In a recent European H2020 call our lab has been awarded a very exciting and pioneering grant. The evaluation summary report was quite long and with a lot of feedback on what we did right to get the proposal approved. I believe this can be a great resource for other teams building and writing similar proposals. This is an excerpt of the report for Criterion 2 – Impact, where we got an score of 5. Just a few confidential bits about the project specific goals have been removed.
Note: The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent to which the outputs of the project should contribute† at the European and/or International level.
The extent to which the outputs of the project would contribute to the expected impacts listed in the work programme under this topic
Evaluator 1
The proposal features a radical vision and disruptive innovation. It has the potential of providing solutions for other fields, such as —– . There is good potential for long-term commercialization of developed technologies and job creation within Europe, which can be carried out by the involved SME. Applicants identified a pathway towards future clinical studies, which adds to the long-term impact. Potential industrial interactions with the medical device industry are also outlined, which could be promising for future technology maturation and transfer. The proposal will involve early-career researchers adding to the European research excellence. The participants apply for the first-time to FET.
Evaluator 2
This proposal has a high potential to leverage a radically new line of technology (—–). Advances in the technologies pushed forward by the presented concept will lead to long-term benefits for other applications in —–. The results of the project will improve patients’ survival and quality of life and contribute to the sustainability of healthcare systems. The developed platform will provide the highest flexibility to support unprecedented applications in —–. The project will involve young scientists that will receive the appropriate training to develop a wide range of scientific skills to broaden their professional horizon.
Evaluator 3
This project will contribute the expected initial focus of developing a product that can be used to treat —— which will have wide impact on the large number of EU and international patients suffering from —–. There will be associated economic healthcare benefits. The project will also train researchers in this important and growing research area.
Evaluator 4
Estimated project impact demonstrates convincingly a very good potential to establish a solid baseline of know-how – by providing the techniques and mechanisms that will allow ——, and to strengthen a research community by developing technologies for —–. Proposal involve young scientists and ambitious high-tech SME. In long-term perspective, synergies with other industrial partners are foreseen. This very good matches with two of the expected impacts of the work programme – building leading research and innovation capacity across Europe and facilitating future social or economic impact (creation of the market of ——).
Effectiveness of measures and plans to disseminate and use the results, including management of IPR and to communicate about the project to different target audiences.
Evaluator 1
The proposal has the ambition of a strong online presence through the use of social media tools and a dedicated project website. The communication matrix is well developed and different audiences are taken into account. Data management and technology transfer activities are recognized as a separate task, which is a strong point. An exploitation plan for the foreground is foreseen, which will provide clarity on IPR aspects. The proposers plan to organize a final open scientific conference, which adds to the dissemination outcomes. A potential shortcoming is the lack of outreach to specialized medical device companies in the Advisory Board.
Evaluator 2
The communication plan is highly detailed including diverse target audiences, e.g. patients, health financers and associations, health companies, and the general public. The dissemination plan includes open-access publications, conference presentations, training, and education courses, as well as data storage in open repositories. The dissemination to the public includes the development of project website, press releases, and promotions on social media. The project includes a fair and transparent IPR policy regarding patents, rights of ownership, and exploitation of results.
Evaluator 3
A variety of appropriate methods to disseminate the research to stakeholders have been described. It is clear how the IP will be managed and what the proposed translational and commercial road map is. As such, the plans to manage IP are effective. The plans to communicate to a wider audience are effective and appropriate.
Evaluator 4
The draft plans for the exploitation and dissemination are well conceived and go far beyond the standard dissemination to scientific communities (through scientific publications, conferences, seminars, workshops) and foresee specific activities to reach additional stakeholders attention and wider public engagement. IPR management is relevant.
Andrés Alba-Pérez 