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

[megasphaera]

I guess somehow they do this to give an excuse to reject your application. 10000 application - they need to do some selection.

I agree with y'all that in practise the gender section is mandatory. I am saying that it should be marked as such in the template. In its current form/wording it is presented as optional. The wording is not just misleading or confusing, it is linguistically wrong and needs to be corrected.

If you send it to the ncp for review or if the host has someone to review one of the mandatory aspects is gender dimension. The rule of thumb is to address every subheading which iam not sure works always or not but thats what i heard from friends applying to other countries who had a proposal review too

Hy michelef,

I am just curious where you got 'mandatory' from the below:

'Discuss the gender dimension in the research content (IF RELEVANT). In research activities where human beings are involved as subjects or end-users, gender differences MAY exist. IN THESE CASES the gender dimension in the research content has to be addressed as an integral part of the proposal to ensure the highest level of scientific quality.'

'Mandatory' would read: 'Discuss the gender dimension in the research content. In research activities where human beings are involved as subjects or end-users, gender differences exist. The gender dimension in the research content has to be addressed as an integral part of the proposal to ensure the highest level of scientific quality.'

My current understanding is that the unspoken convention within the EC framework is that gender must be included or at least explicitly considered and addressed. The template wording above unequivocally indicates that a description of gender aspects in not a mandatory part of the proposal. What remains a grey area is whether the reviewer may decide that consideration of gender would have been mandatory/appropriate/desirable for this particular research and deduct points accordingly.

[Dajm]

Surely they can come up with something better than dirty linguistic tricks? .

I guess somehow they do this to give an excuse to reject your application. 10000 application - they need to do some selection.

I agree with y'all that in practise the gender section is mandatory. I am saying that it should be marked as such in the template. In its current form/wording it is presented as optional. The wording is not just misleading or confusing, it is linguistically wrong and needs to be corrected.

If you send it to the ncp for review or if the host has someone to review one of the mandatory aspects is gender dimension. The rule of thumb is to address every subheading which iam not sure works always or not but thats what i heard from friends applying to other countries who had a proposal review too

[Cla]

I agree. If they don't like your proposal they are going to use it against you, but if they like it you are going to get away with it

I guess somehow they do this to give an excuse to reject your application. 10000 application - they need to do some selection.

I agree with y'all that in practise the gender section is mandatory. I am saying that it should be marked as such in the template. In its current form/wording it is presented as optional. The wording is not just misleading or confusing, it is linguistically wrong and needs to be corrected.

If you send it to the ncp for review or if the host has someone to review one of the mandatory aspects is gender dimension. The rule of thumb is to address every subheading which iam not sure works always or not but thats what i heard from friends applying to other countries who had a proposal review too

[MSCA-IF-CAR_2018]

Last year I removed the section concerning Gender and nobody mentioned this as a weakness in the evaluation report. I got 88! This year I kept it and said simply that their are no gender issues!

Good luck to all

[Dajm]

Well, last year, the gender thing and a random comment on planned fieldwork time not being sufficient cost me a half a point and consequently the scholarship..

MSCA-IF-CAR_201, it would be interesting to compare notes this year..

Break a leg to you as well!

Last year I removed the section concerning Gender and nobody mentioned this as a weakness in the evaluation report. I got 88! This year I kept it and said simply that their are no gender issues!

Good luck to all

[Geezer_MSCA]

Suggestion for a change in the evaluation process.

Given that getting funded is a lottery anyway, masked as a fair process because of the involvement of reviewers, my suggestion is
get the reviewers involved in weeding out the "very bad" applications, say those <75 or 80. Then really make a lottery drawing among the others, which are clearly all deserving of funding.
Before anyone cries of madness (or plagiarism) I need to disclose that this is what a group of scientist are proposing to do with the NIH grant funding in the US in order to reduce the burden of grant writing (time diverted fro doing science)

[Bren]

My wife has breast cancer. I hope you get funded.

They say IF RELEVANT when human being are involved but they actually mean YOU HAVE TO.
In my case I work with breast cancer and as you might know is a disease that affect women. Well, it turn out that also men can develop breast cancer, but statistics are very low. So in my proposal i had to say all of these things and specify that male breast cancer models are not available; however since the treatment are similar for females and males, my research might also benefit men with breast cancer.
If I would simply put breast cancer is only for females so we are good, i will be seriously fucked.
There are lots of examples out there where people thinks that sex does not matter, but it is crucial (epilepsy and myocardial infarction to say some).

Hy michelef,

I am just curious where you got 'mandatory' from the below:

'Discuss the gender dimension in the research content (IF RELEVANT). In research activities where human beings are involved as subjects or end-users, gender differences MAY exist. IN THESE CASES the gender dimension in the research content has to be addressed as an integral part of the proposal to ensure the highest level of scientific quality.'

'Mandatory' would read: 'Discuss the gender dimension in the research content. In research activities where human beings are involved as subjects or end-users, gender differences exist. The gender dimension in the research content has to be addressed as an integral part of the proposal to ensure the highest level of scientific quality.'

My current understanding is that the unspoken convention within the EC framework is that gender must be included or at least explicitly considered and addressed. The template wording above unequivocally indicates that a description of gender aspects in not a mandatory part of the proposal. What remains a grey area is whether the reviewer may decide that consideration of gender would have been mandatory/appropriate/desirable for this particular research and deduct points accordingly.

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

[Geezer_MSCA]

My wife has breast cancer. I hope you get funded.

They say IF RELEVANT when human being are involved but they actually mean YOU HAVE TO.
In my case I work with breast cancer and as you might know is a disease that affect women. Well, it turn out that also men can develop breast cancer, but statistics are very low. So in my proposal i had to say all of these things and specify that male breast cancer models are not available; however since the treatment are similar for females and males, my research might also benefit men with breast cancer.
If I would simply put breast cancer is only for females so we are good, i will be seriously fucked.
There are lots of examples out there where people thinks that sex does not matter, but it is crucial (epilepsy and myocardial infarction to say some).

Hy michelef,

I am just curious where you got 'mandatory' from the below:

'Discuss the gender dimension in the research content (IF RELEVANT). In research activities where human beings are involved as subjects or end-users, gender differences MAY exist. IN THESE CASES the gender dimension in the research content has to be addressed as an integral part of the proposal to ensure the highest level of scientific quality.'

'Mandatory' would read: 'Discuss the gender dimension in the research content. In research activities where human beings are involved as subjects or end-users, gender differences exist. The gender dimension in the research content has to be addressed as an integral part of the proposal to ensure the highest level of scientific quality.'

My current understanding is that the unspoken convention within the EC framework is that gender must be included or at least explicitly considered and addressed. The template wording above unequivocally indicates that a description of gender aspects in not a mandatory part of the proposal. What remains a grey area is whether the reviewer may decide that consideration of gender would have been mandatory/appropriate/desirable for this particular research and deduct points accordingly.

Sorry to hear that. Hope everything goes well. Best of luck.

[megasphaera]

Cheers man and very sorry to hear that. My most sincerest wishes to you, your wife and kids. Only family knows how hard this fucking disease is.

My wife has breast cancer. I hope you get funded.

They say IF RELEVANT when human being are involved but they actually mean YOU HAVE TO.
In my case I work with breast cancer and as you might know is a disease that affect women. Well, it turn out that also men can develop breast cancer, but statistics are very low. So in my proposal i had to say all of these things and specify that male breast cancer models are not available; however since the treatment are similar for females and males, my research might also benefit men with breast cancer.
If I would simply put breast cancer is only for females so we are good, i will be seriously fucked.
There are lots of examples out there where people thinks that sex does not matter, but it is crucial (epilepsy and myocardial infarction to say some).

Hy michelef,

I am just curious where you got 'mandatory' from the below:

'Discuss the gender dimension in the research content (IF RELEVANT). In research activities where human beings are involved as subjects or end-users, gender differences MAY exist. IN THESE CASES the gender dimension in the research content has to be addressed as an integral part of the proposal to ensure the highest level of scientific quality.'

'Mandatory' would read: 'Discuss the gender dimension in the research content. In research activities where human beings are involved as subjects or end-users, gender differences exist. The gender dimension in the research content has to be addressed as an integral part of the proposal to ensure the highest level of scientific quality.'

My current understanding is that the unspoken convention within the EC framework is that gender must be included or at least explicitly considered and addressed. The template wording above unequivocally indicates that a description of gender aspects in not a mandatory part of the proposal. What remains a grey area is whether the reviewer may decide that consideration of gender would have been mandatory/appropriate/desirable for this particular research and deduct points accordingly.

[if2018]

My wife has breast cancer. I hope you get funded.

They say IF RELEVANT when human being are involved but they actually mean YOU HAVE TO.
In my case I work with breast cancer and as you might know is a disease that affect women. Well, it turn out that also men can develop breast cancer, but statistics are very low. So in my proposal i had to say all of these things and specify that male breast cancer models are not available; however since the treatment are similar for females and males, my research might also benefit men with breast cancer.
If I would simply put breast cancer is only for females so we are good, i will be seriously fucked.
There are lots of examples out there where people thinks that sex does not matter, but it is crucial (epilepsy and myocardial infarction to say some).

Hy michelef,

I am just curious where you got 'mandatory' from the below:

'Discuss the gender dimension in the research content (IF RELEVANT). In research activities where human beings are involved as subjects or end-users, gender differences MAY exist. IN THESE CASES the gender dimension in the research content has to be addressed as an integral part of the proposal to ensure the highest level of scientific quality.'

'Mandatory' would read: 'Discuss the gender dimension in the research content. In research activities where human beings are involved as subjects or end-users, gender differences exist. The gender dimension in the research content has to be addressed as an integral part of the proposal to ensure the highest level of scientific quality.'

My current understanding is that the unspoken convention within the EC framework is that gender must be included or at least explicitly considered and addressed. The template wording above unequivocally indicates that a description of gender aspects in not a mandatory part of the proposal. What remains a grey area is whether the reviewer may decide that consideration of gender would have been mandatory/appropriate/desirable for this particular research and deduct points accordingly.

So sorry to hear that, best wishes to you and your family. Hope you will get funded in the following days.

Hope guys like @megasphaera could finally put an end to this disease.