Marie Sklodowska-Curie experience Dr. Christopher J Stewart, PhD April 2018

Marie Sklodowska-Curie Fellowships Outside of EU – Up to 2 years in non-EU - Mandatory 1 year return phase within EU at end - Optional secondment in industry or academia Within EU – Up to 2 years in EU based institution Must not have lived/worked in the host country for more than… 12 months in the 3 years (standard EF) 36 months in the 5 years (Career restart panel) …Prior to the deadline in mid-September Generous salary (+extras), lab consumable budget, and overheads

Project Overview

Comparison of 2014 - 2017 2014 2017 Excellence (50%) 4.7 4.8 Impact (30%) Implementation (10%) 3.9 4.4 Total 90.8% (funded >92%) 94.4% (funded >86%?)

Comparison of 2014 - 2017 Excellence Weakness from 2014: 4.7 4.8 Impact (30%) Implementation (10%) 3.9 4.4 Total 90.8% 94.4% Excellence Weakness from 2014: • The clinical heterogeneity of the donors of the Human Intestinal Enteroids samples is not considered in sufficient detail.

Comparison of 2014 - 2017 Impact Weakness from 2014: Excellence (50%) 4.7 4.8 Impact (30%) Implementation (10%) 3.9 4.4 Total 90.8% 94.4% Impact Weakness from 2014: • The strategy to enhance career perspectives after the fellowship should have been described in more detail.

Comparison of 2014 - 2017 2014 2017 Excellence (50%) 4.7 4.8 Impact (30%) Implementation (10%) 3.9 4.4 Total 90.8% 94.4% Implementation Weakness from 2014: • In the work plan some aspects of the deliverables and milestones are presented with insufficient coherence. • The management of the risks and the attendant contingency plans should have been better described. • The plans for the enrollment of human subjects should have been better described. • The description of the secondment environment should have been more clearly described. Implementation Weakness from 2017: - The deliverables are not fully described, being limited to potential scientific contributions to conferences or scientific journals. - The milestones are not fully convincing to appropriately evaluate the project’s development.

Project development Project/research Institution/Supervisor Location Choosing a supervisor • Must be evidenced as working in a related area • Track record of publishing, obtaining funding, mentoring staff -> independence Project Idea • Ambitious and related to your research area • Achievable in 2 years but has clear follow on potential • Provide training in new / unique skills The way the MC want to see the application is that the project was thought up, then the best instition / mentor was decided. If this is the case that’s great, but In reality, it may well be the other way around. Certainly for my return to the UK for personal reasons I wanted to be in newcastle and I knew what my project would be, then I last decided on the supervisor based on who would make the stongest application. In doing so there were definetly elements of the application I had to strech to make it fit, but then for other aspects becayse the supervisor is not in the exact field it was easy to say that I will be introduced to new skills by a world expert.

Profile of the fellow Experience reflective of your career stage 2014 11 peer-reviewed publications (4 first author) 1 book chapter 0 Awards/Honors ~£100,000 co-I funding (£1000 as PI) Some public engagement experience 2017 29 peer-reviewed publications (12 first author, 2 senior author) 3 book chapter 4 Awards/Honors ~£1m co-I funding (£50,000 as PI) More public engagement experience Experience reflective of your career stage Because I was further in my career I don’t think all the extra stuff actually helped my application. The important thing is that you can demonstrate you are a leading researcher with some level of independence, and that will be considered in relation to your career level post-PhD.

Hints and tips Start writing the application early (>6 months before September) Reach out to institutional EU funding contact Look at previous successful applications The research project is important, but the box ticking will get you the fellowship E.g., two-way transfer of knowledge, good ‘fit’, etc. Be specific and evidence things (especially in sections 2+3)! Bad – I will attend conferences and present. Good- Which event, why is that relevant, what does it mean for the MC fellowship and wider career development, etc. etc. Avoid jargon and avoid making the application too science heavy You won’t have to do everything you say you will – tell them what they want to hear!! These first 3 are kinda obvious and generic advice. Here are some more tips I think helped me in my MC application specifically. in that they are much more about how the project fits with the scheme. The best research project in the world is not going to get funded without clear indication as to why that institution, why that supervisor, ect. Whereas a lesser project with clear fit to the MC scope would get funded. In my first application I tended to just say a lot of stuff, without really putting it into context or explaining why it was important. Don’t assume the reviewer will be able to work out why you say certain things. Make it easy for them. So you have published X numbers of papers, how is that specifically useful here – tell the reviewer – this means you can write up work and demonstrate dissemination, that your topic is novel and can stand up to scrutiny by your peers. This goes back to box ticking. Imagine you are reading 10s of applications with a checklist in front of you – if someone specifically says this deomontrates this, then the reviewer is much more likely to check the box then if you state something and hope the reivewer will be able to connect it to boxes on their checklist Ncl helped me with this element. Ultimately the reviewer is unlikely to fully understand the ins and outs of the application, so its more important to tell them WHY the project is good rather then assume they will see that Because the MC guide for applicants take you through each of the steps in great detail, you can see what they want to hear – so give them this, even if it might not happen. For e.g., I said I would have opportunities to teach research led lectures, although I wasn’t sure really if this would be the case. For the milestones I think its important to ensure they can be completed and that you can demonstrate why they are so important, but for other eleemtns I think its okay to suggest that something can be done or will be provided, even if that is not the case…

Contact info christopher.stewart@ncl.ac.uk @CJStewart7