Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

EARMA Presentation 24 june 2011 - Tom C. Wang


Published on

Presentation lined up to EARMA annual Conference in Bragança - Portugal

Published in: Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

EARMA Presentation 24 june 2011 - Tom C. Wang

  1. 1. European Participation in U.S. Funding Programmes: Survey of Researchers & Grants Administrators Tom C. Wang, Ph.D . Director for International Cooperation, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Project Coordinator, Link2US 24 June 2011 EARMA Annual Conference Bragança, Portugal
  2. 2. U.S. Programmes Directly Fund European PI’s (FY2009) * <ul><li>National Institutes of Health (NIH) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>131 awards to EU–based institutions (24% of international awards); </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>totaling $48.5M USD (22% of international and 0.22% of all NIH awards). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Comparison: ERC 2009 Advanced Grant Call – 74 awards in life sciences, worth €164.3M EUR (~$231M USD at mid-2009 exchange rate) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Dept. of Energy’s Office of Science </li></ul><ul><ul><li>7 awards (30% of international awards); </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>totaling $981,651 USD (19% of international awards). </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Dept. of Homeland Security’s Intl. Cooperative Programs Office </li></ul><ul><ul><li>2 awards (25% of international awards); </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>totaling $399,405 USD (25% of international awards). </li></ul></ul>* Based in EU Member States; from Link2US report: Participation Statistics of EU-based Researchers in U.S. National Programmes
  3. 3. Surveys of European Researchers and Institutions <ul><li>Identify key issues that EU-based researchers/institutions face when applying to and participating in U.S. funding programmes </li></ul><ul><ul><li>NIH </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>DOE </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Outcomes used to inform stakeholders in the funding of international cooperation (including the European Commission and U.S. funding bodies) regarding key issues to address in improving these funding schemes. </li></ul><ul><li>Disclaimer: the information has been compiled from public sources and communications with U.S. funding entities; analyses and results do not necessarily reflect any official views of the U.S. federal government or of the organizations comprising the Link2US project. The opinions and any errors are entirely the responsibility of the authors. </li></ul>
  4. 4. NIH Survey Findings <ul><li>Programmes researcher-friendly but policy differences between NIH and European granting agencies make grant administration challenging. </li></ul><ul><li>Funding system praised as transparent and highly respected with helpful programme staff. </li></ul><ul><li>Suggestions focused on improving already open and efficient programmes: clarity of eligibility/opportunities; support for addressing administrative differences; U.S.-European specific funding; full indirect. </li></ul>
  5. 5. Methodology <ul><li>Online questionnaire to EU-based researchers and grants administrators who received direct awards during U.S. fiscal year 2003-2010. </li></ul><ul><li>Conducted September, October 2010 </li></ul><ul><li>Three categories of questions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Demographic and background; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Experience with funding entity and its programmes (e.g., awareness, legal, policy, and administrative issues); </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Recommendations for lessons and improvements </li></ul></ul>
  6. 6. NIH Background <ul><li>Primary U.S. federal entity for conducting (intramural) and supporting (extramural) biomedical research (FY2011: $30.2B USD; approx. half for research project grants). NIH programmes fund the largest number of EU-based researchers and institutions of all U.S. civilian programmes. </li></ul><ul><li>In 2008, agreement between then Director of NIH Elias Zerhouni and European Commissioner for Research Janez Potočnik on the mutual openness of NIH funding programmes and the Framework Programme for biomedical and health research (i.e., programmes can directly fund each other’s researchers). </li></ul>
  7. 7. NIH Survey Demographics <ul><li>NIH awarded 1,097 new grants to 326 individual EU-based researchers from 191 institutions in FY2003-2010. </li></ul><ul><li>Response: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>78 researchers (out of 308 contacted); </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>18 grants administrators (GA’s) (out of 88) </li></ul></ul>
  8. 8. <ul><li>Majority from higher education institutions </li></ul><ul><li>Majority through R01 awards (GA’s reported ~ 3:1 Indirect:Direct Awards) </li></ul><ul><li>Majority researchers had either previously studied or conducted research in the U.S. before first NIH award </li></ul><ul><li>Majority researchers had collaborated with U.S. institutions before first NIH award </li></ul>NIH Survey Demographics
  9. 9. NIH General Issues Lack of admin. support from own organization Communication and information awareness Lack of complementary funding Cultural differences Differences in U.S./European policy requirements Contractual issues and IP Lack of admin. support from U.S. funder Researchers GA’s “ High” “ Medium” “ Low” Challenges
  10. 10. NIH Legal, Policy, and Administrative Aspects F&A cost recovery limits Audit requirements Budgeting requirements Other contractual requirements IP Researchers GA’s “ High” “ Medium” “ Low” Challenges
  11. 11. NIH Grants Policy Statement related to Grants to Non-U.S. Institutions <ul><li>Additional review criteria: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1) whether the project presents special opportunities for furthering research programs through the use of unusual talents, resources, populations, or environmental conditions in other countries that are not readily available in the United States or that augment existing U.S. resources; and, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2) whether the proposed project has specific relevance to the mission and objectives of the NIH Institute/Center (IC) and has the potential for significantly advancing the health sciences in the United States and the health of the people of the United States. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Majority (65%) of researchers responded that the additional criteria were not challenges. </li></ul><ul><li>Some noted having a U.S. collaborator eased the justification, while others expressed a perceived bias against non-U.S. PI’s. </li></ul>
  12. 12. NIH Funding is a Significant Funding Source and Provides Credibility for Researchers
  13. 13. Primary Sources for NIH Opportunities are NIH and Colleagues/Collaborators
  14. 14. Addressing NIH Policy Requirements
  15. 15. NIH Strengths and Lessons for Other Programmes <ul><li>Quality, transparent review process with feedback mechanism </li></ul><ul><li>Less burdensome administration with detailed information available </li></ul><ul><li>Supportive programme officers and other staff </li></ul><ul><li>primarily offered by researchers </li></ul>
  16. 16. Recommendations to Improve Collaboration <ul><li>Improve clarity of eligibility criteria and opportunities for EU-based researchers; </li></ul><ul><li>Increase support for addressing NIH and European differences in administrative requirements and policies; </li></ul><ul><li>Develop specific funding for U.S.-European collaboration; </li></ul><ul><li>Allowing full F&A cost recovery. </li></ul>
  17. 17. Questions <ul><li>Experience of researchers who applied but never successfully receive a grant. </li></ul><ul><li>Experience of researchers who have only received indirect funding or those who do not receive any funding but collaborate on NIH-funded projects. </li></ul><ul><li>Specific policy issues for improved international collaborations: research misconduct; conflict of interest; data sharing; public access; animal welfare; etc. </li></ul>
  18. 18. Acknowledgments <ul><li>Researchers and university grants administrators who responded to this survey and provided their invaluable input. </li></ul><ul><li>Dr. Patriq Fagerstedt, Karolinska Institute’s Grant Office, for input into the initial development of the questionnaires. </li></ul><ul><li>The Link2US project is co-funded by the EU 7 th Framework Programme on Research and Technological Cooperation’s Capacities Programme on International Cooperation under grant number 244371. </li></ul>
  19. 19. More Information <ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul>
  20. 20. Back-up
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
  23. 23.
  24. 24. DOE Background <ul><li>Largest U.S. supporter of basic research in the physical sciences (FY2011 Office of Science: $4.5B USD). </li></ul><ul><li>Financial Assistance Program of DOE’s Office of Science open to fund EU-based researchers. </li></ul><ul><li>2005-9: 50 Awards to 16 unique and identifiable PI’s in the EU. </li></ul>
  25. 25. DOE Survey <ul><li>Administered November 2010, January 2011 </li></ul><ul><li>Responses </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Researchers only </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>6 responses (out of 16 contacted) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>5 UK </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>1 Denmark </li></ul></ul></ul>
  26. 26. DOE General Issues
  27. 27. DOE Legal, Policy, and Administrative Aspects
  28. 28. Strengths and Recommendations <ul><li>Ease of administration procedures of the Office of Science programme; </li></ul><ul><li>Benefits from improved awareness of other relevant programmes and potential partners. </li></ul><ul><li>Improve clarity of presentation of policies, including eligibility criteria. </li></ul>