2018 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2018)

planktophil
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2019 4:30 pm

Re: 2018 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2018)

Post by planktophil » Sun Feb 10, 2019 4:38 pm

Emerging from lurk cave.

I applied for a GF in the 2016/17 round, and did not get it (score somewhere in the high eighties), largely, it seemed, because I had planned a secondment with someone I had worked with some three years prior. It did, in the end, matter very little as I got a young investigator type grant somewhere else. The funny thing is, somebody has applied for an IF to do in my group this round. They are super smart, and have some great publications going for them, but I am a complete noob, so now I have my doubts as to whether applying with me as their PI was a smart move.
We were expecting results last week, so I remembered this place and came back to check for valuable information :D. I guess I just want to say, one, the paranoia is real on the PI side, too, especially for very junior PIs, and two, if it does not work out, another, potentially better thing will pop up. Stay strong. We will know soon one way or another.

kokoroko
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 2:04 pm

Re: 2018 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2018)

Post by kokoroko » Sun Feb 10, 2019 4:48 pm

Regarding gender aspects; I just noticed that in the application form I had to declare my *gender*. On the other hand, I had the option to declare the *sex* of my proposed supervisor. I believe the person responsible for the forms didn't consider gender aspects of the form carefully enough! ;)

Dajm
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:55 pm

Re: 2018 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2018)

Post by Dajm » Sun Feb 10, 2019 4:52 pm

;)))
kokoroko wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 4:48 pm
Regarding gender aspects; I just noticed that in the application form I had to declare my *gender*. On the other hand, I had the option to declare the *sex* of my proposed supervisor. I believe the person responsible for the forms didn't consider gender aspects of the form carefully enough! ;)

Dort
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:26 pm

Re: 2018 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2018)

Post by Dort » Sun Feb 10, 2019 4:57 pm

How do you know you are ranking? Where can you see/check it?
hmdoel wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 1:59 am
well, i am in Ranking, so at least my score is above 70, but I have reread my proposal and compare with last year proposal that got 95%, my proposal will not score that high, i will be extremely lucky to get 90.

In any case, this is my first attempt, but i spent few months for preparation. I read several guidelines online, the only problem was my host doesnt have previous succesful experience and during that time, i didnt have an example of succesful proposal. I am quite proud about the proposal thou, but comparing with the succesful proposal, i know there are several shortcomings...

Till next year then...
michelef wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 1:47 am
Well unless you forgot a whole section of the proposal, that's impossible to know... so there's hope
hmdoel wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 1:42 am
My next new year resolution : waiting 153 days without losing my cool

I lost this year, both the grant and my cool :/

Well, still need the official result but I am sure I will mot get score higher than 92.6 😄

MscaEnv
Posts: 46
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2019 12:23 pm

Re: 2018 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2018)

Post by MscaEnv » Sun Feb 10, 2019 5:05 pm

Evaluation is definitely a clear rejection! :oops: Ranked are only guys above 70.

Dort
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:26 pm

Re: 2018 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2018)

Post by Dort » Sun Feb 10, 2019 5:07 pm

To me this "gender issue" is very complicated. If I don't think it is relevant it is not, period. I honestly don't think that the reviewer's opinion is relevant on this matter. Why should I care about gender in my research if that's not my proposal? I'm dealing with human subjects, I'm going to interview a lot of people if I get the fellowship, but I really dont care if they are male or female, it is fairly irrelevant to what I'm proposing, to my methods, my conclusion... If 100% of my interviewees are women or 0% the results would be exactly the same. I'm from the left, but this insistence on forcing "social justice" where it is just irrelevant is pretty ridiculous.
Turpentine wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 7:14 am
This is really a grey area and they should be more specific about that. In my mind, gender doesn't really apply to cell lines or animals. In life science, it could become relevant maybe at the drug trial phase, and again, sex is the correct term here, not gender. I agree with previous comments that if they don't want to fund your proposal, they would always find something to say, and if they think you must get it, they wouldn't care if gender considerations are not essential to your research. I think we all have different opinions, and the experts who advised us don't all agree on these stuff. I really believe that common sense should prevail as our reviewers are also scientists (and humans) who are writing proposal and have to deal with these crappy formatting. Anyway, the mc grant seems really special as it has to fit with your career development and your needs. it's more about that apparently than pure scientific impact. That's my understanding of all this process, I can be wrong :)
sound wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 6:53 am
The gender aspect is not just for human subjects but also for invitro and in vivo experiments.these days its mandatory to state if the cell line is of female or male origin and invivo of course male or female rat mouse pog etc. If it is not possible to account for this because of availability it should be clarified. Any place where gender would contribute to bias one is expected to discuss how they would overcome it or are limited.
michelef wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 3:32 am
The proposal template is very clear that the gender paragraph is mandatory for research involving human
subjects... If not, hopefully it may be ok anyway not including the gender dimension


Bren
Posts: 349
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2019 11:55 pm

Re: 2018 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2018)

Post by Bren » Sun Feb 10, 2019 5:12 pm

Agreed, but if you are interviewing people and you haven't considered gender then I'm afraid you just wont be funded. Even if its not directly relevant to your research, they will look for stuff such as have you considered gender dynamics in the interview process. So, myself as a male, I put in stuff regarding how I will take gender into account when I meet people, locations, safety, etc. But, on the other hand, I'm a criminologist and I research perpetrators and victims, so maybe its more pronounced for me. I dunno, we will soon see I guess.
Dort wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 5:07 pm
To me this "gender issue" is very complicated. If I don't think it is relevant it is not, period. I honestly don't think that the reviewer's opinion is relevant on this matter. Why should I care about gender in my research if that's not my proposal? I'm dealing with human subjects, I'm going to interview a lot of people if I get the fellowship, but I really dont care if they are male or female, it is fairly irrelevant to what I'm proposing, to my methods, my conclusion... If 100% of my interviewees are women or 0% the results would be exactly the same. I'm from the left, but this insistence on forcing "social justice" where it is just irrelevant is pretty ridiculous.
Turpentine wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 7:14 am
This is really a grey area and they should be more specific about that. In my mind, gender doesn't really apply to cell lines or animals. In life science, it could become relevant maybe at the drug trial phase, and again, sex is the correct term here, not gender. I agree with previous comments that if they don't want to fund your proposal, they would always find something to say, and if they think you must get it, they wouldn't care if gender considerations are not essential to your research. I think we all have different opinions, and the experts who advised us don't all agree on these stuff. I really believe that common sense should prevail as our reviewers are also scientists (and humans) who are writing proposal and have to deal with these crappy formatting. Anyway, the mc grant seems really special as it has to fit with your career development and your needs. it's more about that apparently than pure scientific impact. That's my understanding of all this process, I can be wrong :)
sound wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 6:53 am
The gender aspect is not just for human subjects but also for invitro and in vivo experiments.these days its mandatory to state if the cell line is of female or male origin and invivo of course male or female rat mouse pog etc. If it is not possible to account for this because of availability it should be clarified. Any place where gender would contribute to bias one is expected to discuss how they would overcome it or are limited.

sdes
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2019 5:15 pm

Re: 2018 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2018)

Post by sdes » Sun Feb 10, 2019 5:17 pm

MscaEnv wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 5:05 pm
Evaluation is definitely a clear rejection! :oops: Ranked are only guys above 70.
Help -- can someone tell us how you are finding this information? Enquiring (slighly insane at this point) minds need to know. :shock:

kokoroko
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 2:04 pm

Re: 2018 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2018)

Post by kokoroko » Sun Feb 10, 2019 5:22 pm

sdes wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 5:17 pm
MscaEnv wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 5:05 pm
Evaluation is definitely a clear rejection! :oops: Ranked are only guys above 70.
Help -- can someone tell us how you are finding this information? Enquiring (slighly insane at this point) minds need to know. :shock:
The simplest way is if you go to Funding & tenders -> Follow up on your proposal and then disable styles (Safari: Develop -> Disable styles; Firefox: View - Turn off style or something similar; not sure about Chrome and other browsers, sorry). Then you will see it.

Dort
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:26 pm

Re: 2018 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2018)

Post by Dort » Sun Feb 10, 2019 5:22 pm

In my case I'm dealing with diaspora issues, so I propose to interview mostly leaders of diasporic institutions (preferably the person in charge), meaning that it is not up to me to decide if they will be male or female. I"ll interview those who were voted to be leaders, so...
Bren wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 5:12 pm
Agreed, but if you are interviewing people and you haven't considered gender then I'm afraid you just wont be funded. Even if its not directly relevant to your research, they will look for stuff such as have you considered gender dynamics in the interview process. So, myself as a male, I put in stuff regarding how I will take gender into account when I meet people, locations, safety, etc. But, on the other hand, I'm a criminologist and I research perpetrators and victims, so maybe its more pronounced for me. I dunno, we will soon see I guess.
Dort wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 5:07 pm
To me this "gender issue" is very complicated. If I don't think it is relevant it is not, period. I honestly don't think that the reviewer's opinion is relevant on this matter. Why should I care about gender in my research if that's not my proposal? I'm dealing with human subjects, I'm going to interview a lot of people if I get the fellowship, but I really dont care if they are male or female, it is fairly irrelevant to what I'm proposing, to my methods, my conclusion... If 100% of my interviewees are women or 0% the results would be exactly the same. I'm from the left, but this insistence on forcing "social justice" where it is just irrelevant is pretty ridiculous.
Turpentine wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 7:14 am
This is really a grey area and they should be more specific about that. In my mind, gender doesn't really apply to cell lines or animals. In life science, it could become relevant maybe at the drug trial phase, and again, sex is the correct term here, not gender. I agree with previous comments that if they don't want to fund your proposal, they would always find something to say, and if they think you must get it, they wouldn't care if gender considerations are not essential to your research. I think we all have different opinions, and the experts who advised us don't all agree on these stuff. I really believe that common sense should prevail as our reviewers are also scientists (and humans) who are writing proposal and have to deal with these crappy formatting. Anyway, the mc grant seems really special as it has to fit with your career development and your needs. it's more about that apparently than pure scientific impact. That's my understanding of all this process, I can be wrong :)


Locked