1. MOTIVATION
1.1 Why did you move?
1.2 Initiative
1.3 Why did you choose the Marie Curie Fellowship?
1.4 How did you learn about the position at your host institute?
1.5 Alternative funding
2. SALARY
2.1 Was/is the salary sufficient for you and (if applicable) your family/your partner?
2.2 Was/is the EC grant entirely paid to you?
2.3 Did your contract foresee a mobility allowance?
2.4 Did your contract foresee a one time travel allowance?
2.5 Would you have preferred a "real" grant ("stipendium") without a work contract and obligation to pay for social security?
2.6 More comments on SALARY
3. SOCIAL SECURITY
3.1 Do/did you have access to the same social benefits as the other employees?
3.2 Do/did you receive assistance by the host institution with tax, social security, housing and bureaucratic matters?
3.3 Would you have liked to stay in the social system of your home country?
3.4 Health insurance
3.5 Unemployment insurance
3.6 Pension scheme
3.7 Child leave
3.8 More comments on SOCIAL SECURITY
4. SCIENTIFIC QUALITY
4.1 Do you consider you were given enough opportunities to participate in conferences or scientific events?
4.2 Are you satisfied with the scientific support by the host insitution?
4.3 Have you had adequate access to sources of information?
4.4 Could you build up scientific contacts?
4.5 How would you judge the training effect of your Marie Curie Fellowship?
4.6 More comments on SCIENTIFIC QUALITY
5. SOCIAL LIFE
5.1 Can/could you integrate in the host country?
5.2 Can/could you build up personal contacts?
5.3 Is/was the help provided by your Host Institution appropriate/adequate for your integration into the Host Country?
5.4 How is/was your knowledge level of the language spoken in the host country at the beginning of your fellowship?
5.5 What language level do you aim at/did you gain at the end of your fellowship?
5.6 More comments on SOCIAL LIFE
6. FAMILY
6.1 Did you have a family/partner at the beginning of your fellowship
6.2 If yes, did your family/partner follow you?
6.3 More comments on FAMILY
7. EMPLOYMENT
7.1 Is your fellowship concluded?
7.2 Did the fellowship had an impact on your future career?
7.3 Did you find a new position within 3 months after your fellowship?
7.4 Did you want to stay in the host country?
7.5 Did you want to stay in the host institution?
7.6 Did the fellowship help you in finding another position?
7.7 Was the fellowship an obstacle to finding another position?
7.8 Was the fellowship an obstacle to finding a position in your home country?
7.9 More comments on EMPLOYMENT
8. HOME COUNTRY
8.1 Could you keep personal links with your home country?
8.2 Could you keep professional links with your home institution?
8.3 Are you back in your home country?
8.4 Do/did you experience that your qualifications/acquired academic titles are fully acknowledged after the move from one country to another?
8.5 More comments on HOME COUNTRY
9. OBSTACLES TO MOBILITY - SUMMARY
9.1 Difficulties with taxation
9.2 Difficulties with pension systems
9.3 Difficulty to return to home country
9.4 The acknowledgment of diploma/academic qualifications
9.5 Change in social life/contacts
9.6 Worse economical situation
9.7 Other reasons
9.8 More comments on OBSTACLES TO MOBILITY
10. EUROPEAN DIMENSION OF RESEARCH
10.1 How could the coordination of research activities between EU member states be improved?
10.2 What could be done to enhance the mobility of EU researchers?
10.3 What would be the benefits of an enhanced mobility of EU researchers?
10.4 What do you think about the creation of a "European grant holder" employed directly by the commission who takes care of his social plan on his/her own?
10.5 Do you think Europe needs a European Research Policy?
10.6 Which aspects should a European research policy focus on?, please specify!
10.7 More comments on EUROPEAN DIMENSION OF RESEARCH
11. YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCE
11.1 your personal experience
The scientific reputation of the host institute.
The person I wanted to work with had obtained position at that institute.
The best research in the world was being done in my host laboratory.
I knew the scientist in charge of the project and felt that, on a personal as well as on a scientific level, he would be a good person to work with.
to learn from a well respected researcher in the field
I like very much the research field in which i am working (DOUGH RHEOLOGY, food SCIENCE)
I did not move. I am in my home country I filled in above because it was required!
living and working in a foreign country
No postdoc position in my research area offered in my home country (Germany).
A post doc in a foreign country is important in a CV to obtain a position at CNRS
girl-friend
It is the normal way to improve the possibilities to get a position in my home country
sea & sun at the host place
I also have some desagreement with my employer in France.
I thought 1.1.3 and 1.1.4 were better than they turned out to be when I started work here
-
The research project in itself was very interesting.
to collect experience
I wanted to work in an industrial environment
No more comments
learn new language and mentality
I wanted to improve my professional profile
Not important
i wanted to do a PhD and the I don't like to way it works in Italy. Too little research permitted and too much work to do for supervisor's interests only.
Hey, you should go to our countries to widen your horizon
cc
I first began my PhD during my french military service in the Active Structures Laboratory at ULB in Brussels. In order to continue this work after completion of the military service period, I decided to submit a proposal to the EC. The Marie Curie Fellowship was at this time one of the possible solutions to get fundings to complete my PhD.
category 40 compensates the lack of a funded Sabbatical scheme
I prefer the way of life in the host country
I had to move because my husband has a permanent job in the host country and we have children, so I had to follow him. Before I knew I had been granted a Marie Curie fellowship, I had actually looked for a job in a company in the host country, but it was very boring and I was pleased to be able to go back to research.
my girlfriend wanted to study a masters in glasgow, i just joined. i would have never decided on my own to go there
NONE
A postdoc stay abroad is a prerequisite for further grants from Swedish scientific funding agencies.
(I hope this suvey is confidential:) I hoped that my Malaysian wife which I met during a year of study at HW university in Edinburgh would be able to follow me to Leicester on a governmental grant. The Asian crisis prevented us from doing so. This is the reason why I never considered staying for my PhD in Germany. (Please make any information given in this survey which is more of personal nature more 'abstract'.)
Possibility of learning about different research methodologies.
To have a chance to build up an academic carreer in Belgium (my home country), I needed an international experience.
None
to know a different culture and way of working
I applied for everything I could!
It was one of several possibilities
Logistically it was the simplest to organise.
Because it was the only funding source I was aware of for this purpose.
Longer time funded than some other fellowships.
was suggested by the host - I hadn't actually heard of these fellowships before then
Limited alternative sources of personal funding in Italy.
One of the only available fellowship organizations abroad
Because it gives me full social security cover and pionts for my pension
It was the only possibility at that time
Lack of possibilities in the home country
It was the only fellowship I could get at that time
I wanted to spend a year away from my home Institute, on Sabbatical
When I applied, the MCFA did not yet exist. The TMR program was one of the attractive PostDoc programs, like Humboldt or a DFG stipend.
Because my supervisor suggested it as a means of funding.
it was the only 3-year fellowship for PhDs available (sadly no longer)
Because it was one of the few possibilities to get a decent grant for a post doc in a foreign country
I applied all the possible grants
it was just one option to apply for a postdoc grant
An MCFA alumni network did not exist at the time.
Because I like to move from a country to another.
Because I did not know of others.
I replied not at all to 1.3.4 because the MCFA didn't exist at the time
it appears to be the only way to get funding for 3 years as a German (DAAD only funds 1 year exchange) who wants to do a PhD in the UK
-
MCFA did not exist
It was the funding(HCM) that the host institute offered.
It was suggested by my supervisor at the host institution during an earlier stay.
Comment: I was applying for a TMR-network position at a time when MCF did not exist.
Because the funding provided for the research (building new equipment and designing new experiments) was attractive.
I applied for just about anything that I knew about -- I was just lucky that the MC fellowship worked out.
No more comments
Because this is one of the few organisations to get funding for a postdoc in industry.
Not important
It is one of the few grants that allows students to do a PhD in a foreign country.
Because you get a normal salary including normal social services which is espeically important if you have a family. Otherwise, at the K.U.Leuven foreign Postdocs are basically enrolled as students and your civil status is quite different
Lack of Source of money for research in Europe
because my host institution use it all the time
see above
There were hardly any alternative grants for a PhD programme
it was quite the only one 6 years ago (but the name wasn't MCF)
At the time that I applied (1995), the reasons 1.3.2. and 1.3.4. where still absent.
It was one of the few fellowships I could still apply for, since I am over 35 years of age. I had two children during my PhD studies, but this is normally not taken into account when you apply for post-docs. In the Marie Curie application, that is taken into account so that women also have a chance. I find this excellent.
i started the phd without funding. i got the oral promise, that the institut will find some funding, for whatever project . so i payed the first year on my own. later it turned out, that there was just for one particular project the possibility to atrract money from industry. it was good luck, that we could apply for the marie curie fellowship. it was the only option to get funding.
NONE
Actually, I had a HCM grant.
Because I thought it was a good way of helping my country (and myself) to benefit from the opportunities the European Commission offers.
Because my supervisor suggested it (he is in a TMR network) Because it allows a free choice of research subject (very important)
The duration and the host institute budget.
No other options to get funding to go to desired host country.
Application for a MCF was suggested by my thesis advisor as one possibility to continue. My host institute has not advertised posts regularly in the past.
I wanted to do a postdoc abroad and Marie Curie was one option to get funding where you were in a quite strong position to choose the subject of your research.
None.
Suggestion by host institute
None
ad 1.3.2 : the MCFA did not exist at the time of my B20 grant; National funding for foreign students in France was associated with specific criteria that I did not comply with (DEA required); German funding needed to be planed at least 1 year ahead.
I did not get another one!
I directly applied to it.
None.
Sent unsolicited letter to host institute.
Through the personal contacts of my PhD promotor
the position did not really exist until I got the MCF funding
I sent a letter to my supervisor
I was looking for a job in a specific group of the host institute, made contact, and then applied for a fellowship to go there
Letter of advertizement
I had an individual fellowship - I chose the host institutiondue to personal contacts
Scientific literature
The position was "created" by me and my supervisor in the host institution applying for a TMR grant.
I just contacted the lab and then we wrote an application for a HCM grant together
I wrote a letter to the (up to then to me unknown) group leader asking for an interview opportunity.
Actually, there was no position being offered at the host Institution. I wished to work at it and, therefore, I applied for a Marie Curie Fellowship. Obviously, before applying for the fellowship I contacted Prof. Kolb (the director of the Department where I wished to work) inquiring if it would be possible to work with him in case I could get finantial support.
Releated research field
completely my own idea
Joint application between myself and a contact at the host resulted in funding.
I made a proposal first to the host institute on an idea I had and after being accepted I made one for a MC fellowship
The position was applied for and would not have existed independently of me and the Professor at the Host institute
There was initially no such thing like a position. I wanted to go there, so I contacted the people (which I did not know before).
I visited the institution to find out more about possible PhD positions, talked to my supervisor
host institution
Nature job ads
Through my supervisor at the host institution during an earlier stay.
I specifically applied for doing my research in my host institute.
No more comments
asking
Not important
Apply for job in a well known lab
I did make the application myself
cc
see above
was informed personally at a TMR seminar by Dr Connoe O'Toole of Forbairt (now Enterprise-Ireland)
participating to international conferences
I had worked with people from this institute before.
it was no position there. in great britain, you apply for a phd placement and if you bring the funding they take you on
NONE
Was invited to a give a seminar and afterwards invited to apply for MCF
There was not a position advertised. I contacted the head of the lab in the host institution and then applied for an individual fellowship.
I was previously a visitor under the TRACS program
Some friends at Heriot-Watt university of Edinburgh recommended me a sample of universities.
I suggested to come with a MCF.
None.
Contacted the head of the host institute during a scientific meeting and asked about possibilities for a PostDoc at his lab.
None
PNID (Spain), Becas de la Communidad de Madrid.
EMBO fellowships Pasteur Fellowships
DFG grant for working abroad NATO grants
various post doc- positions
NERC
NERC
Human Frontiers Science Program NSF-NATO Fellowship EMBO Fellowship Jane Coffin Childs Damon Runyan NIH-NSRA
Fellowship from the host institution
Fondation Fyssen fellowships
Swiss National Foundation
National postdoc fellowships
ESRC, University Scholarships, Home Country Funding (Austria)
various national funds
Chateaubriand fellowship
British Research Council
Fellowship from home country government
grants from national (home country) institutions
von Humboldt fellowship - Italian Ministery for Research and Technologie
Humboldt, DFG
National research agencies (EPSRC in UK)
EMBO, Human Frontier Fellowships/Grants
National funding
EMBO
Nat. Research Counsil, UsA
EMBO Long Term fellowships Human Frontiers fellowships Spanish fellowships
Portuguese govnmt. grants, cultural agreements, other intl. organisations
Research fellowships from institutions in my home country
From the Region Auvergne and from the French Foreign Office. But both are for short term, are underpaid and do not include support for lab expenses
Research assistantship in an industrial collaboration (1st year). German Academic Exchange Service (2nd year). Ev. Studienwerk Villigst (received a fellowship simultaneously with the HCM fellowship, decided to go for HCM because of better salary).
CERN fellowships, postdoctoral positions (paid by the hiring institution)
EMBO, DFG
Embo, OTAN, Spanish ministry.
Post-doctoral grant from the Spanish Goverment. I actually had one of those before obtaining the MC fellowship.
EMBO Fellowship
NAtional fellowships
national funding
German Research Council (DFG) German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD)
I had also the possibility to obtain finantial support from the Spanish Ministry for Education and Culture
Spanish postdoctoral grants
National grants to go abroad
FP4
DAAD
Spanish Education Council
We have several institutes and organizations at my home country that provide funds
EMBO, Human frontiers, Humboldt, Max Planck fellowship,
TDR-WHO
DAAD - but just for 1 year (which did not help in my case) fees-only NERC grant (no maintenance at all!!)
-
mrc etc
My host institution could also have funded me (but for much less money)
Fulbright grants - but to go to the United States of America.
bilateral cooperations and the rest projects in the different frameworks
Economic and social research council
FEBS, EMBO
EMBO fellowships, DAAD fellowships
EMBO, Human Frontier Science Program
norwegain research council
National ones like DAAD or Fundation Alfred Kastler
DAAD Spanish grants LEONARDO grants
NERC, Leverhulme, Royal Society
bourse post-doctorale "Alfred Kastler" du Ministere des Affaires Etrangeres de France; in fact I had such a grant for seven months before starting on the MC grant (I was already at my host institute during this time). There was also the possibility of a post-doc position directly from the host institute - I tried that one as well. Other possibilities: BASF programme of the "Studienstiftung" in Germany, DFG (Germany)
Funding from my home country
SI (for Sweden)
NATO fellowships, National Research organizations of host institute
von Humboldt fellowships DAAD fellowships NWO TALENT fellowship
Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, NATO
FEBS, NATO, Von Humbold Foundation postdoctoral grants
EMBO, Human Frontier, FEBS, Carlsberg Foundation, Danish Research Council
Other PostPhD grants
post-doctoral grants of my country government
DFG NATO
Human Frontier Science Program
Spanish grants
Austrian Science Fund (FWF), A.v.Humboldt Foundation, EMBO, HFSP, DAAD
1) Grant from National government; 2) grant from industry
European Science Foundation
National funding in home country
EMBO, HFSPO, French post-doctoral fellowships
grants from: Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes, GlaxoWellcome, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Land Nordrhein-Westfalen ("Lise-Meitner")
in Italy INFN
The Host Institution offered their own grants.
PPARC, Isaac Newton Studentship
Emmy-Noether-Program German Ministery of Research
Royalociety European Exchange Fellowship, which I also held
English Institution Research Funds (EPSRC, BBSRC). Although some of them as the BHF (british heart foundation) are for British citizens only.
Grants of the local government
Fellowships from the host university (even worse paid than the Marie Curie)
Home country fundings
Mainly German funding bodies such as DAAD Robert-Bosch Stiftung Volkswagen Stiftung etc.
Postdoctoral fellowship offered to foreign researchers by Spanish government (incidentally to be eligible for this I had to apply for a MC Fellowship contemporaneously
DAAD, Carl-Duisberg
Greek National Grand Fulbright Grand
Humbolt foundation obtained 1997 French Conseil Regional Fellowship obtained 1998 DAAD fellowship obtained 1994 French Gouv Fellowship for PhD obtained 1991 US Foundation-type grant fellowship obtained 1995-1997
cc
DFG (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft), postdoc grants
German DFG, DAAD
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft Alexander-von-Humboldt Gesellschaft
Human Frontier
Possibly industrial partners in my case: European Space Agency - SNECMA and Alenia Aerospazio.
national fellowships
e.g. Human Frontier Science Programme
Fellowship of the Feinberg Graduate School of the Weizmann Institute of Science
Swedish research councils, which may also give money for postdoc positions.
Heisenberg, Noether, NATO
Human Frontier Science Program, EMBO, FEBS, Spanish Ministry of Education, Spanish Autonomous Communities, Ramon Areces Foundation
I was asked to continue doing research in the same Institute where I finished my PhD
Spanish Ministery of Education
I had funding from a French foundation.
I knew that they did not exist!
Local Post-doc
national research councils
I started with a Leicester University scholarship which was terminated when accepting the TMR-grant. After a short period of work in Leicester, I applied for three scholarships in parallel: -DAAD (German Academic ) -Daimler-Benz Stiftung -TMR The Daimler-Benz Stiftung granted me a scholarship. However, this scholarship was terminated when I accepted the TMR-scholarship.
I applied for two otehr fellowships in Sweden, which I didn't get, and then my supervisor in Scotland also had funding from a British funding body, but since I got this fellowship that position went to someone else.
local postoc funds
Regular dutch Phd.scholarships
Universities in home country.
DAAD Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst, Dfg Deutsche Forschungsgesellschaft
Internal funding from my home institution
Fullbright,Humboldt, DAAD
Different agencies in my own country or in the host country, such as the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation
National Research Council-NATO and home University Post-Doc Grants but I had got all of them
NATO fellowships National fellowships for foreigners
NATO Spanish Fellowships
DAAD, CNRS, INRIA, MENRT (French government), political institutions
spanish ministry of education
Various national and international fellowships.
Host institute research fellowships Institute of national fellowships Private funding institutes Nato fellowships
Swedish post-doc funds
It would be nice to have some children stipend
None
Caused trouble because no one seemed to know how to pay me everything I was due - and tax deduction includes employer's contribution - so I end up with only about 100 Euros of the 400 Euros mobility allowance each month. It seems a pity that 75% goes in tax.
Confusing due to the different host countries employment laws.
It's important to pay tax and social security - otherwise one stays out of the system for too long and this can have detrimental effects in later life, pensions etc
My grant started on April 1st. Thus, I have not received any salary yet. Every No answer means for this part that i have no information to provide
I do not know whether mobility allowances are taxed or not or if there were deductions. In case of the travel allowance, I am not sure whether it was subject to social charges. Salary in general: In UK, with tax deductions I would have earned £1200 a month. Considering I am here with my wife, this is not very much. I was really disappointed. Because I could apply for a non-tax code, the salary was £1500 per month. Which is OK, but not brilliant either. What about Fellows having a family? Must be hard. (Please note that the cost of living in the UK is extremely high)
Sorry but I can't remember the answers to 2.3.x. I have filled in 2.3 only because I was not allowed to submit the form without. Fact is you should treat it as missing data.
The problem seems to be the number of institutions involved in paying/administering the grant/salary. This often seems like an unnecessary complication since the only sides who really know about rights and procedures are the EU and the researcher. Giving quite a lot of power and discretion to the host institute, thus, inevitably leads to important local variations in the researchers' terms and conditions.
I may be wrong in my answer to 2.3.2: the mobility allowance is certainly taxed, but I am not sure whether it is subject to other deductions. My salary (including the mobility allowance) is actually higher than that of my supervisor!
In my salary there is a reduction of 5 % becuse of the social charges. I have a contract in Sweden and I am getting paid in SEK but the price has been chnaged between SEK and EURO. this is a problem because next year probably my salary will be lower.
difficult to apply in Denmark the EU recommandations
It was very good.
The big problem in the UK was the uncertainty of cat. 30 grants about tax. Had it been taxed, it would be less then what locals get.
Certain directives should be issued to the host institutions concerning assistance to the fellows to receive tax reduction.
this section is too much focused on B30. As a PhD student I am fully tax exempt anyway.
The currency exhange rates are not harmonized across member states. This causes problems to MC fellows in particular member states, like the UK. Their salaries are not in harmony with other MC fellows salaries' in the rest of EU. The reason being: the strength of stirling pound!
I had a Human Capital and Mobility contract back in 1994 and I don't remember very well about the mobility allowance and whether was taxed or not.
This refers to the situation in 1993/94.
I would have preferred that the contract did not have the obligation to pay personal taxes (I don't mean social security but what in Spain is called IRPF). The german tax system turned up to be a mess (like in other countries, I guess), and I had to pay taxes through a tax advicer. Moreover, when you arrive o a country which language you don't know, it is very hard to deal with this kind of things.I would have preferred something similar to what is done at CERN, here they pay social security but no other taxes, as they are considered as part of the european bureaucracy. I said "yes" t o 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.3 and 2.4.2 because the questionnaire forced me to, but my truly answer would be " I don't know".
I stayed in host after MCFA and salary dropped
I find the fact that social security and work contract are necessary to fulfill the grant one of the major advantages of the Mari Curie Fellowships, since this provides a social protection which is not usually provided by other grant program
The above apply to HCM conditions. Though I did not have a family then, it appears odd that there are still no family allowances given.
I had a 'stipendium' in Sweden, not a salary; this has many disadvantages. Hopefully this has been changed by now.
The salary is very competitive with what I would expect to be paid for a research position in industry.
salary would have been insufficient if it had been the only source of income for the family
In my home country (Germany), it would only have been possible to get 1/2 position for making a Ph.D, which is the reason for the lower salary in the home country. Otherwise, it would be comparable.
EC should bound more the money planning and not leave so many freedoms to the host institute.
My wife interrupted her professional activity in order to follow me. My salary was much lower than what we earned together in our home country. Having two children, the grant was not enough. The mobility allowance does not at all cover the mobility costs for families with children (loss of the spouse's income, higher travel and communication costs, replacement of a families' network by commercial services). Of course, the national taxation system considers your family situation, but only exactly in the same way as for nationals of that country; I am speaking here specifically of the extra family MOBILITY costs that are not taken into account by the national system (for example higher travel costs) and should be covered by the mobility allowance. Our real income, in comparison to my colleagues in the host insitution, as well as to those in my home institution, was much lower. And, the one time travel allowance had pratically no effect: I got 400 Euros, that was even not enough to pay the one-way flight tickets for the whole family. For example, the one-way move of the household to the host country cost about 6000 Euros.
There were no taxes because I was a PhD student
The salary is only just enough because: i) accomodation in London is extremely more expansive compared to other west towns; ii) the currency rate is around 10% lower than that at the time of application.
I only got a grant for 2 years. As my PhD will take at least 3 years, I'm saving 1/3 of my monthly maintenance money to cover year 3. That way, my income (including the mobility allowance) is a bit lower than that of the average UK PhD student and I don't understand what the EU expects people to do when they give them funding for only part of their PhD time. The part of the money that is paid to the host institute was VERY hard to get for my own research, I still don't have the impression that I know how much I can spend for conferences/PC/data/... or that the money will only be used for myself rather than for whatever my supervisor wants to buy/do.
As my host institute was in Austria regulations changed within my fellowship. The answers reflect the situation at the end. In the beginning everything was subject to tax reduction and social security.
I had the status of a student (HCM - cat 20) during my fellowship.
exchange rate flucturations are of major concern to UK fellows
I had to negociate to receive a salary comparable to the scale presented in table 1 in the annex of the proposal.
I think that the offered salary was high enough to cover the life expenses in the host country.Furthermore, I think that the contribution for the social security is a positive feature for both the grant holder and the host country.
needs to be reviewed. especially in norway, where the cost of living is huge, as is the tax burden. here they tax heavily indirectly as well, like food, lots of bank charges, telephone rates etc.
2.3.1. I had to show tickets on what I spent to get the mobility allowance. What is left will be taxed according to my contract.
At my time as Postdoc in a TMR network, a mobility allowance did not exist. So all the questions concerning this do not really apply in my case.
The answer to 2.5 is "no" in principle, but I would prefer to be able to move back to my home country/another country in case of unemployment without losing my rights to unemployment benefits (which with the current laws are restricted to three months and a lot of paperwork in case I should move on, in contrast to more than two years if I stay in France). I find this policy ridiculous and very much contrary to the concept of "mobility"!!! See also 3.5
The Commission should controll that the EC grant is entirely paid to the fellows by the host institution and the Commission should provide enough information and support about this matter.
The salary was sufficient because I was single and lived with a controlled budget. I don“t think that it would have been sufficient if I have been married and with 2 children.
The salary is paid in Euro in UK while this country is not part of the euroland, therefore it has to be change to Pound, the exchange rate instead of being fixed for 3 years should vary depending on the stock exchange.
I am a B20 fellowship, so I am not an employee and do not have a work contract, my "salary" therefore is not taxed at all.
Why i say yes in 2.5: In DK for eg., from the brutto salary and before any other taxation, 7% is allocated to an unemployment "union-fund" but this without giving the possibility to the fellow to ask for unemployment benefits, even for a minimum amount of time.
Unfortunately, I don't remember all the details
I was extremely surprised to learn that the UK has one of the lowest salaries in the EU - this is a problem because the costs of living are very high.
Due to the exchange rate it was a real mess with the UK institution
The fact of receiving more money here that in my home country can be explained in the basis of a differente life level.
Not important
Employer (host institute) contribution for social security was deduced from the grant
in Italy teh deductions of the sallary were absolutely arbitrary and comparable between other HMC postdocs in the same country
Post-docs are often married and can't be expected to move without a good part of their belongings, so it would be reasonable if there was a moving allowance in addition to the travel allowance.
I think it is important that the fellowship has the same status as a fixed term contract for what concerns payment of retirement money and social security. I particularly appreciated this feature during my stay in austria and I made an enjoable use of the Austrian public structure (health care..). And i expect to have these two years recognized for the retirement when i will find a permanent position in Europe. For me this ia very important feauture that should be reatined or enforced in the states where it is not applied up to now.
The social security scheme SHOULD be applied to fellows ONLY if they explicitly wish !
I am unsure what is meant by the "mobility allowance". I found the deductions due to the French Social Security charges to be very high, although my overall salalry was still comparable (slightly higher) than my fellowship received from the Royal Scoiety.
I did not like the use of the institutional allocation. It's not clear what it is to be used for and creates contrasts with the supervisors.
I was at Orsay 93-94 on an HCM fellowship, because of arrangements I had made to carry on paying social security in the UK it was treated as a "real" grant and the (very high) French social security chanrges were not levied.
Comment to 2.5: At the K.U.Leuven a non Marie-Curie-Postdoc just gets a grant comparable to the Marie-Curie without the mobility allowance. Moreover social extras like extra money for the kids is not paid. In this sense a Marie-Curie is better than local Fellowships. On the other hand 2.3.5: If you count everything together: The Marie-Curie salaray is 20% below a Postdoc salary in my home country but costs of living are 20% higher. That does not fit somehow. Especially if you have a family. Comment to 2.1. If you have a family with two kids in Belgium your partner has to find a work. Otherwise you run out of money around the 20th of each month. Comment to 2.4. The one time travel allowance may be sufficient for single persons but not for a family. Try to find a moving company that moves 30 m^3 accros Europe for the amount of the one time travel allowance!
My salary is actually a 'real' grant (category 20); part 3 of this questionnaire thus does not apply to my situation
Clearer definition for the use of the money (overhead) paied to the institute
At this time of our carrier we need to pay retirement, unemployement
except the first i answered by chance all those questions because i don't know anything about this
there was no possibility to pay for/receive social security. referring to 2.5. I actally _had_ a 'real' grant- just with a contract
The exchange rate for ECU --> National Currency was fixed by the host institute on a unreal low level, resulting in a lower salary for the benefit of the University
no
a lot of hassle to get the host organisation to pay the full amount
a stipendium would circumvent negotiations on which portion of the salary will be taxed, and hence would avoid disagreements and misunderstandings.
In the case of fellows working in UK, the changes in exchange rates and the strenght of the pound strongly affect the salary
My host institution was very very slow and inefficient to pay me - it took a year for me to start receiving the salary; - for the first year they just paid a small subsistance allowance - this was very inconveneient especially considering the costs of moving from another country. In the second year I still had a lot of problems with delays in paying the salary, and withholding of the salary, which has been very inconvenient, especially given my contract is only 2 years. Although I recognise this is the fault of the host institution and not of the EC, it is a very frustrating and considerably inconvenient situation. And although the host institution are theoretically did not keep the contract by not paying me when and as agreed, it is very difficult to overcome all the beaurocratic obstacles in Italy, and they did not seem to think it significant that they took so long to pay me (in fact, they told me that it was normal here!).
it should take in consideration the family composition,i.e. how many childrens and their ages if the wife/partmer will work in the host country, and the real renting fees in the host country (including council tax!!!!)
It has been necessary to study local laws to demonstrate that mobility allowance was not subject to charge. Other fellows that don't know that are taxed without justification.
The seems to be disparity between different member states as to the tax status of Marie Curie Fellows.
The salary offered by the Marie Curie fellowship has to stay high enough to attract the best european researchers, in particular in comparison to those provided by companies, i.e french companies who offer quite similar salaries
I have several complaints against my institute regarding the salary. 1) The salary paid to me is lower than the one that was stated in the contract. The excuse was that they had applied a different exchange rate. 2) The one-time travel allowance was not paid when I started. However, they said that they had divided it by 24 and pay a little each month. I have no way of checking this, so I am a bit irritated about it. 3) The central site of my institute at first kept all the money granted to the institute, even though that is in a different city. They were unwilling to pay it to my institute, even though in the end they did. 4) I have no control over the travel money, and last year everybody working at my institute was told that the funds for travelling that the institute had were exhausted. I find it strange that I have to ask my institute for travel money whenever I want to travel (by the way, I have travelled very little). There was certainly an allowance for travel paid to my institute, but they are not using that when I want to travel. I get the travel money from the same funds as everybody else at the institute and I am subject to the same conditions, even though I have a Marie Curie fellowship with specific allowance for travel. At one point they complained about the fact that I was getting paid for travel by the institute, even though they have organized it like this themselves. 5) The institute last year paid me back all the taxes that had been withheld on my banking account. They had told me to apply to be taxed in my home country, but I told them I couldn't because I was resident in the host country, which I repeatedly stated on the application. They insisted I apply anyway. At the central site of the institute, they approved the application WITHOUT READING IT, so that all the tax money went back to my account. But I am certainly liable to paying taxes in the host country, so now I may even get a penalty for paying late. Since the host institute can not handle these things, I would prefer to have a real grant instead of getting everything messed up by them.
it was a real grant and i did not have deduction of social charges or tax
NONE
I had a monthly salary. I had double homes and was taxed in my original home country because of a special agreement between Denmark and Sweden.
It was very hard to figure out the salary situation here in France, I did not receive the proper amount of funding in the beginning. I would have appreciated very much if there was a contact person about salary matters in each country.
My salary was significantly reduced during the period of my fellowship, due to the change in the rate euro/pound sterling.
The salary is attractive from my country “s point of view, but less from here, since I moved to the most expensive country in Europe.
I don't have the answers to 2.3.3, 2.3.4 and 2.3.5 - set to yes to be able to submit
We need rigid, ENFORCEABLE guidelines on what the host institution can & cannot do with the money. The *grant holder* should have the final say on exactly how it is used.
very difficult to have a trasparent control of what's going on!
I do not understand some of the questions in full. I am a PhD student. Thus, I do not receive a salary. It is a TMR-grant. This grant is not subject to tax and is paid to me as demanded by contract between University and the EC. In that respect everything is correct. I am not fully aware what the difference between the one-time travel and the mobility allowance is. For me, they are equivalent. This one-time travel allowance has been correctly paid. Apart from the 'salary' and the one-time travel allowance, the rest of the money has been split between unvirsity, faculty, department and an amount for my project. The latter amount has been used for conference visits and equipment.
In the UK it is not so good that the salary is subjhect to so much fluctuations due to fluctuations in exchange rate. This counteracts the intention that the salary should be comparable to a normal salary for a researcher at the same level in the country.
I would have preferred to be paied directly from EU
The salary mechanism of the old HCM-programme seems to have worked differently from the mechanism nowadays. As HCM particpant you got a monthly lump sum which had to cover everything (social security, travel funding, equipment etc.).
It was enough to cover all expenses while completing my Ph.D thesis.
It would be good if the administrative paperwork could be reduced somehow, perhaps by standardized contracts for each country. However, with respect to the variety of host institutions quite a difficult task...
Actually, since I had an income in my home country (paid by the National Fund for Scientific Research) including social secutity, I got a grant that was calculated in order to cover extra expenses due to my stay abroad. This grant covered indeed more oor less my extra expenses, but I would have appreciated that the fact that I went with my family (three children) had been taken into account (kind of family allowance). This meant indeed bigger house, (expensive) child care, etc.
Enough for myself and responsibilitis for my son, but would not have been enough for partner or "real" family. Mobility allowance should be paid separate from salary and not taxed / subject to social deductions.
difficulties to get the mobility allowance on time (some months after arrival)
the salary is satisfactory but unfortunately there are quite some complications with the host institute. In the end you never get paid what you would have expected
I did not get any information about it. I was not able to get unemployment benefits either in France nor in Spain
This does not apply
None
Whether to continue contribution to my home country AND here.
Pension was required by law, but should be tranferrable.
Well not being able to contribute to a private pension scheme will mean problems when I return to my home country. I will have to contribute much more than collegues who stayed in their home country.
After my fellowship, I decided to stay in my host country. I do not know how that will affect my pension, what will happen to contributions I paid in my country of origin, etc. In brief, I am confronted with the problem that there is now complete freedom of movement for the European workforce, but no comprehensive European pension scheme.
I am paying a lot of money for social security and for taxes. But my supervisor and the department does not consider me as a worker but as a student even though I have signed a contract stating that I am doing research work and not studying! the department thinks that I am a grant holder and and not a worker. this bureacracy problem causes me complication with my residence permit in SWEDEN. I am coming from Greece and if I had been condidered as worker i had the right to have a residence permit of 5 years. please give any advice.
none
no problems
the home country was unable to provide any answer about the posibility of transfer of the pension rights from the host country.
Pension contributions were heavily taxed when I tried to move them out of the host country
I can“t transfer my pension rights to my host country because the corresponding money will be taxed about 65 %, which means almost everything will be lost
no problems
Since then I have been leaving and working in three different Europen countries and I think pension rights is a general problem for european employees which change country a few times
At the stage of my fellowship it was similar to now: it is quite difficult in the UK to transfer pension schemes with one employer to a different employer. Much more difficult to do so when international mobility is involved. As scientific careers are inevitably international nowadays (and not only confined to Europe) there was not much point in tying money down in the UK.
The systems work very differently and for the time being, I think it may not be bad thing to have a stake in both systems.
I will lose the pension if I go back to my home country without transferring the money
I pay for the Dutch pension scheme, however, it is not possible to transfer these payments to my home country. Therefore, paying into this scheme is in effect useless for me.
Up to now, I have not been confronted with any problems, since I am not back in my own country, yet.
I was never informed how the host country;s pension scheme works nor what happens with my pension schemes contributions after I leave. I was like a "pay and forget" tax.
I contributed to the national pension scheme and I think it is transferrable, but I don't know exactly how.
The host institution had no pension scheme so I made my own with a local bank.
I am about 40 years old by now and between the various moves (PhD and post-doc in the States, HCM in Italy, Return grant in Greece) I never participated in any pension scheme.
I contributed to the national pension scheme as any worker, not to one organised by my host institution. Problem: Transfer of my wife's pension rights that she acquired by educating our children into her national pension system.
Again, no pension scheme because I was a student. Health benefits were free.
I have not enough money to join any pension scheme unless Inland Revenue will not decide for tax exemption.
Conditions of the NHS in England are not satisfactory but I don't have the money to pay for a private insurance. This means for example that I still see my dentist in Germany and pay for it privately etc.
As I am not sure if I will work again in the host country at a later time this problem has to be solved in the future
My host institute do not want me to join the pension scheme here. I can't join a pension scheme in my home country (the UK) because I'm not taxed there.
A technical problem is the transferring of Euro into UK Sterling. In principle I am very happy to be paid in Euros, but Euros are still considered a foreigh currency in the UK and to open a Euro account is still not simple. The sistem is slow and it is not easy to tranfer money into UK Pounds without beeing strongly charged (English banks take 2% for each withdrawal from a Euro account into a UK Pounds account). Furthermore I am still waiting for the Institute to sort out how to contribute to the Pension Scheme in Euros as formally I am a normal MRC employ, but I don't receive a UK salary. I think that the UK sistem should be more flexible towards the new EC policies.
i can't tansfer my pension contributions form the UK to norway, so i have 2 very small amounts in each country which is of very little use in the future
a comment to 3.6.2: I asked at the CNAV (the relevant french institution) and was told that pension rights cannot be transferred as such. When I reach retirement age I have to apply for pensions IN FRANCE and have them paid BY FRANCE every month. You can imagine that after bank transfer costs there may not be much left, if for example I happen to retire in Japan or God knows where...
It was not possible to transfer all my pension benefits to my home country. Only 20% of the money contributed would be reimbursed.
Difeerent procedures - different bureacracy in different countries
no problem at all
Incompatibility between private and public pension funds
I haven't applied yet.
In case of transfer the total amount of the contributions is taxed with 60%.
The contributions that can be transferred to my home country are a little part of my entire contribution
I don't know very much about the transfer of pension rights and it seems to be extremely complex and difficult to get informations about it.
Since the host institution wasn't willing to pay for its part I was out of a pension scheme
That one of the thinghs is worring me about the future. All this years we pass abroad without pension scheme!!.
Nobody seem to know how it works
no problems sofar
I would prefer to transfer the pension to my home country, but I understand (from the MCFA welcome pack!) that it isn't possible.
Up to now no problems. When i will ask for retirement i will see if there are problems!
I would have very much likd the opportunity to contribute to my pension during this period but am not aware that I did so.
I don't know whether my contributions for a pension scheme in the 2 countries where I worked (Italy, Belgium) will ever come together.
not yet
I am not allowed to take part in a pension scheme here. They say it is not possible.
No information about tax, social security, pension
I know it's possible to transfer pension rights between Belgium and France, but i did first not consider this specific aspect.
I'm contributing to the National Pensions System but no the private scheme organised by my host institution. I was invited to join the private plan, but I declined the offer because those benefits were not transferable to my home country.
I came from the UK, and thus was advised (by the UK pension company) that I could not pay into a UK pension scheme from Italy (where I am working on a MCFA scholarship) as I am paid in Italy and taxed in Italy. I did not want to start an Italian pension for a duration of only 2 years. Thus for the 2 years of the scholarship I have not made any (private) pension contributions.
it was not clear how/when/how much contributions could be transferred from one country to another
I am 38 years old, and I don't have a permanent position. I also have never paid pension contributions, except that I was paid a pension contribution in Denmark where I had a post-doc before this. That money I have invested in a summer house in my home country. Since I knew that at some point I had to start paying pension contributions privately, I started last year in my home country. But I don't know if I can afford to continue this pension plan when my fellowship is finished.
The National health Service is terrible poor, keep your own privat health insurance and take a plane home for treatment. the grant was paid as grant, without social contributions
NONE
I will consider it... don't know about the problems yet
Completely lack of information since the Administrative staff at University dont know what to do with me and my case...
I did not contribute to a pension scheme
As far as I have been informed, no such transfer is possible. I will be entitled to a tiny pension in France (my "MCFA host country") when I reach the French retirement age.
No pension scheme applies to temporary contract staff. So I set my own savings aside.
cannot be recuperated
very uncertain matter, noone really knows how to handle it in the specific officices
I am a PhD-student. Thus, I am not part of any pension scheme. As I am a student, I am not entitled to social benefits similar to an employee. The same applies to the child leave issue and the social benefits for sick leave. Everyone is automatically participating in the UK-NHS (National Health) system.
The host institution is part of a very good nationwide pension scheme for Universities, but MC Fellows are not supposed to join unless they cover all costs themselves.
None.
Neither in my home country nor in the host country, I could get definite answers to my questions, e.g. transferability.
Actually, these matters do not really apply since my basic working contract was in my home country
Have no idea how transfer of pension rights would work, nor that the possibility even existed.
I was paying for pension in the home country and was also forced to pay for it in the host country. Obviously, it has no sense to pay for pension in two countries of the EU, so I complained and after a long process (including a lawyer), I was given the money back.
At the time of my grant, I did not consider the transfer of pension rights. Nowadays, back to Germany, despite the an agreement between Germany and France with respect to the transfer of pension rights, this topics costs a lot of time and paper work. I would prefer to have contributed to a European pension scheme, a fund-like structure, instead of a national system. I would welcome a system where mobile engineers and scientists could opt for paying to a national or a European system.
I had to make a lot of research to know that I had the right to get the pension in my homeland
ABSOLUT MESS. Noone knows exactly how things sould be and noone can give you a clear answer
To 3.4.3: I did not have health insurance in the host country. I had an insurance from my home country.
I really don't know if I am entitled to child leave, or if I will get benefits from the state or from the host institution. And I don't know how to find out.
Re: pensions. As far as I know one can use the social security contributions as long as on has worked for two years or more. Re: private pensions , in the country were I was based it was not possible to contibute to a private pension scheme unless you are permenant University staff
Question 3.7.2 I do not know the answer
Again, I do not know the answer to 3.7.2 as I was never confronted with the issue. I have to click a button to allow submission of the form, but please treat my answer as missing.
The information provided by the Italian group of the MCFA was excellent, and the University administration has also been (unexpectedly!) very helpful and efficient in answering my questions.
because of the contract length of 24 I lost the possibility to apply for an unemployment benefit in my home country. Without contributions to the host country's unemployment plan I would have been seriously in trouble after the grant.
The management of the host institution refused to assist my effort to get a 35% tax reduction.
I am not sure if I am entitled to social benefits during child leave
I really don't know if the answer to 3.7.2 should be positive or negative. I never experienced the situation nor enquired about it
I have no idea what the correct answer to 3.7.2 is but I had to choose something.
I could not take a child leave because the salary is not enough to think in childs, primarily in big cities.
My true reply to 3.8 is "I don't know"
unempoloyment and pension: only obligatory. I did not become member of a trade union, which would give me full reimbursement during unemployment.
I would prefer to pay into the social security system of my home country rather than my host country. As regards e.g. my pension the two years are effectively lost. The worst thing about this is that it will influence my wife's pension as well.
I never received any information about the social security scheme of the host country. The health insurance was a catastrophy and the national rules clearly contradict European rules, in particular what concerns reimboursement of medical treatments in another EC country. A big problem for mobility : you want to continue mediacal treatments in your home country !
The last question does not apply
My wife is a French official that took a parental leave during the fellowship in order to follow me. Her home country did not pay the normal parental leave allowance, because she did no longer live there; the host country did not either, because she is an official of a foreign country. I complained at the governments of the host and the home countries and at the EC, but even today (more than one year later), nobody can tell me who should have paid.
I really would have appreciated more information about pension (contributions and the possibilities to transfer it to the country where I will live when I go into retirement.
The french social security system is a real joke! You pay a lot every month (taking into account the employer's part) and still have to pay a large part by yourself. Everything takes ages, and they always come up with another excuse for not wanting to reimburse you.
I would have liked to keep the benefit of my home country during my stay in the UK.
I am not certain about answer 3.7.2 because I do not have any child.
Most of my answers in this section are guesses. To be honest, I have never needed health insurance nor medical help, so I do not know what is paid and what not so I did
The social system is definitely worse than in my home country but it was worth having had the experience.
Even with the E301 I will not get any unemployement in France back home UNLESS I restart working in France ? Sounds strange and tricky ! Well may be I will get a job before the end of this grant
don't rely on them. the whole system is a mess and does not work
NONE
I could keep the health insurance of my home country during this period. Unemployment insurance would have been more complicated, but I did get funding in my home country when the HCM grant expired. I would have been problems with the child leave if it would have been actualized at that time.
No comments.....
I do not know the answer to most of the questions in this section but I filled them anyway to complete the form
I suppose 3.7.2 must be yes, but I actually don't know nor care since I don't have any children. You should supply a N/A button.
The Host institution gave no assistance whatsoever. Fortunately everyone is entitled to free public healthcare so I paid no extra health or social insurance.
Most of the '3@-questions do not apply to me since as a PhD student, I do not participate in any pension scheme. Further, I do not know if I am entitled to unemployment support as I have never been unemployed. However from experience of other PhD-stundents, I know that they were partly supported through state unemployment schemes after their grant finished.
I contribute to all national schemes, but I do not benefit from any institutional scheme. I therefore have the minimum legal social security. This is different for equal-grade colleagues in the host country.
I would have preferred to pay for unemployment plan in my home country. About social security, I have never been ill during that year, so I don't know how I would have been reimboursed, but the Belgium system is not practical, as you need to chose for a private company, among many, without much information.
None.
Takes some time to get used to the different system.
Social security dependent on home country
No idea bout the child leave issue.
total UNPOLITENESS of german administration to the non-nationals
Again I HAVE NO IDEA. Noone was able to clearly answer these questions
None
My Fellowship is still ongoing!
Excellent, although the host institution (not the host laboratory) kept making it harder and harder to do the research (infrastructure removed).
The host institution had little or no experience with MC fellows and did not have a strategy to integrate them into their day-to-day work.
I think there is need to have a special budget for taking part in conferences. because according to the present status it is clear how the department can spend the amount of money that it is gettiong from EC
...the best thing I could ever do!
host institute used me for other purpose than the one applied
it gave me opportunity to work with a great scientist
The host institute allocations permitted participation at scientific conferences, a possibility not too abundant with other stipends.
no complaints
The excellence was due to the Dept. of Biochemistry at the University of Dundee, not due to the HCM fellowship.
The Marie-Curie fellowship has provided an excellent fundament for my research, but this was not fully acknowledged from the host institute.
I worked for an experimental group, engaged in an international experiment , and ind in these cases, sometimes (as I suffered) you are asigned not to what you agree before starting the job, but to what is needed in each moment, which in my case was not very much interesting.
From the scientific quality point of view a MCF is just like any other grant.
When the overheads were removed from the money paid to the host, there is not really enough money for consumables and international conferences. Perhaps specifically allocating money for conference travel would be useful.
Superb ! The people in the Host institution really helped broaden my horizons.
There was no allowance for Congresses.
To participate in conferences (as speaker) it is better after the 2-year grant. When you are working on new project it takes time to write papers.
I was disappointed by the scientific quality (mainly equipment but also scientific interaction inside the institution/group), however I still think I benefit(ted)a great deal from making this experience, coping with the situation and experiencing the variety of conditions under which research is performed
I have been confronted to the real life of industrial and applied science. This is what I was looking for. I am then satisfied.
I think that the MCF is a great oppurtunity for young scientists to build up their carrier and it will turn up to be extremely useful for development of science in Europe
i wish i could have more control on the money paid to the host instituion so i could order journal sthat are relevant for my studies.
I believe that future Marie Curie fellows will have an easier time carrying out their projects because people in the host institution are more aware of the needs of the fellows.
The comments in this aspect are very positive.
I worked alone in the Host Institution. All the contacts I have are from abroad, and I decided by myself which conferences to attend. Everything I have learnt in these two years, I have learnt by myself or with the help of people outside the host institution.
The scientific quality was high and I was offered a number of opportunities to generate contacts that have been useful since. I would have appreciated more opportunity to present my work at meetings after the end of my contract.
The institutional allocation for B20 was not spent for conferences only and it creates some contrast with the supervisor. It should be specified how much money we have for conferences from the beginning of the contract.
I am doing too much technical development. It would be good to have more technicians that would take care of that and less burocracy that hinders you from using existing resources.
Not the quality that I've expected from the reputation of the host Institute. Lack of facilities and not enough staff to help you with routin work. Spending a lot of time doing work of techician due to lack of staff
A two years period of independent scientific work is an excellent opportunity to set up a long-term research project.
no
In my particular case research and training was somewhat dirupted by the fact that the Institute moved location in the middle of my contract, so there was a lot of down time on equipment etc.
it was a great opportunity for my scientific career
Weizmann Institute Researchers are outstanding by the originality and quality of ideas and concepts they can develop, as compared to basic applied science.
the university system is in the way, that the evaluation of the work is due to whether it brings money to the university or not
NONE
The head of the host laboratory did not allow me any scientific independence. This is very frustrating for a postdoc with several years of professional experience. Even though, the scientific quality of the lab was good.
In my particular case, I arrived to a group without a leader group and almost breaking down...
I am very satisfied
Some shortage of equipment. Also quite bad physical work conditions, especially provision of office space with ergonomically decent chairs and desks. The standard is very bad compared to what I had as a graduate student in Sweden,and now I am a postdoc. This is an important reason why I would not want to go on working here after the fellowship ends
None. It seems excellent.
Preliminary answers, as I just get started.
Access to online journals, science citation index and such lacking or sporadic, library slow for off-site orders. Regarding conferences: It was hinted that I shouldn't expect to travel to more conferences than other people in the host institute to avoid creating political problems ...
germans do not seem to know that english and not only german is the language of science. They treat EC fellows as competitors, not as colleagues
We had children
THE SWEDISH PEOPLE ARE VERY CLOSED CHARACTERS AND it is not easy to have friendship
family obligations
some degree of xenophobia in France
I did not integrate in the sense that after work and during weekends I was not going out with german people. But I met some foreigners in the german lessons I took, and I participated moderately into the city life with them. On the other hand, I am a bit shy, and that refrained to participate more in social life.
1) I had my children with me that did not get a place in a kindergarden. So I spent my free time with my children. 2) My wife did not find any occasion for a professional activity in the host country.
large groups of foreigners who stick together and don't interact a great deal with native speakers are much easier to get in contact with than the native speakers themselves
My university is in the northern suburbs of Paris, a not-so-nice area. Everybody leaves at five o'clock to go home to their family (and everybody lives at least an hour away), so there's no way to meet outside the lab to have a drink somewhere after work... Also, I find that my french collegues are very closed, they don't make it easy for new people to get to know them...
I have not tried to integrate myself in the host country.
Host country = Belgium = two countries, e.g. the french spoken part where I live and the dutch spoken part where I work. Integration in the french spoken community is excellent due to my family but there is no integration into the dutch community.
no
I am shy.
the system is sickening uncooperative, the natives are superficial, tired and dull, make your friends in the international exile community
NONE
People in the host country did not make an effort to integrate foreigners.
I could integrate OK because of my personality, but not because any help. The best integration was not exactly with the locals. 24 months was not enough for my ambitious project.
Bars close too early!
neded time for family
I found and still find it particularly difficult to get into contact with English people. Those contacts remained on a quite low level. My closer friendships, I have made among the community of foreign students.
Small town with few people you can easily relate to, exept for other people at wo
None.
Did not know enough about France nor enough French at first.
Work mates not always wanted to establish contact...
The quotes depend obviously on the period of time and on the motivation for having stayed in the host country. My initial objective was to stay at least 5 years.
The beer is cheap, the ciggy“s are cheaper!!
When one goes to a new country or even a different place, one should expect that in the beginning things will be difficult. I was patient and made an effort to join in with group activities and I even initiated group activities myself.
I lived in a bilingual country, my answers to 5.4, 5.5 relate only to one of the languages (English)
Collegues within the department have gone out of their way to make me feel welcome.
there is not so much social life in sweden.
The british were quite xenophobic, the other foreigners at the host institute were great!
I was communicating using English (in Germany)
It was a great experience!
I would specifically write in the obligations of the candidate to dedicate say the first three months to learn the host country language intensively. This will help a lot in integrating the country in local life and in building Europe. But this obligation should be also explicitely incorporate the host supervisor, in the sense of not loading the grant holder with a lot of work during these three months.
Personal contacts beyond work were mainly built up to other foreigners
In Belgium they speak French and I am French.
The host city, as probably most European cities, was not able to offer a public kindergarden place to my children. They would have had to apply for such places 2 years in advance, which is completely impossible for children of Marie Curie fellows.
I believe that a minimum of 1 year is necessary for integration in a foreign country.
different mentality but it depends stronly on character
I work in Holland. English is the oficial language in the company but Dutch is necessary. For specific reasons, I have problems to learn this language which turn out to become an obstacle for my integration.
Integration mainly depends on yourself and your interest about country, people culture and language.
I think it would have been very helpful if the host institute had offered a language course at the institute. As it was, I took evening classes in the center of Paris, about an hour from home, which were good but also very time consuming because I lost a lot of time in the metro!!
Danish is a very difficult language and required much dedication. I found it impossible to combine the research requirement with Danish course requirements.
The work in the host institution allowed me to meet people from many countries around europe and outside europe and this is of a great personal benefit.
It has been a very rewarding experience to live in a foreign country and to get to know its llanguage and culture. In the beginning it takes a while to get used to it and it is not always easy, but it is all worth it in the end!
The finnish language is difficult to learn. If man want social life, you can not dedicate much time to learning a new language from scratch, althought it is a very good oportunity.
I underestimated the difficulty of integration. Besides my home country (Denmark), I have lived in other (English speaking) countries before without any major problems, so I think that language was the main problem.
All my friends and contacts here are foreigners - therefore I dont feel the necessity of integrating in the social life of the host country.
The lab was very cosmopolitan and provided an ideal social environment at that stage in my career.
In UK universities really help and encourage social life UNLIKE ITALIAN UNIVERSITIES (my home country)
see 5.1.4. My knowledge in French has improved considerably but my abilities to understand dutch are almost zero. What do you expect if they pay no language course and stuff you in an office crowded with other foreign postdocs?
The host country language (dutch) was not a barrier since a third language (english) was good enough for both parties
I am french and I am working in a french speaking environment, but, neverthless, I learned dutch quite seriously !
My host institution did not provide any integration, however, individuals were friendly, and I was able to take evening language classes in the city in which I am based.
Since I am here with my family, on the one hand, I have the old friends of my husband (who is a native of the host country), however, I can not relate very well to them because I find the cultural differences very big. On the other hand, having children prevents you from having too much time for a social life.
the university runs a international students advice office with large engagement, and they employed a very cooperative students advicer. as the majority of all postgraduate student are foreigners, the fees are for an non european student 8500 - 13500 pounds per year. it is for the university an investment to keep them happy and stay
NONE
I would have appreciated an intense language course at the beginning of the sta here very much. During my stay there is the opportunity to take one one afternoon a week, but it is not efficient and the class is too big.
All my personal contacts in the host country are foreigners as well.
English level is very Ok in this country , so it was not a problem , but any information from University was written in local language.
Is not what I came here for, but there were some positive side-effects.
It was ok, when I had time for it.
My wife has the nationality of the host country.
The host institution was located in Brabant-Wallon (Belgium) where people speak french, so I had no language problems...
In participating in the social life, then I got the feeling in helping building Europe (see 1.6.1).
There is more interaction with other foreigners than with local people.
5.5: Two different questions. THe goal was to be fluent, and at the end I also reached that, luckily.
scarce or inexistent some times
She had a good job in the United States.
personal reasons
partner already lived in the host country
too much administrative problems
6.2 My partner lived in the host country. So 6.2.x is NOT applicable, but I had to fill in those fields.
I met my patner during my stay in the host country
My accompanied me and as a trained health professional with an adequate knowledge of French expected to find some kind of position. Indeed she was able to find a good post in a local hospital but despite EU directives indicating her qualifications would be accepatble to French Helath Ministry was told that her high grade English qualifications did not permit her to work in France! As a consequnce my wife had to find other means to occupy her time!
My partner had at that time a career in science at another university
He was already here
6.2. had to be set to yes, also 6.1 was answered "no".
My partner have a permanent position in my home country
My partner was at that time finishing a thesis in History and could not change environment because of several reasons, eg. she had to have access to Swedish archives from the 1600-1800s.
I think that leaving a stable job in your own country for following a scientist to another country is a crazy idea. On of the two should have a stable job, and this is not the scientist...
My partner was there *before* me - not the other way around.
partner already employed in home country
As my wife brought three children into our family, I did not dare to rely solely on the TMR-grant. My wife hoped to get a scholarship from her government which was not possible. Thus, it seemed to be preferable that she remained in Malaysia and I will join her after my PhD.
Please ignore the answers on family above.I did not have a family/partner at the beginning of the fellowship. It is not possibleto erase 6.2 above
My partner was an US citizen, working permits w/ob being married are difficult to get and she wanted to work _and_ be legal.
Because my partner is Swiss, she had tremendous problems finding work here in the UK.
About 50% of my host country's population are women. Hence, I did not deem it necessary to bring one with me.
my parents are quite old and can not live in another country.
my wife had to commute often
I had 4 children with us too !
qestions 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 should be left unanswered, they were ticked by mistake and the web page didn't allow me to correct this.
Please look at my specific comments on salary, social security, and social life.
Again a problem of language. We thus have to leave both with one salary coming from the grant.
I think this whole thing about mobility becomes a bit ridiculous if there are no ways to enable a reasonable personal life at the same time. It can be really hard on a relationship if one changes country every year or every two years and the partner is unemployed all the time, because of language problems, non-recognition of educational or professional degrees, too short a contract etc! He/she may accept this for a year or two, but not more.
If I would have had a partner at the beginning of the Fellowship it would have been difficult for her to join me for economical reasons.
she followed me for only part of the time of my stay, because she was not satisfied by her job opportunities
My husband was already in the host country when I arrived.
We move to austria also because it was possible both for me and for my husband to find a (temporary) job there.
Helps a lot with integration and social life but the financial situation is quite tough! It is a great experience to go with a family to another country. But next time I would do it only if I get the same money as in my home country plus the difference to the increased cost of leaving in my host country.
See above.
If you think about the work load, maybe is not so very good idea to make your family move.They will not enjoy you, anyway...
There should be an EU fellowship scheme for *couples* where both people are engaged in research. FAMILY REASONS (IE. THE NEED FOR TWO JOBS IN THE SAME CITY) ARE THE GREATEST OBSTACLE TO RESEARCH MOBILITY - BAR NONE. This is the main thing which I want you to learn from my survey response!
Having the nationality of the host country my wife liked to move. With similar qualifications to mine she found a well paid position with a company easily.
None.
Actually my 3 children followed (+ an au-pair) and my husband came over for the week-ends, the main reason for not following for him was that he did not want to loose his position in our home country.
I got divorced!
I already had a permanent position and I was on leave
True experience in foreign countries, European or Non-European, are a certain obstacle for any application for a position on a German University, This is the case in several scientific fields, such as biology.
due to the regression, I was happy that I could get a permanent position in the host institute, since ex-colleagues in home country had difficulties in finding a new job after their Ph.D.
only a few positions in my country and a lot of postdoc applying
Age adds up, in industry engineers above 33-35 are considered undesirable, as new recruits.
not applicable since I have a permanent position at my home institution
In Germany, my home country, the international experience didnt count very much - it had been better to stay home and wait for a position to come up somewhere. The way I did it, I had to work for another 4 years abroad and build up some reputation, before I found a (not so great) job in Germany. I was regarded as being too old when I came back. I got my fellowship when I was 29 and had finished my PhD!
Well I can only speak for biology and I hope it is better in other scientific fields, but any rlonger stay outside of Germany is an obstacle for any application for German Universities. This is well supported by the experience of many young German researchers. In contrast to the large amount of German researchers, you find in several European and Non-European research institutes, nearly no academic position is filled with people with true experience in other countries.
In my field of reasearch and my hometown, the university is the only source of jobs. And in Madrid, if you leave the university for a few years, the people remaining in the university keep the temporary posts that normaly become permanent after a while, due to spanish university endogamy. Actually, after coming back, I feel that one should not leave the spanish university to improve skills if one wants to obtain a post as teacher/researcher. Sad, isn't it ? But the problem is because jobs in Spanish university are for life and without supervision form outside
regression. Looking for a job "abroad" requires lots of time; hence might include a period of unemployment. There are some possibilities for looking a job in other EU-country when unemployed without loss of unemployment fee, but these are limited. Travelling is expensive if not reimbursed.
In the home country nepotism is rife, so that the "insiders" have the better connections. Sometimes, meritocracy may compensate, but this is sadly the exception.
I was told by people in my home institute (where I did my Ph-D) and other institutes in my home country (France), that once one was gone abroad, the chances of getting a position would be very rare, unless I agree to work for free in an institute for at least a year but without any warranty of getting a position at the end.
I stepped out of the "waiting list" in mt home institute In Italy, a PhD and an international exposure are a setback in going to private industry
To change the topic by learning new skill, it highly motivating, but not very productive( number of papers). So to aply for a position in my home country can be more difficult that if I have stayed on the same area. On the other hand I contribute with completly new things and a much broad view of the field.
Finding a position inmy own country requires lobbying
not applicable since I have a permanent position
The fellowship was almost an obstacle, due to losts contacts and ignorance of its value by many French academic institution.
After five years in the US and two in France, connexions to Germany are essentially gone.
Fellowship was too short for meaningful results in this field.
It can be difficult to keep contacts with those "back-home". Also one can loose touch with the how the system works and which funding opporunities are available.
Some networking amongst current and former MCFA members would help,e.g. via job vacancy lists on the MCFA homepage.
I believe that engineers interested in industrial careers should NOT embark in such Fellowships, these are "eating out" their age-related "window of opportunity" for embarking into industry.
I continued working in the host institution.
The fellowship may be another qualification and a great experience but it does not necessarily help you find a job.
I left research to become a European official; there has pratically been no impact of the Marie Curie fellowship on this.
7.3 My host institution offered me a prolongation of the contract for 1 year. 7.8 not applicable
Being abroad generally is considered as a positive experience, especially in the private sector. No matter if as a MCF or not. However, if you want to get a (fixed) position in academia it gets very difficult in your home-country if you don't have arranged the proper lobby before you leave. Arranging this from another country is really difficult. On the other side, if you want a fixed position in your host-country, then you have to pass quite often a lot of time-consuming and not really necessary administrative procedures, e.g. recognition procedures, before you even can start to apply for a position. Shortly: Even if you have good credits and scientific merits, in the European academia you can't apply for a position as simply as in the USA. That's really missing.
I'm currently employed by the European Commission (Ispra, Italy).
Initially I wanted an industrial position and I don't think my fellowship helped me in my search for such a job. When I turned my attention to the academic field however it certainly played a large part in my appointment to a lectureship. It was much more difficult to look for a job from abroad and consider that if a period of 3-6 months could have been guaranteed back in the home country it would have greatly facilitated this process.
not applicable since I have a permanent position
The opportunity to work in another country has been very beneficial, and as a result of the MCFA scholarship and contacts made, I have secured a job offer in italy.
I see no way of finding a permanent position in my field, since I am constrained to stay here in this very city by my husband's job. There is a long line of people ahead of me also looking for permanent positions in my field.I do not feel that I have integ- rated in the society and I would like to improve my language proficiency. I have not been able because I had a full-time job and children. I think it is really extremely difficult for women to pursue a scientific career. At some point you have children, and after that you are stuck in the place where your husband works. There should be more possibilities for women who have children to find research positions - why not part-time? - in the place where the family lives.
the fellowship is concluded, the phd not. in the meanwhile i am on the payroll of the university in order to get the consultancy work paied which i did up to two years ago
My contract has been finished since end February (we are the 14th/4). I have until now made another grant application for continuing my projects in the host institution, but definetely hope to return to my own country before the end of 2000. Since I do not yet have another position, the obligatory answer to 7.1 is a pure estimation.
It was not my case, but usually "In my home country international experience is a setback"
I will be starting to apply for positions soon.
new job found within three months, started within four months
I now hold a permanent public researcher position in the host country. The MC fellowship was particularly helpful in obtaining this position.
Usually, people that don't move, obtain better positions or permanent positions earlier
Acknowledged by academics, yes, but legally, no, not until homologated.
Academic qualifications were acknowledged by some institutions and not others.
Actually there was some suspicion of my qualifications in the host country. The number of years required for degrees and PhD's is different and they had a tendency to think that their system was the best. Something I have come across talking to people from other countries too.
I feel no special attachement to my home country and as long as I make it here, I don't care about going back.
I expect to return to my home country because the long-term prospects (with respect to finding a permanent position) are that much better.
if someone has a PhD IN greece it very difficult to find a job.
Academic titles: yes; Experience: No!!!!!
I answered 8.3.1 with "no", but only because there is no "perhaps"-button!!
Living in four different countries in recent years, I have made very different experiences. In some countries, such as Netherlands, foreign academic titles are fully acknowledged, whereas others as Germany are very resistant to acknowledge anything else as their own titles. This is not a particular problem of larger countries versus smaller countries, as demonstrated with the fully acknowledgment of foreign titles in the USA. It is the result of a problematic behavior of academic communities in several countries to overrate their academic system. Frustrating experiences of this kind are also easily obtained in Switzerland as long you do not have a German (West-) title.
I would like to go back, but it seems that I have not so many opportunities in terms of money, support, research etc.
The qualification called "Habilitation" is still a big obstacle in Germany and Austria
You may loose contacts with home country which may make it more difficult to find a "real" job in your home country upon return.
PhD not automatically validates from the UK in Spain. Have to go through loads of burocratic paperwork and long time to be validates.
At the time being at least in accademia it is a drawback for me that I left my home country as I 'lost' two years according to somebody who stayed. On the payrole now I am 'two years younger'
Mobility and the experience aquired during the fellowship is not always adequately valued.
MCFA is not known
I think that research and academy carrers in my home country (Italy) are not comparable with those in the UK. Although the scientific level of research in Italy is competitive, research funds and in particulary salaries are much lower than in other EC countries. This strongly contributes to the decision of many Italian scientists to stay abroad instead than trying to bring their experience back to their home country.
8.3.1. not at the moment.
Personal comment to 8.4: Spain: Not only the academic titles, but also the topics and credits of all your studies relevant to the obtained titles have to be recognized before one can apply for a position at university or research institutions. And not only for a position but as well for a simple 3 years research contract from the Ministry of Education or the CSIC which could give you a bit of security. It is an expensive (translation and legalizing work)and time-consuming process whose process time can take more than 2 years during which one has to survive. Obtained merits simply do not count in this system.
I would like to go back to my home country in the future, but for the time being, my research can better developped and I have more opportunities in my host country.
A serious problem is that the postdoctoral experience is not well recognized in some home countries and the available positions are temporary jobs and they are are underpaid in either academic or industrial areas.
I wish to go back to my home country but even after my fellowship it might be difficult to find a job.
As it is quite easy to travel between England and Germany it was not too difficult to keep good links with my home country. Also the use of new media like E-mail helps to keep in touch with people.
The situation in the home country is completly adverse( Spain) in reference to find a new position in the university. About the industry, something I am really interested by the project we had been developing here, it is better not to speak. Just hope the situation improved.
Poor funding of research. Participation in TMR Research Networks helped me start my lab
Italy does not encourage mobility of students. even if my research is better than a lot of other students in Italy I will not be able to get a position in hte university because I have been abroad.
I want to go back for financial reasons. 8.3.1. I do not want to go back for personal reasons.
I could not keep personal links with the home country because it was too expensive to go on holiday with my family even for a shor period
I do not really have a home institution, since I have been a post-doc and done my PhD and Master's degree all in different countries.
NONE
My home country is not helping sufficiently its scientists working abroad to return. This is an obstacle to the improvement of science and therefore quality of life in my country. Most national scientists spend the most productive period of their careers in countries more developed than mine, which means that all their ideas and results do not benefit my country but others
The possibility of going back home is usually very difficult, and much much more if you stay abroad for more that 2 years , I think. But it is also difficult to stay in the host country, so sometimes theidea of leaving your own country is just a prolongated agony
The situation in my home country is so bad (Spain) that the fellowship does not almost make a difference
I certainly would like to go back to Germany. However, this will be rather of late future.
The value of the Mary Curie Fellowship was (is still) not well recognized in French universities.
Going back to the home country is very difficult owing to the limited availability of academic jobs in the social sciences.
ad 8.4 In Germany, the recognition of titles is within the resposibility of the Länder which may lead to some difficulties.
that one has to argue to which extend the host institution has to pay for training and mobility
no difficulties
Translation of documents for local administrations
None really
Difficulty to learn foreign langueage due to hard work.
New links (like house, loan, children) make it difficult to move from one country to another - especially if the job offered is not guaranteed to be permanent.
difficulties with health insurance
There was no real obstacle to mobility
There was no assistance in family matters. My wife was unemployed and without public allowances (neither family nor unemployment), my children could no longer go to kindergardens, the salary (especially the mobility allowance) did not cover at all the reals costs.
Poor contacts of my home institution with foreign research institutions.
9.6 (4)in the beginning of the fellowship (2) at the end
maybe the family
Difficulties in finding a job in my home country after a few years spent working abroad.
It is not so good if you have to look for kindergarde places every two years. It is also not so easy for your partner to leave a good position in the home country on which he/she can not return after two years.
cc
accommodation was very unsatisfactory and hard to find with no positive assistance from host institute
I feel I have not integrated well at the host institute. I should have worked with some research group here, instead I didn't find any major interest in the research that I was doing and I ended up working alone, since I thought that it was better to continue the research I had applied to do instead of starting to work on something new with somebody here. If I had worked with somebody here, I might also have improved my chances of getting a permanent position here.
the council tax scheme in great britain is a mess the national insurance number takes ages to get issued the income tax deduction is far to high, tax reclaim is just possible with the national insurance number, the whole administration process takes a year
NONE
Strain on partnership due to move into different country
The host country is very expensive (London)
1) Family 2) Family 3) Family 4) Family (ie. see 6.3 above)
I recently received the information via the MCFA-UK-mailing list that UK-PhD titles are not officially recognized by the German government, which certainly makes me worried. I do not know if this info is correct.
None.
Missing welcome pack at the time, University administration in France was totally incompetent regarding the management of the accounts and rather slow / infefficient
Difficulties to move with the family.
The homologation problem is definitely the largest scientific barrier to European mobiliy
The social security issues and also taxes are very compicated. It's difficult to find out exactly what one has to do or needs to do before going to another country. This problem could be sorted out if there was better agreement between the European countries. It would be helpful if there were some guidelines drawn up as too what has to be done - something that I think the Welcome packs that MCFA produce try to do.
Aside from language, there haven't really been any obstacles. It remains to be seen whether having been away from my home country for so long affects my ability to find employment, but I strongly believe that this experience will be a positive rather than negative influence.
i need a residence permit in sweden
I did not have any problems or obstacles in/to my mobility
As far as I understand, this is a questionnaire directed at people who have overcome those obstacles. Their answers to this section are very unlikely to be representative.
looking a job abroad requires lots of time and insecurity.
The mobility of EU citizens should be addressed as a wider issue and not restricted only to researchers.
Taxes and pension schemes were not an obstacles when I left for the UK, because I was a student. I suspect it it might become an obstacle to go back to my home country now that i work full time in the UK.
up to an age I think one must be mobile. The problems come with time
My wife is not an EU citizen. According to EU law this should not cause any problems as she should have the same rights as me. In practise, however, we've encountered quite a few problems with the French authorities concerning entry visa, carte de sejour etc. (At one point, the French Consulate in Copenhagen even stated that "EU law does not apply to France"). We contacted an EU legal help line, but this proved very inefficient. It would be useful if the EU Commission provided some kind of jegal help to the fellows.
May be this is not the right place. But I would make the salary of the Marie Curie much more dependent on the family situation!
I went to a third country
cc
Main problem was to return to home country, due to lost social contacts
I could only get grant after almost two years in the host country without financial support
I think the information available (at least when I started) on tax etc is very confusing. I was not sure what the tax issuses were before I left the UK. Maybe this is a different situtation with the European Union now, but at the time, I had trouble finding anyone (even the UK tax office) who were able to give me definite answers on the tax position with regards to the scholarship.
Having moved to Norway (a non-EU country) meant considerable obstacles in terms of import of my own car, which I had to sell in my home country because 1. Norway uses different technical norms , and 2. the heavy import duties on cars (even when owning a car before moving into the country).
There could possibly be an allowance for people to travel to their home country, say once or twice a year. With the present stipend, it is not really possible if you also have to bring your children.
NONE
I think a main obstacle for mobility for Scandinavian researchers is the fact that most have a partner that also is into an academic career. In fact, some sort of contribution is needed to enable both partners to continue their respective research in the host country. The other main obstacle is the incompability of the social security systems that indeed caused lots of problems although I was visiting a neighbouring and culturally similar country.
In general, I see it as a good experience. Your mind definitely cjanges after "surviving " in a very different enviroment, but it is not so easy to fell all the time that you are not "a part of the system".
Actually, I was naive to expect to be tax-exempt because I would have a TMR grant... It is true that because I had a normal working contract, I had no problems with getting insurance, work permit etc, and that now I can benefit from unemployment money. But I would have preferred a better use of the almost 5500 euros spent on taxes - together with the money "invested" in French pension systems, that would have made a nice sum for a personal retirement/life-insurance scheme. A lot of us post-docs who want to remain academic scientist face a future of post-doc positions, and thus have every right to expect full personal use of the money allocated to them (e.g.: a HFSP grant is paid fully to the grantee - no taxes to be paid, at least in France!). Or for a truly European scheme.
Has the EU ever considered how many more mobile researchers it would gain, if it offered grants tailored for _couples_ engaged in scientific research (not necessarily in the same field)?? They would be offered on the same basis as single-person grants, and graded by taking the *average* score for the pair of proposals.
The financial framework of the MCF, which happens to be poor during my fellowship, because it is not being adjusted frequently enough by the European Commission.
None.
I am just getting started, yet there are no real obstacles to see.
There are at the moment to many details that are absolutely unclear for people moving around Europe to work. The different sanitary / social systems are still to different and difficult to integrate...
ad 9.4 The administrative overhead to be accepted as a PhD student by my host university was significant.
Europe wide recognition of Doctorates.
It would be nice to have the possibility to apply for EU fellowships or grants to return to the home country
The coordination of research activities could be improved by promoting access to large-scale facilities across Europe.
More European as opposed to national research programmes and funding.
By increasing the research programmes involving a few institutions in different countries under the supervision of the EC.
Something beyond post-doc funding. What happens next?
Better advertisment of funding opportunities
Less bureaucracy and paper work
With workshops and more EU funded research. With harmonization of the working conditions of researchers around Europe.
More transparent selection proceedures/deadlines.
perhaps through better co-ordination and closer collaborations with the professional institutions.
Through more coordinated research programs, including complentary units dispatched in several countries (sor of european networks of research units).
Inter-EU research projects/cooperations;
By enabling more smaller scale research projects. RTNs require lots of preparation and take ages from idea to project. For a nice, quick, 2 or 3 academic researcher project meant to start soon, you won't go for Europe- hence, not look for partners outside your country of affiliation.
improvements on independency and research liberty of the fellow
There is still a distinction between work being carried out at the "national level" and work being carried out at the "European level": for example, the Commission will only fund researchers travelling from one member state to another. Better coordination could be achieved if the Commission were given a wider remit, but this would require individual member states to channel more research funding through the Commission, and thus seems somewhat unlikely.
-
by giving more money for research networks and mobility of researchers
More EU grants, more fellowships,
use some money specifically to organise joint seminars between host and home country
give many more TMR's, support basic research, perhaps group research centers under a theme. allow hiring of home country post docs,
Creating exellence centers under the supervision of EU directly, avoiding the local (national) academic interests. These centers should be directed by young people, without direct linkage with academics.
Setting up of subject-specific working groups with key institutions coordinating the Pan-European efforts
more and bigger pan-European research initiatives, less bureaucracy for EU-funded projects, coordinated or centralized research funding
Enhance researchers' mobility, support private sector R&D funding
less bureaucracy
Determine emphasis on specific research areas at the EU level
better knowledge of local capabilities not only of Institutes, but also of individuals
By having some REAL coordination. By now is virtually non-existing.
form-up networks of experts in vertical areas monitored by research managers at horizontal markets
Coordination at the level of scientists is driven by necessity. Increasing information networks could promote this aspect, to ensure that no opportunities are missed. Increasing the number of EMBL/EBI type organisations would also be efficient. At the level of science policies, coordination of research activities should be done in consultations between leading working scientists and decision makers.
By creating more Europen trans-national research institutions and/or integrating national institutes into European ones
Except for programms requiring a lot of money, is it really required?
Respective acknowledgement of academic qualifications. More support for European Scientific Societies.
With all the craze for thematic research programmes (as compared with funding schemes that are open to any project in a certain subject), I see a real danger in more coordination between countries. Funding opportunities for very novel or unfashionable fields would be narrowed down even more at the European scale. At the moment, one can at least hope that different countries support different crazes.
1. Some times national interests may hinder European collaboration. A stonger team spirit among different countries would be great.
There are big differences in the quality of research between countries. Those countries with the lower level need to be better coordinated by the EU. These countries (like Spain) cannot evaluate by themselves there status, because they are not qualified for that. And because of this poor qualification, they ignore the impact of excellence in science. EU should coordinate their scientific policy during a probatory period.
It may be difficult to improve the research activities between EU member states without reduction of the influence of the national based research foundations. They are antagonistic players by nature. Several steps have been done to overcome the national focus of research communities, but large parts of the research society is still driven by national societies. Support for societies with a European instead National focus may be one way to improve the communication and coordination among researchers in Europe. Research networks ignoring National borders are a second important part.
Allowing countries which are mostly "donors" of grant holders (e.g. Spain, Portugal, Greece, etc) to take advantage of the skills the grant holders have dquired when they return to their home countries.
development of international technology programmes which "coordinate" different projects on national basis - reducing the amount of bureaucracy related to full EU-projects, but guaranteeing the complementarity of the projects.
more money for short informal meetings on specific topics
From my point of view, there is only one way of improving such coordination: creating a true common European scientific Policy, in the same way as ther is a common Economical and Monetary Policy or there is aproject of a common Outer and Security Policy. This is of course a challenge, since in Europe coexist countries with a large and fruitful sientifical tradition (Germany, UK, France, Holland, Denmark) together with others were scientific reasearch was traditionally an activity with a minor importance (Spain, Portugal, Greece). Because of this, there exists a gap between these two groups of countries that makes the coordination between them more difficult as compared, for example, with the situation in the USA. The research developed in Germany or the UK is still considered as German or Brittish science, and not European. In this sense, the colaboration between the many scientific Societies and National Academies, or even the creation of a European Academy of Sciences could be a way of creating a sense of belonging to a common space.
fostering the network activity
have a common taxatioon ystem and a transferable pension scheme
Reduce the over-supply of the same competencies in some disciplines and support the scarcity of scuientific capabilities in others.
more direct involvement of national science foundation in the EU research programs; decreased burocracy
Cross border communication could be greatly improved through more conferences and seminars. However, it would be important to have specific areas targeted in order to make the meetings useful for research and broad enough to tempt academics in other areas to attend.
common projects and centralized funding schemes and/or rules, which connect the national funding schemes of the single countries (e.g. DFG for Germany, MURST & CNR for Italy, CNRS for France, ...)
Enhancing mobility
To my experience, the most successful collaborations are set up between researchers who already know (and trust) each other before the collaboration starts. Hence, "forcing" a collaboration will not be very efficient. The best way to improve the coordination is to arrange that researchers can meet and get to know each other. Possible ways are: - Offering funding to access conferences, workshops etc, or even organising such events, especially focussed on the creation of an atmosphere supporting the communication between researchers. Most suitable are meetings with a total of 50 to 100 people organised at a more or less isolated location, like e.g. some of the topical meetings of the European Optical Society. - offering grants for researchers to stay in other countries.
By keeping track of those people who havealready had a fellowship and asking them about their experiences. EU researchers represent an investment on the part of the European Union, so their newly aquired skills and knowledge should not be wasted by letting them go and forgettng about them. Rather they should be encouraged to stay in Europe to ensure that there is no European `brain drain'.
Coordination of research activities between EU member states should be done professionally. Academic scientist are often very inexperienced in coordinating large projects across countries
Scientific networks, mobility of scientists.
I don't know.
Should it? Every university shall and must decide by itself what activities it carries out, and profit making organisations do so either. Research is then grass-root like, building its own networks, rather than something that states could coordinate. They must receive enough money for that.
More networks and more mobility. Incentives for research institutions to participate more in international cooperation.
By reducing the national budget for research and increasing the european one.
less buerocracy
More communication among members States
common resarech bodies with more money
It should be easier to move from one country to the other. A unification of social security and pension schemes would help. Or 10.4 instead.
faster application procedurees with more annual deadlines and less administrative workload
improved mobility of researches
by supporting more the mobility, maybe for shorter periods not only for young researcher. After 35 there must be a continuation.
By finding a better way to come back! This is in my opinion the main problem of the programs aiming for mobility (not only from EU but also by teachers and acdemic system which almost forces you to go abroad)which is that it becomes easy to go abroad but not easely to come back. If you leave you are exposed to high risks to miss a good opportunity to stay. That would be easier, and favorised to have program that allows you to automatically have a possibility to come back home.
Besides the European Framework Programmes that improve the cooperation between partners from different EU member states, the creation of the European Research Area would be very effective.
By increasing the European Funds aimed at collaboration of mobility within different EC countries
By better monitoring of activities and enhancing competitive aspects.
having relevant and mandatory presentations.
1.)Short- to medium term: Introduction of common standarts for recognition procedures which do not take a long time. Long-term: Abolishing of recognition procedures. 2.)Create an open and non-protective European research area which is based on the merits of the scientist and which gives up national protectionism and scepticism on people/things coming from abroad. This will lead to a competitive Europe.
Improving the information channels.
I think that it has improved with the new research network programmes.
Automatic recognition of european university degrees in all european countries, in all areas (what Spain is doing is - in my opinion - morally illegal).
More information about EU Research Programmes and more contacts between European researchers.
web-sites with listings of projects with respective publication, data base -group projects only funded
By instituting a European Research Observatory
The coordination of reseach activities between EU member states could be improved by having common EU scientific goals that could be implemented by groups in different countries.
Better links, through collaborations, between institutes from different countries
By creating more links between reserch institues of different countries.
There should be less differences between education systems and students at university should be allowed to carry out visiting research projects abroad.
by supporting multi-partners research projects
More Europe-wide topical meetings, more exchange of researchers and students
It would be helpful to create an official organism in order to planify, schedule, and co-ordinate the efforts on the main research targets at the european level. This institution should be officially accepted by all members of the European Union.
European Research Policy
Increase the numbers of networks.
By choosing some independent and experts commities. I know that sounds more bureocracy, but I propose that the persons in the committes are scientific persons, not bureocrats. And not all the scientific persons are avaible, but the ones that in a list of 10 keywords have something related to the field. IMproving communications, why we should copy systems that are working in another places?. Europe is heterogenous in language and in cultures, that made to leave here interesting. And another way to coordinate could be not to increase mobility, but the exchange of ideas. Do not forget the people that even in this case they want to move too( that is the ideal situation and I like it, but maybe in a short range we should bet for a different way).
by both formal and informal means: EU directives/guidelines for the national science policymakers, research institutions and funding agencies; by making international cooperation a criterion for project funding; by fostering communication between scientists working in particular fields
1. Funding - continue the framework programmes as the major steering mechanism to direct research to European Union objectives. National and EU research programmes should be complementary, not competitive. 2. Information - expand and give more publicity to existing information sources about research centra and their activities. Easy access to information about who-does-what and what-is-done-where.
By agreeing common research projects
Clear rules which the member states (host institutions in case of MCF) HAVE to obey
More funding for joint grant applications
clear regulations for the host country (concerning e.g. taxation)
By having researchers with previous experience as EU grant holders in the panels that decide research policy
The academic titles given by different universities (M.S., PhD, etc) should be recognised in all europe. At the present, this was only partially true, and one needs to do some (quite) paperwork. For example, in my case, my PhD title is not recognised in my own country.
With a coordinate long term plan on reserach. much more money and energies should be invested in research but of course in a fruitful. Some power should be taken away from the academy in certain countries.
Improved communications between researchers in similar areas. This is now happening with the advent of the web, but 5 or 6 years ago it was a considerable barrier.
Database of research activities of other instituions and groups to know who is working in your field and what they are doing.
Strengthen and encourage bilateral contacts of departments and research groups with excellent know-how
You should have more European Networks that allow research groups in different countries to exchange ideas, personal, experience
Organise conferences on different topics and bring the people together. Try to improve the image of the EU in general doing less bribed lobby work
It would be good to have more joined projects with the country of origin of the fellow
By putting together national and European funds for research
collaboration with national funding agencies
clear employment structures, faster decisions
Opening of National Grant-giving bodies for Projects with pronounced internation collaborations
Less bureaucracy
Every researcher may be informed about other on-going programs in his or her related fields, which would help to build up contacts. Grant holders as well as network members ... could also benefit from contacts with specialists working at EC research centers (Ispra..)
by instituting a system of bilateral collaborative research projects, like those of NATO and Humboldt European Collaborative Reseach Awards.
Higher degree of contact between groups working on similar topics in eu member states, and the willingness to work together instead of to compete - and thus perhaps incentives from the EU for groups to work together.
To create more contract between several foreigner institutions.
Possibly by recognising the the high quality research expertise found in each country.
By merging national research fundings in a single body (like NSF in the States).
I have a lot of suggestions, and I m open to more discussion about this point, amog them... in the near future by the creation of several european scientific articulations, such as a european research center (based where, languages, students and teaching, how to motivate excellent senior scientists and teachers, which kind of research areas, connexion with industry...), a european academy of science (role in comparison with the national ones), a european scientific magazine of excellence, competitive with nature, science... and more, I m ready to discuss and exchange about this, as well as to ACT
By having a lot more fellowships for going abroad.
By developing a common R+D policy just as there is a common agriculture policy and a common fisheries policy, etc.
combined projects carried out in cooperation of different institutes in europe
Funding for establishing networks and organizing small symposia and training courses within specialized areas.
I think the European contacts in my field are quite good.
I think the idea of the European networks is a very good one, much different of the "isolated" experience of a MC student...
More personal contacts of the researchers
Less bureaucracy. Maybe hire scientists (maths, biology, informatics) to do the organising and co-ordination.
Much more funding for pan-EU conferences, schools, workshops. This should cover the travel and attendence expenses of the researchers.
More Europewide operating funding bodies and research organisations, less influence by national organisations.
no opinion
Organization of a European University Conference ?
I do not know
Pool together expertise in common research areas, e.g. Joint European Laboratories. Get better scientists to Brussels in order to make decisions for future prospectives. Too much administration. It seems that CEC referees are not really impartial. This must be improved.
more strongly support young scientist schemes
Exchange of visits of university students should be further encouraged.
More personal meetings, e.g., on small scientific meetings.
also give possibilities for funding of shorter stays, or kind of "exchange grants" between institutions
There is a lot of contact between european research groups. But more projects should be funded.The focus should not be on big projects with big names.
Sorry. No more time to write.
Through the stablishment of scientific networks, managed by scientifically qualified people willing to work toward such integration, and not just to get money to develop their own projects... Young scientists should have an important role in this sense... since they fulfill the necessary requirements of willing to work and believing in the European integration...
less bureaucracy
With more research grant funding opportunities
Support the mobility of senior researchers; create centers of excellence
Promoting and i8mproving the collaboration programs between universities and research centers.
Help less favorite countries to "keep track" with more advanced ones. Enhance mobility of researchers working on the same subject. Research grants for projects in which more laboratories from different EU countries are participating
Europe wide recognition of Doctorates.
Facilitating the positions in the home country for researchers that had moved
In terms of policy, not very much. I think it's very much down to the personal motivation of the individual.
Again, sort out the homologation problem - cross-homologate European degrees.
increase salaries, positions
Putting in place attractive packages for short/medium term stays in foreign countries and encouraging institutions to allow for foreign visitors.
Contribution to conference attendance in the grant. It is not easy or maybe diplomatic to ask your host institution when budgets are so tight.
Contracts for longer time periods
International experience should be stressed as an important criterion in announcements of positions etc.
Create the legal frame that will allow short-term (up to 6 months) mobility of researchers, regardless their obligations (e.g. teaching) in their home country (these should be waived).
General acceptance of degrees.
Travel grants and scholarships like MCF's
More money specific for travel
Inter-EU workshops, projects
Better language teaching at school, in particular in the UK. Hardly any native person here is fluent in another european language.
to reduce the evaluation time of proposals; the possibility to submitt at least two proposals
It seems that a disproportionate number of researchers go to the UK from other member states, probably with a view to improving English language skills, but also because they already have a working knowledge of English from school. Mobile researchers from the UK tend to go to the USA, rather than towards the European mainland, and this may again be in part due to language. One action that may make mobility within the EU more attractive would be the provision of intensive language training, if required, as part of the fellowship award, prior to commencement of the "award proper".
Curie-style grants are great Small-scale travel grants would help
to give a good salary to researchers and cancel the obstacles for residence permit.
Give them a chance to get a job at home when they want to come back!
A more uniform scientific policy
Let the procedure be more flexible (dates, contract, etc.) and promote mobility for PRE-doc researchers also
make short term visits (1-2 months) possible too, finance basic research
Mobility by itself, without a long plane term can create unemployment. That is the problem
Simplify taxation procedures, e.g. a central source of allocations
Stanardisation of tax/social security regulations in all member states
more incentives to move, more comparable university degrees and academic titles (e.g. abolition of habilitation in Germany!), similar appointment processes for academics
improve language skills by local education systems.
Extend the funding scheme to a number short term grants (like cat.40).
more true european education/information from an early age on
Provide untaxed grants directly to the researchers
prospect of employment
By granting equal treatment and opportunities to returning and "sedentary" scientists.
raise the awareness of available programmes.
More grants !
By providing more longer term contracts (4-6 years, as opposed to the usual 2-3 years), and providing attractive salaries.
To increase the number of grant of one year or more for the mobility of researchers, and not only for those under 35.
More emphasis on the internationalk dimension of scientific careers in undergraduate education (improvement of language skills is essential in many countries).
Offer funding for bilateral projects (true full funding, not just travel costs or a little extra to existing nationally funded projects)
1. Better salaries 2. To know that the mobility could help considerably to get a job or improve your job in the near future.
Eliminate the bourocratic barriers between EU countries and create a real European dimension of research and researchers. Provide to researchers a better knowledge of the scientific organization of each country and the opportunities that they offered, or better, create a similar system for all countries. Increase the salary of researchers: it is very dificult to start in a different country when the salary is low. More facilities for women and the families of researchers.
10.2. One point is of course the problems with social security. The systems are very different and some countries are resistant to make their systems flexible. Installation of roles about transfer of social security from one to another country may be one step forward. Second, a policy is needed which motivate home institute to employ researchers with experience outside their home country. Third, large research facilities have to be modified from National to European research facilities.
Help them integrate a bit more on host country social life. Pay more money (this is always atractive).
short-term (regular) visits (e.g. 1 week, 1 month) to expert sites in other country while performing the research in "home" country - while creating firm links between host and home country and transfer experience between both countries, but without leaving for a long time home institute.
Extend the contract time
more short term fellowships
There should be something for people between post-doc (after MCF) and "professor" -level who want to work in an other European country.
less bureaucracy
The mobility of researches, and that of workers in general, can only be enhanced if the social schemes and policies of the different European countries are made as similar as possible, so that moving from country to the other does not result in a problem. I am coinvinced taht researchers are intrinsically a very mobile group, who do not mind moving out of their country if better conditions for their work are provided. One specifica problem in the academical world, is that national researchers are usualy preferred (how many european but foreigner professors are ther in UK, or Germany or France or Spain...?). Finally, a very difficult problem to solve are language barriers.
Grants to do Ph.Thesis in foreing countries
change and unify the national laws for social security
More funding but less fellowship (i.e. higher salary)
Appoint them in permanent positions first, before moving them around.
Temporary contracts that last less than 2 years do not offer any assured career development. If an EU funded research post could be linked directly with a long term staff position, probably at the host institution, they could be viewed more as a training period which would lead to a job with longer term prospects.
more TMR-like projects, support mobility within existing contracts (allow leave of absence)
I think that EU should also run a programme to facilite the return of Marie Curie fellows to their home country (not only to less developed areas)
The younger researchers are, the more willing they are to move - one reson being family, school access for the children and so on. Hence, the mobility of young researchers should be supported. In this sense, it is - to my opinion - counter-productive that funding for Ph.D students is not available within the Marie Curie Fellowships anymore. This was one of the very few possibilities to fund such students, as many national funds require e.g. the fluent knowledge of the language in the host country. In addition, the procedure for getting funding has to be as un-bureocratic as possible and also as quick as possible.
In my case the mobility was remarkable and so no enhancement is required
Give them the chance to go back and don't through them out of the social system and science political network.
Also offer shorter fellowships, just for a few months in order to learn specific techniques or have short exchanges.
I think it is a state of mind.
1) Guarantee that no social rights get lost by moving. 2) Guarantee public kindergarden places for children of fellows. 3) Make the one time travel allowance and the mobility allowance dependant from a fellow's family situation (multiply with number of persons in the family).
Ensure a fair chance of candidates from abroad in certain countries (especially France). At the moment there is too much support for local candidates.
By devoting more money for this aim.
unification of systems (health, pensions, social benefits)
Better working conditions that are equivalent to the ones locals enjoy.
common tax/pension and more transperant wages policies at uni/res. org.level
The offer of attractive positions.
by implementing a European social security system in addition to the national
more budget
I thing the TMR networks is the best solution
One possible way to enhance the mobility of EU researchers could be the offer of specific fellowships by the national research organisations. In addition, the offer of employment by the national research institutes and universities to scientists from other EU member States.
More economical flexibility and social welfare benefits transferable within different countries
Reduce rules concerning elligibility of the mobility of researchers and value researchers according to their merits and strenghts with respect to the specific activity.
up to date information of the host country. and a dedicated officer helping the new researcher. i wasn't paid for 3 months when i started. and this year i am paying 50% tax as my papers have not been sorted out.
1.)Introduction of common standarts especially concerning pension schemes and taxation or to create a "European Scientist" who does not depend on national rules but only on European standarts, independent of the country where he/she is. 2.) Introduction of position-integration schemes for scientists (especially postdocs) who want to stay in academia after concluding the MCF contract time, independent in which European country they want to stay afterwards.
Administrative problems are for me a big barrier because they start just at the beginning of the grant, when the researcher still does not know the language. The EC should be aware that burocracy at the level of the host institution is not neccesarily used to English, and that all the new contracts are also a difficult subject.
Most of the people that I know who have chosen to stay in their home country, were worried that they would be forgotten and would lost any chance of getting a position in their home country if they were going abroad.
see above
Increase of the number of grants
-mobility fund, Erasmus program for researchers, with the requirement for people within thesis and postdoc to have a foreign stay
Ensure better chances of getting Return Grants upon completion of the Fellowship
Promoting and increasing the number of research grants such as the Marie Curie Research Training grant.
Consider return fellowships for most of the cases.
To keep social benefit of home country.
complete aknowledge of academic qualification.
armonise social and boureaucratic aspects
Provide opportunities for 1yr visits or sabatticals with continuation of employment from home country. Create more europe-wide centres of excellence.
Bureaucracy should be simplified for scientific staff
The pension schemes should be integrated. That was a real problem for me. Also, the experience abroad should be keep into account in home countries.
Harmonize the legal requirements among the different EU countries.
The current system is quite good in my opinion (especially the idea to build european networks) and should be further supported by the EU.
spread the word!
( see previous comment...)
The stay abroad needs to become a clear career advantage in as many fields as possible. Facilitate the return after the stay.
1. Encourage mobility at early stage (e.g., university stages) 2. Adopt grants to personal situation (e.g., increase grants if partners/family is involved) 3. Also here: better marketing
More individual and project grants
More frequent collaborations if short mobility periods are well supported.
the perspective of getting long term (~5 years) positions after the PotDoc/Fellowship period.
Improve the job opportunities for returning back in the home countries
better support if administrative problems arise with the host country
The system of grants used at present is already ok in my opinion
For those who have families, giving them a higher mobility allowance. As well, fellowships of three years (instead of two) would be better.
Create more opportunities
Demontrate to promising young stdents the benefits of working in another European country. In my own discipline thehighest acheivement was often seen as a postdoc in America, which was perceived as very prestigious and opening more doors than a European research opportunity. There may still be some truth in this.
Improve and increase mobility of students at undergraduate and graduat level. Increase s programs like SOCRATES
simplification/regularization of tax and social security issues
Mobility always signifies insecurity too. Thus strengthening their positions in host and in home institutions would help a lot
Pay them better or give them perspectives to find a permanent research position after they return to their home country
More funding opportunities
reducing obstacles due to differences in aspects of social security
Bring down the bureaucratic barriers
Better information at the national level about the EC possibilities (e.g. in peripherical countries such as Italy, Spain, Greece, POrtugal, etc., where information flows much less than say in Belgium or the Netherlands).
increase contacts between researchers on postdoc-level: conferences, post-doc-networks
include age up to 45
I never had problems in being mobile within the EU.
Longer contracts (3-5 years)
consider double careers and partners for more experimented people
keep grants for PhD students
same as 10.1
More short term grants (of 1/2/3 years) for the mobility of young researchers.
SDimplify burocracy and increase the economic benefits, improve the "value" of the marie Curie fellowship for example providing a sort of official "certification" at the end ogf the fellowship that could be used for future job applications in academia and private sectors.
to have the European laws applied!
Better clarification of tax and social security details in the different countries.
See above
Help people who have families to move together to the same place for a period of time.
Improving the infromation to potential fellows and harmonising social benefits, taxation, education systems etc. in the member states.
possibility of longer contracts , not just two years
Better opportunities for short term stays at host departments that (1) does not need to produce enormous amounts of byraucracy due to the various social systems and also (2) need mean that one of the partners in a family must give up or sacrifice his or her career.
Organize a web page where potential projects, scientists leasing the project and people who want to do a TMR can meet.
Mobility would be easier if people with family/partner received more support.
I find very complicated to answer to this question, since moving to another country is much of a personal decission, and not just a professional one. Networks are OK.
Open the scientific institutions of the countries to foreigners in terms of employment Spend more public money
Create a truly European university. With ample funds, fundamental and applied sciences. And with Europe-wide provisions for retirement and social security. I don't know if there currently exist "European employees", and how they are technically employed, but something like that would come to mind. Or maybe something modelled after the UNESCO university.
See 9.8 and 6.3 above
I personally would prefer the old TMR-scheme which I could use. This gives actually the individual more chances to get the TMR-grant and does not limit the grant to certain institutes. The individual can be fully self-responsible in choosing the institution and setting-up the project which is a good experience for later. May be also a mixture of the current and the old grant scheme would be interesting. Thus, both institute and individual are able to apply for a grant.
Attractive financial framework for European Fellowships, longer duration, more frequent financial adjustments.
less hassle when moving to another country. The British should learn to drive on the right hand side of the rode
Increasing contacts with research institutions to improve employment when back to home country.
More grants
Exchange programs for "old" scientists.
make the idea of free living in Europe really happen. there are still too many bureaucratic obstacles to overcome (like getting residence permits and working out how local/national tax schemes are applying to one self...etc.)
The university systems of some countries should be less bureaucratic.
A more uniform social security system (pension payments, health system ...), taxation and administrative paperwork could facilitate the mobility in Europe.
The quality of european research should be demonstrated more clearly. Most people only look over the ocean.
Make the process of applying for grants faster and more straight forward. The EU's red tape is legendary and puts many people off.
Sorry. No more time to write.
Improve the ease for mobility, especially for those already stablished that want to spend a period abroad and then go back to their home institution. Here, of course, the different national governments should collaborate...
more attractive saleries
Provide assistance to the families of the researcher in the host country.
With more research grant funding opportunities
For young scientists it could be important to establish a return fellowship to their home country (or to another country) in order to improve their employment prospects.
A European pension scheme
Trying to ensure the former position of the researcher in the home country to fully ensure a succesfull coming back.
Funds for researchers to be able to participate in workshops or even work for a small period of time in a foreing institute outside their host country
More collaborations between European countries
The benefits would be to bring European research up to world class standards.
Creation of a pan-European research area would help Europe to compete scientifically with the US.
Increased scientific collaboration and sharing of resources.
Would encourage people to choose research as a career. Right now it is too uncertain where/if there is money and whether there are choices outside ones home country.
Imporved sharing of information and collaboration opportunities
The experience of working in different scientific environments is essential for one's development as an independent researcher.
The diffusion of know-how, the increase of research competitiveness towards other Unions, like the USA, and the faster development of products and services as a response to social needs.
Better understanding between researchers, better collaboration, less redundant activities.
Mobility will certainly increase better understaning between peoples and aid better working collaborations between countries. Also each country, no matter whether they give the impression that they are pro_Europe, still thinks they are better than the other countries! They are suspicious. This feeling hopefully will be lost with better mobility
to spread and to increase knowledge providing people even leading researchers can be attracted in every country of the EU
Exchange of different viewpoints, experiences, learning to cope with different mentalities; seing different systems hand-on, judging on benefits/drawbacks of these hand-on
The ultimate goal has to be the United States of Europe. That can be bossted by making sure that later decision makers spent some time of their life in another European country.
important to open up national compartmentalisation of research BUT without streamlining it to the anglo-american league-table system. mobility, increased language skills and return-schemes might be important to countries at the (often only perceived because outside anglo-american) 'academic/scientific' periphery
strong european research/scientific platform; reduction in the gap between developed and less developed regions
I think these are obvious: research in general benefits from better communication between researchers. It is vital to exchange ideas and experiences, and to build up contacts within the research community. The cultural diversity within the EU manifests itself even in scientific research, and we can all learn a great deal from one another.
- exchange of ideas and training/learning opportunities
more mutual exchange of knowledge
they get more experience and meet other researchers, working in the best laboratories, research centres of EU.
Better science! Broader vision, cultural exchange plus FUN!
more contacts, more internationalisation. Every institution has a lot to learn from each other, sometimes just sharing an individual is not enough.
excellent idea
Exchange of experiences and knowledge
Language level for communication
This would lead to a better coordination of research activites between EU member states
a bigger, unified, more efficient research community like the USA
europe would be developed as a integrated unit.
Exchange knowledge between developed and developing countries
better European integration
Getting closer to a homogeneous scientific European society
scientific experience, European integration
More contacts and exchange of ideas
broadening the scope and applicability of EU's research potential.
An eye opening experience, increased ability to collaborate with foreign scientists, increase the flow of knowledge between member states.
Exchange of ideas and methods, transfer of knowledge, higher quality of research
Better links among the labs; improved performance of european research
Better use of transnational research facilities. Improved international research collaboration. Strengthening of the European research community in the competition with the US.
From the viewpoint of European science, a larger pool of candidates for any given position may increase the quality of individual appointments.
Better research. Mobility means communication, which is one of the cornerstones of modern research.
Transfer of knowledge Intercomunication between different trends in science Improvement of science in general Create one of the first 'european' people group, not just in a profesional style but also in a cultural style.
First, enhanced mobility of EU researchers improves the quality of science. It is a well-known fact that human and financial resources limit National driven research. A larger community (Europe) or country (US) provide more resources and result in a higher standard of science. Small programs existing in several European Nations are more efficient if they are integrated in a larger European program. It is a question of economy. Second, mobility of researchers, as a social elite, increase the cultural exchange among the European nation and help to form a strong European Community.
1. European poorer countries will reach richer ones faster. 2. United Europe needs integration at many levels, and this is one. 3. Compete with american researchers.
transfer of knowledge between institutes and EU-countries. Bringing additional cultures/ experience from other countries to solve national problems (e.g. mobility).
In southern mediteranean countries, there is little or no funding for their own nationals, let alone Europeans who want to continue research in that country after their fellowship has finished. So mobility within a European framework works fine in richer European countries who support their own research community, but not at all in the poorer countries. So two years of integration can be wasted because there is no possibility to remain. Two changes could be made to help the situation. 1) extend the period of the fellowship-thus allowing more time to find funding from the host country. 2) allow a non-permanent associate staff member (such as a fellowship holder) to apply for TMR network participation and thus provide their own funding to remain-this would have to be subject to the agreement of the host institution of course.
more competitivity in the labor market possibility to choose country to live
Possibility to construct research networks for large multinational projects.
More cooperation between researchers due to personal contacts. Better training for researchers, widening of horizons.
The existance of a big human capital, with a first order and specialised education, within a big economical area. This is the advantage of the USA respect to Europe nowadays.
Research in the countries less developped of Europe
more effective research, growing together of Europe, less xenophobie and nationalism
Better understanding among european about the research in EU
Professional and social integration. In the long term, "settling-down" of research competencies offered across EU to the most capable institutions in each discipline.
Dissemination of knowledge is the main advantage of reseacher mobility. However, relaxing the geographical restraints on researchers also allows them to choose the research area in which their experiance or interest can have the greatest impact.
faster R&D progress in EU and better scientific achievement, which would reflect in long-term benefit for whole EU-economy
Increased communication, scientific knowledge and less regional variations
See 10.1
Please see above reply
To become competitive to the US and do better research
Exchange of scientific info, improvement of science, improvement of researcher.
A better knowledge of what is done in other country, different style of work. Open your eyes and see in a different way.
Well, funny question. If we do not know already, why question 10.2 then? There is no fundamental difference between researchers and other workers. Mobility simply allows a better allocation of adapted work power. If you are interested/qualified to do a specific kind of work, then do it independently of where you might do it, instead of doing a less interesting work just because it can be done in your village. If moving becomes easier inside Europe, then more researchers will see a good opportunity to carry out research in an adapted European research center instead of going to the most wonderful of all possible countries.
A better scientific level of European research
A general improvement of the quality of the research.
"no-boundary" exchange of people, knowledge, experience; understanding for other people/cultures increases with international contacts people have
Better networks and cooperation.
improved competition with US researchers and better resarch and better carrier opp.
Faster development of all countries involved. Creation of a critical mass.
enhanced scientific collaborations and cultural understanding
more scientific contacts, European research coordination, new ideas arising from compairing experiences
up-to-date research
Besides the exchange of the knowledge and the increase of the research experience, the mobility of EU researchers is very important for the communication between citizens of different EU Member states and the cultural interaction needed for the securing of the European Union and the building of Europe.
Share of different cultures and experience that makes Europe priviledged comparing to other worldwide realities.
Breaks down language and cultural barriers. Increases the understanding of current state-of-the-art of the researchers field of study in the EU.
greater amounts of information and skill sharing
undertanding: you appreciate the good things in each country; learning, that national matters of one country are so unimportant in another coubtry
Since science does not know any borders, there should be no administrative borders for scientist. Only this can lead to a fruitful and more efficient exchange of ideas and to a competetive Europe.
Better transfer of knowledge. But also good facilities for opening the mind and social barriers, so that the grant holder will get aware of the potential Europe has.
Would enhance research collaboration and therefore progress of sciences.
benefits to science as a whole by improved cooperation (exchange of scientific ideas, technology transfer...)
Better quality of the research
more contacts, better exchange of ideas, language barrier reduction, better science
Establishing professional contacts and having access to dedicated fundings
Improved collaboration among different European Research Groups.
= Mobility of knowledge, Enhance the idea of Europe as a integrated area with common interests.
Improve the links between institutions and improve the quality of research
Better communication, higher scientific level, better researchers/people.
better integration, enhanced collaboration
more cooperation between national institutes, more integration of research from different cultures
To build up a real and homogeneous working frame in research all over EU
This would certainly increase the overall quality of science; but I dont think this would increase the quality of poor institutions.
More exchange and personal contact between scientists from different EU member states.
share the expertise
More exchange of ideas, people working in the same areas know what the others do and work in best ideas toghether. The reserach can be made faster.
People having a mobility experience tend to be more open-minded, motivated, initiative and usually have acquired knowledge not available in their home country.
Communication - Cohesion through a better understanding and appreciation of cultural differences.
Wider perspective of problems and approaches
increased scientific (and social) experiences.
more collaborative research projects, knowing each other better
mutual knowledge transfer
mobility means circulating the ideas faster and more efficiently, which is the basis for doing good and innovative research
Establishing new contacts, research projects, etc can only be done if the researchers meet each other. As well, the experience of one institution can be very useful for another one, and again, this "savoir-faire" can be transmited through the scientist that travel between the two institutions.
Evident to the development of europe, first of all to the economical development
European collaboration between scientists of different countries and setting up of execellence research centres across europe such as CERN, which could improve the private research sector spending in europe.
greater scientific cross-fertilization
Stronger concurrence in research, cooperate european identity, improved interdisciplinary reseach
more exchange of know how and experience
Communication, intercultural skills
Reciprocal contacts between research institutions within an EU context
My work highly benefits from working in an international team because of different views/comments/insights (scientific and cultural) I get I probably would not get in my home country I suspect that enhanced mobility of EU researchers could
More exchange, better understanding of the cultural & working backgrounds, synergy of the knowledge
Exchange of practices, methodologies, opening minds to a European perspective
knowledge transfer between european countries (the scientific 'culture', main research areas etc. are still quite different)
more scientific exchange
Braking up old structures, increased quality (you have to compete with Europe and not only within your country)
-languages -knowledge of research activities in EC countries
would increase the total volume of the community possibly creating favourable situation as in the US (and in their own framework in the former SU)
Sharing of research and information in EU states means that groups are working together; using differnt view points, which thus gives more input into the research. It makes sense for european memeber states to work together in the field or research; to create a stronger research base.
a much stronger EU scientific community
to know more about the distinc culture and way of life to understand better the others.
It would provide an opportunity for visiting researchers and host to acquire new research expertise.
Scientists will be 'forced' to merge in major european projects, rather than seek local fundings
The quality of the research would improve and also the research would speed up.
Enhanced competitive edge of the EU. Increased job opportunities.
broaden the mind, exchange of knowledge
Science is more efficient and more interesting when you share your experiences with other researchers.
Projects can be better integrated, i.e. the wheel is not reinvented in each country Bring home good ideas on how to improve your institution/research/teaching
Scientific and cultural exchange, spreading of knowledge, establishment of scientific collaborations, reduction of the economical differences between countries, strengthening of links within Europe
Sharing your way of thinking with colleagues of different nationality, knowing different ways of doing research and solving problems, different facilities and so on is positive, for sure!!. This experience should improve also tolerance , break barriers, abolish stereotypes, so it is always positive...and it will slow down brain- drain towards USA
Better research More feedback
To science? Rather evident: optimal use of research potential. But I'm not sure whether the benefits make it a principle of crucial importance. Previous generations have produced Nobel price winners that were sessile to modern day criterions. I guess there are also financial benefits if big infrastructures do not have to be replicated in each country.
We would catch up on the research quality and volume output of the USA - where full mobility is the norm.
Contacts between research institutes are important for the advancement in research. The research gains self-confidence by these contacts.
More joint European projects which will keep European science and technology competitive in the world.
Better research. More exchange of experience and knowledge.
A more homogeneous level of research between different countries
Enhance European strength of different expertise in common research areas.
the tearing down of cultural prejudices
Higher quality of research.
Increased transfer of scientific knowledge. Intensified research activities in European dimensions, which are sometimes even required to reach a certain "critical mass" of knowledge and methods.
creation of "personalised" research networks
More contacts between researchers all over Europe. More access to knowledge.
Better research.
Sorry. No more time to write.
Clearly, a rapid improvement of the basic knowledge (first) and, to a mid-stage, of the applied science.
better international collaboration, better understanding of research priorities at a European level
Greater cooperation, smoother integration of the less "research-equiped" countries into european research
Enhance science in Europe favouring the participation of young scientists and the developing of an interdisciplinary European network.
Greater flexibility of European research
Global improvement on technology and science
Exchange of ideas (and not only on scietific level). Work toward common targets/needs of EU as allies. We can be friends, no enemies.
Sounds fine!
It is a great idea
If this would enhance mobility, it would be worth trying.
agree!!
I do not deem this necessary.
Don't really understand the concept.
Very good. I have very good experiences from this type of fellowship from Sweden. Less bureaucracy and more freedom for the grant holder.
It will mean less bureaucracy, but this is not a fundamental issue. There are other more important issues: For example, it is UNACCEPTABLE that an "official working permit" should be issued in the host country for an EU citizen of another EU country.
Good, although options must be presented to grant holders.
The social security systems are complex enough, without having to try and figure it out completely by one's self. Think it's not a good idea.
It would allow a larger control of the holder on its own income which is a good point. However, clear informations about the right procedure to follow in your host country should be provided too.
Interesting
If this is combined with help on how to do that - why not. Definitely,it would be easier if one would still be in the social system of his home country, as one has most probably already some experience what to do and what to watch out for.
That can only be a half way house. Better make national social security systems compatible throughout Europe.
advantageous because simple administration of allocation, probably problematic because status differences make integration into whatever host institution difficult
very good idea, but depends on details
This would certainly simplify the contracts (and make them cheaper to administer), but the level of social security afforded by the current scheme is excellent, and I have no complaints whatsoever in this regard.
- a major headache
not a good idea. I rather prefer that under whatever formal status, social plans continue from the home state, + (if applicable) an upgrade to equalize for the host state expense level
I DO NOT KNOW
I dont think this will work. Just give the person a real grant status
This would highly improve mobility
I don't know what it means
excellent idea
it's the best solution for the grant holder's problems
I thik it is a good idea
Good, but in connection to informations on the national possibilities. This should be not too difficult to furnish for an european centre
Good idea as avoids red tape encountered in particular member states
With the huge differences in social systems and taxation, I think the aid of a host institution to sort these things is necessary. But nevertheless the grant could be directly paid by the commission. Only in the UK with the strong pound, a payment in Euro would carry some risks!
Would definitely enhance the funding possibilities
a too much centralised scheme that will hamper individual initiative and another example of European centralised overregulation
Great Idea!
positive action
In principle, it sounds good; have to know the fine print
cannot comment on that. i need more information.
I don't understand the question
It could be a good idea. But I think it would be useful to have European social/pension schemes, which can follow the researcher where ever she/he ends up working.
It would certainly make life much easier!
This depends on how these 'individual' plans could be integrated into the different national social systems.
Only if the integration of this scheme with the social security schemes of all EU countries were very carefully thought through, as the period of the 'European grantholdership' will always only form a part of a scientist's career.
Sounds good, but I would like to know the details to decide whether it would be an improvement.
Personally I have been very glad with the social benefits that France gave me. I would not change it for a private social plan.
This may be one solution to create European standards.
I think it is a fantastic idea !!!! I really think it will be the best solution for the grant holder.
this will only work if the social plans of the different member states favour this (e.g. that you do not have to pay twice taxes for the same things; that holiday regulations fit to each other; that the reimbursement of sickness in the host country is the same as for your colleages
An excellent idea
excellent idea
A brilliant idea.
If home countries would make it possible to stay in its social security system this would be optimal
I don't find it a good idea. I believe that the programme in its present form accounts for an major integration of the fellows in the host countries. As stated above, the different social policies must be approached, and I do`not think that creating a new social policy administrated by the Commission is the right way.
OK
very positive
excellent idea
This was the HCM scheme. For older people with already set-up social plans, it is fine. I doubt that younger grant holders would not omit this future responsibility, however, especially if the present uncertainty on their future employment prospects continues (i.e., they will "consume the future for the present").
excellent idea
Unless social issues, such as tax and health insurance, can be made uniform across Europe, giving a grant holder control over there own social plan would be a good idea. However, I think there would have to be careful guidelines to ensure that the grant holder was not exposed to undue risk through an insufficient social plan.
good idea, I would also think that there should be a "European scientist", i.e. a permanently employed such "European grant holder": this would extremely enhance mobility and knowledge transfer
I feel it would good idea
Might be attractive, if the necessary help and information is provided, and if it means more flexibility for the grant holder in choosing his place of work.
It would be better at my opinion, although it depends on the frame of the contract that will be proposed
I think this might be a slightly optimistic and unreallistic thing, unless the grant holder already has a senior established position as the responsibility entailed may be too much in certain cases.
Very good idea
Very good idea.
I can be a good idee
Nothing. A Marie Curie fellow is an ordinary worker whose social rights/situation should in no way diverge from his/her colleagues in the host country.
I am not sure about the practicalities of this.
I do not realize about the advantages of this.
what do you mean by social plan??
Agree
good
I suppose this would be the best solution as it would offer the same standard to everybody. It might not be too attractive to move from a rich into a 'poor' country otherwise.
I very much would like and fully support this idea
it is necessary
excellent
That would be good I think. But again, you should consider the way to re-enter in a normal system afterwards.
I find this idea very attractive.
I am in favour.
Good idea.
need to monitor , if you don't want the situation abused. there are some pretty unscrupulous people out there.
Not a good idea. Because I see a "national contract" as part of the integration in the host country.
Good idea which I would support. This makes scientist more independent on national rules and they can concentrate more on their profession. Furthermore the scientist himself can decide in which social/pension scheme he wants to stay. A system with much more responsibility but much more freedom for the individual scientist.
I do not understand the question!!
The idea of having the Commission as the direct employer is good, but for someone who is not experienced on social matters, dealing with his/her social plan on his/her own is not something that I would recommend.
My first reaction would be "Excellent idea!!" On the other hand, I agree with the principle that we should be integrated in our host countries in ALL aspects, so I think we should pay local taxes etc, BUT only if this means no disadvantages with unemployment insurance, pension schemes, etc.
It can be very useful to avoid differences in the situation of EU fellows in the different host countries.
??
Maybe a good idea; but I fear the additional burocratic workload
This would probably have the advantage of eliminating differences between grant holders in different countries. However, this could also slow down the integration of a grant holder in the host country as he/she works under different contractal rules than other colleges. Overall, I would think that there are more advantages than disadvantages since most of the grant holders will be returning to their home country upon completion of their grant, and the priority is carrying out the proposed research program.
A very good idea. Increased options for everybody then.
If he can keep a good social plan and have the same benefits in any country of Europe, yes it is a good idea.
Good idea, but the social system should also be european.
Good only in the short term. In the long term it does not pay off. We have to solve the problem that each EYU country has a different social and economic system.
This would probably be more efficient than the current situation.
That could be helpful
It could be good. But a good integration with a good host institution is fundamental
Good idea. In my host institution the administration gave a s**t about European legal requirements
This really depends how difficult this would be for the individual to do. I suspect that most scientists don't want to waste too much time with bureaucratic activities.
very good indeed
That could be a good idea, as far as they really are managed on the criteria of excellence in certain areas, and the establisheng of centers with a rotating scientific leader system, so that the postdocs an PhD students receive ideas all around Europe in the area of especialization.
Provided that sufficient money is allocated for the social plan, this may be the way to go.
This is a very good idea.
It would be great
I agree that this is the best way to solve any kind of practical problem deling with mobility! Moreover, it can solve the problem diversity in treatment of fellows across Europe countries that naturally persists!!
This seems to be a good idea, especially to overcome national problems.
may not be helpful, because of differences in social security systems
It is a good idea provided that integration in the local social plan remains possible as an option
I think that being payed directly to the EC should simplify the grant holder's life. However, I do think that is best that the grant holder pays all the taxes and social benefits in the host country. Or altenatively, the EC could provide with a health + social scheme (similar as is done with ESA or the UN).
It depends on the way it is done. i find very interesting also to enforce the fellowship as a fixed term contract with the natioanl rules: this would even motivate states to make a more uniform (european) regulamentation on this point.
I think ther must be a better method of administering the contract than that which I had to go through. It is important that the grantholder has equal status to his colleagues (e.g. in CNRS in France) and in achieving this that the grantholder makes a proper contribution to the social security arrangements.
not clear what you mean
If the system were well thought it it might remove some of the anomalies that have been apparent in the past (i.e. wildly differing postdoc salaries between countries or even individual labs)
Very good idea! Local authorities are uncapable of managing TMR Grants
Sounds like a good idea. Especially if you do not have to pay 70% of the total cost of your position to the gouvernment in your host country
Very good idea
Very adequeate
Not so sure but it might work.
good idea
I think it would be a very good idea!
I think it's a very good idea, if the Commission can ensure that it pays on time!
excellent
Would probably be useful, because it simplifies the contract/payment procedures
good; my host inst. had difficulties
Positive - an upper-level scientist MUST be able to organize his own personal business like health-care, social plan, pension scheme etc -- otherwise a candidate is not suitable for "scientific management" including attracting grants and taking up responsibility for teaching and supervisions
Good idea! Pay some more money and let the fellow decide how to organize his/her social plan.
good idea
It sounds like a good idea! For me this would have been ideal, as my experiences of tax/pension/social contribution were very bad at my host institute. This kind of scheme would also allow the grant holder freedom to choose how to manage the pension/social security contrinutions plan etc
It is a very interesting idea!!! It would really give a European dimension to the fellowship. Why to be bothered and loose a lot of time and energy with the local tax/pension/etc. when we should go toward an european integrated system. it wold be nice if the EU Marie curie fellowship could, successfully, be a pioneer experiment in this respect.
good concept but discrepencies exist between contries
Sounds like a good idea.
I agree
good idea
excellent idea! in connexion with the future european research center...
I like it. Also, there could be some general laws about taxation that would be valid for all the grant holders.
Might not work well in non-member, associated states.
the issue is to have bilateral treaties between countries to exchange contributions to the social insurance, later there will be an european harmonisation
I do not understand this question!
Would need a lot of guidance in order to be able to take care of the social plan. I think it would be better to set up stricter guidelines in each country for the local administration. A lot of problems were caused by the lack of knowledge of the host institutions adminitstration coupled with the fact that they are not overseen/checked by the EC. It leaves the grant holder in a boit of a powerless situation.
Fantastic. Then there will not be so much differences from country to country and you should not listen to sentences like "we dont care about what EU says"
I would have welcomed that opportunity during my fellowship
I think that creation would take place too late (i.e. for those who were in the 1st to 5th framework), but it would seem the 2nd best alternative after the European University I cited above. At least on can then plan the pension-schemes in the targeted country of retirement. But it might be a good idea to impose a minimum part of the grant for these applications. Something in the vein of the mobility allowance.
Excellent idea. This should replace the existing host-administration schemes immediately.
good idea, as long this doesn't make of him even more stranger (and strange) in the new country
A good idea, if this leads to more flexibility in the administrative handling of the grant.
Probably a good idea. But it has to be done well.
Easier for grant holders, but social plan should be also managed by the commission, so that everybody is insured in case of problems. Otherwise, some holders could be tempted by not paying social insurance because of money problems.
I do not know
Good. Be careful, it's complex.
dunno - depends on how passive or active the grant holder is by nature
It would solve a lot of problems, for all grant holders would be subject to equal duties and rights.
That would make the social integration in the host country more difficult.
very good idea
I do not know whether that would be an improvement.
It would be better to ensure that the member states recognize each other's plans and allow the transfer of credits between states.
Sorry. No more time to write.
In principle it sounds good, but it would be necessary to know more "small" details before judging...
this would solve a lot of problems!
It is definitely a good idea. I also believe that grant holders should be more in control of their funding.
A significant portion of the experience from mobility comes from the fellow's integration into the host country; this includes to learn how to handle complex situations. However, appropriate information should be made accessible and people be made aware of problems that they may face in future time. The MCFA makes here an important contribution.
Excelent
GREAT!!!
Coordination of research conducted within a certain subfield, like e.g., gravitational physics
Bringing European science up to world class standards.
Co-ordination of national research and exploitation of its results.
In order to decrease discrepancies between countries,foreign senior researchers could be provided more opportunities to settle in "less-favoured areas"
Enabling researchers to adjust to an international market
allocate funds for basic scientific research without giving all the money to industry and industry related projects
It sould encourage, but not force international exchange.
Coordination between research projects in different member states
Apply fundamental research in diagnosis
Return to host country
Creating more Europen trans-national research institutions, such as CERN, ESA, ESO.. Integrating research institutions from different EU nations. This would achieve higher coordinations, greater economical resources and more competitiveness in comparison with US institutions.
Removal of bureaucratic obstacles from international collaborations. Support to European Research Organisations (EMBO, FEBS and others in other areas of science). Regarding research grant allocation: finding the right equilibrium between focussing on scientific excellence (to be achieved through peer review) and social/political control of research (support of economically weaker regions, ethical control etc.)
Coordinate with natinal governments how to take advantage of the grant holder experience when they return to their home countries. In thi sense, perhaps the Return Grants could be made eligible for all fellows, and not only those from less favoured regions.
As less bureaucracy as with national programs! Research should allow SMEs to participate as full partners as in national programs.
Funding fundamental research
Consolidate disciplines with over-supply of mediocre research capabilities and expand others with scarcity of capacity or where prospects are excellent.
much more focus on basic scienc than on directly applicable science
Mobility is an issue that should be addressed by the EU but it should not be specific to researchers! Mobility for any vocation should be encouraged. A EU research policy should focus on funding and developing research positions across the Union. Mobility should be addressed at a higher level encouraging any citizen of a member state to travel where there attributes would be most useful.
Support of long-term basic research, which is hardly funded by industry.
Coordination in general and reduction of buerocratic obstacles
- Funding of international networks; - Funding of research activities that are helpful for the implementation of the European political goals, like solar energy development.
Gender balance. Social aspects of the impact of technology. Control of the direction of technological development.
establishment of mobile networks not necessarily with too many partners
Speed up reforms of national scientific structures.
Equally distribution of research in Europe: not only the stablished institutions should benefit from a European policy, but also new or not so well equipped centres, specially in the Southern countries.
Ensuring that new fundings are devoted to formation of new EC Fellows and to the benefit of the research programmes of the Fellows whom complete their training
Communications: if the people do not like to move or look to come back to the home country, give them the posibility of short stays, and improve the new communication technologies in order to favor the exchange of ideas that is the objetive also of the mobility.
We need a great, long term, well articulated general organizational plan for research and human capital in research
cc
(Large scale) Research facilities will become more and more expensive and can only be built and operated as joint projects on European scale.
research funding through research grant allocation AT THE EXPENSE OF LARGE SCALE PRGRAMMES LIKE NETWORKS would be beneficial. Large Networks tend to be big clubs which exclude alot of good researchers and research teams who fall outside their catchments.
Give jobs to all the people in the field who have a PhD by creating a LOT more research positions. I see a lot of wasted resources in brilliant colleagues who leave the field because they cannot find a job.
funding of research which can not attract national funding funding of research with a clear european dimension (like 'Baltic see project')
NONE
Getting a balance, in terms of scientific research, between more and less developed countries. Helping scientists from less developed countries to return to their home countries after a training period in another country.
Forcing the governments of individual countries to support research. Otherwise the money spent by the Commission is wasted because on their return to their home countries, fellows are forced to abandon research.
Co-ordination of research initiatives is best achieved by allowing the leading researchers to forge their own mutually-agreed directions in an unrestricted way. The best way to achieve this is to support (ie. fund) their frequent intercommunication & the exchange of ideas at conferences etc.
Certainly, it should not be of importance to 'fill' research positions. It seems to me, that UK would then always be preferred since many openings are available in particular in Britain. A balance needs to be achieved between the institutes around the EU.
More European institutions for specific areas of research, like ESA, ESO, etc. could be set up. I would see the networks as a first step in this direction.
None.
Exchange & compatibility with US and other parts of the world should be atopic
If basic research is abandoned, very shortly applied research will be dead, and this seems to be the prospect right now. The present Program has very much abandoned basic research... Applied research cannot survive without basic research.
Strengthen the entrepreneurial spirit of scientists and their responsibility towards society (!)
There is too much emphasis on links with commerce - people think "why not just go and work for a company - why bother with academic research at all?"
There is certainly lack of vision in European research when compared to the US and Asia.
As I said befor, there should be more opportunities for projects smaller than RTNs, similar to EPSRC or DFG projects with two or three academics and two or three PhD students.
It is a bad idea to try to give a European orientation to the CONTENT of the research - this is usually highly non-trivial to determine, and should be let to researchers themselves. EC should encourage cooperation projects even if the content is a priori vague. The final report is important and possibly different from the initial aim.
I think, coordinated European framework programs (e.g. on microelectronics etc.) are needed.
It is a slow process, but it is towards the right direction, I am optimistic for the future
In comparison to USA, the EU tends to overestimate applied research and fundamental research is often ignored. Successful high standard science is based on research foundations finding a balance between commercial and academic research, but academic research appears to be the one with priority at moment. European science suffers from weak infrastructures, which are mostly based on National structures. Rebuilding an active academic scientific community is the first step.
EU research policy should not place any limits on national programs. It should organise the national programs, so that they are complementary, and allow to generate links between national programs.
Fund high-risk, very innovative new research areas, rather than stick only to the "straitjacket" of Framework programmes. The current bureaucratic structure within the DG Research is inadequate to undertake this role, as it consists of managers who, by definition, lack visions for the future and often have far too specialised knowledge. The creation of competitive programmes for "blue-sky" research proposals with high-risk but real and direct benefits for the EU citizen would go a long way towards improving the inadequacies in this direction.
The EU is behind the US in R&D investments (see question 2 of the 5 questionms of the EU Commission) and this can only mean that the EU will be behind also in economy! Only a joint effort under common schemes can help fill the gap and give us some better chance.
Answer to 10.5: I always thought it had already one! To 10.6.4 There should be no funding at all of commercial research. What somebody does in order to make money is of no interest for the community and must be paid by himself. The limited coordination role might only consist in bringing the two worlds together.
The joint effort of European nations should result in joint research facilities, maybe centres of excellence in specific areas.
It is important to create an open research area based on merits and not based on the national origin of the scientist (or on the national origin of his studies).
In people“s mind Europe is still far away. I think the awareness of the results of European research should be much improved. I also believe, much more research should be done on an European level. I am convinced that this would increase the overall quality of European research. However, a precondition for this is a good working and honest review system that is not dominated by the "strong" European nations. Also basic research should be more considered.
The investment into research is an investment into the future of the european countries and will pay off in the future. Therefore it needs to be promoted.
A must.
We are already completely lost in the scientifical competition with USA. It is better to try to repair a bit to this situation working at the European level
There are some aspects to research that can be effectively funded at a European level and I belive that Human Cpital Mobility was successful in my field to a certain extent in doing this.
cc
Scientific exchange has to be INTERNATIONAL, not only EUROPEAN. Parallel to the improved efforts for joint research within Europe we have to support exchange between Europe and the rest of the world.
an effective all-europe research policy could result in an organisation like the NSF in the US, with obvious advantages (and some smaller attenent disadvantages).
bruexelles guides the direction in which the research and development should move, for certain areas
NONE
A big effort at European level is being made, but unfortunately in some countries (at least in my own, Spain) the possibilities of research are very reduced (and are not improving). So "permanent" mobility seems to be the only way out.
Research will not be "European" until it is untied from restrictions on host country & host institution. The system must change: fund the research person, not the research place!! Grants should be portable from institution to institution if grant holder moves around - as in USA & UK. Now _that_ would be mobility!
In my opinion to less attention is paid to fundamental research. Applied research gives short time benefits but fundamental research is completely necessary for a long term progress.
Commerce seems to be much faster (and more efficient) in getting to the European Dimension, also in their Research and Development departments.
None.
definitely required to reach "critical mass" of knowledge and methods in various areas
European researchers should be more or less "free" to move around the EU (of course, fulfilling some conditions) without bureaucratic problems. This would facilitate the exchange of ideas and the improvement of projects. Once the necessary conditions are fulfilled, the researcher should be funded for the difference in the cost of living plus mobility allowances, being able to keep his/her salary in the home country, as long as the research he/she is carrying out is concerned with both host and home institutions...
It was a realy nice experience.
Just that I had difficulty getting information from the host country - about tax, about accommodation, etc. The information I did get varied from person to person - either from my host institution or from this country's EU representative/coordinator. Such confusion could lead to budget errors - the student has to gain knowledge very quickly of how "the system" works.
I've enjoyed entirely my experience abroad. There were of course difficulties in the beginning: the major ones being the that the host was sceptical about my academic qualifications and thought that their people were much better. But when the results started coming then every was happy. I made a mistake in 6.2 and put No - I couldn't deselect it. This opinion would be nice to have! It's been a very eye opening experience.
I was particularly amazed to hear that all MC fellows are getting the same grant, whether they are in life sciences or not. E.g. a mathematician gets the same money for resources as a biochemist. Unfortunately, however, all the money of the biochemist ist gobbled up by the expensive materials used for life science research. The mathematician, on the other hand, maybe needs a computer and some software and can use his other money to travel. Cost of living: Settling down in an other country consumes a lot of effort and money. The latter especially in the UK. I think it would be nice if fellows could get a money reimbursement directly at the time when they need it most: the first day. Like I mentioned above, my monthly salary was £1200 at first in the UK. This was really hard, because there was a lot of one off payments (the move, housing, transport). In fact, without using savings we had made in our former years, we would have been indebted. This is not good. It is annoying to use savings (I rather had it used for a personal pension plan), but it must be painfull to take up a loan to cover the costs, while you are a Marie-Curie Fellow (which should stand for good salary as well!). In fact, it took me 5 months to obtain a no-tax code in Britain, which finally gave me a salary of £1500/month. £1500/ month is OK for two people, but still I was disappointed because of the reputation of a Marie Curie Fellowship. The last 7 months of my 2 years Marie Curie Fellowship, my salary is raised to £2000/month, which more like the salary I would have expected in the first place. I am aware that a lot of the circumstances is due to the high pound/euro ratio, especially the last two years. Another point is that the cost of living in the UK has been skyrocketing for the last 3 years. I feel that the valuations of the Marie Curie Fellowship grants was based on older economic data. I am wondering whether these fluctations could have been leveled taken the cost of living and currency situation into account.
The experience during my MC fellowship is definitely worth while, and I don't wnat to miss it. However, I don't have the feeling so far that this fellowships are known/accepted in industry. Definitely, while I was looking for a job so far (mainly in my home country), I did not have the feeling the fellowship helped me in this respect - apart from the personal gains for myself.
I am not able to answer the questions 3.4 and 3.5 because I do not have any experience concerning these questions (but I had to answer it).
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN, I would like to inform you that I am coming from Greece and I am Marie Curie Fellow since the 27th September 1999. There is a contract between me and the department of Food Technology, Lund University, Sweden that has a duration of 36 months. I am doing my PhD. in this university. I am receiving a fellowship (stipendium) but I am paying taxes and I have full social security cover (pension and health care). According to EU am I considered as a employee (worker) in the university or as a student? I am asking you that because I applied for a residence permit to the Statens Invandrarverk. They gave me a redidence permit of 1(one) year, since 1999/10/01 until 2000/10/01 because they considered me as a student. I sent them a letter with my contract stating that I am paying taxes and I have full social security cover. After that, finally they rejected my request for a residence permit of five years as a worker (I have this right because I am coming from a country which is member of EU). May you give me more information about this matter and if you can tell me when I have the right to claim a residence permit of five years. I can not understand how it is possible to consider me as a student and I am paying taxes because in other case I would have the right not to pay taxes for two years (acording to the swedish law). The department insists on that i am grant holder and i am not working in the department even though in my agreement with the departmet it is written that I am doing research work and I am mot a student.
My main problem was to return to my home country when I wanted to. I didnt have contacts with my old institute anymore, cause I was working in a different field of research by then. Jobs in germany were given to people that are around, and not to those who apply from another country!!
Thanks to the TMR grant I ended up (for the moment) in France, after 2 further PostDoc periods (6 and 12 months, Spain and Germany). Language acquirement due to the TMR stipend was very helpful.
My scientific supervisor cheated me and the commision about my project. He has been trying to use me to get something good for him but never useful for me. I have been very isolated in this matter. No concact point from the commision. Apart from that, I am very happy with the grant.
This survey should have differed a bit more between the different grant categories. The social security part was too much focused on B30's (neglecting B20's and B40's).
My pesonal experience was that I lost too much time with administrative questions and social security problems. Europe is not yet ripe for such a mobility.
A body overseeing research in Europe should not be over-concerned with encouraging mobility. A research policy should be aimed at encouraging and funding research. Mobility is such an important subject that it should be addressed specifically and for all vocations.
Survey is interesting but maybe too long: I wonder how many members will take their time and go through all of it! Please try to publicize the results of the survey. If possible and if this corresponds to the intention of the members shown through the survey, I would recommend the MCFA to strongly engage itself in the support of a European Research Area.
This program is an excellent effort to promote research collaboration between countries belonging in the EU. I would like to see more PhD thesis carried out through an exchange program. At my knowledge in the 5th framework there is no option for someone that would like to make directly a proposal to EU. For me that is really bad.
My personal experience was very good indeed and I feel I benefited from every aspect of the TMR grant so far. However, as mentioned earlier, there do not seem to be any fixed follow up procedures and it seems strange that, given that the EU has chosen to invest a considerable sum in an individual, it appears willing to let this individual go once the grant is finished. This means that the individual concerned is likely to be head hunted for his newly aquired skills and may leave the European Union altogether. This the EU should try to avoid as it might represent the total loss of their investment (i.e. the individual concerned never comes back to work or live in the EU).
I was a Marie Curie fellow and had only very good experience. But I still think that very much money is wasted on an European level. Many people find it very difficult to apply for european grant money because of the buerocratic obstacles. I applie for new grants and it seems that it gets more and more difficult to apply.
In general, very positive. The main problem was that you may acquire experience, knowledge and expertise but this does not necessarily helps your integration neither in the host nor in the home country. In addition, fellowships should have the possibility of extention. Because often it is counterproductive to have to leave unfinished a project because your salary ends.
I am just at the beginning of my MC fellowship as I started on 15 Feb 2000 to finish on 14 Feb 2001. But I can say that, apart financial problems due to accomodation in London, I feel it will be very exciting.
I was surprised how different the research systems are at a PhD level: with the money provided by the EU through my grant I could have done a lot more work in Germany as there is more group support and interaction with PhD students taking place than in the UK. In England (or at least in this institute) people are pretty much left alone which was an interesting experience for me but means that I have spent a lot of time (and therefore EU money) on social and buerocratic stuff rather than on research and I'm not sure whether this is the intention of the TMR grants. I am not regretting my choice to move to the UK and I have benefitted from it a great deal but these benefits are much more on a social and 'international understanding' level than concerned with research. I think the EU could check up on their grant holders before the end of the contract to find out whether everything is going well and the research is going ahead (I don't think the annual reports are enough).
Exchange rates between ECUs and pounds was difficult and made the allocation of my grant to my own expenses go down dramatically from the begining to the end of my fellowship upto 1/3 less by the end of it.
Mobility broadens not only the personal background. To understand Europe one has to understand the parts of it.
Good, in my time 18months max was a little short. Grant should be longer and flexible for institution/country (e.g. grant for 3-4 years, (final) 12-18 monthts may be spent in another institute).
It was a wonderful experience to feel part of the larger dimension that Europe represents, through integration in another Member State. The cultural diversity and new opportunities that one encounters are very formative in developing tolerance and enlarging ones horizon. Such experiences are vital for continual European integration.
I think that MCFA is doing a very good work but it still needs some expansion. A lot of peaople still do not know its existence
Very good. Except that even beeing a member of the MCFA I have had no contact with any other members. In fact I discover the mcfa page by "surfing"the net. Even here it is dificult to find people in the same situation where you are. i wanted to discuss with other people in the same field which did receive or are receiving the same grant to exchange experience together. I feel that once you get your grant, all contacts are over.
When I applied for the Marie Curie grant, my purpose was not only to receive scientific and career benefits but to have the opportunity to move and work in an other EU country. After the completion of my grant, I could certainly say that despites the difficulties with which I was confronted, my stay and employment in an other European country was an important experience that improved both my professional and personal objectives. I strongly believe that the EU should further enhance the mobility of EU recearchers and try to eliminate the possible barriers. But even if the researchers are confronted with many obstacles what they gain from their mobility is much more valuable.
I just stared a two years MCF. My reserach field is Neuroscience and I consider the Institute where I work a very good place for working in that field. I think that UK is a good country to integrate as there are already present different cultures. On the other hand, England is not yet "fully" in Europe and this can cause burocratic and economical problems for people paid in Euros.
i am having a difficult time right now, as my grant was for 24 months and i need 12 more months to finish my ph.d. i really wanted to participate in euroconferneces and summerschools, but there were never any that were relevant. i have had to pay to go on relevant conferences. i wish there was some form of re-imbursement for this situation. i have also been restricted with the number of conferences i could present at, because of financial constraints.
Despite of all problems (mostly administration): I am fully satisfied.
After working for several years in four different European countries (with and without TMR contract) I really feel as a Europen. This is certainly a positive experience which I don't want to miss anymore and this really is something which is highly appreciated in the private sector. However, the problem is European academia/research itself which still has not adapted to the challenges of a common European market, or much more general, of globalisation at all. Here, the administrative barriers (not the language barriers), even after working several years in one country and producing good results there, are still high for non-national scientists, if they want to enter the academic/research career. Then there are other priorities than merits which count, and the national research systems are becoming real national players. Overcoming these barriers is quite time consuming leading the scientist often into very unsecure conditions of life. Often, the better solution for the scientist is leaving science. Good scientists get lost for science and this situation certainly does not contribute to further increase the interest of people in science. Therefore, Europe should prevent that good human potential get lost for science, simply because of national administrative obstacles.
Completely positive as a Marie Curie Grant holder
My personal experience is very positive from the scientific and human point of view, in spite of the dificulties to get a permanent job in my home country and the fact that my postdoctoral experience has no been recognized in terms of salary.
-rewarding personally -professionally extremely useful as to knowledge acquisition as well as to making useful contacts
Upon completion of my Marie Curie Fellowship in UK I was luky to be awarded a Return Grant to Italy to continue with my initial research. I feel that without this option most of my expertise would have been lost in the process of going back home. To this end I would suggest to extend Return Grants for a period of 24-36 months (it takes time to transfer knowledge and know-how in your country of origin, especially if it belongs to "depressed" areas).
My experience as a Marie Curie Fellow is very positive. Thanks to this grant I could carry out one of the projects I proposed. Furthermore, I was involved in many other projects that provided much experience in new methods as well as direct contact with other scientists. I think that future grant holders will enjoy an even more productive period in the Host Institution as the Institution leaders became more and more aware of the needs of the grant holder.
My fellowship is a great experience from a profesional point of vue, it gives me the opportunity to work in a very high quality research environment and to learn a lot.It is also a very beneficial experience to live in another country for personal reasons, it gives me the opportunity to meet people from many countries and to learn about different cultures.
Living abroad is not easy for anyone, but I am happy with my decision. I am learning a lot as a person and as a scientistand growing as an european citizen.
The administrative load could be lessened if the fellow were employed directly by the commision. The host country requires formalities like a permit of residence. This contradicts the spirit of the EU. The incompatibility of pension and healthcare systems also creates unnecesary problems for people working abroad, this shows there is still some way to go towards unification in Europe.
It is a very good experience. This stay allows me to know another way of doing research, to contact with a lot of people of different countries, from both personal and working point of view.
My overall experience has been very positive. The 2 years I will have spent in the UK certainly enriched my life and allowed to gain new experiences professionally and personally. I can only recommend it to anyone.
I had a Marie Curie fellowship in Finland, and actually I am working under a certain contract( between companies and university). That mades the research I am doing highly interesting. The qualification of the research is very positive, full of resources, and many contact at all the levels in order to improve. I would like to export the system( or unless start it) in my home country. But in this aspect I am waiting for the appropiate moment, and the coming back can be completly different for what I think, especially because in five years I have loose most of the contact with spanish university, I will interested in the industry too( even darker future). Anyhow I do not mind to stay for longer or stablish here. On the other hand I found a little obscure and problematic the directives of the EU about the social security system, pension system( especially), and other thinghs related when moving to another country.
Professionally, it was a very good experience after a PhD in another foreign country. One of the main problems was that the grant was a bit ahead of the bureaucracy in charge of its administration.
Generally my experiences are very positive. The usual problem occuring after completion of the grant is of course the absolutely unclear perspective of a future in the academic scientific sector. Moving from one one-year position to the other is not acceptable for me. Such a perspective would force me to leave the scientific sector completely and move to e.g. consulting (as many of my colleagues already did.
Moving from a less "favored region" of EU, I benefited a lot from my stay in the host Institute. Getting a job in my home country was not easy, even more difficult it is to find local grants to do research. Participation in EU Research Networks was the critical step to start my lab and keep the contacts with the rest of EU research.
I had a Marie Curie fellowship for 2 years. The fellowship gave me the international research experience I was looking for after my PhD. It was useful for my career and of high scientific content. I have only a minor remark: the mobility allowance was administrated directly by the host institute in a too rigid and burocratic way. As I left one month before the end of my fellowship (because the next job could not be postponed) there was a problem with the reimbursement of expenses of the last conference I went to. I did not get that money back yet (after almost two years). I guess that my mobility allowances had to be reduced and recalculated because I left one month in advance, but I was given no explanation at all even if I asked a few times.
One last word: two years is too short for a proper training and termination of a project. I think there should be the possibility of a third year extension for B30.
An excellent period in my life, very hard work but worthwhile. I wish I had applied for a 2 year fellowship instead of just 1, or had the opportunity to continue the line of research back in the home country (not neccessarily the home institution). This would have made the subsequent development of my academic career much , much quicker. Because I was not immediately successful in getting a permanent academic job I took another postdoctoral position in an area which was not directly related to what I really wanted to do and was much more limiting in the scope that I had to develop an independent line of research.
I am a second year PhD student (B40) and my experience until now has been really positive. My only concern is the fact that I would like to stay in academia but also to go back to Italy. these two things are incompatible due to the bad research policies in italian universities which are not objective in the selection of the candidates to fill academic positions.
From the scientific and personal viewpoint my stay as an HCM fellow at Orsay in 93-94 was very worthwhile - however the administrative side was a nightmare, through no fault of the host lab. The French universities were unable to decide whether to treat the grants as salaries or "real" grants and at one point it appeared that my income might be cut in half - this was some months after starting when my family had already joined me. They would in all probability have had to return home had this happened.
This is maybe a more a philosophical question: What do you want to do with the postdocs that you send around? If the motivation is just to transfer know how to the host institute and let them work as modern slaves - than the aim if fulfilled. But if one thinks that the "training" is so important, then within the E.U. one must also make sure that the training can be used later by creating some long term research positions in the home country. Otherwise the specific scientific training is just lost!!
Very satisfactory. One of the most positive experiences in academic and research. Also very interesting from the social and human point of view. On the contrary, problems with my status as host institute-contracted (-granted) individual in the host country. This matter required a lot of time and energy on my side, as well as lots of meetings and discussions about how to considered myself (granted, employed, etc, etc) by the Host Institution. Fortunately, everything was solved with the help of representatives of the programme in my home country and the Comission.
The MCF was very helpful to improve both my grade, my experience and my language skills. My host institution was an excellent choice and I recommend strongly to my students (part time lecturer)to participate in international exchange schemes.
I can say that my personal experience has been very positive until now. The environment at the host institution is a perfect one for my studies and for carrying out my research. My partner also works here, so my family life does not suffer at all and future prospects look rather bright.
I had an institutional fellowship (Human Capital and Mobility)but my host institute did not show much interest for my research. The host institute took me on because they could not find somebody working in their field.
cc
My two years MC fellowship was an excellent opportunity for improving both international contacts and scientific skills. I don't want to miss this experience and can only recommend to continue this mobility programme.
I am very satisfied and enthusiastic ! I will complete my PhD work within the next semester, this training period will have been for me very profitable.
very positive overall
My personal experience of the MCFA has been very good, with the exception of the managment (and mis-management) of the salary by the host institution, complications with tax, and the fact that my host institution moved location in the middle of the scholarship, which disrupted the research for a significant period of time. I have benefitted tremendously from working in another country both on a professional and personal level. I have been able to make significant and original contributions to the research being carried out in the institute, and was able to attend relevant conferences and meetings. On a personal level working in Italy has added another dimension to my experience, and as a result of the MCFA scholarship I have now secured a job in Italy, with a young and dynamic UK based company who are working across Europe. I feel that I have integrated well, and as a result of the scholarship have much more of a European perspective on issues than perviously. I would now consider working more or less anywhere within Western Europe on the basis of my experience here with the MCFA scholarhship.
My overall experience with my MC fellowships was excellent. The only problem encountered was the lack of information concerning tax and social security issues experienced in my home country when I returned on a Return Fellowship.
I have benefited a lot from the MC fellowship. Through it, I came in contact with many new people both on the professional as on the personal plan, and learned about another European culture.
As I mentioned above, I am very sorry that a lot of people have to leave academic research because they cannot find a permanent research position in the place where they have to stay for family or other reasons. It is a shame that Europe wastes all these well-trained people who could do good research in this way.
Very positive but filling up this questionary I realised that I had little information on social-pension benefits.
in great britain there is a terrible struggle against missmanagement, incompetence, internal politics, ignorance in particular in glasgow : poverty, public service, health service, education ( university + school ) are quite poor not to recommend for a family living expenses are very high, the standard very bad anybody who is curious is invited for a holliday to go to the beautifull wilderness nature of scottland and to visit sites like york, cambridge, st andrews... to live and work there, to settle down there, is not to recommend
Overall very positive. The scientific experience was very rewarding (suuport in my current reserach, initiation of new projects, many new ideas), the atmosphere very agreable and I am sure that a few of the contacts forged here will last. The bad experience were limited to some clashes with administration and the strain of combining private life with a 2 year stay in a foreign country. All in all I am grateful for the opportunity TMR has given me and I think that it is quite well organized. Only thing to improve would be on the presence of some contact person familiar with the admin system here in France and the establishment of some national guidelines that the university would have to follow.
In general, my experience during the period of the Marie Curie fellowship has been very positive. I have found very interesting getting in close contact with the research system in a different country. I would also like to stress the excellent scientific quality of the research institution. The presence of many foreign scientists (Ph. D. students and postdocs) in the host institution gives science an international dimension which I find very rewarding.
My experience with the MCFA is that there seems to be some assumption that every fellow wants to find a position in industry after his post-doc. That is at least what most of the MCFA activities (= the mailings that I receive) seem to be targeted at.
My personal experience of being a TMR grant holder was generally good. The biggest criticisms are 1) no integration support or information from the host institution; 2) the host institution had too much financial control and kept me in the dark about such things. Why does the grant holder not get a copy of the EC-host institution contract? Because of things like this, the host institution behaves as if *it* was the reason why the funding was granted in the first place, and the grant holder should be grateful to it! It is time for the EC to set the record straight on this, and make sure that the host institution knows damn well that *it* should be grateful to the grant holder for bringing in the funding - which otherwise would not be there at all (except in the case of Network positions). This is another reason why the "European grant holder" employed directly by the commission idea is so attractive.
I wanted to move straight after my PhD to a Post-doc position in my host institution, but there has been a long delay, because receipt of the PhD is required, before the application for a MCF will be considered. For bureaucratic reasons receipt of the PhD often takes a long time after completion of the PhD work.
For me the grant has been a good way of improving my professional skill, and also social skills as well as giving insight into another culture, which I find very valuable
I was really happy to get the Fellowship, although the French administration was (in these days, 1993-94) not at all experienced with this kind of bursary. Clear instructions from Bruxelles were lacking. So I had to fight a lot to get the bursary once the contract had been signed. It seems that this has much improved inbetween. For my scientific life, the Fellowship was a crucial thing and I cannot imagine where I would be now without it. I can only recommend to continue. Maybe CEC should be more selective about candidates to strengthen excellence. I also learned to know my future wife while I was in France. We have three children now - a happy family. The only drawback was the little bit of social contact I had in France in the first time. Again, I feel this has much improved and many people are aware of European mobility. This is also due to the MCFA and their work. After 5 years as PostDoc in Germany (my home country) I am back in France now with a permanent position at CNRS, continuing the research I started 8 years ago as CEC Fellow.
Overall my personal experience in the host country has been very positive. I believe I have benefited considerably from the training received from the institution in which I have been a student, and I am willing to remain in the host country if an opportunity to fill an academic position arises.
As I am just getting started, all answers have quite a prelaminary character.
Lot of my colleagues would like to go to the US. Reasons for that are the society, the more famous researchers, because it is a great country. They do not want to live there for ever, but a one or two year experience of staying in the US is most attractive to them.
The process of applying for a Marie Curie Fellowship was unnecessarily lengthy and difficult. The delay between the announcement of the award and the beginning of payment (over 4 months) was also unnecessarily long.
I'd do it again, and I'd advise everybody who wants to have a permanent job at some point not to do it since it may well mean to become a "science bum".
In general, and forgetting about the many bureaucratic problems due to lack of coordination between states belonging to the EU, it was good. I would certainly repeat the experience...
While the mobility was a great move for me and my scientific career, it was a problem for the professional life of my wife. I believe that this is a major obstacle to mobility for many researchers.
Only regret: I couldn't find a formal position in Academia in my own country so far (and I would like to be an Academic here in Italy), in spite of the many collaborations, because of the closenness and backwardness of its system. Let's try to speed up a process of REAL University restructuring in Southern Europe, we all agree that here Academia is not even comparable to that in the North!
After finishing up my Ph.D. in U.S. I moved to Italy first with an Industrial fellowship and then with a Marie-Curie post-doc in the same institute. I returned to my home country with a returned grant and stayed in the same University with another E.U. financed national program for another year until I found a tenure-track academic position. The sum of the above corresponds to 6 (!!) years of post-doctoral work, and what I have longed for during these "post-doc" years was an independence on my research, especially during the last two years, when I could have done without a "scientific supervisor" and I could have carried out better research if I was responsible for my own research.
My experience as a Marie Curie Fellowship holder is very good. I was satisfied with the scientific support by the host Institution and in my experience my research training in the host Institution was fully acknowledged after I move to my home country.
We still do not know how to handle an european scientific common identity. I personally found too much fighting between different european nationalities, and specially a certain xenophobia from the germans to their EC colleagues. They really do not want to share their knowledge at all. So, what is the rationale for accepting foreigners at their labs?. I think it is only the money we bring to the host lab.
I can regard my work in a foreing institute as great. I really learned a lot by living in a foreing country and coming in contact with people of a different culture. On a scientif level I think that I was provided with the opportunity to work in field that would have been very difficult in my own counrty. Only black spot the unpleasent experience of taxation/social security/handling of financial matters by the host institute etc.