Video summary

מסתגלים 4.0 // מפגש 4 // מענקים תחרותיים: ERC Starting & Consolidator Grants

Main summary

Key takeaways

Educational

Main ideas, concepts, and lessons

Purpose of the webinar / framing

  • The webinar is part of the Young Academy’s Adaptive Program, aimed at helping young (and later-career) faculty build successful careers in Israeli academia.
  • It focuses on ERC grants—specifically how to write and submit competitive proposals for:
    • ERC Starting Grants (young investigators)
    • ERC Consolidator Grants (more established researchers)
  • The session includes:
    • Guidance from European/Research Authority process experts
    • Tips from ERC grant grantees
    • “Behind the scenes” perspectives from judging committee members
    • Q&A moderated by a faculty representative
  • Multiple fields are covered: social sciences/humanities, physics/exact sciences, life sciences, computer science, management, and more.

Why ERC is different (core strategic mindset)

  • ERC funds excellent, groundbreaking, high-risk/high-gain research and values excellent researchers, not incremental projects.
  • Compared to typical grants:
    • Regular grants often support incremental work with proven feasibility.
    • ERC expects a disruptive research direction that can change the field and open new possibilities.
  • Proposals must balance:
    • High risk (ambition, novelty)
    • With some credibility (initial results, feasibility signals, strong team)

Grant structure and eligibility (Stopping the common confusion)

  • The talk narrows to two ERC scheme types:

ERC Starting Grants

  • Eligibility window: 0–10 years after PhD
  • Funding: up to ~€1.5M (possibly more)
  • Duration: 5 years

ERC Consolidator Grants

  • Eligibility window: 5–15 years after PhD

  • Funding: ~€2M mentioned (and rules for assessment in certain cases)

  • Eligibility can be assessed/extended for specific life circumstances (the speaker references examples such as leave/war-conflict-related considerations and the use of documentation).

Proposal parts (what must be included)

  • The proposal is described as having three main categories:
    • A parts: administrative/regulatory/ethics (including privacy)
    • B1: short scientific proposal (described as ~5 pages on research + 4 pages on the applicant)
    • B2: full proposal (described as shortened in prior years; last year reportedly reduced from 14 pages to 7)
  • Key emphasis:
    • B1/B2 are both judged, but B1 primarily determines advancement.
    • Panels may have fewer readers now and workloads are heavy, so clarity and structure matter.

Submission & evaluation process (what happens after you press “submit”)

High-level process described for Starting Grants:

  1. Deadline submission (example dates mentioned for Starting Grants)
  2. Stage 1 (short proposal)
    • The panel reads B1 and the applicant sections
    • Scores and decides who advances
    • Panel reading workload is described as large; efficiency and consensus matter
  3. Stage 2 (invited interview; longer proposal involved)
    • Applicants who pass Stage 1 receive an invitation and submit additional material
    • Scores and categories referenced (A/B/C mentioned in the discussion)
  4. Final ranking / interview outcomes
    • Even after passing, external factors and dynamic rankings can change outcomes

Additional procedural note:

  • Panel work may involve:
    • limited on-field experts at the panel table
    • possible use of outside experts / cross-panel expertise
  • This increases the importance of making the proposal understandable and persuasive to generalists, while remaining technically credible to experts.

Detailed methodology / instructions (as presented)

A) How to craft a winning ERC idea (strategy)

  • Pick the right ERC “fit” mindset
    • Aim for groundbreaking/disruptive contributions, not incremental continuation.
  • Make the “Why it matters” explicit
    • Identify the scientific gap and the new question your project addresses.
  • Present a clear, compelling research vision
    • Convince a panel that you have:
      • novelty
      • methodology
      • and a credible path to results
  • Balance high-risk with credibility
    • Use initial results/preliminary evidence to reduce perceived risk without removing ambition.
  • Ensure methodology is appropriate but not fetishized
    • Don’t over-focus on tools just to impress.
    • Explain what the tools will achieve (the “wow”/impact).
  • Avoid “too broad” or unfocused project bundling
    • Don’t list many unrelated sub-projects.
    • Prefer one well-formulated key question with multiple ways to tackle it.

B) Choose the right panel(s) carefully

  • Do not choose based only on “which panel is my identity.”
  • Instead choose based on:
    • which panelists are most likely to be open to your proposed direction
    • where your topic is most legible to the panel
  • In oversubscribed panels, you may need to select a limited number of sub-areas:
    • select the 1 that fits best (avoid trying to game multiple partial fits)
  • Understand that panel composition can change year-to-year, but previous-year panel data can offer clues.

C) Writing guidance: language, clarity, and technical depth

  • Write at a level that works for:
    • generalists on the panel (B1 emphasis)
    • domain specialists (more technical detail in B2)
  • Keep language:
    • simple enough for non-experts on the panel
    • detailed enough for experts to see excellence
  • Avoid:
    • bombastic words meant to impress rather than explain
    • “seminar-style” oversophistication that confuses general readers
    • plagiarism / reused copied text (including AI-era summary risks)

D) Timeline & document workflow (practical schedule)

Speakers recommend starting early:

  • ~6 months before writing
    • develop concept/strategy (“syllabus” phase)
    • refine the idea before drafting
  • ~5 months before
    • start B1
  • ~3 months before
    • start B2
  • 1 month before
    • finalize forms and ensure completeness (deadlines can fall on holidays)

During/after draft development:

  • incorporate any missing critical experiments or results discovered during B1/B2 drafting
  • ensure institutional eligibility letters and documents are prepared

E) CV and applicant positioning

  • CV strategy matters: it was described as a significant portion of evaluation.
  • Common pitfalls:
    • using an “ordinary” CV with no tailored narrative
    • not signaling strengths relevant to the ERC question
  • Ensure:
    • the applicant’s story aligns with the research ambition
    • “why you” is answered credibly (team fit, expertise, track record)

F) Abstract (B1/B2 strategy advice)

  • The abstract is described as a highly strategic element:
    • reviewers read it early and come in with expectations
  • The abstract should be:
    • short (about a third of a page, suggested)
    • not a simple summary—more like a targeted persuasion document
  • Spend time on it after the main drafts are ready (the speaker suggests not doing it too early).

G) Initial results / publication timing (submission timing logic)

  • Don’t submit too late if you lack evidence that strengthens the proposal.
  • But don’t rush submission if:
    • a major publication or strong result is imminent and could significantly strengthen initial results/CV.
  • Submit when:
    • CV + research + preliminary evidence are aligned and “strongest”
  • Practical guideline implied:
    • if experimentalists are “on the edge,” timing matters—use momentum from postdoc/lab outputs when possible.

H) Response to weaknesses & resubmission

  • Treat weaknesses proactively:
    • one speaker recommends tackling weaknesses head-on rather than hiding them
  • Resubmission strategy:
    • use feedback from the first attempt as an improvement tool
    • neutralize “mines” by clarifying unclear parts from the start

I) Interview / Q&A preparation (how to handle scrutiny)

  • During questioning:
    • be concise but complete
    • answer difficult questions first/fully, but briefly
    • practice anticipating questions
  • In advance:
    • ask many internal readers/mentors to challenge your proposal
    • compile and rehearse likely questions (including points that might arise from generalists)

Field-specific emphasis (as described in panels from winners)

Social sciences / humanities

  • The panel reading process may emphasize:
    • methodological coherence with the panel’s expectations
    • how “science vs law vs socio-legal” boundaries are handled
  • Proposal must ensure:
    • consistency with the expected genre/methods
    • persuasive framing for general readers
  • Excellence remains central; some speakers suggest institutional factors may matter less than proposal strength.

Physics / exact sciences

  • Identify and craft for:
    • skepticism and audience comprehension
  • Key practices:
    • write so generalist panelists can still grasp the importance
    • build credibility using preliminary evidence
    • explain “why you” and why you uniquely can do it
  • Warn against:
    • plagiarism (including AI-assisted copying or “search and reuse”)
    • over-decorative methodology that lacks real justification

Life sciences

  • Proposals should focus on:
    • impact and what the breakthrough would enable (e.g., a paper title/field-changing result)
  • Recommendation:
    • propose one central question rather than multiple sprawling tasks
  • Presentation tone matters:
    • show excitement and commitment
    • connect the specific question to the scientist’s broader career motivation
  • Interview practice:
    • prepare answers to questions gathered during drafting

Management / organizations

  • In social sciences, publication profile and methodological trust are emphasized differently.
  • Key guidance:
    • carefully justify why you are the right person for the question
    • avoid overemphasizing “innovative method” if it isn’t demonstrably necessary

Humanities (example: humanities/writing approach)

  • Encourage broader conceptual framing:
    • explore connections across fields/communities rather than isolated topics
  • Treat “lab” as a concept even when humanities research doesn’t look like bench science.
  • Consider funding-value skepticism (e.g., training costs) by explicitly justifying why it’s essential.

Speakers / sources featured (identified)

  1. Sigal Zilmano — School of Psychology, University of Haifa
  2. Assaf Schutz — Technion; Young Academy; leader of the Adaptive Program
  3. Jennifer Osher — Ben-Gurion University; moderated Q&A
  4. Edi Ashkenazi — Tel Aviv University; School of Physics and Astronomy
  5. Tami Peleg — Director of the Young Academy
  6. Eric Putterman — technical/professional support
  7. Mano Dokur — acknowledged in opening
  8. Eddie Ashkenazi — acknowledged in opening (name appears alongside other acknowledgements)

Panel 1: Proposal-writing / evaluation “behind the scenes”

  1. Ina Tron — Head of the European Community Section; Head of Research, Tel Aviv University
  2. Michael Alberstein — Dean, Faculty of Law; Bar-Ilan University (social sciences/humanities perspective)
  3. Ilan Gross — Weizmann Institute (physics/exact sciences perspective)
  4. Searle Fleischman — Weizmann Institute (life sciences perspective)

Q&A participant panel

  1. Same panel members above (Alberstein, Gross, Fleischman) and the earlier ERC-writing presenters

Panel 2: ERC grantees / “what helped”

  1. Naama Geva-Zatorsky — Technion (medicine/theoretical perspective)
  2. Naama Cohen-Henegbi — Tel Aviv University (humanities)
  3. Yonit Ochberg — Hebrew University (mathematics/natural sciences)
  4. Eitan Yaakovi — Technion (computer science)
  5. Lior Ze Lemanson — Tel Aviv University (management)

Original video