MCFA news Newsletter of the Marie Curie Fellowship Association ======================================================== MARIE CURIE FELLOWSHIPS WHAT DO WE REALLY THINK ABOUT THEM? The MCFA poll With the 5th Framework Programme (FP5) being almost over, it is a good time to have a brief look on the theory and practice of Marie Curie Fellowships. We asked our members to share their opinions; specifically, to express what they liked and what were the main problems encountered during their fellowship. With the statistical results on one side and the individual opinions on the other, we can have a clear picture. The scientific component of the fellowship is nearly always the strong point; however, there is no end to problems associated with administration of the fellowships! Concerning the first issue, the opinions range from "excellent science", "a very good place to do science", "good laboratory", "OK", right up to "no space to develop scientific career". The latter negative opinions are a minority, but still evident. Most of us would recommend the Host institute. It might be an idea to establish a list of "recommended institutions" - just to make sure that the new Marie Curie Fellows choose their respective host knowing what to expect? It is not only the issue of scientific excellence that should be taken into account, but also should the "human factor". Is the host research group helpful and friendly? Is there evidence of teamwork or more individualised research? The answers to these and other similar questions are often only found out once the MC Fellow has been installed in the Host institute and not before. While the scientific side of the Marie Curie fellowship scheme was found to be quite satisfactory, one should note the high degree of disappointment with the administrative side. It appears that many Host institutions still have not learned how to deal with the fellowships properly. Indeed, there were numerous complaints concerning contractual issues, management of the fellowships, as well as general administrative problems. One should regret that so many years after the introduction of european postdocs and so many discussions about the common (or particular) problems, we are still far from smooth application of the fellowship scheme. It is definitely not a good sign for the future of European research! The very basic complaints concern the management of money. Despite clear rules in the contract, it happens quite often that the host institution wants to manage the grant money without taking due care of the needs of the fellow. Sometimes, it is just that the fellow is unaware of the amount of research money that he/she can use. In other situations, he/she is prevented from using these research funds, putting the fellow in a very delicate position - it is difficult to fight your Host institute! We believe that there is still much to do. There needs to be concerted effort to reduce the number of institutions that "show a clear lack of knowledge on what MC fellowships are and their importance", as somebody expressed it in the poll. We asked also about the "country factor", i.e. whether the fellows encountered any general problems, whether administrative, language-based and/or cultural. It was encouraging to hear opinions like "a pleasant country to live"; however, it is difficult to accept that still many fellows are complaining about bureaucracy and the inevitable tax problems. The schematic diagram below indicates clearly the countries in which National Contact Points (NCPs) would need to work even harder during the next Framework Programme. While talking about NCPs, we must note that only 25% of Fellows were in contact with their respective Contact Points - and for more than 70% of these the contact was more or less helpful. Still, there remains much to be done as the opinions about the competence and willingness of NCPs to solve both practical and contractual matters are often mixed. Finally, we obtained some interesting feedback from our members could constitute nice guidelines for the forthcoming FP6. More than 70% of Marie Curie Fellows are interested in participating in this Programme in one form or another. We treat this statistic as a general indication of the success of the European research programs and we believe that the voice of fellows, with their remarks and suggestions constitutes a significant guideline both for the practice of FP6 as well as for the construction of the European Research Area. Dr. Andrzej Sitarz Andrzej Sitarz is research assistant in Mathematical Physics at the Jagiellonian University, Cracow, Poland. He is currently board member of the MCFA and the Editor of the Newsletter. Full results and answers are available on the MCFA web : http://www.mariecurie.org/surveys/fellowships/results.html ============================================================================ MCFA in transition ============================================================================ Dear reader of the MCFA news, Almost exactly six years ago, Edith Cresson, then European commissioner for research, invited a group of young scientists to a seminar in Brussels. The invited participants were holders of an individual fellowship granted by the European Commission. The superordinate aim of the meeting was to give the EU fellowship programme a clear identity. Like many other well-recognised fellowship schemes, the fellowships awarded by the European Commission should be made recognisable by a name - a trademark - that stands for the quality of the grant recipient. The name "Marie Curie Fellowships" was chosen and it was decided to establish an organisation that would contribute to the public awareness of the Marie Curie Fellowships. The Marie Curie Fellowship Association (MCFA) was born. The aims of the association were even extended. Not only was it envisaged to spread the word about Marie Curie Fellowships and to brand them as a trademark for scientific quality, but it was also planned to build up a network amongst Marie Curie Fellows that could be useful for personal and scientific contacts and to make the voice of young excellent mobile researchers heard in discussions on science policy. The association was equipped with a generous grant from the European Commission from which an office with personnel, several annual general assemblies and many other international and national meetings could be covered or financially supported. The association grew fast to one of the largest multidisciplinary scientists organisations in Europe. Many MCFA volunteers were enthusiastically working for the ideas of the association, organised conferences and meetings, wrote various articles for newspapers, organised the scientific publication of the MCFA, the MCFA Annals, collected information that would be useful for new fellows and much more. For me, it was amazing to see how easy one could come into contact with other fellows and how helpful the work of many members was in making the association useful and meaningful. Probably from even the very start of the association, it suffered from problems related to the nature of its members. The responsibility of the day to day running of the association was placed into the hands of mostly PhD students or post-docs, who were in the middle of their struggle to establish themselves professionally. Despite some extraordinary efforts, many responsibles could not commit themselves for more than a limited period of time, or were sometimes even forced to stop working for the MCFA due to professional changes. Many responsibles had only little or no experiences with teamwork, leadership and organisation. Moreover, the number of members willing to spend time with the MCFA decreased after some time. Some members misunderstood their MCFA responsibilities and used their positions to make contacts for their personal use rather than to represent the MCFA. An apparent turning point came in early 2001 when the grant awarded by the European Commission stopped. It was known that these funds were only limited to three years. The exact timing of the end of the funding period came, however, as a surprise and forced the MCFA board to swiftly act in order to avoid a financial collapse of the association. It was only due to the outstanding efforts of some board members, and I want to mention Dagmar M. Meyer, Isabel E. de Salamanca and Ana M. Cerdeńo, and of our secretariat employee Jennifer McClarey that a sudden death of the MCFA could be avoided. The lack of funding and the decreasing active participation of MCFA members in daily MCFA work made it necessary to change the business model of the MCFA. The current MCFA board, which was elected on 10 March 2002, aims at concentrating on what seems to us most important in securing benefit for the MCFA. We have drastically reduced costs. The MCFA does not have a paid employee anymore; we do now all administrative work ourselves; we have moved to a cheaper Internet provider and - of course - we have stopped funding meetings. We have developed our Internet presence and have introduced mariecurie.org e-mail addresses for all members. The database was extended and made more accessible for members. It is now possible to search the members database with various search criteria like scientific field, fellowship institute, current location and much more. We continue to offer a rich collection of career relevant information on our website. Despite the lack of funding, we have been represented at many international conferences and meetings such as the Joint conference of EARMA and Euroscience (JCEE 2002) in Hungary or the conference on "Flexible Europe - Mobility as a tool for enhancing research capacity" in Talinn, as well as at several workshops organised by the European Commission. MCFA members have been publishing articles in Science Next Wave and we have been contributing to discussions on the European Research area and the to-be-formed European Research Council. We have organised a conference on water policy with more than 100 participants and we finally published the Annals II volume with scientific articles from more than 20 MCFA members working in different areas of research. This list of achievements clearly indicates the directions and also chances for the MCFA. We have managed to voice the concerns of young mobile researchers in times where there is a lack of clearly defined representatives for this group of scientists. We have been contributing to the awareness of Marie Curie Fellowships through a scientific publication and through organising a scientific conference. Moreover, we have been developing possibilities for MCFA members to get in contact with each other. The MCFA discussion forum provides a powerful communication interface, which many similar organisations simply lack. The change of our business model also illustrates the relationship between the MCFA and the European Commission, as well as the Marie Curie Fellowship scheme. During the past year and a half, we have demonstrated that we can work independently from the European Commission. Contrary to a common misconception, the MCFA is currently not dependent on the European Commission in any way. While the aims of the European Commission represented by the Marie Curie Fellowship Unit and the MCFA might overlap, they do not necessarily coincide. The MCFA provides an organisational structure and voice for scientists who at some point in time were awarded a Marie Curie Fellowship. Indeed, it is our view that awardees stay Marie Curie Fellows throughout their career. The issues taken up by the MCFA will certainly always be related to the work conditions of young mobile scientists in Europe, but as an organisation we represent far more than just the interests of current fellows. The decision to introduce membership fees was very hard and I don't want to conceal the fact that the fees discussion was always controversial even within the board. The current running costs force us to look for other money sources. Not only that we have costs for the Internet presence and inevitable postage costs, we also would like to be able to fund members to visit meetings, let it be our own meetings or meetings that the MCFA board deems as important forum to represent MCFA interests. There are other costs for instance for administrative work, which could be done by employed personnel on a part time basis to take some burden from MCFA board members. Our efforts during the first years of existence of the MCFA to attract sponsors were not successful with few exceptions were certain conferences were sponsored. Thus, we currently see no other way to secure the financial basis of the association than to ask for membership fees. The MCFA statutes do not permit non-paying members as soon as fees are introduced. Moreover, at the last General Assembly it was decided that all members are supposed to pay membership fees, with some reductions for specially defined groups of members. The MCFA board is aware of the fact that many members are not (yet) ready to spend 40 Euros for being member of the MCFA. We have therefore designed a new status, the MCFA affiliate, to allow former members who have decided not to pay fees to stay in touch with the association. The MCFA affiliates have access to their data in the MCFA database, but will not be able to access other MCFA membership benefits like access to data of other members or the Discussion forum etc. The details are described in the MCFA members area. We very much hope that many members will decide to continue being member of the MCFA. Even more, we hope that many more members will be ready to actively contribute to MCFA activities, for instance through assuming responsibility as board member or as national representative of the MCFA or through taking part in a MCFA working group. The MCFA has the potential of being a unique scientists organisation representing many of Europe's most excellent scientists. We invite you who is reading these lines to consider your own possibilities to contribute to building up our association. Dr. Winfried Meining Winfried Meining is MCFA Chair and webmaster. He is currently research assistant at the Center for Structural Biochemistry, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm and teacher at Södertörns Högskola. ============================================================================ SWAP 2002 ============================================================================ A successful Euroconference on "Science for Water Policy (SWAP), the Implications of the Water Framework Directive" was held on 2nd - 4th September 2002 in Norwich, UK. It was jointly organised by the Marie Curie Fellowship Association (MCFA) and the University of East Anglia (UEA), and sponsored by the European Commission through their High Level Scientific Conferences programme (contract Number HPCF-CT-2001-00351), as well as the Environment Agency for England and Wales. 108 participants met at the University of East Anglia and discussed the potential contribution of science to the implementation of European water policy, covering all aspects of water management from groundwater to surface water, and from freshwater ecosystems to estuaries and coastal waters. Plenary sessions were dedicated to keynote speeches from major players in the European water sector, including industry, NGOs, and national organisations in charge of implementing the Directive. Scientists from 20 different countries, including a large number of young scientists, presented 29 posters and 50 papers, on topics ranging from defining good water quality status and monitoring to economic analysis, public participation and integrated river basin management. Conclusions were discussed in a final round table session. The meeting will result in recommendations for further areas of research. Do you think EC should facilitate support of Marie Curie Fellows to stay in touch with their host institute after their fellowship ? Yes, 86% No A clear overarching conclusion was that research would need to take place on two different time scales. Deadlines for implementing the directive are every tight, and in the first instance what is needed is not further data collection and complex modelling, but harmonisation of existing models, integration of available knowledge and translation of current research into operational tools. For further implementation and iterative steps, however, there is a real need for further research to make sure the right scientific questions are addressed. Scientists must face the challenge of providing timely and practical information to decision makers. This is a historical opportunity to shape policy based on sound science, while also addressing sustainable development issues. Proceedings will be available from the following conference web site around mid October: http://www.mariecurie.org/swap Laure Ledoux Laure Ledoux, former Chair of MCFA, holds an ESRC research post at the Centre for Social and Economic research on the Global Environment at the University of East Anglia. ============================================================================ Why should the MCFA (NOT ?) "dissolve" in Euroscience ? ============================================================================ Joining Euroscience (ES) was discussed a few months ago in a quite enthusiastic way. ES offered to take over the Marie Curie Fellowship Organisation (MCFA) and create a specific subgroup in ES, where the old MCFA would be organised within. As ES requests membership fees (€35/year), ES agreed on settling the annual fees for MCFA members for the first few years (the exact number of years was something to be determined). This proposal was discussed when the MCFA was in a very critical state and had problems in motivating members not only to provide scarce feedback but also to invest some time in the organisation to secure its existence. The second alternative favoured by me was to cut back the organisation from the form people are accustomed to from the early years. To be honest, I did not have that much trouble with that concept, not knowing the old form. I tried to point out that joining ES is more a way of resigning than keeping the MCFA alive. However, some advantages of joining ES were pointed out as well (see later on in this article). In order to inform the discussion and facilitate a conclusion, this article summarises the pros and cons for joining ES. The article includes my view that a decision should not only be based on the sum of advantages and disadvantages, but should also reflect our current situation and potential to develop. What is the current situation of the MCFA? Currently, the MCFA is not readily visible. There are several national groups with national co-ordinators like myself, which are not very visible to the fellows. During the last few weeks, quite a lot has changed; this newsletter is a product of this change. However, there are still many parts of the MCFA that are dormant and, due to lack of activities, there is no consistent feedback from the base either. This has to do with, on the one hand, the fact that most co-ordinators are not dedicating any, or at least not enough, time to ensure visibility of the national groups and MCFA to the members. The second cause is due, as many have indicated, to lack of current finances to fund any activities. The second cause could perhaps be overcome by creativity, as you can see with our example in The Netherlands. However, this affords again some time dedication from the national co-ordinators; giving rise again to a vicious circle. Above them, there is an international board of several quite active people, who are suffering under constant work overload due to lack of personnel. At present, the MCFA cannot mobilise its members. Attendance at national or international meetings is very low, as the MCFA does not have the finances available to refund the travel costs of members attending such meetings. In former times, the MCFA created somehow the image of a kind of "holiday-organisation", where you could refund your travel costs to nice European locations, preferably in the South. Many new, current fellows do not know the organisation at all or do not see any benefit in joining the organisation anymore. Benefits like networking or an e-mail address at our web site are not stimulating sufficient interest. The way out?! Joining ES would foremost help on the administrative level. ES has a dedicated office in Strasbourg with permanent staff, who take care of administrative duties and facilitate the distribution of ideas and positions. Thus, the members themselves are free to invest their energy on textual and conceptual work and do not have to tackle onerous administrative tasks. This might mean, for example, that the editors of the MCFA Annals would only have to review the articles, while the relevant ES administrative staff would compile all the articles into a printable version for distribution. This would perhaps increase the number of people who are willing to invest a portion of their free time to pursue the goals of "Euroscience - subdivision MCFA". But is joining ES the right way to fight this dilemma? I think not! In the following section, I will try to clarify, why I think this way. In my opinion, joining ES would not mediate any significant change with respect to the commitment of the members. It is just another organisation far away from the daily life of many people. On a general administrative level, ES is an organisation similar to the MCFA. ES simply perform better than the MCFA in securing proper funding so as to have sufficient financial power to sustain their various activities. There will be a MCFA subgroup within ES, but to my mind, simply joining ES is only trying to win some time before the complete fadeout. This move would only have an effect on the administrative side of our organisation; it would not change anything regarding the member commitment to and identification of active people within the MCFA. So why join ES and loose the MCFA entirely? I do not think that the current lack of funding is the only question to deal with. We have to find out what we want to use our own engagement and energy for. The question of funding will resolve itself afterwards. If we know what we want to do regarding the content of our work, I am sure we will obtain the required funding. But in the beginning, we have to ensure that we have something to tell; that we have a clear idea of what we want to do and that there is a benefit to the continued existence of the MCFA. ES succeeded in this for themselves and joining them would mean that we could benefit from their position. Again, that would mean losing, at least partly, our identity. Concepts of the organisations We currently display a lack of visible identity to the outside and, more crucially, to the inside. In this state, joining ES would mean losing our identity entirely and being fully incorporated into theirs. I do not like that idea, since I think the concepts of the two organisations are quite different. The MCFA started as an association of individuals, who were previously or are currently Marie Curie fellows. Quite elitist, one might say. However, it does express a commonality found between all members. ES, on the other hand, is an association of individuals who are in some way interested in the integration of European science. The focus of our organisation is oriented towards fellows living in a foreign country, with consequent emphasis on mobility issues in Europe. This would be just one item of several within an ES framework. However, one of the drawbacks of the MCFA is that we currently concentrate too much on simply giving advice about physical mobility, without pursuing other relevant issues at length. We should also examine career development both during and, especially, after completion of the fellowship. By doing so, the MCFA might affect a positive change in present scientific career structures, in which a stay abroad represents more often a "lost" period of time in the CV than a successful step in the career progression of young scientists. Think of how much more input we could give on how to live mobility in a sustainable way. The MCFA could highlight novel career concepts by providing examples of different ways of working and living within science. ES focuses very much on this issue and that is why joining forces could be of some benefit to both organisations. But again, why should we give up our identity? I think we can accomplish a fruitful co-operation with ES, without the need for complete merging. ES has a permanent office in Strasbourg. This is often mentioned as a major advantage of joining ES. The MCFA once had its own office (located in Brussels), which had to be closed due to lack of funding. Why is an office crucial? It provides an initial contact point. Moreover, the administration of members details can be handled here. The organisation would be considered as being "more present". The issue of membership administration has to be seen within the context of fee introduction. If we introduce fees, it is expected that about three quarters of the current membership will simply resign. We would then end up with about 500 members (any more than this, I would be very happy). Many organisations can arrange such an administration on the shoulders of voluntary workers without being a complete mess. Moreover, we already have a very good web page and database of members (better than that of ES), which can and does take over several administrative tasks. I have to admit that some legal affairs still need written paperwork. Even in the time of the Internet and all the other electronic wizards, which help in daily life, paperwork is still needed (I'm glad it is this way!). However, is an office the only place to keep such documentation? Perhaps we should think about a more efficient way to keep the relevant paperwork and store the most important documents at the chair of our organisation. This is a point we have to discuss and solve during the following months. Currently, our organisation has a very low number of active members. To my mind, the administration of these can be accomplished without the need of a permanent office. If we grow, the number of active members and generated income will rise and we may have to then think about a permanent office. But why plan for that now? Good representation is crucial to the success of an organisation. ES is currently much better than we are at this level; I do not doubt that. ES has better contacts with the EC and other relevant organisations. By joining ES, our presence on the international ground would increase. At the moment, however, our internal presentation is as important as that perceived by the outside. Some time ago, the following statement was present on the MCFA website: "The MCFA is in a critical situation". That is true, but can we fight the crisis by concentrating only on how external entities view the MCFA? By solely concentrating on improving our external image, we cannot expect to raise the commitment of our current members or attract new ones. Joining ES would mostly have an effect on the outside, but leave the inner situation virtually unaffected. Why should somebody join "ES-subdivision MCFA", if he/she already does not know why she/he is a member of the MCFA nowadays? Focus of the organisations ES has a much more political focus than the MCFA. I am a relatively "new" member, being only about one and a half years within the MCFA. As I understood the MCFA, it is particularly dedicated to the topic of mobility within Europe. As active mobile researchers, we know where the current problems are and can advise as how to best change these. As each of our members either has worked or still works for a certain period in a foreign country, we share a common bond. In an organisation like ES, this focus on mobility issues would be broadened and political points-of-view on other special topics would be more prominent. These issues affect our daily life as scientists. There are perhaps a discrete number of members working in projects that, according to the point-of-view of ES (as detailed on their website), are not tolerable. For example, imagine a Marie Curie Fellow working in the area of stem cell research. Would this fellow remain outside? How would I reach such a potential member of our organisation, who might not participate because of the point-of-view of ES? Therefore, we should remain as apolitical as possible. At face value, it could look like MCFA would be taking over ES based on respective differences in the number of members. When one looks at the number of active people within both organisations, however, this image changes drastically. Conclusion We should not join ES, as it shifts our focus in a direction that places problems in front of some of our members. We can get out of these difficult times on our own, if we put more stress on our own organisation and try to regain strength by showing more activity to our members. I think that there is a definite chance for the MCFA and we should not give it up by joining ES. I believe in the MCFA and do not like the idea of giving up the potential that MCFA has. On the other hand, however, we have to start using this potential and reach and bind our members to the association. Dr. Ing. Bernd Ohlmeier I would like to thank Dagmar M. Meyer for interesting and challenging discussions during the composition of this article Bernd Ohlmeier is currently the National Coordinator of the Dutch group. From December 1st 2002 he will be working within DSM Research, dep. CT&A ACES in Geleen. ============================================================================ Germany's Lost Generation? ============================================================================ The initiative wissenschaftlichernachwuchs.de was founded in December 2000 when the governmental plans for a reform of the university system became imminent. Since there is no official representation of young scientists in Germany, some graduates and postdocs organised an informal movement. They formulated a manifesto entitled "Lost Generation" - due to the fact that the actual outlines of the new law on the whole are totally neglecting the interests of young scientists. In a certain way, the new law is even threatening future academic careers. The manifesto, which has been supported by ~9,500 individuals by now, was handed over to Minister Edelgard Bulmahn on 31st May 2001 - with no visible effect. During the following months, we tried to obtain greater influence regarding discussion of the government's projects and, by doing so, to defend the interests of all young scientists. The initiative agrees with the government that fundamental changes are urgently required. However, some of the essentials of the new law, especially those concerning new qualifications and conditions for an academic career, are rejected. Although there were many discussions with governmental representa-tives, only a few changes were achieved and the law became effective at the end of 2001. Nevertheless, wissenschaftlichernachwuchs.de further engages in showing the consequences of the new law. The number of supporters grows steadily. Meanwhile, there are a number of cases in which contracts for young scientists were not renewed and those scientists chose to leave Germany and obtain work elsewhere. Public interest was high at this point, and nearly all media reported such cases. There is small hope that further improvements may be achieved when the law is put into legislation in the different federal states. Problems of the new German "Hochschulrahmengesetz" The implementation of 6,000 new professorships called "Juniorprofessoren" (inspired by the US assistant professor) will annihilate a great number of existing positions for postdocs, especially for those who have already received their second doctor's degree (germ. Habilitation) and as such qualify for a full professorship but who are not yet appointed. Furthermore, most of these new professorships will be probably created by abolishing vacant senior professorships. As such, the number of full professorships will also decrease, especially in the cultural and social sciences, where for one professorship position there are often 100 or more applicants. These highly motivated and well-trained individuals have worked hard for 10 to 15 years to assure their progression in an academic career - now, they are considered as either too old and/or lacking in innovation! However, the new law does not improve prospects for the next generation. Students who are about to graduate have to decide on whether to obtain the second doctoral degree (Habilitation) which, in a transitional period until 2009, will simultaneously qualify for a full professorship - or to apply for a post as a "Juniorprofessor". Meanwhile, some represen-tatives from the official council of German Universities, the "Fakultätentage", have declared that they will continue considering the Habilitation as the required qualification for a full professorship - therefore, young scientists will remain constrained within the current lengthy promotional process! The new law also bears inequities for certain groups and - on the whole - disadvantages for the scientific community. It is one of the primary intentions of the government to give new vigour to the scientific staff; therefore, the duration of the postgraduate period for further qualification all together will be limited to six years for a doctorate and six years of postdoctoral research. Scientists that do not fit in with this ideal career format will be excluded, especially those without an appointment for the six years of postdoctoral research. It seems that youth in itself is higher evaluated than personal and scientific experience. Women, especially, continue to be discriminated - much against Mrs. Bulmahns eager assertions: two years are considered as enough for the education of children! It was another major aim of the draft to allow postgraduates to work more independently from their academic tutors in an earlier phase of their career. While the initiative fully supports this idea, it sees precarious consequences resulting from the numerous obligations of the Juniorprofessor. According to the new law, a Juniorprofessor has to teach four to eight hours a week; he/she has to raise money from funding programmes or industrial sponsors (this is also taken into consideration for his/her further evaluation!) and he/she has to work on his/her scientific qualification, i.e. to publish a second monograph. In short, he/she has the same rights as a full senior professor but more duties than before - and all this without any real economic perspective. As a consequence, the quality of research and teaching will decline and, in fact, students will once more be the victims of an academic reform. Last but not least, though the Junior professor will no longer depend on his/her personal tutor, he/she will now be submitted to the faculty deciding on the extension of his/her contract after the first three years. Proposals Wissenschaftlichernachwuchs.de has several propositions as to how the governmental draft could be modified. The Junior professorship should be provided with a tenure track to avoid all the demoralising uncertainties mentioned above. Furthermore, the Junior professorship should by no means turn out to be a means of discrimination against other qualified scientists. The teaching obligations of the Junior professor should be cut down to four hours per week to leave enough time for preparation and research. The current generation of postgraduates and their experience should not be excluded from the reform process. The existing post-doc positions on a fixed-term contract base could be transformed into (Junior) professorships with no particular time limitations. To stimulate the aspired innovation as fast and as effective as possible, the creation of new funding-professorships would be helpful, professorships which are assigned to highly qualified scientists and expire automatically, when the holder leaves his/her position. Contact and further Information: www.wissenschaftlichernachwuchs.de Dr. Jutta Heinz Initiative Wissenschaftlichernachwuchs.de ============================================================================ There are some important changes in the fellowship part of the horizontal side of FP6: ============================================================================ * Marie Curie Fellowships would now comprise Intra-European Fellowships (basically as were Marie Curie Fellowships up to now), Outgoing International Fellowships (which involve a research phase outside Europe and a mandatory phase in Europe afterwards) and Incoming International Fellowships (designed to attract researchers from third countries to work and undertake research training in Europe and which may include provision to assist fellows to return to their country of origin) * There will be no age limit for Marie Curie Fellowships! * Instead of "Return"-type Fellowships there will be Return and Reintegration Grants * The name of Marie Curie shall be also used in other parts of the horizontal programs: Marie Curie Research Training Networks, Marie Curie Host Fellowships for Early Stage Research Training, Marie Curie Host Fellowships for the Transfer of Knowledge, Marie Curie Conferences and Training Courses, Marie Curie Excellence Awards and Marie Curie Chairs. The official EU page on FP6 is: http://www.cordis.lu/fp6/ ============================================================================ Courses by Hyperion: ============================================================================ Title of Course Date Location How to Write a Competitive Proposal for Framework 6 17th Oct 2002 Bonn, Germany How to Negotiate, Manage and Administer an EU R&D Contract 18th Oct 2002 Bonn Germany How to Write a Competitive Proposal for Framework 6 19th Nov 2002 Bonn, Germany How to Write a Competitive Proposal for Framework 6 20th Nov 2002 Bonn, Germany How to Write a Competitive Proposal for Framework 6 4th Dec 2002 Copenhagen How to Write a Competitive Proposal for Framework 6 5th Dec 2002 Copenhagen How to Write a Competitive Proposal for Framework 6 21st Jan 2003 Brussels How to Write a Competitive Proposal for Framework 6 22nd Jan 2003 Brussels How to Write a Competitive Proposal for Framework 6 23rd Jan 2003 Brussels ============================================================================ FP6 shall be the first European Research Frame-work to take place in the enlarged EU (provided that the candidate countries join the EU in 2004). However, almost all candidate and associate countries already took part in FP5 - here, we would like to present their opinions and evaluation of their participation: we begin with Hungary and Poland. HUNGARIAN PARTICIPATION IN THE MARIE CURIE FELLOWSHIP PROGRAMME OF FP5 ============================================================================ Although the final results of the programmes in FP5 are not known yet, the statistics published by the European Commission (First report on Marie Curie Fellowships in FP5 (1999); Annual Report on Marie Curie Fellowships in FP5 (2000)) show that the participation of Hungarian researchers in the Marie Curie individual fellowship schemes have been sufficient compared to the participation of other candidate countries, but it fell short of the success rates of most EU Member States. However, those Member States having similar size and population have achieved similar results. On average, 50% of submitted Hungarian Marie Curie Individual Fellowship proposals have been funded. As a contribution to this quite high success rate, it is worth mentioning that Hungarian applicants have many possibilities in getting information on the programme, as well as help in preparing proposals. Information days have been organised regularly to inform Hungarian researchers as to the various opportunities available. The National Contact Point for the IHP programme, colleagues of the Hungarian FP5 consultation offices and a special bureau for the IHP programme have provided support for applicants. However, it is obvious that the relatively low number of submitted proposals also plays a significant role in achieving this rate. On the other hand, the level of Hungarian participation in the Marie Curie Host Fellowship scheme has not been satisfactory in FP5. A poor level of participation in this scheme has been characteristic not only for Hungary, but also for most CEE regions. The Marie Curie Host Fellowship scheme has been obviously dominated by the United Kingdom, France and Germany, which are traditionally popular target countries of the mobility flow. One of the main reasons why participation fell behind expectations may be due to certain restrictions that the associated countries were faced with during FP5. Namely, researchers from associated countries were only allowed to carry out their Marie Curie Fellowships in EU Member States and, correspondingly, institutes in the associated countries could host only EU nationals, for whom candidate countries may not be as attractive as for nationals from other CEE candidate countries. The other obstacle which affected not only our participation in the Host but also the Individual Fellowship schemes is that in FP5 Associated Countries were not defined as less-favoured regions. Therefore, some Marie Curie schemes - e.g. development host fellowships, return fellowships - were not available to Hungarian host institutes and researchers. In the Research Training network (IHP) and the Centre of Excellence (INCO2) schemes - which can be a good preparation for participation in the network of excellence activities - Hungarian institutes were much more successful than in the Marie Curie Host Fellowship scheme, thanks to the more flexible systems inherent in these schemes. Hungary welcomes the changes regarding the status of Associated Countries in the mobility schemes of FP6. It is an important development that in all documents related to mobility strategy and schemes, obstacles and restrictions preventing researchers from the candidate countries in participating in all schemes have now been removed. These new elements in the mobility schemes might foster our participation especially in the case of the Host Fellowship scheme. The extension of the reintegration grant system is also welcomed by Hungary as a good tool to counteract the current "brain-drain" from the candidate countries. As a preparation for FP6, it is envisaged to set up Internet sites and compile a brochure for EU and other foreign researchers in Hungary providing reliable information on practical issues such as visa regulations, work permits, accommodation, taxation, social security, health protection, recognition of diplomas etc. A database of potential Hungarian host institutes is also planned which might give an overview for researchers intending to come to Hungary. As part of the Hungarian preparation for FP6, a survey-based study is to be carried out on Hungarian R&D capacities. Institutions have to answer mobility-related questions as well. In connection with this study, another project is planned, in which individual researchers will be contacted directly and a report prepared concerning the mobility of individual researchers. We fully support the initiatives of the European Commission - mobility web portal, network of mobility centres etc. - related to implementing the "Mobility strategy in the European Research Area" as a good way to overcome some of the present deficiencies and create a favourable environment for the mobility of researchers. As part of these actions the Hungarian delegation has been invited to participate in the Steering Committee on mobility and Hungarian participants have been involved in the work of the Pilot Group of Mobility Centres. The first steps towards the implementation of these initiatives have been made in Hungary by identifying potential mobility centres and websites providing mobility-related information. Budapest, 02. 07. 2002 Szonja Csuzdi Hungarian National Contact Point for the IHP programme ============================================================================ COME TO POLAND, HOMELAND OF MARIE CURIE ============================================================================ The Marie Curie Fellowship System raised much interest in Poland and the participation of Polish researchers during the FP5 has been growing continuously. The total number of individual fellows (excluding the unavailable results of final selection in 2002) reached 48 (of 122 who applied), while the number of fellows benefiting from the Host Fellowship scheme exceeds 100. These figures may be considered as success but, compared to the research potential of Poland, the success seems moderate. Therefore, many special promotional/information events and measures are foreseen to increase the level of mobility of Polish researchers during FP6. Concerning "the other side of the mirror", Poland is deeply dissatisfied with strongly unbalanced mobility and the extremely low number of scientists from Member States coming to our institutes. During 3 years, only 6 individual applications have been submitted indicating Polish host institutions and only one of them has been accepted for financing. This undoubtedly results from mental barriers and negative stereotypes still existing in the EU Member States, and has nothing in common with the real situation of research in Poland and other Associated States. A good example of the real potential of Polish institutes is shown by the results of the special call for Centres of Excellence in 2002: as many as 118 Polish institutes have been highly graded during the evaluation and received financing as Centres of Excellence. To counteract negative "désintéressement", the Polish National Contact Point has started special action to encourage researchers from abroad to come to Poland as Marie Curie Fellows under the umbrella of FP6. With more possibilities during FP6 to allow researchers from third countries to become Marie Curie Fellows, we turned our attention not only to the Member States and Associated States but also to neighbouring countries like the Ukraine, Russia, Belarus, and Moldova. A webpage has been prepared especially for this purpose containing the catalogue of institutions and research groups that are interested in hosting Marie Curie Fellows. The catalogue contains more than 150 records and is continuously updated. The relevant address is: http://www.npk.gov.pl/prog_hor_3/stypendia-MC/Katalog.htm Moreover, a list of Polish FP5 Marie Curie Training Sites, Centres of Excellence and partners of Research Training Networks, is available at: http://www.npk.gov.pl/cis-a/ A more active approach is necessary. Therefore, a series of information/promotional events is being prepared in foreign academic centres, with the kind co-operation of several Polish research institutes and the NCPs of other countries, to present the Polish research landscape abroad. The whole action is organised under the heading "COME TO POLAND - HOMELAND OF MARIE CURIE!" Last, but not least, the FP6 mobility system of Marie Curie Fellowships and other opportunities will be presented during the FP6 international launching conference in November in Warsaw. Additionally, a special session is foreseen to discuss achievements, problems and obstacles that exist in the system and possible ways to improve the situation. The participants of the session will be Polish fellows on the one hand and the representative of the European Commission on the other. Wieslaw Studencki Polish National Contact Point ============================================================================ "CAREERS IN THE LIFE SCIENCES" REPORT ON EMBO/ELSF MEETING HELD DURING SEPTEMBER 2002 ============================================================================ "What about Europe's forgotten young researchers"? This provocative question was put forward during an opening keynote talk given by Gottfried Schatz at the recent EMBO/ELSF meeting on "Careers in the Life Sciences" held in Heidelberg from 11th - 13th September 2002. The sentiment behind this question is clear and may be held by a significant proportion of our current members. I, for one, have personal experience of many of my University peers and friends leaving research, not out of desire but out of frustration with "the system". What are the contributory factors to the presently observed stunted progression in professional terms of many high-quality researchers? I will attempt to tackle this question throughout the report from the point-of-view of individuals having completed a Marie Curie Fellowship. The report itself will be embellished by comments and observations made by some of the 42 delegates of the above-mentioned EMBO/ELSF meeting. Delegates came from a variety of backgrounds, including academic and industrial research, as well as major funding organisations and other interested parties, such as the MCFA (with myself as the representative!), Wellcome Trust, Human Frontier Science Programme, EMBO, and Science Next Wave. Why was this meeting held? Frank Gannon of the European Molecular Biology Organisation (EMBO) provided the background. He indicated that European science is at a point of transition, with there being a pressing need to attract and retain bright young scientists into research. While the primary core of EMBO activities involves the enhancement of science through training (e.g. Short- and Long-Term Post-Doctoral Fellowships), there is an increasing focus on the scientists themselves. Current activities specifically address issues that affect scientists, such as women in science, science and society etc. The main principle behind such EMBO initiatives is to identify the bottlenecks connected with pursuance of a career in research. In my view, EMBO perhaps represents the best role model organisation with respect to the long-term career development of life scientists. One caveat, however, is the primary restriction of EMBO assistance to essentially only the top tier of molecular biology researchers in Europe. In addition, the funding model for EMBO is completely different than that presently found at the MCFA, with the finances of the latter not incorrectly stated as being "in the doldrums". Julio Celis of the European Life Sciences Forum (ELSF) indicated the main aim of the ELSF is to bring together life scientists so as to facilitate the united expression of common viewpoints to governmental and other relevant structures. For example, the ELSF has been actively involved in interacting with and lobbying on the format of the upcoming 6th Framework Programme. ELSF also debates numerous ethical and policy issues. Significant discussion was given over during the meeting to the topic of academic structures, with the current bottlenecks in career paths from post-doc to senior professor being tackled in great detail. It was clear from the meeting that considerable differences exist across Europe with respect to professional advancement. Obviously, since the MCFA represents a mobile researcher pool, this topic is of specific interest. Across Europe, major overhauls are taking place within academic organisations regarding the format of employment and promotion. It is crucial that the MCFA is in a position to put forward a unified opinion regarding such academic entry and downstream promotional routes. Many of our members have been and some still are caught in the post-doc to post-doc trap. For our organisation to be truly effective in this arena, we need perhaps to combine our efforts with other relevant organisations, such as EURODOC, to tackle apparent stumbling blocks. While it was generally agreed that the dismantling of existing, archaic academic structures might prove difficult in the short-term, Julio Celis suggested that a vision for the future should be created. In keeping with this concept, an ideal career track system should be designed taking into account the best traits from various European and non-European academic structures. To implement any such developed trans-European initiatives fully, is there a pressing need for an overseeing, common European Research Council? Again, the experiences of MCFA members could come into play here. We, as a group, have experienced the full spectrum of European research, as well as having had to cope with inter-country variations in academic, social and cultural life. The issue of mentoring was also discussed at length. It is not always clear to developing researchers as to the optimum route to follow to meet one's ambitions. Furthermore, it is useful to have an objective point-of-view and sometimes a "shoulder to lean on" at certain times during career progression. Again, the MCFA perhaps offers emerging researchers an ideal opportunity to communicate with peers who have gone through it all before, as well as those still under the same pressures as oneself. Pay, pensions and benefits are always hot topics when two or more MC Fellows get together, and these issues were also addressed during the meeting. Tom Wilson, of the trade union NATFHE, presented data derived from the OECD (www.oecd.org) indicating that scientists are specifically disadvantaged compared to other professions. Again, the data is highly variable across Europe, with interpretation being further clouded by inter-country variation with respect to taxation and non-pay benefits. The data collected by the MCFA poll may also be a useful addition to discussion on pay and other benefits in the European context. Several recommendations were given at the end of the meeting. Firstly, career transitions should be made clear within academia - one should know what to expect in advance. Secondly, greater tolerance of movement between academic and industry should be encouraged in both sectors. Thirdly, there should be widespread and routine implementation of career guidance and mentoring. Fourthly, compensation packages should be more clearly defined, and take into account the specific needs of mobile researchers (e.g. child care, pensions). Finally, checks should to put in place to prevent leakage of dissatisfied individuals from the system. My daily trip to EMBO up the winding, wooded and secluded road on the outskirts of Heidelberg reminded me that the choices and routes open to a scientist along a career path are many and varied. Dr. William M. Gallagher William Gallagher is currently a College Lecturer within the Department of Pharmacology, Conway Institute of Biomolecular and Biomedical Research, University College Dublin. He is the MCFA National Coordinator - Irish Section. ============================================================================ At the Young Scientists Programme of the EARMA-EuroScience conference JCEE2002 (Budapest, June 14-16, 2002), for the first time representatives from the MCFA, Eurodoc, PI-net and Euroscience got together to discuss a topic of prime importance to all four organisations: the emergence of a Europe-wide labour market for young scientists, and the adaptation of training programmes in Europe to new employment opportunities. The MCFA was represented at this event by myself and Bernd Ohlmeier. During the Young Scientists Programme, each group gave a short presentation on what was perceived as missing or inadequate in the current situation with respect to the training of young scientists. Although there were some nuances in the selection of the main points, there was a principal agreement on the following issues: * there is a clear lack of long-term perspectives within academic research; * many young scientists are not aware of the many career opportunities that exist outside of academic research; * University training is often perceived as too specialised by those who do not want to pursue an academic career; * training in transferable skills does not usually form part of the PhD programme; * research training programmes often do not take into consideration the personal or family situation of the young researcher. It was also noted that Young Scientists are often unaware of their own political power which they could exert, for example, through increased involvement in organisations such as MCFA, Eurodoc, PI-net or EuroScience. The Young Scientists Programme of JCEE2002 was to some extent intended as a preparation for the EuroScience conference "New Science and Technology based Professions in Europe" that will take place in Bischenberg, France, on 6-9 November 2002 (see www.euroscience.org for details). MCFA, Eurodoc and PI-net will be represented at that conference and actively contribute to it through concrete recommendations concerning the training of young researchers in Europe. In order to have a solid basis for these recommendations, the four organisations have formed a Joint Working Group which has set up a survey on questions related to the quality of the PhD training in the different European countries, the general flexibility of young scientists, and mobility issues.The survey can be found at http://www.mariecurie.org/surveys/YS_survey Please consider taking part in it. It will continue to run for some time even after the Bischenberg conference; its results will be presented in the next MCFA Newsletter. The Joint Working Group has also set up a public discussion forum at http://www.mariecurie.org/forum where you can post comments on the survey as well as on any other topic related to the theme of the working group. Your input and feedback is very much appreciated. Dr. Dagmar M. Meyer Dagmar M. Meyer is working as a research assistant in Pure Mathematics at the University of Göttingen, Germany. She has been involved in the MCFA since early 1999 and is currently the Secretary General and Treasurer of the association. ============================================================================ ============================================================================ Marie Curie Fellowship Association The Marie Curie Fellowship Asso-ciation is the representative body of all former and current holders of a Marie Curie fellowship. Marie Curie fellowships are research and mobility training grants awarded to scientists by the European Commission. The MCFA is a non-profit organisation, governed by an elected administrative board. Baoard: Winfried Meining (Chair) Nora Brambilla (Vice-Chair) Dagmar Meyer (Secretary General and Treasurer) Andreas Drouzas Marc Corluy Andrzej Sitarz www.mariecurie.org ============================================================================ MCFA News Editors: Andrzej Sitarz (asitarz@mariecurie.org) William M. Gallagher MCFA News is published by the Marie Curie Fellowship Association but the views and opinions expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of the MCFA or the editors. Letters and other contributions are welcomed and should be submitted to Andrzej Sitarz (asitarz@mariecurie.org). Letters and contributions may be shortened for clarity, please include your postal address in your mail. Advertising: please contact the editors or the MCFA board: (board@mariecurie.org) ( Copyright by MCFA, 2002