SUOMEN AKATEMIA Terveyden tutkimuksen toimikunta

Transkriptio

1 SUOMEN AKATEMIA Terveyden tutkimuksen toimikunta TERVEYDEN TUTKIMUKSEN TOIMIKUNNALTA TUTKIJATOHTORIN RAHOITUSTA SYYSKUUN HAUSSA 212 HAKENEILLE ( päättynyt haku) Arvoisa hakija, Suomen Akatemian terveyden tutkimuksen toimikunta päätti kokouksessaan rahoitettavista tutkijatohtorihakemuksista. Hakija saa rahoituspäätöksestä automaattisen ilmoituksen sähköpostiinsa. Rahoitetut hankkeet ovat nähtävissä Akatemian verkkosivuilla osoitteessa kohdassa Päätökset ja vaikutukset > Rahoituspäätökset. Terveyden tutkimuksen toimikunnalle osoitettiin mennessä 12 tutkijatohtorihakemusta, joissa haettiin rahoitusta yhteensä 33,4 miljoonaa euroa. Toimikunta teki rahoituspäätöksiä yhteensä 5,2 miljoonalla eurolla ja myönsi rahoituksen 2 tutkijatohtoriprojektille. Myönteisen rahoituspäätöksen sai 17 % hakijoista. Rahoitetut tutkijatohtorit: Autio, Kaija Johanna Björk, Johanna Kristina Terese Borra, Ronald Casteleijn, Marinus G Emani, Maheswara Reddy Haikarainen, Teemu Johannes Hämälistö, Saara Anna-sisko Kaakinen, Tommi Mika Petteri Kettunen, Johannes A Kokkonen, Nina Kristiina Konttinen, Hanna M Mäkinen, Tomi Paveliev, Mikhail Pekkala, Satu Pauliina Perälä, Nina M Piitulainen, Harri Rahnasto-Rilla, Minna Katariina Siljamäki, Elina Taskinen, Minna M Viiri, Keijo Toimikunta päätti kokouksessaan asettaa seitsemän hakemusta varasijalistalle. Mikäli joku tutkijatohtorirahoituksen saajista ei ota vastaan saamaansa rahoitusta tai luopuu siitä ennen vuoden 213 loppua, listalle kuuluville hankkeille voidaan tarjota rahoitusta varasijalistan osoittamassa järjestyksessä. Toimikunta päätti varasijalistan järjestyksestä seuraavasti: 1. Taipale, Heidi Tuulia 2. Järvinen, Elina A 3. Saloniemi-Heinonen, Taija Karoliina 4. Halonen, Jaana 5. Wong, Iris Poh Ling 6. Voutilainen, Merja H 7. Oikonen, Mervi Kaarina Rahoituksen maksaminen edellyttää vastuullisen johtajan (= hakija) sekä suorituspaikan vahvistusta rahoituksen vastaanottamisesta Akatemian verkkoasioinnin ( kautta mennessä. Kun rahoituksen vastaanotto on vahvistettu verkkoasioinnin kautta, vastuullinen johtaja ja tutkimuksen suorituspaikka hyväksyvät rahoituspäätöksen sisällön kokonaisuudessaan ja sitoutuvat noudattamaan Akatemian asettamia rahoituksen käyttöön liittyviä ehtoja. Rahoituspäätöksiin liittyvät ehdot on esitetty Akatemian verkkosivuilla:

2 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 verkkoasioinnissa hakijan omilla tunnuksilla. Kaikki paneelin jäsenet vastaavat yhteisesti annetusta lausunnosta. Arviointipaneelit pitivät hakemusten tieteellistä laatua yleisesti hyvänä, parhaita arvosanoja saaneita hankkeita pidettiin kilpailukykyisinä kansainvälisellä tasolla. Tutkimussuunnitelmien tieteellisestä laadusta tehtiin yhteenveto (liite 2), jossa asiantuntijapaneelit nostivat esille yleisimpiä ja usein toistuvia tutkimussuunnitelman laatuun vaikuttavia seikkoja. Tutkijatohtorihakemusten arvosanojen jakauma, päättynyt haku (12 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 muita asioita kuten eri tutkimusalojen tarpeet sekä hankkeisiin liittyvät hyvään tieteelliseen käytäntöön ja aineettomiin oikeuksiin liittyvät kysymykset. Mikäli sinulla on hakuun liittyviä kysymyksiä tai kommentteja, pyydän ottamaan yhteyttä puhelimitse tai sähköpostitse. Heikki Vilen Tiedeasiantuntija, terveyden tutkimus p heikki.vilen@aka.fi LIITTEET: Liite 1. Asiantuntijapaneelien kokoonpano Liite 2. Asiantuntijapaneelien palaute hakijoille (englanniksi)

3 FINLANDS AKADEMI Forskningsrådet för hälsa FÖR DE SOM SÖKT FORSKARANSTÄLLNING SOM FORSKARDOKTOR HOS FORSKNINGSRÅDET FÖR HÄLSA (septemberutlysningen 212) Bästa sökande, Forskningsrådet för hälsa vid Finlands Akademi har vid sitt möte den 5 juni 213 fattat beslut om ansökningarna om finansiering för forskaranställningar som forskardoktor. Som sökande får du ett automatiskt meddelande om beslutet per e-post. De projekt som beviljas finansiering listas på vår webbplats på > Beslut & resultat > Finansieringsbeslut. I septemberutlysningen, som avslutades den 27 september 212, mottog forskningsrådet för hälsa sammanlagt 12 ansökningar om forskaranställning som forskardoktor. Den totala sökta finansieringen uppgick till 33,4 miljoner euro. Forskningsrådets totala finansiering för forskardoktorer uppgår till ca 5,2 miljoner euro och finansiering beviljas till 2 projekt. Detta betyder att 17 procent av de sökande beviljades finansiering. Finansiering beviljas till: Autio, Kaija Johanna Björk, Johanna Kristina Terese Borra, Ronald Casteleijn, Marinus G Emani, Maheswara Reddy Haikarainen, Teemu Johannes Hämälistö, Saara Anna-sisko Kaakinen, Tommi Mika Petteri Kettunen, Johannes A Kokkonen, Nina Kristiina Konttinen, Hanna M Mäkinen, Tomi Paveliev, Mikhail Pekkala, Satu Pauliina Perälä, Nina M Piitulainen, Harri Rahnasto-Rilla, Minna Katariina Siljamäki, Elina Taskinen, Minna M Viiri, Keijo Forskningsrådet placerade sju ansökningar på en reservlista. Om någon av de sökande som beviljats finansiering inte tar emot eller avstår från en forskaranställning som forskardoktor före den 31 december 213, kan forskningsrådet i stället välja en sökande från reservlistan för resten av perioden. Forskningsrådets beslut om reservlistan var följande (i den ordning de erbjuds finansiering): 1. Taipale, Heidi Tuulia 2. Järvinen, Elina A 3. Saloniemi-Heinonen, Taija Karoliina 4. Halonen, Jaana 5. Wong, Iris Poh Ling 6. Voutilainen, Merja H 7. Oikonen, Mervi Kaarina För att finansieringen ska kunna utbetalas krävs att den ansvariga ledaren (dvs. sökande) och forskningsplatsen bekräftar att de tar emot finansieringen. Bekräftelsen ska göras via Akademins e-tjänst senast ). Efter att bekräftelsen är gjord godkänner den ansvariga ledaren och forskningsplatsen finansieringsbeslutets innehåll i sin helhet och förbinder sig till att följa de villkor som Akademin ställt för medelsanvändningen. Beslutsvillkoren presenteras i detalj på webben:

4 Ansökningarna bedömdes av internationella paneler (se bilaga 1) som sammanträdde i januari och februari i Helsingfors. Som stöd i sitt arbete konsulterade panelerna vid behov övriga sakkunniga, såsom medlemmar av andra paneler eller utomstående experter. Panelerna diskuterade igenom varje ansökan, gav betyg och utarbetade ett skriftligt utlåtande. Utlåtandena kan läsas i Akademins e-tjänst genom att logga in på den egna profilen. Panelmedlemmarna svarar gemensamt för utlåtandet. Utvärderingspanelerna bedömde att den vetenskapliga kvaliteten hos ansökningarna i allmänhet var god. De högst värderade ansökningarna ansågs konkurrenskraftiga på en internationell nivå. Panelerna gjorde en sammanfattning av forskningsplanernas vetenskapliga kvalitet (se bilaga 2) för att lyfta fram allmänna och ofta förekommande faktorer som inverkar på forskningsplaners kvalitet. Betygsfördelningen för forskardoktorsansökningar, septemberutlysningen 212 (12 ansökningar) Vid genomgången av ansökningarna fäste forskningsrådet för hälsa särskild uppmärksamhet vid panelernas utlåtanden. Vid finansieringsbesluten var den vetenskapliga kvaliteten hos ansökningarna det viktigaste kriteriet. För vetenskapligt jämbördiga ansökningar beaktades också olika forskningsområdens behov och frågor som rör god vetenskaplig praxis och immateriella rättigheter. Om du har frågor eller kommentarer gällande utlysningen kan du kontakta oss per telefon eller e-post. Heikki Vilen Vetenskapsrådgivare, hälsoforskning tfn heikki.vilen@aka.fi BILAGOR: Bilaga 1. Panelernas sammansättning Bilaga 2. Respons från panelerna (på engelska)

5 ACADEMY OF FINLAND Research Council for Health 5 June 213 TO APPLICANTS FOR POSTDOCTORAL FUNDING (September 212 call) Dear applicant, At its meeting on 5 June 213, the Research Council for Health of the Academy of Finland decided on the funding for research posts as Postdoctoral Researchers. As an applicant, you will receive an automatic notification of the decision. The projects that will receive funding are listed on our website at Decisions & Impacts > Funding decisions. By the call deadline of 27 September 212, the Research Council for Health received a total of 12 applications for Academy Project funding. The total funding applied for amounted to EUR 33.4 million. The Research Council decided to grant funding worth EUR 5.2 million to a total of 2 projects. This corresponds to a 17 per cent success rate for applications. Applicants granted funding: Autio, Kaija Johanna Björk, Johanna Kristina Terese Borra, Ronald Casteleijn, Marinus G Emani, Maheswara Reddy Haikarainen, Teemu Johannes Hämälistö, Saara Anna-sisko Kaakinen, Tommi Mika Petteri Kettunen, Johannes A Kokkonen, Nina Kristiina Konttinen, Hanna M Mäkinen, Tomi Paveliev, Mikhail Pekkala, Satu Pauliina Perälä, Nina M Piitulainen, Harri Rahnasto-Rilla, Minna Katariina Siljamäki, Elina Taskinen, Minna M Viiri, Keijo The Research Council placed seven applications on a reserve list. If an applicant who was granted funding decides not to accept, or decides to give up, a research post as Postdoctoral Researcher before 31 December 213, projects placed on the reserve list can be offered funding (in order of precedence on the list). The Research Council decided to draw up a reserve list in the following order of precedence: 1. Taipale, Heidi Tuulia 2. Järvinen, Elina A 3. Saloniemi-Heinonen, Taija Karoliina 4. Halonen, Jaana 5. Wong, Iris Poh Ling 6. Voutilainen, Merja H 7. Oikonen, Mervi Kaarina Before the funds can be paid, the principal investigator (i.e. 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 5 August 213. After confirming that they will receive the funding, the PI and the site of research must accept the whole funding decision and commit themselves to complying with the conditions set by the Academy for the use of funds. The conditions for Academy funding decisions are presented at The applications were reviewed in international expert panels (Appendix 1), which convened in Helsinki in January and February. In their work, the panels consulted other experts where necessary, either members

6 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 issued on your own 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 evaluation panels found the scientific quality of the applications overall good. The applications scored with the highest grades were found competitive on an international level. The panels summarised the scientific quality of research plans and highlighted general points concerning the scientific quality of research plans (Appendix 2). Score distribution for Postdoctoral Researcher applications, September 212 call (12 applications) The Research Council for Health examined the applications, paying special attention to the panel reviews. In making the funding decisions, the most important criterion was the scientific quality of the applications. For applications evaluated as equals scientifically, the Research Council also took into account the needs of different disciplines as well as issues of good scientific practice and IPR. If you have any questions or comments concerning this call, please contact the Academy by phone or . Heikki Vilen Science Adviser, Health Research p heikki.vilen@aka.fi APPENDICES Appendix 1. Composition of expert panels Appendix 2. Feedback from the panels

7 Liite 1 Bilaga 1 Appendix 1 International Experts Research Council of Health September 212 call 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, the 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, North Carolina State College of Veterinary Medicine, USA 3. Prof. Erich Gulbins, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany 4. Dr. Janet Shipley, The Institute of Cancer Research, UK 5. Prof. Hans van Leeuwen, Erasmus Medical Center, the Netherlands 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, The Beatson Institute for Cancer Research, UK 9. Dr. Janet Shipley, The Institute of Cancer Research, UK 1. Prof. Thorsten Schlomm, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany 2. Prof. Abass Alavi, The University of Pennsylvania, USA

8 Panel 4 1. Prof. Christopher Dowson, University of Warwick, UK 2. Prof. Robert Allaker, Queen Mary, University of London, UK 3. Prof. Maria Belvisi, Imperial College London, UK 4. Prof. Fritz Krombach, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Germany 5. Dr. Catherine Lawrence, University of Strathclyde, UK 6. Prof. John H Robinson, Newcastle University, UK 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 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, the Netherlands 4. Prof. Richard Sharpe, University of Edinburgh, UK 5. Prof. Maria Grazia Spillantini, University of Cambridge, UK 6. Dr. Hilary J. Little, King's College London 7. Prof. Ulf Ahlgren, Umeå Centre for Molecular Medicine, Sweden

9 Panel 7 1. Prof. Gail Kinman, University of Bedfordshire, UK 2. Prof. Debra Bick, King s College, UK 3. Prof. Martin Bobak, University College London, UK 4. Prof. Svein Friis, Oslo University Hospital, Norway 5. Prof. Christina Hultman, Karolinska Institutet, Sweden 6. Prof. Kader Parahoo, University of Ulster, UK 7. Prof. Amanda Sacker, University of Essex, UK 8. Prof. John-Paul Vader, the University of Lausanne, Switzerland 9. Prof. Cordula Wagner, Netherlands institute for health services research, Netherlands 1. Prof. Friedhelm Hummel, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany 2. Dr. Angela Wood, Univeristy of Cambridge, UK Panel 8 Panel 9 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, University College Dublin, Ireland 5. Prof. Ian N M Day, 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, UK 1. Karl Michaelsson, Uppsala University, Sweden 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, The Netherlands 1. Prof. Richard M Sharpe, University of Edinburgh, UK 2. Prof. Abass Alavi, The University of Pennsylvania, USA 3. Dr. Lorraine Brennan, University College Dublin, Ireland 4. Prof. Fiona Burkhard, Bern University Hospital, Switzerland 5. Prof. Dana Devine, Canadian Blood Services, Canada 6. Dr. Christopher Grupen, University of Sydney, Australia 7. Prof. Eileen Ingham, University of Leeds, UK 8. Ass. Prof. Ecosse Lamoureux, Centre for Eye Research, Australia 9. Prof. Myra Nimmo, Loughborough University, UK 1. Prof. Gordon B. Proctor, King's College, UK 11. Prof. Heinrich Schelbert, University of California Los Angeles, USA

10 Panel Prof. Peter Simmonds, University of Edinburgh, UK 13. Prof. David R Wilson, University of British Columbia, Canada 1. Prof. Malcolm R Alison, Queen Mary University of London, 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 Medical Center, The Netherlands 1. Prof. Paul Vinyard, University College London, UK

11 Liite 2 Bilaga 2 Appendix 2 Feedback from the panels to the applicants Scientific quality in general 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 Finnishcentric 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 having a clearly defined and focused goal. Preliminary data should be included into 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 linkage between the research questions and the research methods; also links between different parts of the study were often unclear. There are several projects where the ideas appear to be of a very high standard, yet the protocol/data analysis is inadequate. A common issue is 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 summarize, 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.