30 cape. If you look at the research funding in Europe, there are a lot of opportunities in the pillar III for translational research and companies, and in pillar II for collaborative research on very specific calls. But in such big grants and consortia that it is not so easy to sell an idea that might work but also might not work. If you don’t deliver, then you are not getting paid. ERC adds the blue sky element, stimulating curiosity-driven research, and it is a good thing that it exists. I also think for universities, it should work more as an equalizer because everybody has access to this. You can always apply to these types of grants. But I think there is a lot of self-censorship in smaller institutions and more people should actually try to apply for ERC. MG:What do you think about the evaluation system? LG: Now having been on the other side as well - first as a panel member and now as the chair of the LS7 Starting Grant - I think what we are trying to do during the evaluation is making sure that science does prevail. We are moving away, slowly, from the typical metric-based system and panels are open to non-typical careers as well. Biomedical panels are still tempted to focus on their pet peeves even though it is no longer allowed, but it’s getting better, especially with mixed panels. There are discussions now about removing part of the CV and make the project count for more. Throughout my own grants, I’ve had different requirements for the CV part and I think the current version is actually doing a good job providing essential information but also giving the applicant the opportunity to emphasize in a narrative way their strengths and potential leadership without having a super high H index or Nature publications. You can show that you are visible in your scientific community in other ways than having a PI position. I think that many people still struggle though with this element. You have to sell yourself of course and that’s never easy. People don’t like to do that but it is not about bragging, it is about showing your passion and what you want to do to improve your field. I think it’s good that those things are also part of the evaluation! MG: Should the university be more proactive? LG: Yes! I have been speaking in sessions in Leuven almost every year so I think we should do more to stimulate people and to normalize this. ERC is a good way to just think about what you want to do the next 5 years, what is the big thing that you want to achieve and write it down. It is 15 pages, it Is not a dramatic amount and it is very much focused on the science and methodology. And if it does not work, you still have something that you can use for FNRS or other grants. It Is not a waste, in my opinion, it is a good idea for everyone to structure your thoughts and think bigger than just one PhD at a time. «ERC adds the blue sky element, stimulating curiosity-driven research, and it is a good thing that it exists»
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk1ODY=