1. The evaluator point of view…. “IDEAS, ERC Starting Grant 2007” Henriette Molinari Department of Biotechnology University of Verona

2. peer review excellence as the single criterion.” “The selection of scientific and scholarly proposals for funding by the ERC is based strictly on peer review with excellence as the single criterion.” ( ( Guide for ERC Peer Reviewers) This is the starting point to address few issues, related to my experience as remote reviewer for the IDEAS program Review procedure C Excellence Considerations on the projects

3. My role in the evaluation process: 1. Review procedure My panel : Molecular, cellular and developmental biology Panel chairs and members, Panel evaluators, Referees Limited role, as I was only a remote evaluator

4. Acting as a referee “ In addition to the panels, the ERC works with referees, scientists who bring to bear the necessary specialised expertise. Because of the specialised nature of the work, the demands on the time of individual referees will be comparatively smaller (of the order of a day)” Guide for ERC Peer Reviewers

5. Panel LS1 - Molecular, cellular and developmental biology: molecular biology, biochemistry, biophysics, structural biology, cell biology, cell physiology, signal transduction and pattern formation in plants and animals LS1_1 Molecular biology and interactions LS1_2 General biochemistry and metabolism LS1_3 Nucleic acid biosynthesis, modification and degradation LS1_4 RNA processing and modification LS1_5 Protein synthesis, modification and turnover LS1_6 Biophysics LS1_7 Structural biology (crystallography, NMR, EM)my expertise LS1_8 Morphology and functional imaging of cells LS1_9 Cell biology and molecular transport mechanisms LS1_10 Cell cycle and division LS1_11 Apoptosis LS1_12 Cell differentiation, physiology and dynamics LS1_13 Organelle biology LS1_14 Cell signalling and cellular interactions LS1_15 Signal transduction LS1_16 Development, developmental genetics, pattern formation and embryology I had to referee projects in different fields of molecular, cellular and developmental biology. The demand on time in my case was therefore much higher The time spent in evaluating projects is highly valuable

6. It is important that ERC makes an effort to enhance the scientific growth of its referees: ERC In the current system the remote referees feed-back do not receive any feed-back information on the final evaluations of the projects they have reviewed do not have information on the guidelines of the final panels do not have information on the final accepted proposals ? Is there a way to spread information, at any appropriate stage, on the final evaluation of all the projects (good practice)?

7. Marks range from 0 (Fails, Missing or Incomplete), 1 (Poor), 2 (Fair), 3 (Good), 4 (Very Good), 5 (Excellent) Half mark can be used Notes on marks 2. Considerations on the projects ProposalPotential of PIProject excellenceTotal mark (Threshold is 8) Conflict of interest Some statistics on my 30 projects……….

8. In only 10 (over my 30) projects the principal investigator was a woman 201 proposals in the final list: 70 in the Life Science field, 5 italian projects, 3 women! Life Sciences (20% women ) ERC annual report: Preliminary statistics and analysis Gender issue Problematic as the highest number of women scientists is indeed present at the beginning of the career

9. Distribution of the publications (only journals reported more than 3 times) Some statistics on my 30 projects

10. Analysed projects Sum of IF for the five presented publications Some statistics on the applicants…. On average each PI had at least 3 papers as first author

11. Number of countries where the PI have done their research

12. Projects funded no declaration of the amount received Funding received as PI by the applicants (more than 2, less than 8 years from PhD)

13. IF of 5 papers presented by PI of 15 projects financed in LS1 panel 5/5 last names

14. On average the scientific quality of the projects was very high, and most of the projects revealed trans-disciplinary developments, high level of creativity, capability of project conception International collaborations Strenght point: international research work experience

15. As far as Italy is concerned: I did not have any italian project to evaluate I was not present in the panels comparing different projects More than 1600 italian projects 3% projects to the phase 2 (6% european projects to fase 2) LS6LS7LS4 16 26 Neuroscience Applied life science, biotechnology, bioengineering Medical and health science

16. 3. Excellence There is no excellence without a good basic science A good basic science is proportional to the amount of money that a national government invest in research Italy does not invest in research (I belong to a privileged environment) On the basis of the limited statistics derived from the 30 projects analysed, ? do I consider that italian young scientists have the opportunity to reach the necessary excellence ?

17. The task of Europe: Selection of excellence but also raising the quality of science in Europe ? Research holding the torch of knowledge

18. Go to European labs, work abroad, go to Europe in any possible form At present Europe is the only funding resource for Italian scientists… ….hoping for adequate national support to research My suggestion….: MOBILITY is essential

20. ERC annual report: Preliminary statistics and analysis

21. LS1: Molecular, cellular and developmental biology LS2 : Genetics, genomics, bioinformatics and systems biology LS3 Organismic physiology, including infection and immunity LS4 Neurosciences LS5 Evolutionary, population and environmental biology LS6 Medical and health science research LS7 Applied life sciences, biotechnology and bioengineering: