees the Bright Clubs, which are set up by autonomous groups of researchers rather than as part of a national scheme, as part of a wider trend. “Science engagement used to be run by three or four big organisations, but big programmes didn’t actually connect with most researchers.”

Cross expects public engagement to become “much more granular”, with researchers choosing from a wider array of approaches, better tailored to their personalities and the nature of their research. These smaller-scale, more local forms of engagement are being encouraged by many universities, he adds, as they enhance links with local communities.

So how can researchers bolster their own public engagement work with a bit of comedy? Cross’s top-line advice runs as follows: “If you want to be funny about your research, don’t start by thinking ‘How can I be funny?’ Start by thinking: ‘How do I grab attention?’”

Hitting a funny bone

“I encourage people to think about their emotional reactions to the work that they do,” he adds. “That’s the hardest bit, because researchers are taught to do exactly the opposite. The questions to ask are: What in work has made me happy? What in work has made me sad? What felt awkward? When did it feel really strange?”

These relatable starting points can form the kernel around which a few minutes of great comedy can be written, he says. “If you start a set by saying the ninth digit of Pi is seven, I might titter in a Radio Four way, but if you start by telling me about the raw misery of doing your work, I can really relate to that.”

Cross says that his own comedy material mostly stems from whatever he’s living through at the time. He scheduled this interview in a brief window of time in the midst of looking after his newborn twins. “Because I’ve been mostly thinking about parenting for the last two months, it’s been very hard to come up with material about anything else,” he says. 

True to form, Cross has recently set up a parenting-themed comedy night. “I’ve got comedians who are parents. I book them and pay them to do material about parenting so that I can learn about it,” he says happily.

No laughing matter

Returning to science-related material, Cross says that the most frequent mistake researchers make when trying comedy for the first time is deciding they are going to be brilliant. “I do get people who turn up and are like, ‘Steve, I know you’re teaching us how comedy works, but I want to do something that throws all of that away.’ Comedy is a learned set of skills, like anything else. You can’t run before you can walk, you’re not born with natural genius.”

Deploying humour when you work in a sombre research area is still possible, Cross says, but it has to be done tactfully. The key, he says, is to make the target of any jokes somebody of higher status than the researcher on stage. “People have done sets where they talk about maternal death in developing countries,” he recalls. “The trick is you don’t do jokes at the expense of dying mothers.”

It’s also important to remember that what goes down well with one audience might not work with another, Cross adds. He recently went to Nagoya, Japan, to run a comedy workshop with both Japanese and non-Japanese researchers. “One of the Japanese researchers just launched straight into a joke about how fat his PhD supervisor is, who was in the room and laughed at it,” says Cross. “It was a lot crueller than what I would do.”

When used well, humour can greatly improve public engagement, Cross concludes, but a working knowledge of how to deploy comedy can also help researchers in many other areas of their professional lives, not least when it comes to funding. “If you can be funny at the right moment, it’s easier to get the budget allocated where you want it,” he says.

Cross does not say that this might not be the right time to remark on your supervisor’s corpulence, but it’s probably safe to assume that’s the case.

The post From the archive: Comedy in public engagement is no joke appeared first on Research Professional News.

Know what you’re signing up to by familiarising yourself with this vital document

I have a confession. I never read the tenancy agreement when we moved into our rented house. I’m not saying I didn’t look at it at all; I skimmed it, checked that our names were spelled correctly and that the address was correct. But I was tired after all the hassle it took to get to the point of signing the contract and I just wanted to move in. This wasn’t my first rental rodeo, I thought; I’d survived previous rides unscathed and besides, aren’t all tenancy agreements pretty much the same?

Summer came, and the letting agent visited to do the first of the biannual house inspections. I wasn’t expecting that, though it was in the contract. They tried to tell us off for the state of the front garden, which, admittedly, was not pristine. But in our defence, it was mostly weeds when we moved in. So I read the contract, and the fairly detailed inventory we’d been given when moving in. I quoted both of these to the letting agent and made it clear that they were holding us to a higher standard than the contract allowed. They haven’t tried to tell us off since.

Checking it over

Like moving house, applying for research funding can be a surprisingly drawn-out and tiring process, but one with a dollop of excitement and purpose when you get a successful outcome. When a project is awarded, and you get to the point where the funder is ready to issue the contract, you will find that having a colleague who is trained to read and understand these often lengthy documents can help you get to grips both your rights and obligations and therefore help ensure the project runs smoothly.

Often, a researcher will forward me a contract saying, “I’ve had a look and it’s all fine”. Usually this means that they have looked at it in the way that I looked at my tenancy agreement, with only a skim over the terms. Other times, a researcher will tell me how important it is for her to be able to publish the results of the study. Or, anxious not to disrupt a relationship with a funder, for him to ensure that the company’s confidential information is protected.

I don’t expect academics to know everything that goes into a contract (or why). That’s my job. But a contract is an integral part of a research project and it’s always a good idea if the researcher(s) leading that project has had a good look at it. One of the barriers to reading a contract is unfamiliarity with the format. So, in these two articles, I’ll explain how to read a contract, how the parts fit together, why some things are important even when they seem like window dressing, and look at how a research contract can be different to a services or consultancy agreement.

Start at the beginning

As Fräulein Maria sang, let’s start at the very beginning—it’s a very good place to start. However, with a contract that isn’t necessarily true. As we will see as we go through, a contract is not a linear document meant to be read from page 1 to page 36. Rather, it’s circular, with clauses cross-referenced against, and building upon, each other.

A contract starts with the party names. This is the proper legal name of the organisations that are entering into the contract and it’s important to get it right, as later we will be required to warrant, or promise, that we are authorised to enter into the contract; cases have been lost in court when people got the party name wrong. You won’t end up in court if you put Oxford University instead of The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford (and anyway, the contracts manager at Oxford will correct that). But the contract should be with the university itself, and not just with your department, because your department isn’t a legal entity with authorisation to enter into a contract.

Next come the recitals. These are not legally binding, but they offer the chance to explain why the parties are entering into the contract in the first place. Think of the opening to a certain American 80s sitcom: “Now, this is a story all about how… a group of academics submitted a proposal for a project entitled X, which was awarded by the funder on 1 August 2022”.

Recitals can be useful when certain things need to be explained, for example if one (or more!) of the researchers has moved institution since the application went in. Remember, the contract will be referred to by various teams at each organisation to ensure that they comply with the obligations (and reap the benefits). So a person not connected with the project needs to be able to pick it up and understand what it is about.

Speaking confidentially

Let’s skip ahead to confidentiality. This is the part of a contract that industry partners in particular will be interested in. For a contracts manager, the wording here tends to be fairly generic and standard, but it’s an essential part of the contract. In a previous column I discussed the value of having a standalone non-disclosure agreement (NDA) when you want to have preliminary discussions with someone. But when you’ve passed the discussion phase and have developed a project plan and budget, a simple NDA will no longer cut it. It’s time to set up a project agreement.

The confidentiality clause is a kind of condensed NDA. It sets out the criteria for what is to be designated as confidential information and the very specific set of circumstances in which that information might be disclosed to third parties. Sometimes I have been asked to sign an NDA in addition to the project agreement. This is not necessary, as the confidentiality clause in the project contract will ensure that the information is protected. The project contract should supersede a previous NDA so that everything is contained in the one document, otherwise no one will know which contract they should refer to.

The confidentiality clause requires the parties not to disclose the information each has received from the other(s). To do so means that at the very least you are in breach of the agreement. However, there are certain exemptions to this rule, setting out the specific circumstances in which you might disclose the information without getting into trouble.

I am providing you with as exciting a cliffhanger as contract law has to offer when I say that you will have to tune in next time to find out what these exceptions are. And you will also be treated to the exciting conclusion of our discussion of contractual anatomy.

Stephanie Harris is a contracts manager at City, University of London. She writes here in a personal capacity.

The post What’s in the contract? (part 1) appeared first on Research Professional News.

What should a researcher, embarking on a long and winding academic career, take with them?

Today’s aspiring researcher needs a sharp mind and keen analytic skills. The ability to read, write and do basic mathematics will also help enormously. But what else? What should the hopeful researcher be loading into their backpack for the research journey?

I propose 10 items.

A jug of persistence and a bottle of resilience

History is written by the winners, and those winners typically grasp the opportunity to make it all seem as easy and natural as possible. They want the power of their ideas to shine—who doesn’t?—so they let you believe that trifles such as funding, gruelling exploration and the final dazzling outcome all fell together naturally.

Of course, normally it never works like that. It’s not that the truth is anything to be ashamed of. Usually the reality involves toil, sweat and persistence in the face of rejection. And, even more commendably, it requires the resilience to pick oneself up and carry on. If you believe that your thing is worth doing, you have to hold onto that and not be dissuaded by the mean, jealous or small-minded.

A nice website

If history is written by the winners, that only happens after they’ve won. In the meantime, they should take care to have a nice website, full of interesting stuff. How does anybody in the world know who you are? By stumbling across you in person or happening to see one of your journal articles? No, you have to take charge of this yourself by having a website heaving with valuable delights.

Then you need to get people to look at this site, using whatever means are at your disposal. This will almost certainly involve pointing to it as part of your useful existence on social media. You can go about this by providing interesting comments, pointers and insight on social media, rather than plastering it with adverts for your website. If people like your intelligent commentary, then some of them will look you up.

Lemon drizzle cake

Research is about collaboration. It’s not especially likely that all the greatest ever ideas reside in your own head—I mean, what are the chances?—so combining your own skills and insights with those of others is likely to pay off. Even if you’re the world’s biggest brainbox, you are probably lacking in some other department. Therefore, you’ve got to get along with others. How? Cake.

I suggest lemon drizzle cake. Everybody likes that and Marks and Spencer do a good one that is probably cheaper than the one-person latte you just enjoyed. And think—that cake alone might launch a fruitful collaboration of up to six people.

A flagon of reputation

Reputation goes up when you have made some valuable research contributions to your field. That’s straightforward. So does reputation go down when you haven’t? No. It merely remains the same. Reputation goes down when you are known to be someone who cancels things, hates students, or networks only for selfish purposes.

So the variables that actively drive your reputation upwards or downwards are not the same. Of course, you want to be doing the good stuff that makes it go up, but also make sure that you don’t do the bad stuff that makes it go down. Am I saying you’ve got to do academic work of the highest quality, and be nice? Yes.

A copy of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn

In which we discover that the reason nobody likes your work is because you are incredibly cutting-edge and therefore a painful thorn to the carefully established status quo. You’re pushing the paradigms to breaking point. Good news for patient practitioners: everybody hates you now, but in three short decades you’ll have the last laugh.

A copy of The Logic of Scientific Discovery by Karl Popper

Usually considered the opposite of Kuhn, because people think Popper said that scientists just find out facts and write them down. But he didn’t say that at all. We keep Popper in our backpack to remind ourselves that we don’t actually have to get stuff right—we only need to be making testable propositions. This can sometimes be comforting.

A thesaurus and a telephone

You need a thesaurus so that you can fill your work with really hard words that nobody can understand, in order to demonstrate your commitment to academia, right? Wrong. Precisely the opposite. Clarity of communication, so that non-specialists can understand what you are talking about, is absolutely essential.

Even within your field, things that are nice to read are always going to make people happier than things that are horrible to read. This can hardly be a surprise. The clues are in the adjectives. If clear writing does not come naturally to you, use a thesaurus to turn the long and weird words in your writing into more normal ones. Then use the phone to call your friendliest non-academic relative and see how much of your prose you can read to them before they hang up.

Paracetamol

Because there will be headaches, I promise you.

David Gauntlett is Canada research chair at the Faculty of Communication and Design, Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada.

The post Ten items for your backpack appeared first on Research Professional News.

A sceptical medical establishment meant Barry Marshall found alternative ways to fund his groundbreaking research

This week’s archive selection is intended as a boost to all researchers currently struggling to make headway. Barry Marshall’s tale of the funding setbacks that led the way to his Nobel Prize are as engaging as the famous story of the personal experiment by which he most convincingly evidenced his theory that bacterial infection was the root cause of most stomach ulcers.

Barry Marshall has one of the best-known stories about winning a Nobel Prize. In 1984, frustrated that his work wasn’t being taken seriously enough by his peers, Marshall drank a culture of bacteria that he was convinced were the cause of chronic gastritis and stomach ulcers.

Sure enough, after ingesting Helicobacter pylori, he developed gastritis. Two decades later Marshall was awarded the Nobel with his collaborator Robin Warren for revolutionising the treatment of stomach ulcers.

He had started working on Helicobacter in 1981 at the Royal Perth Hospital but didn’t manage to secure a grant from the National Health and Medical Research Council until 1984 and, even then, not a very big one.

“They didn’t believe that I’d be able to do it, so they only funded me for one year out of three,” Marshall says. The budget of around A$50,000 for a clinical trial to test antibiotics for the treatment of ulcers included Marshall’s salary but little else and the NHMRC asked him to give a progress report at six months to be considered for further funding.

Home help

Another side-effect of the scepticism he faced from a medical establishment was that, from the earliest days of his research, Marshall didn’t rely only on public funding. The NHMRC had refused Marshall funding to develop a blood test for ulcers, but by that stage he had already been developing his own diagnostic test for Helicobacter.

“I sort of got a waiver to keep it for myself, if I wanted to do it,” Marshall says. “Nobody believed me so they said: ‘You can patent that yourself Barry.’”

“So my father and I just did that—we did some development work in the laundry at home using my dad’s pool chemicals,” he recalls. Marshall’s father, who worked as an engineer for a chicken factory, stumped up around A$3,000 to get a patent, which Marshall says was more than he could afford at that stage.

In addition, Marshall was already tapping up pharmaceutical companies for funding and in 1984 had received some support from Pfizer and Abbott, and Smith, Kline and French. His diagnostic test was also picked up for commercialisation by a young biotech company in Western Australia, and he struck up a relationship with the company Procter and Gamble, makers of the antacid Pepto-Bismol, who were interested in his work.

He says his approach for getting industry interest is that, once a patent is filed, the best thing to do is leak a little bit of information in the 12 months before the patent gets published to potential sponsors. For researchers thinking about commercialising he advises going first to the company at the top of the market.

“Bust your gut to try and get through to the person who might be interested or make the decisions about new products,” he suggests. Failing that, Marshall says, go to the main competitor or companies that want to challenge the big guys.

Mix your bag

Despite his early push towards commercialisation, he was still keen on public or philanthropic funding since there was no expectation from such funders that they would have any equity in products that might come out of the research. “They don’t want a piece of the company, they just want you to succeed,” he says, “so it’s nice to have the double mix, if possible.”

In 1986, Marshall moved to the United States to take up a research fellowship at the University of Virginia, where he continued his two-pronged approach to finding funding, though he found securing grants from the US National Institutes of Health was a challenge, despite having run a successful clinical trial in Australia.

“I started off applying for funds at too high a level,” Marshall says, finding that his previous work made little impression on American reviewers. At the same time, he was calling up pharmaceutical companies, finding that his proximity to big US companies opened doors.

“If you’re a bit lucky, you can get a grant with a phone call in an afternoon, if it’s the right time,” he says, recalling landing funding from Abbott in the space of a few hours. Though he points out that his previous relationship with them probably helped.

Tough timescales

Marshall says that with few Australia-based pharmaceutical companies, the options for young investigators are very different, although he strikes an optimistic note about the growth of philanthropic foundations.

“In Western Australia, it’s a lot better than it was and there’s some wonderful philanthropists around here,” he says, having received some local philanthropic funding for some of his newer projects.

Marshall now has a research centre named after him at the University of Western Australia, having moved back in 1996 and stringing together an impressive array of grants from public funders. But he laments the long timescales of funding rounds that early career researchers have to contend with, which mean it can take up to a year between submitting a proposal and starting a grant.

“It’s so frustrating at that stage,” Marshall says. “Are you going to try and run off the smell of an oily rag for 12 months in the hope you get funded?”

Don’t believe the hype

Despite his own success in commercialising his work from an early stage, he warns young investigators not to get too drawn into the hype around the potential of new discoveries without putting in the hard yards.

“If you’re a really honest, hardworking scientist, you don’t want to be talking to investors and hyping it up too much until you’ve got it,” he says. “Every day you turn on the news, somebody somewhere has discovered a fungus growing on a rock which is going to cure cancer—the real solid ones are coming from somebody who slaved away and got his PhD, did a little bit of a postdoc and got it to work.”

Marshall recalls that in his early days he was working long hours, every day of the week but that with the support from people like his own dad, he knew he had a product that worked. Despite being considered a maverick at that time, he says he was fearless because young investigators have everything to play for and little to lose.

“You can actually stick your neck out and go 100 per cent for something as you haven’t got anything else on the go,” Marshall advises. “If you fail, no one ever heard of it, and if you succeed, it’s great.”

The post From the archive: From home inventions to the Nobel Prize appeared first on Research Professional News.

European Science Foundation chief executive gives the lowdown on a unique scheme

Top tips

• The scheme is for projects unlikely to garner funding elsewhere, including at charities that focus mainly on adult cancer
• Special attention should be paid to quality of life and adherence issues associated with paediatric patients
• The funders are in favour of a ‘high risk, high gain’ approach
• Clinical trial applications should involve collaboration with other countries; translational projects do not have to

The European Science Foundation is a non-profit organisation for the promotion of science and has experience of assisting on funding calls. It also runs the Fight Kids Cancer scheme, funded by four charities: France’s Imagine for Margo, Belgium’s Kick Cancer, Luxembourg’s Fondatioun Kriibskrank Kanner and Italy’s FIAGOP.

There are two categories for submissions: early phase clinical trials to evaluate potential new therapies, and translational research for projects addressing childhood and teenage cancers that are further back in the development pipeline. Lead applicants should be based in one of the eligible countries, which include all EU members, along with Israel, Norway, Switzerland and the UK.

There is €4 million available overall, split between €1.5m for each project funded under the clinical trials strand and €500,000 per project funded under the translational research pathway. The deadline for expressions of interest is 24 October and for full proposals it is 1 March 2023.

Nicolas Walter, chief executive of the ESF, spells out what the foundation is looking for.

How did you come to run this call?

We started working with three charities in 2019 that raise funds for research into paediatric cancers, in particular through the organisation of running races. A fourth charity (FIAGOP) has since joined. The charities wanted to set up their own research programme because, today, paediatric cancer is not as well supported as adult cancer. The research community is pretty small, so some topics specific to paediatric cancer topics can fall between the cracks. The charities decided to put together their means, their resources, and they were looking for an organisation to help them with managing the call and the evaluation. Eventually, we agreed that ESF would be the research programme manager on their behalf. Managing a research programme is not their core competency, but it is ours.

What was it about this particular programme that prompted you to get involved?

At ESF, we intend to facilitate work to enable good-quality and efficient research processes. When the FKC funders came to us for some operational support for programme management, we decided to go with that. We think the model itself is very interesting, I don’t know of any other integrated common competitive funding pots that have been put together by several charities from different countries. It’s a very innovative approach, and we’re very keen on supporting that approach.

How is this call different from what the ESF usually does?

This is currently the only funding programme that ESF directly manages. We are implementing the independent grant evaluation. So we are collecting the applications and identifying the review panel members who will look at the applications. We’re also identifying and inviting the external referees that will look at the full proposal at the second stage.

What is the second stage?

For both types of project under this call, applicants are asked to provide a letter of intent—that is what we are collecting at the moment. That letter of intent will be shortlisted by experts and then successful applicants will be invited to submit a full proposal.

Can you elaborate on the two streams for proposals?

Yes, so the first is for early phase clinical trials, under which projects can be funded by up to €1.5m. All submissions must be collaborative research projects with several countries primarily in Europe. The second is for translational research, for which projects do not have to be collaborative, although they can be. They are funded by up to €500,000 per research project.

One of the objectives of the programme is to be sustainable, and to provide a sustainable funding source for teams looking at paediatric cancer and the specificities of paediatric cancers. It could be that those who take part in the translational research strand of the call, which tends to be more about basic research, could eventually see their work result in an early clinical trial in a subsequent call.

Could applicants apply to both strands?

No. We will limit the application to one per team or one per principal investigator. But the principal could be a co-investigator on another proposal. To be frank, the clinical trials and translational research do not overlap much.

Are there any specific requirements for either pathway?

What’s important for clinical trials is that the team needs to demonstrate that the drug they have or are willing to work on is made available by the industry. For the translational research, it’s about thinking outside of the box, providing new, innovative approaches and solutions.

What else do you want to see from applicants?

Paediatric cancers have specific differences to adult cancers that are not necessarily well addressed in other competitive programmes. One of the main objectives of the programme is to try to facilitate the life of the patients with not only an increase of survival rates, but also conditions for treatment that are more acceptable for kids.

The FKC funders behind this programme want to fund projects that could not be funded by traditional means. They don’t want to fund things that could be funded elsewhere. They’re very much looking into projects that may have an increased risk—a high-risk, high-benefits approach—and could have difficulty in passing peer review or the priorities of national funders.

Are you expecting to see collaboration across disciplines?

Multidisciplinary teams are welcome, but being multidisciplinary is not an objective in and of itself. The idea is really to generate impact; it is not so much about facilitating interdisciplinarity within the community.

And what about including people from businesses?

Those from industry and for-profit organisations are not eligible to receive funding. They can contribute in-kind, but not if they are a critical part of the project. It’s still quite academic: it’s an academic research project targeted towards academic teams.

Are you looking to fund a set number of projects?

No. It really depends on the outcome of the assessments. Two years ago, there was a project that really deserved to be funded, but the FKC funders already had enough projects for their budget that year. However, they found a way to have that project on board. Equally, if you’re in a year where the assessment panel decides that the projects are poor, the funders do not feel obliged to use up the funding. But that is not the case now. We are already looking at a portfolio of proposals that are very good, and the quality of the projects that are submitted is increasing. So the challenge is really to make sure that all the outstanding projects can be funded.

The post Opportunity profile: Europe-wide child-cancer call appeared first on Research Professional News.

Defaulting to generalities in bids is a mistake—here’s how to avoid it

Researchers are not normally people with much time on their hands, and when you add in the motivational erosion that might occur after a few funding knockbacks, it’s easy to understand why some might just reach for a chunk of generic text to slot into the ‘less important’ sections of the application form. But in so doing, they are greatly reducing their chances of success, warns Adam Golberg. In this article, first published in November 2018, he identifies some tell-tale boilerplate phrases that should be avoided and discusses what to write in their place.

Given the ever-expanding requirements of most research funding applications, many applicants may be tempted to pay less attention to some sections of the form. This could lead them to write text so generic, so bland, that it could be cut and pasted into almost any other proposal with minimal editing.  

Researchers should resist that temptation. Using text that looks like it could be cut and pasted between proposals suggests that they haven’t thought through the specifics of their project or fellowship, making it appear less plausible as a result.

No substance

I frequently see paragraphs that are so empty of content that they make my heart sink. For example:

• “We will present the findings at major international conferences and publish in world-class journals.”
• “The findings will be of interest to researchers in A, B and C.”
• “This is a methodologically innovative, timely and original project that represents a step change in our understanding.”
• “We will set up a project Twitter account and a blog, and with the support of our outstanding press office, write about our research for a general audience.”
• “Funding will enable me to lead my own project for the first time and support me in making the transition to independent researcher.”

These claims might well be true and can read well in isolation. But they’re only superficially plausible, and while they contain buzzwords that applicants think funders are after, they’re entirely free of content, evidence and argument. I’ll challenge each of these examples later in this article. 

Losing out

Why should researchers care? Because their proposal doesn’t just have to be good enough to meet a certain standard, it has to be better than its rivals. If there are sections of the application that could be transferred into any rival application, this might be a sign that the section is not written as strongly or distinctively as it could be. The author of that application therefore does not have a competitive edge.

Cut-and-paste sections may be actively harming researchers’ chances. When compared directly with more thoughtful and detailed sections in rival applications they can look weak and lazy, especially if they don’t take full advantage of the wordcount.

Such texts tend to appear in the trickier sections of application forms and sections that get less attention such as: dissemination, impact plan, academic impact, personal development plan, data management plan and choice of host institution. Sometimes these generic statements emerge because the applicants don’t know what to write, and other times it’s because it’s all they can be bothered to write for a section they wrongly regard as less important.

Give evidence

Researchers should give these sections the time, attention and thought they deserve. There should be detail, specifics, argument and evidence. Applicants should find things to say that only apply to their proposal. If they don’t know how to answer a question strongly, they should get advice from research development colleagues.

The more editing it would take to put it into someone else’s bid, the better. Here are some thoughts on improving the earlier examples.

“We will present the findings at major international conferences and publish in world-class journals.”

I find it hard to understand vagueness about plans for academic impact. Even if the research findings may have an impact on how they are  disseminated, it’s surely not too much to expect some target journals and conferences to be named. If applicants can’t demonstrate knowledge of realistic targets, it undermines their credibility.

“The findings will be of interest to researchers in A, B and C.”

I’d ban the phrase “of interest to” when explaining potential academic impact. That tells the reader nothing about the likely academic impact—who will cite the proposed work and what difference is it expected to make to the field?

“This is a methodologically innovative, timely and original project that represents a step change in our understanding.”

Who will use the methods and frameworks? If all research is standing on the shoulders of giants, how much further can future researchers see perched atop of this particular work? How exactly does the proposed project go beyond the state of the art, and what might be the new state of the art after the project?

“We will set up a project Twitter account and a blog, and with the support of our outstanding press office, write about our research for a general audience.”

If researchers are talking about engaging with social media, they should write how they are going to find readers and/or followers. What’s their plan for their presence in terms of the existing ecosystem of social media accounts that are active in this area? Who are the current key influencers?

“Funding will enable me to lead my own project for the first time and support me in making the transition to independent researcher.”

How does funding take the applicant to what’s next? What’s the path from the conclusions of this project to their future research agenda?  

Looking for cut-and-paste text—and improving it where it is found—is an excellent review technique to polish draft applications and to improve those harder-to-write sections. Yes, hammering out the detail is more difficult, but it could give applicants an advantage in the race for funding.

Adam Golberg is research development manager (charities) in the faculty of social sciences at the University of Nottingham.

The post From the archive: Cutting out cut-and-paste appeared first on Research Professional News.

Developing a more realistic model of career progression

Most researchers will be familiar with career development. Frameworks, workshops and mentoring programmes are often used to help academics move up in their careers from lecturing positions to professorships. But for some, especially those who have come from professional practice into teaching, the research career path is less clear cut.

Lucy Kerstens, a research manager and leader of the Centre for Economic Transformation and the Centre for Applied Research on Business and Economics at the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, created a tool to help academics decide where they want to go in their research careers and how they can achieve their goals. The research career wheel is a model backed by research that its developers hope can be put to wider use. She explains the thinking behind the model.

How did you become a research manager?

It wasn’t very planned. I worked at the University of Amsterdam before I came to the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences. At the University of Amsterdam I was assisting the director; I wasn’t very involved in-depth in research and research management. But then I saw this position advertised to set up the research centre from scratch.

How challenging was that task?

It wasn’t easy. Universities of applied sciences are quite a recent phenomena. Setting up a research centre in such a young environment, which is not that familiar with research, was quite difficult.

Many teachers in applied universities come from practice. Some of them are research trained, and have a masters or maybe even a PhD. But others do not. To do research within an applied university of sciences, you need to build up your research quality, your culture, the networks.

Tell me about the research career wheel.

It shows how people who might have more experience as education faculty can grow their careers from lecturer to full professor. We wanted to ask: what sort of activities could you undertake as a researcher to get to where you want to go in your career? In developing the wheel, we focused on verbs—how can you participate? How can you create? How can you exchange? How can you publish? These activities are all important for successful research careers. Obviously, not every researcher is going to be a brilliant publisher, or maybe not a brilliant speaker. So, what activities can you undertake to make a difference?

Where did you get the idea for it from?

I discovered Vitae’s researcher development framework and I loved it from day one. It gives such a complete overview of what a researcher should do, or should have knowledge of. But what I was missing in this framework was which steps to take. If you’re a researcher and you do the development framework, but your institute is not putting up funding for you, or it doesn’t motivate you or has a bad reputation, it’s not going to work.

What did you do then?

I teamed up with Lori Divito, one of the professors in our business school, and Diane Sloan, who was then professor of learning and teaching at Northumbria University. We discussed how to create a practice-oriented model to make very clear to people: this is what you want to achieve and this is the path to it, and these are all the enablers or disablers you might come across.

We received a small amount of funding through an alliance between the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences and Northumbria University. From our research we created the research career wheel, and we developed a workshop as well.

In the wheel, you mention ‘restricted’ and ‘extended’ research professionals. What does that mean?

Linda Evans, a professor of education, and associate dean for academic and research staff development at the University of Manchester, was at our university and she explained this concept to us. With restricted professionality, your skills are derived from experience only. Whereas an extended professional will derive skills from a mediation between experience and theory. For researchers, an extended professional will take a step further in their own development. They’re inquisitive about what’s going on in their area of expertise, how they can learn from that and incorporate it into their lessons.

What other factors come into play?

There are two types of motivators to developing your research career: internal enablers and external enablers. As a researcher, your intrinsic motivation is the number one enabler. Then, of course, there’s the institution. You want an institution with a rich research culture, where people feel at home, where they feel recognised, where they feel they are increasing the reputation of their institute by doing their research. Then there are the external enablers outside the university. If the government cuts funding for research by half, that’s a big problem. It’s a disabler. But working towards accreditation from an external body acts as an important enabler.

How much does an institution’s reputation affect researchers?

As part of our research, we did a survey of 15 universities in the UK and of 11 applied universities. Although we didn’t directly measure an institution’s reputation and researchers’ motivation, we found that researchers tie reputation to themselves, their track records, and their networks of collaborators and co-authors, and less to the reputation of their institution. However, there is a correlation between an institute’s reputation and the support structures available. Institutions that enable research and scholarly activities well will probably have good reputations.

Does this affect all types of institution equally?

No. In the Netherlands at least, it’s as if the applied universities are not taken quite as seriously as they could be. We would always say, however, that the research we’re doing is absolutely academic research. Because it’s in liaison with professional practice, it may have a different setup and a different outcome to more traditional research. But that makes it so valuable. It’s not long-term, fundamental research, but it’s answering questions from our partners in the field. It may be hands on, but it is absolutely academic. The added value of doing this sort of research is not understood enough.

How can universities—particularly applied universities—encourage their education faculty to develop their research careers?

Research needs to be recognised within the institution as a main topic. When I started my role, education was always far more in the spotlight. And research was a bit of a smaller entity within the university. The board of governors then started to invest a lot in getting research into the spotlight, organising research infrastructure, setting up research policies, making sure there are career paths for researchers. You can’t just do it overnight; it takes time to rebuild, and you must have all these structures in place to get that right.

Does the problem of how to boost the profile of research affect other applied universities in Europe?

I think so. We work in an alliance with seven other universities across Europe. It’s called the U!reka, which stands for Urban Education and Research Alliance. We’re all in the same boat—one has developed maybe a stronger link with practice, or one has developed maybe a stronger link with academic universities, but mostly the challenges and the way you are at your stage of development is recognisable.

The post Research careers: Spinning the wheel appeared first on Research Professional News.

A well-fitted fellowship for art and visual culture researchers

Few institutions are as generous as the Clark Art Institute in giving researchers of art and visual culture the time, space and resources they need, Barbara Penner, one of the 2019 intake of fellows, told us in this article published that year.

This year the institute has 10 fellowships available with different subject emphases. All fellowships are worth up to $30,000 each per semester and provide on-site accommodation, office space and library access. Travel to and from the institute will be reimbursed for the scholar and an accompanying family member, and visa support may be provided. The deadline is 15 October.

Those dissuaded from applying to the Clark Art Institute because of its towering reputation in the field should feel encouraged. It has one of “the most humane” application procedures that Penner had encountered, she relates.

Barbara’s top tips

• Make reference to materials in the institute’s collection and explain why you need access to them.
• Get in touch with staff at the institute to discuss your bid.
• Give specific examples of what you hope to achieve.
• Include some illustrations in your bid.

Clark Art Institute fellowships enable scholars engaged in the theory, history and interpretation of art and visual culture to spend time in residency at the institute in Williamstown, Massachusetts, in the United States.

The institute runs eight different fellowship types for scholars in different disciplines and at various career stages. All applicants must hold a PhD or demonstrate equivalent professional experience, and they may come from academia, museums or professional backgrounds.

Fellowships are worth up to $30,000 each per semester and provide accommodation, office space and library access. Travel to and from the institute will be reimbursed for the scholar and an accompanying family member, and visa support may be provided. The next deadline for fellowship applications is 15 October.

Barbara Penner, a professor of architectural humanities at the Bartlett school of architecture at University College London, was awarded a Summer Fellowship to work on research looking at how particular social scientific research techniques inform domestic design and architectural practice.

How did your research project come about?

The work is inspired by a book called The Bathroom, by Alexander Kira, a former professor at Cornell University. It is without a doubt one of the most bizarre design books of the 20th century but considered a real classic of user-centred design. While writing my own book on the story of the modern bathroom in 2014, I became more and more intrigued by the research techniques that Kira deployed in his book. I started thinking: Where did they come from? Who else deployed them? How did he know to study the human body in the way that he did? So it was that dangling thread from my last book that eventually led to this project, which someone aptly described as a ‘study of studies’.

What does your project involve?

Essentially, it’s a study of social scientific research techniques—how they were picked up by designers and translated into the built environment—and the effects they have on that environment. Some effects are small, some are large—but we’re often unaware of the reasons why certain environments work the way they do. My particular interest is in how the human body is studied in domestic environments, because the research that has been done so far has focused more on the body in institutional settings—such as factories and prisons.

How did you find out about this fellowship scheme?

Once a year in my department, we have research mentoring—when colleagues sit down and talk through each other’s research and plans. One of my colleagues mentioned the Clark Art Institute. It turns out that quite a few UCL scholars have studied there—although they are mainly art history researchers. In fact, the Clark takes on quite a few international scholars. While I was there, there was only one American; the others were Canadian and French.

What attracted you to the scheme?

I find that more and more schemes offered by the UK research councils seem more focused on group work and fostering interdisciplinary collaboration and public engagement. But sole-authored research, or individual research, is still extremely important in academia and needs to be supported. There just aren’t that many fellowships that are as open and generous as this one in terms of giving you time, space and resources, and not asking for too much in return. The Clark was amazing in that sense. They were there to support you and facilitate your project. For a start, they provide you with a fully stocked office so you’re ready to go the moment you open the door.

Did you consider any other funders for this idea?

No, and to be honest, I wouldn’t have even gone for the Clark if it hadn’t sounded so perfect. Because I have a senior management role here at UCL, I can usually only do little projects. This fit the bill in terms of offering me time and space to get my larger project off the ground. 

What does the fellowship cover?

Because it was the summer term, it didn’t come with a stipend of any sort. I think their assumption—quite rightly—is that if you are coming over the summer, you don’t need to be bought out of any teaching. But they do pay for all travel, accommodation and office space.

Do they cover accommodation for family, too?

Yes—and they could not have been more accommodating in that regard. They provided one apartment for me and even put a second one aside for my family so they could come, too. 

Could you talk me through the application process?

It was a single-stage application process. And it was actually fairly light compared with European grants, where you can spend night and day on the application. For example, they don’t require institutional approval. I think they assume that if you win a prestigious grant, your department will move heaven and earth to make it happen for you. This is very different from Europe, where almost all grants require you to provide some evidence that your department is OK with you applying and will release you.

Which elements did you bring to the fore in your proposal, and how long was it?

The proposal was about five pages, single-spaced. The Clark has one of the world’s leading art libraries and, while they don’t stipulate directly that you need to draw on their collection, I think that’s implied. So for me it felt quite important to let them know that my work had a strong visual component to it. I also wanted them to know that their resources would make a real difference to my project.

Was there anything you found challenging?

I wouldn’t say it was easy, but I thought it was one of the most humane applications I’ve done. It felt very focused on the project and the work itself. I didn’t need to supply a full CV—only a very short one. So I got the feeling they were really putting the project before the scholar.

Do you have any tips for future applicants?

Really try to show the Clark that it’s a viable project by giving specific examples of what you aim to do. Even though my larger book project isn’t as advanced as I would like, the whole project has been planned out. And I think they liked that I was able to demonstrate there was a larger project there. At one point I broke off to state, specifically: ‘In six weeks, I will be able to complete a certain section.’ And I showed exactly where this section would sit in my table of contents.

Did you get any advice from anyone during the application process?

Normally I would ask for advice, but I didn’t this time around because the project had been stewing for so long that it was already well developed.

Did you have much communication with the institute prior to your fellowship?

I asked them so many questions that they must have been sick of me—but they were lovely. For instance, I asked if there were any summer camps for my daughter. I don’t drive, so they offered to pick me up and take me to the grocery store the morning after I arrived.

What do you think made your application stand out?

I think it stood out as quite quirky, as I opened my proposal with Alexander Kira and some of his very bizarre bathroom studies, which I illustrated. In fact, I almost always illustrate my applications. People don’t often do that. But in the fields of architectural history, art history, visual culture or material culture studies, I think illustrations are quite important. If any of those happen to be your field, I recommend throwing in some good images—not gratuitously, but to add interest.

The post From the archive: Time away for art scholars appeared first on Research Professional News.

Ruminations on the level of detail needed in a grant application—and thoughts about cake

As a research development manager, one question that I’m not asked regularly enough is how much detail is required in a grant application.

Another way to think about this question is to ask what resolution an application should be written at. And, as with much else when it comes to writing funding applications, it can only really be answered if you take into consideration the audience you’re writing for.

It’s impossible to give a complete account of what you intend to do, even for a simple research project, within the limitations of an application form. Just as it’s impractical to produce full-scale maps (as all readers of Jorge Luis Borges will appreciate), it’s also impractical to write a full-scale grant application that covers every single step. Or to expect reviewers to read and review such a document.

As no-one can ever give a full-scale account of their proposal, there must come a point at which reviewers and funders infer from what you have written that they (and you) know what you’re doing. That you and your team have the advanced skills and experience necessary to execute the detail of what you’ve proposed. Even those details that you’ve not spelled out.

As an applicant, all you can ever produce is a summary or overview. It’s important to understand this and make your peace with it. Only when applicants stop trying to cram as much detail as possible into the space allowed, and instead think strategically about how much detail to go into and where, can competitive bids begin to be forged.

Word budgets

Prosaically, how much detail you should go into in research proposals is determined by the format of the application form. For better or for worse, this is the space you have been allocated.

It’s entirely possible that the amount of space you’ve been given and the way that space is divided up isn’t optimal, or even sufficient. This is especially true with larger and more complex proposals. While bigger grants tend to have more complex forms, they’re not proportionally longer or more complex.

If a funder offers two schemes, one with twice the maximum budget of the other, it’s very unlikely to offer double the space. To turn that around, the larger and more complex your proposal, the less space you are likely to have, proportionally speaking. And that’s a challenge. But the constraints are the same for everyone, and your rivals face the same challenges.

Treat your word count as a budget and make careful and mindful choices about how to spend that budget. Which sections are more complex, more novel and need more explanation, and which are relatively straightforward? And be ready to write at a lower level of detail than perhaps you’d like, especially at the outline stage.

Ready for my close-up

Many novice applicants write in excessively granular levels of detail, zooming in so closely that non-experts cannot see the broader picture and may struggle to follow the argument of why a proposal should be funded. In response to word count pressure, such bids can end up reading more like navigation directions that omit to mention the appeal of the destination. They give too much and too little information.

The impulse to go deep into the detail is entirely understandable. Writing a grant will often ‘flush out details’, so to speak, by forcing decisions on issues not fully discussed or considered during its conception. In addition, such detail is how researchers may seek to demonstrate their competence to assessors, especially if they are in their early career stages and keen to prove themselves. But it still isn’t the right way to go.

Cakes, not sieves

Let’s consider a different kind of work package: baking a cake. I could tell you that “I will use a 20cm stainless steel sieve to hand-sift hard-wheat, organic, strong, white bread flour [and so on, for 500 words]”. This would be tedious and you would lose interest fairly soon. As I mentioned, this is both too much information and too little.

Could I just tell you that I’m going to bake a cake? Perhaps, but arguably that’s too little information. You’re probably wondering what the context is: why am I baking a cake? So I need to tell you it’s a birthday cake for a friend, and that we’re going to eat it after a celebratory dinner for eight people.

Do I need to tell you what sort of cake it is, what sort of icing? What I think makes for a good cake? Is it my friend’s favourite? Should I show I’ve researched that? Or have I prioritised inclusion in terms of dietary requirements and preferences of my guests? Do I need to explain my methods, or why I’m baking a cake rather than buying one? Or even why cake is better than ice cream?

The answer is that it depends on why I am telling you about the cake, what you need to know, how much space I have and various other forced metaphors for variations in funding schemes and application forms that I am now struggling to come up with. But to mix my metaphor with its subject, 500 words focusing on these issues will be much more useful and informative than 500 words on sieves. Also worth considering: if my Cakericulum Vitae demonstrates that I’m a competent amateur baker, why do I need to show you that I know how to make a cake?

What’s always true is that as a reader, I want to hear about the cake, not the sieve.

Zoom in, zoom out

Of course, the cake example assumes a relatively straightforward task in which there’s little or no novelty, innovation or controversy. If I were proposing a radical new cake flavour or baking method, I should expect to say more about what I’m doing that’s new, why I’m doing it, what reasons I have for thinking that it might be a good idea, and what my backup plan is if it turns out to be inedible.

Most grant proposals are a mixture of new and innovative and tried and tested methods and techniques. It’s very rare for every part of every work package to be novel – we need some knowns as reliable scaffolding as we build towards the unknown. When allocating your word budget, don’t distribute it evenly—zoom in on the detail in your innovative sections, which need greater explanation and defending, and zoom out when covering tried and tested techniques or methods.

In summary, it’s the format of the application form that determines what level of detail you should go into. You have a budget of word count to spend. Don’t get drawn deep into the detail unless there’s a clear reason for doing so, especially in the more mundane sections. Tell reviewers about the sieve only when you need to, and never at the expense of the cake.

Anyone else suddenly craving cake?

Adam Golberg is research development manager (charities) at the University of Nottingham. He tweets @Cash4Questions and blogs at socialscienceresearchfunding.co.uk.

The post Too much information? appeared first on Research Professional News.

Future Earth’s communication grants give scientists the chance to flex their creative muscles

Top tips

• Those with less experience of science communication are welcome to apply.
• All applicants should consider having a communications expert on their team.
• Applicants should read and adhere to the eligibility criteria.
• Applications from anywhere in the world are welcome but one third of the funding will go to projects in low- and middle-income countries.

Future Earth—a network of scientists set up by the UN to advance research in sustainability—has launched the second round of its Pathways Communication Grants, which are new this year. The grants offer small sums to help ensure that science on the development of pathways for sustainability reaches audiences beyond the scientific community. The programme supports projects that use innovative communication formats and practices to disseminate research findings.

Although financed by a collection of French funders, the grants are open to anyone, regardless of their geographical location. The call is open until 31 October and there is up to €30,000 (£26,000) available in this round. Each project can receive between €2,500 and €10,000, and Future Earth expects three or four projects to be successful.

Future Earth is governed by the International Science Council, the Belmont Forum of funders, three UN bodies, the World Meteorological Organization and the Science and Technology in Society Forum. Natalie Chong, a science officer at Future Earth, gives us the lowdown for those thinking of bidding.

How would you summarise the programme?

The programme provides financial support to researchers working on pathways to sustainability who want to increase their reach beyond the scientific community to non-academic audiences, such as practitioners, decision-makers and civil society. The grants are for projects that do this through innovative formats. The programme is quite new. It was launched at the end of last year and this is the second round.

How much funding is available?

In total for the year 2022, there is €60,000. About half of that was used for the first round, so there is about €30,000 left for this round.

What would make a proposal stand out?

Creativity and diversity. These types of grants are really few and far between, so it is an opportunity for scientists to really think outside the box and flex their creative muscles. Normally, science is communicated in the same ways, in the form of academic publications or posters. This is a chance to move beyond that and have a bit of fun with it.

That might be daunting to those with little communications experience.

Yes, we know that science communication is not really part of many scientists’ training. That is why we encourage them to team up with communication professionals. Diversity is another factor that is important to us because we want to encourage interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary collaboration. We also want diversity in terms of geography, gender and career stage. We really want to encourage a good mix of people.

But do researchers with a track record of public engagement get prioritised?

No, not at all. We really want to encourage anyone and everyone to apply. We want anyone who is keen to communicate their research. We do have two different priority groups. We have dedicated a third of the funding to projects that are led by researchers working in low- to middle-income countries. The other priority group is projects led by early career researchers. That is PhD students or researchers who have received their PhD within the last six years.

How is this scheme different from other research communications schemes that exist?

One thing that makes this scheme stand out is that it is available to anybody. There are no geographical restrictions. I think that a lot of grants are tied to a geographical location, but this is truly open.

What was the success rate in the first call?

In the first call, there were three successful projects out of around 36 proposals. That is mostly because the three projects had quite big budgets and we wanted to save some funding for the second round. For this round, we have about half of that funding left and the number of projects awarded will depend on what their proposed budgets will be. I expect this round will be similar, with maybe three or four projects selected.

How do you assess applications?

The scientific committee of the Pathways Initiative assesses the applications. That is made up of different researchers from varying disciplines. Also, there will be members on the committee who are communication professionals. Applications will be assessed on how well the proposal fits the scope of the call, the clarity of the proposal, the quality and the originality.

What is the weighting given to the project versus the people involved?

The people and the project are equally important. The scientific quality is a big factor, but we also encourage an interdisciplinary team, which means social scientists as well as natural scientists.

What mistakes did applicants make in the last round that should be avoided?

Not reading the call text thoroughly, particularly the part about the eligibility criteria. There were a lot of proposals in the last round that did not meet the basic eligibility requirements. It is really important as, otherwise, we cannot assess the proposals properly. If applicants have questions, we encourage them to contact us ahead of submission so we can avoid these issues.

Beyond eligibility, were there any other issues?

Some researchers had really good ideas but their timelines were not realistic or did not match up with their objectives. Communication professionals have the necessary skills to help them sharpen the narrative and increase the impact of their research to these non-academic communities through a cohesive communication strategy. By collaborating with communication professionals, researchers are more likely to produce a realistic timeline.

In a project team, what should the split between researchers and communicators be?

A team should mostly be researchers and then having one or two communication professionals would be great.

Do you offer any communications coaching?

There is no specific coaching but I am here to answer any questions for them, so they can just contact me directly via email.

Are you aiming to have a good geographical spread?

That would be ideal but, in the end, it comes down to the quality of the proposals. Of course, having a geographical spread will be a consideration. Last time, the awards went to a project in Uruguay, another in Australia and one was an international collaboration from researchers all over.

Could you go into some more detail on one of the projects from the last call?

The one in Australia, for example, was about fair food futures. What they proposed is having an interactive animated video and a podcast that is teaching the community about this topic and how to get involved.

The post Opportunity profile: Communicating sustainability appeared first on Research Professional News.

Each year the Australian Research Council tries to lure researchers back home

Many of Australia’s mid-career researchers work overseas. The Australian Research Council’s Future Fellowships scheme aims, in part, to entice them back. In this article from 2017, Gerd Winter spoke to Tim Bayne, a professor of philosophy who moved back to Monash University on a fellowship.

The 2023 round of Future Fellowships will open this Autumn with a deadline likely in December. In the previous round, up to 100 fellowships were available, each worth up to A$232,481 per year for four years, depending on academic salary level. A further A$60,000 per year was available for project funding.

Being remote and relatively small in terms of population, brain drain is a perpetual issue for Australia. Faced with limited options for developing a career here, many budding researchers seek opportunities in better-resourced countries, such as the UK and the United States.

The Australian Research Council’s Future Fellowships act as a bridge for mid-career research talent from across the globe to come to our shores. Tim Bayne’s return to Australia last year is a prime example, and his biography illustrates the high level of mobility that defines many modern research stars.

Widening horizons

Educated in New Zealand, he left the country for the US with an honours degree and the support of a Fulbright scholarship, first going to the University of Notre Dame in Indiana and then to the University of Arizona. There he was taken under the wing of a new recruit to the university, philosopher David Chalmers, who supervised his doctoral dissertation on consciousness. 

It was a good move, Bayne says. Chalmers was not only a very good mentor, but as his career was taking off, it helped Bayne’s career too. Chalmers went on to become one of Australia’s most influential philosophers and a leading theorist on consciousness. 

After completing his doctoral thesis, Bayne returned first to New Zealand—a condition of the Fulbright—and then moved to Australia, where he spent five years at Macquarie University in Sydney. He left for the UK after that, taking up positions first at the University of Oxford and then at the University of Manchester, where he led a European Research Council project on the structure of consciousness.

With his career taking off, he also became a chair of the philosophy of neuroscience at the University of Western Ontario in Canada, while continuing his project in Manchester in a split position.

Time to return

Bayne says that he would have been happy to stay on, but when the opportunity arrived to return to Australia, he went for it. “I was at a point in my life where I wanted to put down some roots.” A four-year Future Fellowship, worth almost A$900,000, made it possible. “My understanding is that it was set up to bring people that have some kind of connection with Australia back to Australia.”

Crucial to the move was Monash University, where he had an ongoing collaboration with fellow philosophy professor Jakob Hohwy. Monash offered to sponsor him, which was significant: “You cannot just apply, you have to do it through an Australian university—so you have to have someone inside, a sponsor.”

Though not obligatory, Bayne says that to entice high-calibre researchers from overseas, the sponsoring university will generally have to offer some form of continuing employment. “This is a big investment on their part; they have to be pretty sure that they want you for the long haul.”

Building a hub

What made Bayne attractive to Monash and ultimately helped him in the fellowship? Previous engagements in Australia played a role, he says, and a strategic argument playing in his favour. “My collaborator at Monash [Hohwy] is himself an ARC Future Fellow, and we have previously written ARC grants together. They could see that they were building up a certain area of expertise in Australia in this field. And it helps to have more than one senior person in a field in an institution.” Monash has turned out to be a perfect fit in other ways too, particularly in helping to manage the grant.

Having started his fellowship in September 2016, Bayne is developing a philosophical framework by which consciousness can be measured. The project builds on previous work with Hohwy and Adrian Owen, a neuroscientist based at the University of Western Ontario, in which the researchers proposed a complex multidimensional structure that underlies our consciousness.

It has led the researchers to question a concept that is often used by clinicians to determine different stages of wakefulness. Described in the literature as ‘levels of consciousness’, it implies that degrees of consciousness can be discerned along one single, scalable dimension. “This sort of makes sense in dealing with disorders of consciousness: someone comes out of a coma and enters a vegetative state where they are probably not conscious at all and then enter a minimally conscious state where they are a little bit more conscious and so on,” Bayne explains.

Leading the way

However, he and his coworkers believe that this view has problems, or is even unhelpful. The internal structure of consciousness is likely to be far more complex and may consist of different dimensions or variations of consciousness rather than just one.

For example, take the set of cognitive capacities and actions we are capable of. Healthy individuals will use their experiences to make decisions, to direct voluntary behaviour, to consolidate memory and so on. But if we had an epileptic seizure, we might still be conscious while some of the actions governing aspects of our brains will probably shut down. Maybe we could walk but not remember anything nor talk about what we were experiencing.

“That’s just one dimension, a sort of agency dimension, but there might be many others,” Bayne says. Importantly, variations in the internal structure may not have anything to do with being more or less conscious, rather being differently conscious. “Take language, for example. To model all the languages in the world you may look at their vocabulary, morphology and syntax. These are all different dimensions that define languages. But we are not saying Swahili is more ‘languagey’ than Cambodian.”

Bayne argues that once the multidimensional structure of our consciousness is better understood, we could, for instance, begin to look at how the consciousness of infants compares with adults, or look at the kind of consciousness that other creatures might have.

Using again languages as an analogy, he says that we can ask what kind of language it is and whether it belongs to this or that language group. And he believes this can also be done to compare different groups of consciousness. “It really is a question about taxonomy, and we are interested in how we should taxonomise states of consciousness.” 

Multidisciplinary potential

Bayne’s work at Monash will also aim to identify general markers that can be used to detect the presence or absence of consciousness. To this end, he is very interested in working out what kinds of clinical tests could be used to evaluate whether, for example, a comatose patients is conscious. “There are also ethical issues that may come into play in a clinical situation, for example when switching off life support,” he says.

Philosophy is primarily a theoretical world, and this is also the case for Bayne. But his work does throw up crossovers into other more applied fields outside of philosophy, such as the neurosciences. Bayne enjoys engaging with science without having to do the experimental work himself.

His work’s multidisciplinary potential may have helped him in his Future Fellowship application, he suggests. “I do collaborate with a number of scientists. I don’t think you have to span across disciplines in order to secure a Future Fellowship, but I guess in my case it was very helpful.”

Set on using a philosophical approach to help unravel the fundamentals of one of the great mysteries of life, he has no illusions that it will be fully understood in his lifetime. “But if I can make a little dent in it, and lots of people can make little dents in it from different angles, then maybe someday we will. It is very much an ongoing journey. Sometimes you feel like one of the explorers of former time: you go without maps, no Lonely Planet, no Trip Advisors.” 

The post From the archive: Return journey appeared first on Research Professional News.