1. “Preparing competitive grant proposals that match policy objectives - project proposal evaluators' viewpoint ” Despina Sanoudou, PhD FACMG Assistant Professor Clinical Genomics & Pharmacogenomics Unit 4 th Department of Internal Medicine Medical School – University of Athens

2. Horizon2020 Work Programme 2016-2017 “Health, demographic change and well-being” Budget 2017: 433.8 Million euro

3. Novelties in Horizon2020 calls  More emphasis on innovation –Calls are less descriptive - they do not outline the expected solutions to the problem, nor the approach to be taken to solve it –Room for applicants to propose innovative solutions  More emphasis on impact (including policy)  Emphasis on inter-disciplinary and cross-sectorial aspects  Important cross-cutting issues –Social Sciences and Humanities - address European challenges –Gender dimension in the content of R&I –Open to international cooperation –Other such as science education, open access to scientific publications, ethics, standardization …

4. The evaluation process Commission rejection decision Commission rejection decision Remote individual evaluation Local consensus meetings Evaluation Summary Report Commission ranking Rejected Ranked lists Commission funding decision Contract signature Commission funding decision Contract signature Grant preparation Commission rejection decision Commission rejection decision STAGE 1 Proposals GO STAGE 2 Proposals NO GO

5. Key evaluation criteria Clarity and pertinence of the objectives Soundness of the concept, including trans-disciplinary considerations, where relevant Extent that proposed work is ambitious, has innovation potential, and is beyond the state of the art (e.g. ground-breaking objectives, novel concepts and approaches) Credibility of the proposed approach Clarity and pertinence of the objectives Soundness of the concept, including trans-disciplinary considerations, where relevant Extent that proposed work is ambitious, has innovation potential, and is beyond the state of the art (e.g. ground-breaking objectives, novel concepts and approaches) Credibility of the proposed approach Excellence

6. Key evaluation criteria The expected impacts listed in the work programme under the relevant topic Enhancing innovation capacity and integration of new knowledge Strengthening the competitiveness and growth of companies by developing innovations meeting the needs of European and global markets; and, where relevant, by delivering such innovations to the markets Any other environmental and socially important impacts (not already covered above) Effectiveness of the proposed measures to exploit and disseminate the project results (including management of IPR), to communicate the project, and to manage research data where relevant The expected impacts listed in the work programme under the relevant topic Enhancing innovation capacity and integration of new knowledge Strengthening the competitiveness and growth of companies by developing innovations meeting the needs of European and global markets; and, where relevant, by delivering such innovations to the markets Any other environmental and socially important impacts (not already covered above) Effectiveness of the proposed measures to exploit and disseminate the project results (including management of IPR), to communicate the project, and to manage research data where relevant Impact

7. Key evaluation criteria Coherence and effectiveness of the work plan, including appropriateness of the allocation of tasks and resources Complementarity of the participants within the consortium (when relevant) Appropriateness of the management structures and procedures, including risk and innovation management Coherence and effectiveness of the work plan, including appropriateness of the allocation of tasks and resources Complementarity of the participants within the consortium (when relevant) Appropriateness of the management structures and procedures, including risk and innovation management Implementation

8. Common problems  Call topic only partly addressed  Insufficient novelty / unrealistic ambitions  Weak interaction/association btw partners  Vague description of WPs  Limited contribution to European competitiveness –In terms of deliverables –In terms of exploitation / dissemination (reach-out to stakeholders/ policy/ public) Vague steps Generic terminology Lack of strategy

9.  READ VERY CAREFULLY the description of the specific Call  ADDRESS ALL KEY POINTS  PRESENT DISTINCT – APPROPRIATE AIMS  BUILD A DIVERSE NETWORK WITH ALL NECESSARY EXPERTISE  DEMONSTRATE COMPLEMENTARITY OF WPs  WRITE A COMPREHENSIVE – CLEAR – CONCISE PROPOSAL  REMEMBER :  SCIENCE  EXPLOITATION  DISSEMINATION  MANAGEMENT