 You all for being here in this session about the European Research Council. My name is David Gallego. I'm a scientific officer in the Earth System Science Panel, coordinated also by Claudia Gisturidin, also here with us today. In this session, I will give a overview of what is the ELC, what are the funding schemes, and a little bit about the submission and the evaluation process. This will be followed by the presentation of our two guest invited speakers, Katherine McCammon from the University of Beirut. She is a former panel member and panel chair in the Earth System Science Panel, and David Bassviken from the University of Linköping. He is an ELC grantee. He obtained his Consolidation grant in 2016 with the Project MedLake. So this will give a general overview of the ELC and all the procedures from the different points of view, from the points of view of the administration, from the evaluators and also from the candidates. As Claudia mentioned, there will be a question and answer session at the end of the three presentations where you can start putting your questions. So let me share this presentation with you. So first of all, what is the ELC? The ELC is a funding body ruled by scientists and for scientists. It is governed by the Scientific Council, which is a group of prominent scientists from all different disciplines across Europe. So the goal of the ELC is to promote highest quality research and to provide support to researchers, but not only economical support, but only to support them to develop their own independent individual teams and to support talent and innovation. So scientists from any field of research are encouraged to submit their proposal to have the freedom to develop their research with no predefined targets or objectives. Scientific excellence is the only criterion, the sole selection criterion for this project. We are looking for innovative ideas that brings science beyond the current limits of the knowledge. So let's start with the application process. Who can apply? No virtually any researcher from any nationality, any research field, any age or any countries that are whatever, whatever you are currently working on. So for this, the only requirement is to develop your research within the European Union or associated countries. For this, you will need a support letter or an acceptance letter from the whole institution where you want to develop your research. For any specific field of research or any career stage that you are in, you will find the appropriate panel and the appropriate funding scheme. So let's have an overview of the different funding schemes. Starting with the three main schemes without the individual grants. First of all, starting grant for early career researchers two to seven years after PhD, where you can apply for up to 1.5 million euros to develop your research within a five years maximum duration of the project. For the next steps, a little more experienced researchers, we have consulting data grants where you can apply for up to two million euros for five years research. This is a livability window from seven to 12 years after PhD. And finally, for more experience or more senior researchers, we have advanced grants. In this case, the candidates are expected to have a minimum of 10 year records of scientific excellence and you can apply up to 2.5 million for a five year project. All these eligibility windows can be extended in case of career breaks due to maternity leave, maternity leave, health issues or any other similar situation. Then we have the synergy grant, which is not an individual scheme. It's a group effort in this case, a group up to four principal investigators from different disciplines or sub-disciplines. They join the effort to make a big project and to provide synergies between the different sub-disciplines to create some new fields of research. Finally, we have the proof of concept. This funding scheme is only for ERC grant holders. This is the aim of this program is to develop commercially valuable projects, either scientific innovation or technological advances. I focus, I highlight this proof of concept program just to highlight that basic research, fundamental research can also have an application and that apply sciences are not excluded from the ERC. So now let's give a brief overview about the submission process for the ERC. The ERC is divided in three domains, which is life sciences, physical science and engineering and social science and humanities. Each of these domain is divided into a panel according to different fields of research of different disciplines. You as candidates are free to select the panel for which you think your research is most suitable. But in case of multi-disciplinary proposals, you are allowed to encode a secondary panel. From our side, from the ERC side, we make sure that you will receive a fair, appropriate evaluation by providing reviews from the two panels, so from the main panels you apply for and for the secondary panels, which is the multi-disciplinary aspect. But of course we are at the EGU, so we'd like to highlight the most relevant panels for EGU disciplines. Of course, the PE10 Earth Systems Science panel, but also Universe Science, although in this case we'd like to highlight that Cosmochemistry and Planetary Geology are now fully in the PE10 Earth Systems Science panel. Another panel that is very suitable for EGU disciplines is LS8 Environmental Biology Ecology and Evolution. And as a small update about next year, there will be two new panels that could be also interesting for EGU disciplines. This will be P11, Material Science and Engineering, and SH7, divided or splitted from the previous SH2 panel, which is now focused in human mobility, environment and space. So the application process, the application itself is divided in two parts. The scientific part is divided in Part B1 and Part B2. Part B1 is only a synopsis of the scientific program. This should be readable and understandable in itself, not just an introduction to the main scientific part, which is Part B2. In this Part B1 you should be able to demonstrate the novelty, the innovation of your research and the feasibility of the project you are proposing. Try to avoid reference to Part B2 because it has to be evaluated separately. And also try to make it generalist because the first part of the evaluation will be a generalist approach. In Part B2 you have the, let's say, the hardcore scientific proposal with a detailed description on the methodology, the research program, not repeating the same as in Part B1. Together with these two scientific parts you also have to provide a summary, a summarized CV to pages and a selection of a highlight of your main contribution in science. Of course it will include your main contribution in scientific publication, but also anything that highlights your independence and creative thinking. This can be prizes, awards, patents even, and in the case of advance grants also show your leadership in coordinating projects or organizing major field extradition, etc., and also in launching the career of early researchers. So similar to the proposal divided in two parts, the review process is also divided in two parts. Each panel is composed of approximately 15 panel members. So at step one, only these panel members plus the panel members for cross panel reviews, so reviews from other panels, will review your proposal. There will be a remote work, individual reviews followed by a panel meeting. In this panel meeting the panel will decide which proposal deserves to go to step two and also will nominate, will suggest, name of expert for each individual proposal that will be invited to review your proposal. So at step two, there will be approximately seven reviews per proposal, including the reviews from the panel members and also the remote referees nominated by the panel. Thus this will be the remote work, so the individual reviews, which will be again followed by a panel meeting, including interviews. And as a novelty for the course in 2021, advance grant will also have interviews at step two. These panels are renovated and renewed, so panel members are moved to other panels or replaced to ensure transparency and diversity of thoughts. Please keep in mind that the decision of this evaluation is a panel decision, so all panel members are invited to familiarize with our proposal and participate in the discussion. So some updates for the coming year. As you know in 2021, it will be the kickoff of the new framework program Horizon Europe. So this means that all the funding scheme would be a little bit postponed. But here you have a summary of the calendar expected for next year. So we start in grant and consolidate grant. The opening of our application period is expected for January 2021. For advance grant, it will be around May. And for synergy, there will be no synergy evaluation in 2021. But the opening time for application is expected to be starting from summer 2021. So if you're interested in submitting your ERC proposal, but you still want to know a little bit more about ERC research from the inside, we invite you also to check this link and to check for opportunities to join a team of the ERC as a researcher, so as a team member, but also as a visiting fellowship, either from Europe or from international arrangement from overseas. But of course, to maintain the ERC and the fundamental research, one thing that is essential is budget. So we encourage you to sign this petition, this open petition to support the fundamental research and the ERC. So this is all from our side. Thank you very much. If you have any question, you can also contact us by email. And you will have some more information and some very useful links in the PDF version of the presentation that Chloe will be able to provide to you. Thank you very much. And now pass on to Katherine McCamill, who will give the overview of the points of view of the evaluators. Thank you to everyone for joining this presentation. So I'm going to give a perspective from the evaluator side. And as you've already heard, the overarching concept for these proposals is scientific excellence. And the proposal is evaluated based on two main parts. And the first part is the actual person who's applying the PI. And the second part is the project. And so I'm going to talk about each of these parts from the evaluator's point of view. So from the person point of view, the PI, for starting grounds, consolidated grounds, and advanced grounds, these are PI driven. And so that means that you as PI must be seen to be in the driver's seat. That doesn't mean that you can't have collaborations with other people. But you're the one in the driver's seat who's really directing where the project is going. And further, with regard to the scientific excellence of the person, it's not just the H index. In fact, the H index plays practically no role in the evaluation that panel members look at. The excellence mainly is presented there in the proposal. So sell yourself appropriately. Describe how you've had an impact on your research field. Any claims that you make, make sure you back them up. There is no sense in giving empty boasts about how good you are without having data to back this up. OK, so that's on the person side of things. Let's move to the project, because that is weighted equally in the evaluation of the proposal. So the project needs a good idea at its core. Without the good idea, your project really doesn't have much chance. And so to get a good idea, you just have to allow the creative juices to flow. I mean, maybe you already have an idea that has developed through your years of research, but maybe not. Just do things that foster creativity. Do something different. Go out into nature and think of other things. And just allow the creativity to help you develop a good idea. And this good idea, try it out on people. Try it out on people that are not your close colleagues. Like talk to your neighbor about what you're thinking about. Your idea should be something that is universally understood as, oh, wow, that's really something that is an intriguing thing to do. High risk high gain is something that people will talk about with regard to these ideas. I mean, if it's something easy, it would have already been done before. So it really does have to represent a challenge that's really going to meaningfully have a chance to move the research field forward. When you're putting your idea into words in the proposal, think about a logical structure to your proposal. Remember, this proposal of yours is going to be read by people from a diverse range of research fields. So it really has to be written in a generally understandable style. Everyone who reads it has to understand why should I care about what you're proposing. And the final part I want to talk about is just how you get started on coming up with research ideas and putting in a proposal. So you've heard about the administrative side of things from David, who's given you some really good resources. I would say the internet really is your friend when it comes to getting inspired about possibilities. So definitely look at the ERC documents, especially please don't neglect the work program, because this gives you a lot of important information about what the criteria are on what your proposal is going to be evaluated on. And of course, the ERC website has many examples of already funded projects, and you're going to hear very soon from someone who has been funded. And also go a little bit outside the box. Follow the ERC on social media, Twitter, Facebook, whatever your favorite platform is. They're probably there. And there's other venues. For example, just Google ERC Comics, it's all one word. And there's some really fascinating presentations of ERC projects and ideas, or another one is Science Squared that shows you how you can understand what the life science people are doing, what people in adjacent fields are doing. It really needs to be universally understood why it's worthy to fund you. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you very much, Catherine. So now we have the third point of view, which is a point of view of the candidate, which I'm sure you're all very interested in. So please stop it. OK, thank you very much for organizing this and for everybody who's joining. I will try to share a screen view and show some slides here. OK, is this working? OK, so I will just give you a very quick background of just the title slide of my project. And I will talk a little bit about developing the proposal and the learnings that I have been thinking about in retrospect after having the products. What did I learn from this sort of application process? So just the title slide, my project is about map animations from lakes. And it's a real challenging topic, but it's also very important for the local greener's gas budgets. I can tell you more about this later if you're interested, but I just wanted to give you this background of where I come from in terms of now regarding the proposal development. My advice, a very strong advice would be to be persistent. In my case, to be successful, I had to fail multiple times first, because there was important learnings from the failures. I tried several years and I failed. And that helped me developing the proposal and building a stronger foundation. So if you fail, see it as a learning experience and use that experience to your advantage next time. I had to work a lot on both the idea development, but also the methods were a weak point in my field. And we were fundamentally limited by the methods we have. So I had to think a lot about methods and also prepare ideas about new methods that could help us understand my topic better. And that takes some time in terms of preparation. And it also takes some time to propose something that is trustworthy. If you just ask about new methods without having done any preparations, it's a lot to ask that others will believe that you will succeed. You have to sort of prepare and really present little knowledge on the method side, I think. That was the case for me, at least. And also, I had to develop a combination of conveying very detailed knowledge in my field, but also having this overview. And I think what Kathy was talking about, making sure not of getting stuck in details, but also trying to understand how can I convey in the big picture in a way that is understandable to many other people. At the same time, being grounded in details that didn't become sort of superficial being stuck with the overview side of things. So combining details and the overview, I think, was important. Balancing risk and gain, of course. In my case, it was important to link to preliminary data to show that, OK, this is a high risk, but it is feasible as shown by this preliminary data. I needed time to develop my CV in terms of papers, projects, and to show this leadership, show that I was capable of being in the driver's seat. And that also takes time. And coming from a Scandinavian country, I needed lots of practice on how to present ideas, not only in print, but also orally. And to communicate this well, that were different to the different persons. And I had trained a lot on it. I tried to communicate interest, engagement, and knowledge, of course. And I had lots of help from engaging in teaching, actually. That was a great way for me to practice this. And also, of course, reviewing, engaging in review tasks that helped me understand the point of view from reviewers and the evaluators. And learnings, I think that the proposal on the CV need to be convincing at all levels, as I said. It wasn't a very detailed level, but also on the overview level. When you get the feedback, you get reviewed by world-leading researchers. And over the years, I tried in seven and 10 reviewers plus the interview panel. And these comments, they got were extremely helpful for the development. And of course, it was super helpful when I failed. And it was also very helpful the year I succeeded, because it helped me think about the project and develop it, make it even better. That's a really gift you get from the review process. So take advantage of this gift. Many people are spending lots of time on your proposal to give you feedback. That is really valuable. And I think the ERC setting is extremely generous with giving good feedback to applicants. The interview was really challenging for me, but it was also a chance to explain un-clarities in the proposal, which is unique, I think. It's a chance for you to actually get questions on what was unclear in the text and get a chance to explain it and convince the reviewers about what you meant. And it's also a great learning experience in communicating your science. I think it's important to make sure that your communication can reach hope scientists are also outside your field, because not everybody in the U-Panels covers your specific topic. First, science is a very broad field. So making sure that you're talking about this in a way that you can understand is really important, I think. And then on the interview, of course, be well prepared. Try to predict interview questions and practice and answerings beforehand. And make sure you know your topic better than the reviewers in the panel. You should be the real experts, because you've developed a proposal. You are the expert in your field. You should know this better than the reviewers. And you need to show this at the interview, I think, and in the proposal text, of course. So those were some points that I had prepared to talk about, and I'm happy to answer any questions also. OK, thank you very much for this presentation. And well, I see we have some questions already in the Q&A box. So the first question, OK, Brandes, criterion after PhD. Are certain periods, for example, parents are lived deductible? Yes, they are. Claudia, can you give some extra details on that? Sure. So parental leaves are deductible. So it's part of what we call extension of the eligibility window. But for the parental leave, you have to upload a document that certifies exactly what was the time that has been taken as a parental leave. So yes, but you need to upload at the time that you submit your proposal, a document demonstrating that you've indeed taken a parental leave. And what is the duration of the parental leave? Thanks a lot, Claudia. So the next question is about the deadlines. There are two similar questions. Deadline for a starting grant at the moment is standard. When can we expect a fixed deadline? How long is the submission time after the call opening? So for the moment, as I mentioned during my presentation, the multi-annual framework budget is not yet approved. So it's difficult to give absolute numbers and absolute very certain replies. But for the moment, the calendar is suspected to open for a starting grant early January. And the deadline is suspected by early March. For a Consolidated grant, it will be around April. But these are not definitive dates. And so we do have... So maybe we can add that by default, we try to have about three months between the publishing date and the deadline to submit the proposals. OK, so there's one more question in the Q&A box, which is the average time of the interview. OK, so we will talk now exclusively from the point of view of the PE10 panel, because each panel may have different approaches. But in the PE10 panel, in the system science panel, usually it's a 20-minute question and answer session, 20-minute interview. This is usually after a five-minute presentation from the candidate. So in total, it should be about 25-minute presentation plus interview. OK, so we have many questions. All right, now. Yeah, there's one regarding advanced grants that maybe we can get also the comment from Catherine. It's about whether in advanced grants can I budget for travel expenses between my native country and Europe, both for me and for my host in Europe? I would say it's according to the rules, it's eligible. But perhaps, Catherine, you would like to comment on how you, as a panel member, look at this, if you will. So from the perspective of a panel member, I think we would always be asking the question, is this a meaningful expense in order to carry out the project? And so if you make this very clear on the proposal, then I think my answer would be yes. I mean, of course, it needs to be aligned with rules of ERC. But what I'm hearing from Claudia is that it is aligned. But yeah, put yourself in the persona of the person who's evaluating the proposal. And ask yourself, is this convincing? And if you don't come out with a resounding yes, then think about putting in a different sort of justification. I think maybe the next question goes also back to you, Catherine. And also maybe David can also comment, how did he put together his team? How important is your team? In parentheses, multinational, gender, different career stages, et cetera. So maybe Catherine, you can comment. And then maybe David. Well, OK. So you're not going to get extra points for having a diverse or those aren't boxes that need to be ticked. And there's no quotas or criteria like that. But I think I would go back to my previous answer and that it needs to be demonstrated as a meaningful part of carrying out your project. So yes, if you see that it's important to, for example, have indigenous researchers involved because you're investigating a research question that involves their cultures or lounge or so on, then definitely. But don't think that we are giving points based on, oh, is there gender diversity? That just doesn't happen. And in my case, I highlighted key competences that I wanted the team to cover. In a few cases, I was able to name persons that would cover these competences in the team. But in many cases, these competences were to be filled by hiring new people. So I couldn't say much about who they would be in terms of background or, I mean, in terms of nationality or things like that. So it was more about highlighting that I had been thinking about what key competences were needed for the project. OK, now a long question. Good afternoon. And my colleagues' experience, the feedback given by reviewers of the Marie Curie is not always helpful and consistent from year to year. For example, one year review essay proposal would improve if X is done following year review essay and proposal would improve if X is removed. Is there a greater consistency on ERC ones? Well, I'm just going to start off and then I pass it on to Catherine. But I think you have to understand that the panel changes and therefore the perspective and the assessment can also change. But Catherine, you may want to be better positioned to answer this. OK, so the people writing the panel comments, so this is the opinion of or the evaluation result from the panel, are cautioned against giving individual recommendations. But maybe it's important to understand that there are external reviewers that are recruited that are in your research field who can give a more expert evaluation of what you're proposing. And they might not necessarily follow the guidelines that they are given. And so there may well be recommendations that are in those individual reviews. And probably it's important that the proposal that candidates understand that, yeah, from year to year, panels change entirely because I've been a panel member now for over the past eight years. But I'm actively being involved in in-person panel means only every other year. And that's the standard of operation. And so if you submit a proposal that's evaluated in two subsequent years, it will have a completely different panel. So I know that's not entirely helpful. And just keep in mind, this is being reviewed by human beings. So this is all part of the process. And so don't expect that you, as a candidate, are going to get an exact answer that's going to give you the ingredients for success next time. Life doesn't work. What was your experience? Because you get several rounds of feedbacks. How was the consistency? Well, there were some differences, of course. But what was written always made sense to me, in a way. I could, of course, see that there were different individuals reading the proposal with different eyes. But my job then was to try to reformulate the proposal so that the reviewers, as many of them as possible, would see what I thought was important. And that, I think, is key challenges in proposal writing. You want to sort of make sure that the reviewers understand what you think is important as an author of the proposal. And if there are too many different views on your proposal, it means you have failed. Because then you are kind of directing the reader's mind in many different directions. So I find the fund response is very useful. And that made sense to me, the critique I got. OK. So there are more questions. That's a question I'm not fully sure I understand. So maybe Matthew can, Matthew, I'd use, can specify the question is, is there a COVID grace period, for example, for a standing grant? You refer to it the eligibility window or for the duration of the project itself. So the next question is, what's the average number of collaborators for a standing grant? Well, I think there were some other questions before. Yeah, I think there's a grant 100% full-time only, or is there a possibility to have part-time grants? Yeah, exactly. So the dedication to the project varies from starting grant to advanced grant. So you do not have to have 100% dedication to the project. So you can share this participation. The minimum requirement is 50% dedication to the project. And always, in all cases, 50% minimum in the European host institution. OK, there is several questions regarding the extension regarding maternity leave. For maternity leave, birth certificate of children is enough or have to have a document with the exact time. So for moms, you only need to upload the birth certificate or adoption certificate. And that will grant you immediately 18 months per child. You don't need to add the time, so the exact period that you've taken as leave. And now there's a question maybe to Catherine. What, in average, number of collaborators for a starting grant? I'm afraid not to have too many. And this means that I will rely too much of collaboration. So from experience, what's a good number? OK, so that's a good question, but one that does not have a good number is an answer. Because it really depends on your research project. I mean, what I said in my presentation, the PI needs to be in the driver's seat. So if you, for example, want to do some modeling and you don't have that modeling expertise, it is entirely appropriate to bring in somebody who has that modeling expertise, but they don't take complete control of that part of the project unless there is some meaning for them to do so. Again, and this is in the work program, these are PI-driven projects. I'm again referring to the starting consolidator and advanced grounds. And so I don't think if you are the only person involved in the entire proposal that you're going to be at the top of the pyramid with your critical mass of postdocs and PhD students, that's absolutely fine if it's meaningful. And if the panel judges that, that's within your capacity because, yeah, if you have a full teaching load and say you're going to commit 100% to your proposal, OK, then you need to put in some additional statements in the proposal. I mean, remember, the panel members do not read minds. And we're not going to try and second guess what you have in mind. You really want to put it there in black and white. And so if you've got a large number of collaborators, then make that clear in that why is it really important for the project and why is it still a PI-driven project nevertheless, just make things clear. David, maybe you can share your own experience with your project. Yeah, so in one way, the budget is limiting, right? The budget is setting a limit on how many you can have involved. So you have to shape your project to make it feasible within the project frameworks. That is one. So then when you frame your projects in the budget framework, then you have to decide which key competence do you need? What can I do myself as a project leader? What do I need other? How can I supplement my skills? So it's really hard to give a big number in this. I mean, you can also, of course, have some kind of external collaborators that can sort of be sort of an external competence bank that is unpaid as well. But I really agree with what Catherine said. I think it's important to make clear why you're having all these people. Because if you have too many, it may possibly look like you're not in the driver's seat. You're kind of depending on too many people. But if you have too few, you may not cover the competence areas needed. So it's really hard to give you a clear answer. Sorry. If I may just add from the administrative part, from next year, there is also the requirement of a written expression of interest of the collaboration. So you cannot just mention I am collaborating with certain such, but you will need to provide a document of acceptance of this collaboration. Good. So now there's another question. If the proposal is mostly PI-driven, what is the expected role of the host institution in the host in the EU institution? So first of all, as you can imagine, we cannot transfer the money to your private bank account. So we need to have an institution that where we transfer the money and that hosts your research program. I assume we'll not be doing it in your private home. You're your research or hosting your team there. So therefore, you need a host institution and that needs to be in the EU member state or in an associated country. But maybe you have other things behind this idea, this question that you would like to elaborate further. OK, there's another quick question with a very quick reply. Is it possible to request to exclude a potential reviewer? Yes, when you submit your proposal as candidate, you can't stay excluded reviewers. So again, this question from Matthew about the COVID, I understand that you mean an extension of the eligibility window due to COVID. At the moment, this is not considered. Unless you have, of course, if you have a medical certificate that you have been in hospital for such a time, of course, yes. But only due to the COVID pandemic and lockdown, at the moment, there is no such extension. OK, I think we don't have any other urgent question for the moment. Yes, so it's not clear if I can remain in my native country during the time of the grant or should be in the host institution. Yes, I mentioned the minimum time you have to spend in the EU host institution is 50%. That is a minimum. The maximum, of course, is 100%. Yeah, the research program should be developed in an EU host institution. OK, so I think there's one last question. What happens if the project is blocked to COVID? If you have a running project and that is blocked due to the COVID-19 situation, yes, you can request an extension of your project. You can request up to six months or even one year extension related to this situation. OK, I think there's one last question, which is after the approval of a proposal, am I forced to develop my project at the original host institution or can I change my plan? So the ERC projects or the ERC grants are PI-driven in that sense, which is they are allocated to the PI. Should the PI decide to move within the European member state or associated countries, you are fully allowed to take with you your grant. So it's what we call the portability of the ERC grant. So yes, you can change your mind and change your plan and move to another country or to another host institution. But this has to, of course, continue to be in a EU member state or an associated country. And as a follow-up of this question, how much salary can be covered by the ERC? If you request for it 100%, that also helps the portability of your grant. So your salary is yours, and you can get that salary from any institution. And also a follow-up on a similar question, what ways does the host institution have? I guess Catherine can reply on this. Sorry, could you repeat the question? Yeah, the question is, how much important do you give to the host institution when you evaluate the application? OK, that's really an excellent question. And we are told as panel members that we are not evaluating the host institution. So it's the PI and their idea that we're evaluating. So the perceived advantage, for example, to be coming from a high-profile institution should not be there. So if you are applying with a host institution that is a small institution in one of the newer European Union states, that should not disadvantage you. OK, here one question that maybe we have missed. So this extra 1 million euro for equipment can buy a lot. If we ask too much, which by the way we hope you won't do, can this kill the project? Or is it often the case that the expensive parts of the project are cut and the rest is granted? So I would ask both Catherine and Dovi to share their experiences on how often, or if we really just go about cutting 20% of all the grants, for instance, Catherine. OK, so from the point of view of evaluation, at step one, the panel members do not see the budget. So you've got to get through step one. And that means you need to have satisfied the criteria for scientific excellence in order to get to step two. And even during step two, the budget is not a primary criterion during the evaluation process. So if you are highly ranked in step two, then the budget will come as a part of the discussion. If you ask for more money, keep in mind that it needs to be well justified. And it could be that your project will be approved. But some of the additional money that you ask for, if it's not clearly central to the project, that may be cut. But you're not going to fail in an early part of the evaluation process, because you ask for too much money. I mean, you've got to first satisfy the main criteria of scientific excellence. Did you want my comments as well on this one? So this is an interesting question. In my case, I wanted to develop rather expensive methods, so development costs are expensive, and the hardware of those methods are expensive. So I would have actually benefited a lot from such an extra equipment grant. But at the same time when I applied, I was a bit afraid, because I could see I could do a lot more with this extra equipment money. But I could also see that I could do a lot of what I thought without it. So I did not apply for this extension, because I didn't think I could motivate it strongly enough. I could still run the project in a very good way. So that was my take on it. And maybe that was a mistake, I don't know. But I thought it was kind of important to be credible also, to not try to just grab too much, just to be credible and be respectful also of the funding limitations. And many people ask for funding and should get funded, because there are many great proposals. You see why David is here, why we selected him to be an example for you guys and an inspiration of how you should actually put together your proposal and your research program. OK, there is one last question, if I'm not mistaken, which is, from the time submitting the project, what is the average time to have an answer from the ERC in general? So that we use as a rule the nine months. So usually from the time you submit. And at the time of the submission, you have to submit both part B1 and part B2 already. And that is the way to really compress and have maximum nine months to give the answer. So that's it. David, I don't know if you want to add or Catherine or David. Otherwise, I think we are done. Yeah, I'll say no further question. So all I have to add is to thank you all for being there and for your question. You're a very important and interesting question. And thank you especially to our two invited speakers, Catherine and David. They were able to reply most of the questions, many of them. And especially to give the real answer, the real world answer, not just the administration part, but the real tips to all candidates. And thank you, of course, to Chloe and EGU for the opportunity of having this seminar.