1. Uwagi recenzenta i uczestnika 6 Programu Ramowego Unii Europejskiej Dr hab. Józef Dulak Zakład Biochemii Komórki Wydział Biotechnologii Uniwersytetu Jagiello ń skiego Ul. Gronostajowa 7, 30-387 Kraków Email: jdulak@mol.uj.edu.pl

2. Life sciences, genomics and biotechnology for health is one of seven major thematic priorities of the European Union´s Sixth FrameWork Programme (FP6). The objective is to help Europe exploit, in this post-genomic era, the unprecedented opportunities for generating new knowledge and translating it into applications that enhance human health. To this end both fundamental and applied research will be supported, with an emphasis on integrated, multidisciplinary, and coordinated efforts that address the present fragmentation of European research and increase the competitiveness of the European biotechnology industry.

3. Seven Priority Thematic Areas (M€ 11,285) 1. Genomics and biotechnology for health 2,255 2. Information society technologies 3,625 3. Nanotechnologies and nanosciences 1,300 4. Food quality and safety 1,075 5. Sustainable development, global change and ecosystems 2,120 6. Citizens and government in a knowledge-based society 225

4. 1.1.1.i. Advanced genomics and its application for health 1.1.1.i.a. Fundamental knowledge and basic tools for functional genomics in all organisms 1.1.1.i.b. Applications of knowledge and technologies in the field of genomics and biotehcnology for health 1.1.1.ii. Combating major diseases 1.1.1.ii.a. Application-oriented genomic approaches to medical knowledge and medical technologies 1.1.1.ii.b. Combating cancer 1.1.1.ii.c. Confronting the major communicable diseases linked to poverty Genomics and biotechnology for health

5. Combating major diseases Application-oriented genomic approaches to:  combating cardiovascular disease, diabetes and rare diseases  combating resistance to antibiotics and other drugs  studying the brain and combating diseases of the nervous system  studying human development and the ageing process

6. Principles of the evaluation Quality Transparency Equality of treatment Impartiality Efficiency

7. Criteria for choice of experts for peer-review evaluation appropriate range of competencies appropriately balanced: academic, industrial, gender geography no conflict of interest (if problems, please alert the moderator) respect confidentiality (no comments outside consensus group) Commission officials organise, supervise and moderate the evaluation presence od independent observer(s)

8. Flow of evaluation process Eligibility check Individual evaluation/review Consensus meeting(s) Panel evaluation Priority list Comission decision Reserve list Negotiation Rejection Not eligible exclusion Comission decision Below a threshold Proposal submission Ethical review Report eligible above a threshold evaluation summary report consensus report

9. Instruments: different type of activities to implement FP6 project New instruments: Integrated Projects (IP) Network of Excellence (NoE) Traditional instruments Specific targeted Research projects (STREP) Coordinated Actions (CA) Specific Support Actions (SSA)

10. Instruments available in the call reviewed (1.1.1.ii.a) 3 topics – IP or NoE 1 topic – IP 2 topics - NoE Antimicrobial drug resistance Brain research and diseases Cardiovascular research Diabetes Rare diseases Human development and aging

11. Instruments available in the call reviewed 3 topics – IP or NoE 1 topic – IP 2 topics - NoE Cardiovascular research Diabetes Rare diseases

12. Evaluation criteria Proposals:  are evaluated against a set of criteria appropriate for each instrument  receive a mark from 0 – 5  have to pass all thresholds to continue for the next step of evaluation IP Criteria Mark Threshold Relevance 0 to 5 3 Potential impact 0 to 5 3 S&T excellence 0 to 5 4 Quality of consortium 0 to 5 3 Quality of managment 0 to 5 3 Mobilisation of resources0 to 5 3 OVERALL 0 to 30 24

13. NoE Criteria Mark Threshold Relevance 0 to 5 3 Potential impact 0 to 5 3 Excellence of participants0 to 5 3 Degree of integration & JPA0 to 5 4 Organisation and managment 0 to 5 3 OVERALL 0 to 25 20 Evaluation criteria

14. Instrument Approximate budget Number % M€ of topics IP & NoE 77 84 16(6) STREP & CA 21 23 8(3) SSA 2 2 6(3) Total 100 10930 Budget for the topic „Applications oriented „Applications oriented genomics approaches to medical knowledge and technologies”

15. Number of projects and those which have passed the threshold Cardiovascular research 15 7 Diabetes 9 3 Rare diseases 21 total passed

16. Results of evaluation IP – points awarded Below threshold 5 1023.5 Above threshold 25.5 27 28 29 NoE – points awarded Below threshold 1 4.5 4.5 16.5 Above threshold 20 23 23.5

17. Amount of M€ the consortia have applied for Points awarded Budget NoE 23.5 15 23 21.5 20 23.5 IP 29 12.5 28 25 27 8.5

18. Comments on the evaluation 1.Chance of success 2.Equality of chances 3.Assessments of the instruments 4.Others

19. Comments on evaluation procedure 1.Well organized 2.Well moderated 3.Different approaches – some types of calls have only on site evaluation 4. Expert choice seems well balanced, although no representative of an industry was present 5. Well paid Problems 1. Delays in reimbursement and payment …

20. Comments on experience of being an expert 1.Recognition of the great quality of the proposals; 2.Knowledge on how the projects should be prepared, written and submitted; a) size b) style of writing c) addressing the important issues (ethical, gender) 3. Knowledge which types of consortia seems to be the best structured – size of the consortia 4. Knowledge on the quality and validity of the instruments

21. Origin of experts CVD DiabetesRare diseases Austria Belgium Hungary Germany (2) Poland (2) Spain Slovenia UK ? ? 4 females 6 males

22. Some facts about experts (collected from EU site) Life sciences – 2003 Total number: 800 Nubmer by selected nationalities: UK – 88 Netherlands30 Germany 75Austria 24 Italy 69Denmark 13 France 54Hungary 10 Spain 51Poland 10 Belgium 42 Estonia 5 http://www.cordis.lu/fp6/experts2003.htm

23. Some facts about Polish experts Life sciences – 2003 Total number: 10 Number by city of origin: Kraków 3 Gdansk2 Poznan 2 Wrocław1 Warszawa 1 ? 1 http://www.cordis.lu/fp6/experts2003.htm

24. Is it helpful for a participant to have the reviewer’s experience? - partially frustrating... - mostly helpful

25. Our research interests role of redox genes in inflammation and angiogenesis: heme oxygenase-1, superoxide dismutase, nitric oxide synthases mechanisms of regulation of VEGF expression gene therapy in cardiovascular diseases role of HMG-CoA-reductase inhibitors in angiogenesis and inflammation inflammation, angiogenesis, gene therapy http://www.mol.uj.edu.pl/~jdulak

26. Experience from being a participant a participant 1.How my group has joined the consortia a) pre-call work – scientific and organisational b) expression of interest c) contacts with proper persons (coordinator) 2. Preparation of the projects - NEST-ADVENTURE - Life Sciences – IP

27. Painful process of pre- and post- submission 1.Electronic submission – smooth 2. Electronic submission – problems

28. Results of evaluation 1.ADVENTURE –rejected - thus resubmitted 2. Integrated project – has passed the threshold - results of evaluation - waiting for the decision

29. Comments on 6 FP 1.Budget not sufficient – too many good projects are rejected 2. NoE – in my opinion it is not a good instrument imp 3. Evaluation of projects prepared by huge consortia is quite difficult 4. Some evaluation criteria should be re-evaluated, particularly „quality of managment” 5. The most important criterion sould be the scientific excellence