SUOMEN AKATEMIA Terveyden tutkimuksen toimikunta

Transkriptio

1 SUOMEN AKATEMIA Terveyden tutkimuksen toimikunta TERVEYDEN TUTKIMUKSEN TOIMIKUNNALTA AKATEMIATUTKIJAN TEHTÄVÄÄ HAKENEILLE (syyskuun 2012 haku) Arvoisa hakija, Suomen Akatemian terveyden tutkimuksen toimikunta päätti rahoitettavista akatemiatutkijahakemuksista kokouksessaan Kaikki akatemiatutkijan tehtävää hakeneet saavat sähköpostiosoitteeseensa viestin päätöksestä. Kukin hakija voi lukea hakemuksestaan saamansa arviointilausunnon käyttäjätunnuksillaan Akatemian verkkoasioinnissa. Terveyden tutkimuksen toimikunnalle osoitettiin syyskuun 2012 haussa 88 akatemiatutkijahakemusta. Toimikunta päätti kokouksessaan myöntää akatemiatutkijan palkkausrahoituksen ajalle kymmenelle hakijalle. Hakemukset olivat korkeatasoisia, mutta vain 11,4 prosenttia hakemuksista voitiin rahoittaa. Tästä johtuen moni erittäin hyvät arviot saanut hakija jäi tälläkin kertaa vaille rahoitusta. Rahoitetut akatemiatutkijat: Tomas Blom, Helsingin yliopisto Carmen Escobedo-Lucea, Helsingin yliopisto Reetta Hinttala, Oulun yliopisto Markku Michael Jeltsch, Helsingin yliopisto Pekka Katajisto, Helsingin yliopisto Johanna Magga, Oulun yliopisto Timo Myöhänen, Helsingin yliopisto Satu Palva, Helsingin yliopisto Jeroen Pouwels, Turun yliopisto Sakari Vanharanta, Helsingin yliopisto Rahoituksen maksaminen edellyttää hakijan sekä suorituspaikan vahvistusta rahoituksen vastaanottamisesta Akatemian verkkoasioinnin kautta ( mennessä. Suorituspaikan on otettava tutkija palvelussuhteeseen päätöksen ehtojen mukaisesti. Akatemiatutkijan rahoituksen saaneiden tulee jättää tarkennettu hakemus tutkimuskuluihin mennessä heille lähetetään yksityiskohtaiset ohjeet sähköpostitse. Mikäli rahoitusta nyt saanut ei ota tehtävää vastaan tai luopuu tehtävästä ennen , voidaan hänen tilalleen ottaa jäljelle jääväksi kaudeksi hakija varalistalta. Varasijalla oleviin otetaan yhteyttä vain, jos joku nyt valituista luopuu tehtävästä. Toimikunta päätti varasijalistan järjestyksestä seuraavasti: 1. Valentina Lenasi, Helsingin yliopisto 2. Jouko Miettunen, Oulun yliopisto 3. Mataleena Parikka, Tampereen yliopisto 4. Kristiina Tiainen, Tampereen yliopisto 5. Tiia Ngandu, Terveyden ja hyvinvoinnin laitos 6. Tea Lallukka, Työterveyslaitos Hakemukset arvioitiin kansainvälisissä arviointipaneeleissa (liite 1), jotka kokoontuivat tammihelmikuussa Helsingissä. Paneelit ovat arviointityössään käyttäneet tarvittaessa lisäasiantuntemusta toisen paneelin jäseniltä tai ulkopuolisilta asiantuntijoilta. Paneeli keskusteli jokaisesta hakemuksesta ja antoi niistä arvosanan sekä kirjallisen lausunnon, joka on luettavissa 1 (12)

2 verkkoasioinnissa hakijan omilla tunnuksilla. Kaikki paneelin jäsenet vastaavat yhteisesti annetusta lausunnosta. Arviointipaneelit pitivät hakemusten tieteellistä laatua yleisesti hyvänä, ja parhaita arvosanoja saaneita hankkeita pidettiin kilpailukykyisinä kansainvälisellä tasolla. Arvioidessaan tutkimussuunnitelmien tieteellistä laatua asiantuntijapaneelit kuitenkin nostivat esille yleisiä ja usein toistuvia tutkimussuunnitelmien laatuun vaikuttavia seikkoja (ks. liite 2). Akatemiatutkijahakemusten arvosanojen jakauma (kpl), syyskuun 2012 haku (88 hakemusta) Terveyden tutkimuksen toimikunta perehtyi hakemuksiin kiinnittäen erityistä huomiota paneelin antamiin lausuntoihin. Rahoituspäätöksiä tehdessään toimikunta piti tieteellistä laatua ensisijaisena ja tärkeimpänä asiana päätöksenteossa. Tieteellisesti tasaväkisten hakemusten osalta otettiin huomioon hakijan eteneminen tutkijan uralla sekä muita asioita, kuten eri tutkimusalojen tarpeet ja hankkeisiin liittyvät hyvään tieteelliseen käytäntöön ja aineettomiin oikeuksiin liittyvät kysymykset. Jos sinulla on hakuun liittyviä kysymyksiä tai kommentteja, pyydän ottamaan yhteyttä sähköpostitse tai puhelimitse. Aki Salo johtava tiedeasiantuntija Suomen Akatemia, terveyden tutkimuksen yksikkö, Hakaniemenranta 6, PL 131, Helsinki p (12)

3 FINLANDS AKADEMI Forskningsrådet för hälsa FÖR DE SOM SÖKT ANSTÄLLNING SOM AKADEMIFORSKARE (septemberutlysningen 2012) Bästa sökande, Finlands Akademis forskningsråd för hälsa har fattat beslut om finansieringen för anställning som akademiforskare. Alla som har sökt finansieringen får ett e-postmeddelande om beslutet. Var och en kan läsa utlåtandet på sin ansökan i Akademins e-tjänst. Inom septemberutlysningen 2012 mottog forskningsrådet för hälsa sammanlagt 88 ansökningar om finansiering för anställning som akademiforskare. Forskningsrådet beslutade vid sitt möte den 15 maj 2013 att bevilja tio sökande finansiering för perioden Ansökningarna höll en hög standard och endast 11,4 procent av ansökningarna kunde finansieras. Därför blev många ansökningar som fått ett utmärkt betyg utan finansiering. Finansiering beviljas till: Tomas Blom, Helsingfors universitet Carmen Escobedo-Lucea, Helsingfors universitet Reetta Hinttala, Uleåborgs universitet Markku Michael Jeltsch, Helsingfors universitet Pekka Katajisto, Helsingfors universitet Johanna Magga, Uleåborgs universitet Timo Myöhänen, Helsingfors universitet Satu Palva, Uleåborgs universitet Jeroen Pouwels, Åbo universitet Sakari Vanharanta, Helsingfors universitet För att finansieringen kan utbetalas krävs att den sökande och forskningsplatsen bekräftar att de tar emot finansieringen. Bekräftelsen ska göras i Akademins e-tjänst ( senast den 15 juni Forskningsplatsen måste anställa forskaren i ett anställningsförhållande i enlighet med beslutsvillkoren. De som beviljats akademiforskarfinansiering ska lämna in en detaljerad ansökan om finansiering för forskningskostnader senast den 15 juni Noggrannare anvisningar om detta skickas per e-post. Om någon av de sökande som beviljats finansiering inte tar emot eller avstår från anställningen som akademiforskare före den 31 december 2013, kan forskningsrådet i stället välja en sökande från reservlistan för resten av perioden. De som placerats på reservlistan kontaktas endast om någon finansieringsmottagare avstår från sin anställning. Forskningsrådets beslut om ordningen på reservlistan var följande: 1. Valentina Lenasi, Helsingfors universitet 2. Jouko Miettunen, Uleåborgs universitet 3. Mataleena Parikka, Tammerfors universitet 4. Kristiina Tiainen, Tammerfors universitet 5. Tiia Ngandu, Institutet för hälsa och välfärd 6. Tea Lallukka, Arbetshälsoinstitutet Ansökningarna bedömdes av internationella paneler (se bilaga 1), som samlades i Helsingfors i januari februari Vid behov anlitades andra paneler eller utomstående experter. Panelerna 3 (12)

4 diskuterade igenom varje ansökan, gav betyg och utarbetade ett skriftligt utlåtande. Utlåtandena kan läsas i Akademins e-tjänst. Panelmedlemmarna svarar gemensamt för sitt utlåtande. Enligt panelerna höll ansökningarna allmänt en hög standard. De högst rankade ansökningarna ansågs konkurrenskraftiga på en internationell nivå. Panelerna lyfte trots det fram allmänna och ofta förekommande faktorer som inverkar på forskningsplaners kvalitet (se bilaga 2). Betygsfördelning för ansökningar om anställning som akademiforskare (antal), septemberutlysningen 2012 (88 ansökningar): Vid genomgången av ansökningarna fäste forskningsrådet för hälsa särskilt avseende vid panelernas utlåtanden. Vid fattandet av finansieringsbesluten var den vetenskapliga kvaliteten hos ansökningarna det viktigaste kriteriet. För vetenskapligt jämbördiga ansökningar beaktades också den sökandes forskarkarriär, olika vetenskapsområdens behov och frågor som rör god vetenskaplig praxis och immateriella rättigheter. Om du har frågor eller kommentarer gällande utlysningen kan du kontakta oss per e-post eller telefon. Aki Salo ledande vetenskapsrådgivare Finlands Akademi, enheten för hälsoforskning Hagnäskajen 6, PB 131, Helsingfors tfn aki.salo@aka.fi 4 (12)

5 ACADEMY OF FINLAND Research Council for Health 15 May 2013 TO APPLICANTS FOR RESEARCH POSTS AS ACADEMY RESEARCH FELLOW (September 2012 call) Dear applicant, At its meeting on 15 May 2013, the Academy of Finland s Research Council for Health decided on the funding for research posts as Academy Research Fellow. All applicants will receive an automatic notification of the decision. The reviews on the applications can be read in the Academy s online services. In the September call 2012, the Research Council received a total of 88 applications for research posts as Academy Research Fellow. The Research Council decided to grant salary funding to ten applicants for 1 September August The applications were of a high quality, but the Research Council could fund only 11.4 per cent of the applications submitted. Consequently, many applicants who received excellent marks could not be granted funding. Funding recipients: Tomas Blom, University of Helsinki Carmen Escobedo-Lucea, University of Helsinki Reetta Hinttala, University of Oulu Markku Michael Jeltsch, University of Helsinki Pekka Katajisto, University of Helsinki Johanna Magga, University of Oulu Timo Myöhänen, University of Helsinki Satu Palva, University of Helsinki Jeroen Pouwels, University of Turku Sakari Vanharanta, University of Helsinki Before the funds can be paid, the applicant and the site of research must confirm that they will receive the funding. The confirmation must be done in the Academy s online services ( by 15 June The site of research must hire the researcher in an employment relationship in accordance with the conditions specified in the decision. The recipients of Academy Research Fellow funding must submit a detailed application for research costs by 15 June 2013 (detailed guidelines will be sent by ). If an applicant who was granted funding decides not to accept or decides to give up a research post as Academy Research Fellow before 31 December 2013, an applicant placed on the reserve list can be given a substitute position for the rest of the period. Those placed on the reserve list will be contacted only if any of the appointees decides to give up their research post. The Research Council decided to draw up a reserve list in the following order of precedence: 1. Valentina Lenasi, University of Helsinki 2. Jouko Miettunen, University of Oulu 3. Mataleena Parikka, University of Tampere 4. Kristiina Tiainen, University of Tampere 5. Tiia Ngandu, National Institute for Health and Welfare 6. Tea Lallukka, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health The applications were peer-reviewed by international expert panels (Appendix 1), which convened in Helsinki in January and February In their work, the panels consulted other 5 (12)

6 experts where necessary, either members of another panel or external experts. The panel discussed, rated and issued a written review report on each application. You can read the expert review report on your application by logging in to the Academy s online services with your user ID. All panel members are jointly responsible for the review report issued by the panel. The panels found the scientific quality of the applications overall good and the applications scored with the highest grades were found competitive on an international level. In reviewing the scientific level of the research plans, the panels, however, highlighted general and recurrent points concerning the scientific quality of research plans (see Appendix 2). Score distribution for applications for research posts as Academy Research Fellow, September 2012 call (88 applications) The Research Council for Health examined the applications, paying special attention to the panel review reports. In making the funding decisions, the most important criterion was the scientific quality of the applications. For scientifically equal applications, the Research Council also took into account the applicant s research career, needs of different disciplines as well as questions of good scientific practice and IPR issues. If you have any questions or comments concerning this call, please contact us by or phone. Aki Salo Senior Science Adviser Academy of Finland, Health Research Unit Hakaniemenranta 6, POB 131, Helsinki tel aki.salo@aka.fi 6 (12)

7 Liite 1/Bilaga 1/Appendix 1 Grant review panel experts Research Council for Health September 2012 call (Academy Projects, Academy Research Fellows, Postdoctoral Researchers and clinical researchers) Panel 1 1. Prof. Marta Alarcón-Riquelme, GENYO Center, Granada, Spain 2. Prof. Edwin Cuppen, Hubrecht Institute, Utrecht, Netherlands 3. Prof. Monika Hegi, Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland 4. Prof. Robert Lightowlers, Newcastle University, UK 5. Prof. Silvere van der Maarel, Leiden University Medical Center, Netherlands 6. Prof. Joanna Poulton, University of Oxford, UK 7. Prof. Michael J. Dixon, University of Manchester, UK 8. Prof. Rolf Sijmons, University of Groningen, Netherlands 1. Prof. John Robinson, University of Newcastle, UK 2. Prof. J. Javier Meana, University of the Basque Country, Spain 3. Prof. Georg Thaller, University of Kiel, Germany Panel 2 1. Prof. Michael Bader, Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine, Germany 2. Prof. Dr. Anna Akhmanova, Universitet Utrecht, Netherlands 3. Prof. Neil Bulleid, University of Glasgow, UK 4. Prof. Jan Oxholm Gordeladze, University of Oslo, Norway 5. Prof. Karl Kadler, University of Manchester, UK 6. Prof. Banafshe Larijani, London Research Institute, UK 7. Prof. Carol MacKintosh, University of Dundee, UK 1. Prof. Christopher Dowson, University of Warwick, UK 2. Prof. Oscar Fletcher, NC State College of Veterinary Medicine, USA 3. Prof. Erich Gulbins, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany 4. Dr Janet Shipley, Institute of Cancer Research, UK 5. Prof. Hans van Leeuwen, Erasmus MC (hospital), Netherlands 7 (12)

8 Panel 3 1. Prof. Mary Collins, University College London, UK 2. Prof. Dave Bates, University of Bristol, UK 3. Prof. Romano Danesi, Pisa University, Italy 4. Prof. Luc Dirix, Oncology Center Antwerp, Belgium 5. Prof. Øystein Fodstad, Oslo University Hospital, Norway 6. Prof. Christine Marosi, Medizinische Universität Wien, Austria 7. Dr Giancarlo Marra, Institute of Molecular Cancer Research, Switzerland 8. Prof. Michael Olson, Beatson Institute for Cancer Research, UK 9. Dr Janet Shipley, Institute of Cancer Research, UK 1. Prof. Thorsten Schlomm, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany 2. Prof. Abass Alavi, University of Pennsylvania, USA Panel 4 1. Prof. Christopher Dowson, University of Warwick, UK 2. Prof. Robert Allaker, Barts & The London, Queen Mary's School of Medicine & Dentistry, London, UK 3. Prof. Maria Belvisi, Imperial College London, UK 4. Prof. Fritz Krombach, LMU München, Germany 5. Dr Catherine Lawrence, University of Strathclyde, UK 6. Prof. John H Robinson, Musculoskeletal Research Group Institute Of Cellular Medicine, Of Medical Faculty Sciences 7. Prof. Ian S. Roberts, University of Manchester, UK 8. Prof. Peter Simmonds, University of Edinburgh, UK 9. Prof. Simon Wain-Hobson, Institut Pasteur, France 1. Prof. Urs Albrecht, University of Fribourg, Switzerland 2. Prof. Willem van Eden, Utrecht University, Netherlands 3. Prof. Reinhard Pabst, Hannover medical School, Germany 8 (12)

9 Panel 5 1. Prof. Stephen Lawrie, University of Edinburgh, UK 2. Prof. Sandra Amor, European University Institute, Italy 3. Prof. Clive Bramham, University of Bergen, Norway 4. Prof. Nils Erik Gilhus, University of Bergen, Norway 5. Prof. Karl Herholz, University of Manchester, UK 6. Prof. Friedhelm Hummel, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany 7. Ass. Prof. Tamas Kozicz, Radboud University Nijmegen, Netherlands 8. Prof. Pamela Shaw, University of Sheffield, UK 9. Prof. Maria Grazia Spillantini, University of Cambridge, UK Panel 6 1. Prof. Sven Frøkjær, Københavns Universitet, Denmark 2. Prof. Eric Allémann, University of Geneva, Switzerland 3. Prof. Paolo Caliceti, University of Padova, Italy 4. Prof. Helena Danielson, Uppsala Universitet, Sweden 5. Prof. John W Haycock, University of Sheffield, UK 6. Prof. Simon Mackay, University of Strathclyde, UK 7. Prof. Jose Javier Meana, Universidad del País Vasco, Spain 8. Prof. Chris Shaw, Queens University, Ireland 9. Ass. Prof. Giulo Vistoli, University of Milan, Italy External reviewers 1. Prof. Ian Brook, University of Sheffield, UK 2. Prof. Jane Norman, University of Edinburgh, UK 3. Prof. Gerard Pasterkamp, Utrecht University) 4. Prof. Richard Sharpe, MRC/University of Edinburgh Centre for Reproductive Health 5. Prof. Maria Grazia Spillantini, University of Cambridge 6. Dr Hilary J. Little, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London 7. Prof. Ulf Ahlgren, Umeå Centre for Molecular Medicine (UCMM), Sweden 9 (12)

10 Panel 7 1. Prof. Gail Kinman, University of Bedfordshire, UK 2. Prof. Debra Bick, King s College, Florence Nightingale School of Nursing and Midwifery, UK 3. Prof. Martin Bobak, University College London, UK 4. Prof. Svein Friis, Oslo University Hospital, Norway 5. Prof. Christina Hultman, Karolinska Institute 6. Prof. Kader Parahoo, University of Ulster, UK 7. Prof. Amanda Sacker, University of Essex 8. Prof. John-Paul Vader, the University of Lausanne, Switzerland 9. Prof. Cordula Wagner, Netherlands institute for health services research NIVEL 1. Prof. Friedhelm Hummel, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany 2. Dr Angela Wood, University of Cambridge, UK Panel 8 1. Dr G Neil Thomas, University of Birmingham, UK 2. Dr Jason Gill, University of Glasgow, UK 3. Prof. Marleen van Baak, Maastricht University, Netherlands 4. Dr Lorraine Brennan, UCD Dublin, Ireland 5. Prof. Ian N M Day, MRC Centre and Bristol Genetic Epidemiology Laboratories, UK 6. Prof. Fredrik Karpe, University of Oxford, UK 7. Prof. Myra Nimmo, Loughborough University, UK 8. Prof. Martin Wabitsch, University of Ulm, Germany 9. Prof. Maurice Zeegers, University of Birmingham, Unit of Genetic Epidemiology 1. Karl Michaelsson, Uppsala University, Sweden 10 (12)

11 Panel 9 1. Prof. Carina Blomström Lundqvist, University of Uppsala, Sweden 1. Prof. Diez-Perez, Adolfo, University of Barcelona, Spain 2. Prof. Tony Fletcher, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, UK 3. Prof. Barbara Hoffmann, Universitätsklinikum Essen, Germany 4. Prof. Thomas Illig, Hannover Medical School, Germany 5. Prof. Karl Michaelsson, University of Uppsala, Sweden 6. Prof. Jane Norman, University of Edinburgh, UK 7. Prof. Gerard Pasterkamp, University of Utrecht, Netherlands 1. Prof. Richard M Sharpe, University of Edinburgh, UK 2. Prof. Abass Alavi, University of Pennsylvania, USA 3. Dr Lorraine Brennan, UCD Dublin, Ireland 4. Prof. Fiona Burkhard, Bern University Hospital, Switzerland 5. Prof. Dana Devine, Canadian Blood Services / Centre for Blood Research, Canada 6. Dr Christopher Grupen, University of Sydney, Australia 7. Prof. Eileen Ingham, University of Leeds 8. Ass. Prof. Ecosse Lamoureux, Centre for Eye Research, Australia 9. Prof. Myra Nimmo, Loughborough University, UK 10. Prof. Gordon B. Proctor, King's College, UK 11. Prof. Heinrich Schelbert, University of California Los Angeles, USA 12. Prof. Peter Simmonds, University of Edinburgh 13. Prof. David R Wilson, University of British Columbia, Canada Panel Prof. Malcolm R Alison, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, UK 2. Prof. Jan Brinchmann, Institute of Clinical Medicine, Oslo, Norway 3. Prof. Andreas Faissner, Ruhr-University Bochum, Germany 4. Prof. Majlinda Lako, Newcastle University, UK 5. Prof. Katja Schenke-Layland, Universitäts Klinikum Tübingen, Germany 6. Prof. Miodrag Stojkovic, University of Kragujevac, Serbia 7. Prof. Hans van Leeuwen, Erasmus MC (hospital), Netherlands 1. Prof. Paul Vinyard, University College London, UK 11 (12)

12 Liite 2/Bilaga 2/Appendix 2 Feedback from grant review panels to applicants The overall scientific quality is similar to that of other countries. The very best were clearly internationally competitive. However, there was a broad range in the quality of the applications. The panels observed some common weaknesses, addressing which would significantly improve most applications: A common weakness was that in many applications there appeared to be a rather parochial Finnish-centric view, often missing the international context and omitting the current points of reference of related or directly relevant research conducted elsewhere. The review panel is international, so referring to up-to-date international literature is essential. Often, the research plans were not well structured and they needed improvement. Many plans lacked cohesion to a greater or lesser extent. The different parts of the plan have to interact with each other and with one or more overall objectives. Too often there were not enough details to judge the feasibility of the proposed projects. Although it is important to give a suitable background, the reviewers are particularly interested in the justifications and methodology of the current proposal. More emphasis is needed on what will be done in this particular proposal and by whom, instead of what has been already done. It is also important to clearly indicate the data that have already been obtained and differentiate this from what is in process, and what will be done in the future. This will avoid confusion. A big problem is the overambition of several projects, an unrealistic view of what can be done. Often, less is more with a research plan! Furthermore, the plans were too often more like a collection of studies than plans with a clearly defined and focused goal. Preliminary data should be included in the plan if at all possible. Only a few applications dealt with potential risks associated with the research plan, an essential part of any application. Collaborations were often mentioned without coherent arguments why these have been chosen. There was frequently a lack of linkages between the research questions and the research methods, also links between different parts of the study were often unclear There were several projects where the ideas appear to be of a very high standard, yet the protocol/data analysis was inadequate. A common issue was the lack of suitable power calculations. For instance, in many, they were simply absent, and in others they were not for the areas of most concern, e.g. where a subsample of the larger study is to be used. Unless the panel can be reasonably reassured that there is adequate power to avoid type II error then it will not be ranked highly, i.e. even one critical omission such as this will reduce the opportunity for funding. Some of the postdoctoral projects would have benefited from mentoring and advice on how to construct a proposal by more experienced scientists. To summarise, the applicants can become more competitive by international standards by considering the challenges ahead, putting their work in an international context, making certain that they have a clear hypothesis, a rationale for the experiments and potential drawbacks and how to deal with them. 12 (12)