Versão em português

FAPESP-IUPAC agreement

This cooperation agreement is no longer valid.

A showcase pilot program for a cooperation between international funding organizations and International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry as represented by its Polymer Division.

AGREEMENT between

Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), 3 Rue Michel-Ange, 75794 Paris cedex 16, France, represented by its General Director, Prof. Arnold Migus,

And

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft e.V. (DFG), German Research Foundation – Division of Chemistry and Process Engineering, Kennedyallee 40, D-53175 Bonn, Germany, represented by its Program Officer, Dr. Markus Behnke,

And

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP), Scientific Directorate, R. Pio XI, 1500 - Alto da Lapa, CEP 05468-901 - São Paulo/SP, Brazil, represented by its President, Prof. Dr. Celso Lafer,

And

Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT), Departamento das Relações Europeias, Bilaterais e Multilaterais, Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Ensino Superior, Av. D. Carlos I, 126 - 7º, 1249-074 Lisboa, Portugal, represented by its Vice-president, Prof. Lígia Amâncio,

And

Irish Research Council for Science, Engineering and Technology (IRCSET), Brooklawn House, Crampton Avenue, Shelbourne Road, Dublin 4, Ireland, represented by its Director, Mr.Martin Hynes,

And

Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (MICINN), C/ Albacete 5, Planta 5 Norte 28071 Madrid, Spain, represented by its General Director of International Cooperation and Institutional Relations, Mrs. Montserrat Torné Escasany,

And

National Science Foundation (NSF), Division of Chemistry, US National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA, 22230, United States of America, represented the by Chair of the Division of Chemistry, Prof. Luis Echegoyen,

And

the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC), 104 T.W. Alexander Drive, Building 19, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, United States of America, represented by John Jost, Executive Director of IUPAC, and Christopher K. Ober, President of the IUPAC Polymer Division

Any other organization wanting to join, will be added by an amendment to the present agreement hereinafter referred as “the Agreement”, at the latest on September 30th, 2009. It will have the same status as the listed organizations.

referred to hereinafter as ‘the Partners’ and

on an international joint call for proposals.
 

Table of contents

 

PREAMBLE

Article 1. Purpose of the Agreement

Article 2. Duration

Article 3. Description of the Call

1. General philosophy of the call

2. Specific principles for this first call

3. Call text

4. Letter of Intent stage

4.1 Content of the letter of intent

4.2 Scope of letter of intent stage

4.3 Review of the letters of intent

5. Full proposal stage

5.1 Content of the full proposal:

5.2 Review at full proposal stage

5.3 Review criteria at the full proposal stage

6. Time schedule and actions to be taken

6.1 Preparing the call

6.2 The call procedure

6.3 Funding procedure

7. Reporting and follow up

8. Provisional budget

9. Further aspects

9.1 • Possibility of extension of funding

9.2 • Intellectual property rights

9.3 • Non-Disclosure

Article 4. Disputes

Article 5. Counterparts

Annex A: Application form for letters of intent

Annex B: Application form for full proposals

Annex C: Good practice and conflicts of interest

 


Preamble (Back)

The overall aim of the IUPAC Committee on Chemistry Research Funding (CCRF) is to explore ways by which research organizations and agencies responsible for funding chemical research in various countries might exchange information on international trends in funding and develop partnerships for projects of mutual interest.

IUPAC as a world wide transnational organization will serve as a neutral umbrella being the most appropriate organization to provide the framework for such a long-term program and could provide continuing leadership for this activity.

Among actions of transnational partnership, multilateral calls for proposals are a desirable goal with respect to the international cooperation of funding agencies and research organizations. As a start the Partners aim at a three-year thematic program with joint proposals of three(3) principal investigators from three(3) different countries funded by their respective funding organizations.

The motivation of this project is to foster networking between excellent scientists on topics in chemistry exemplified by a pilot program in polymer chemistry. The topics for this program will be topics of high priority basic science.

The participating researchers are encouraged to build research and education links between the developing and developed world. An option would be to encourage the involvement of PhD students outside the host laboratory’s country, e.g., from developing countries.

It is emphasized that early career researchers who have established an autonomous or independent research area are also among the applicants addressed with this call.

The central coordination of the call will be carried out by a Call Secretariat to be established by the IUPAC Polymer Division in 2009.

The Partners therefore agree as follow:

 

 

Article 1. Purpose of the Agreement (Back)

The purpose of this Agreement is to organize the launch, review and funding of a transnational/transcontinental multilateral call for proposals in polymer chemistry supported by a consortium of funding agencies and research organisations, and scientifically monitored by IUPAC.

Article 2. Duration (Back)

This Agreement shall come into force on the 1st of October 2009 and shall terminate the 31st of December 2013.

Article 3. Description of the call (Back)

1. General philosophy of the call (Back)

  • Administrative simplicity and flexibility.
  • Establishment of international best practice rules for joint funding programs.
  • Rapid process: less than twelve (12) months between announcement of the call and final funding decision.
  • Written commitment of participating organizations (Call agreement).
  • Identical procedures for all participating researchers.
  • All Principal Investigators (PIs) must come from different countries selected from those that are participating in the call.
  • A PI may only participate in one letter of intent.
  • One joint proposal for each project.
  • Two-step evaluation with letter of intent and full proposals.
  • The names of reviewers will remain anonymous.
  • Procedures and eligibility cost items will follow the national programs of the participating organizations.
  • Each Partner agency funds its own country part of a successful proposal as well as the related administrative cost.
  • An award could only be made if all the Partners involved in the proposal agree to do so.
  • The overall process will be at no cost for IUPAC.

2. Specific principles for this first call (Back)

  • Coordination of application and review process by a Call Secretariat nominated by and in close interaction with IUPAC Polymer Division committee members.
  • The Panel is composed of about ten(10) reviewers nominated by both the IUPAC Polymer Division Committee and the Partners.
  • The Panel recommendations are reviewed by the Partners who make the final funding decision.
  • Funding period for each collaborative project: three(3) years.
  • Three(3) Principal Investigators from three(3) different countries are submitting a joint proposal.
  • Funding level supports a minimum of PhD student or post-doc position(s) per successful applicant. Successful projects must involve meaningful participation of the investigator (including students and postdoctoral fellows) through extended research visits in collaborators’ laboratories abroad. Travel and subsistence expenses are covered by the funding organization of the country of origin. Each organization supports consumables and minor equipment in accordance with the organization guidelines.
  • Representatives involved (committee members) of the IUPAC Polymer Division Committee and researchers from their own research team are not eligible to apply for funding within this program.

3. Call text (Back)

Announcing the Call:

It is the responsibility of academic chemists to be sensitive to the context in which they perform their basic research, to take part in the debates about the social, technological, environmental and safety issues that faces the world at large and eventually to tackle them.

Polymer science is a key domain to construct the ecofriendly organic and hybrid materials of tomorrow, conceiving new monomers and polymers from non-fossil resources, designing new catalyst/initiator systems, elaborating precisely controlled supramolecular organizations of macromolecules with remarkable and innovative properties, developing frontier applications, and mimicking/adapting natural chemical and physico-chemical processes to the building of revolutionary polymers.

Visionary experimental studies and theoretical contributions are solicited with a focus on,

1. Novel polymer syntheses

2. New supramolecular polymer assemblies

3. Light harvesting and light emitting polymers

Any multinational joint proposal with three(3) parties, linked to one (or a combination) of these three(3) topics will be welcomed, provided it bears a strong innovating potential. The selected projects will either develop novel concepts or introduce major breakthroughs.

The announcement will be published on the websites of all Partners and on the IUPAC website. It is also desirable to make use of the information channels of the national chemical societies, respective print media and to publish the call on websites of transnational networks and key players in chemical research funding (e.g. ERA-Chemistry, etc.).

4. Letter of Intent stage (Back)

Content of the letter of intent (Back)

  • One(1) joint letter of intent per project by a group of three(3) Principal Investigators (PIs) from three(3) different countries.
  • The letter of intent includes detailed information on the PIs and it describes the proposed research in brief. (see Annex A).
  • The CV for each PI includes a list of the five(5) most relevant publications, names and affiliation of doctoral and postdoctoral mentors and a list of collaborators in the last four years (maximum of 2 pages).
  • The letter is submitted by a Project Coordinator (PC), representing the single point of contact for all three(3) investigators (PIs) of the joint project.

Scope of letter of intent stage (Back)

This process is designed to assess the maximum number of proposals and to help identify the research areas to be needed for the review process. At this early stage, it helps the Partners to :

  • check on national eligibility criteria.
  • identify possible areas of conflicts of interest (see Annex C)
  • The detailed full list of projects is provided to the Partners to let them check on the national eligibility of the applicants.
  • After agreement on eligibility by the Partners, the Call Secretariat informs the Project Coordinators on the status and further steps to be taken.

Eligibility check based on the letters of intent (Back)

  • The Call Secretariat does a first eligibility check on administrative details.

5. Full proposal stage (Back)

Each eligible joint team submits a single full proposal for this call.

Content of the full proposal: (Back)

  • The full proposal consists of ten(10) pages maximum for scientific content (figures, diagrams, tables and equations included).
  • Additional page(s) for relevant references.
  • Application form covering administrative details and a detailed cost table (Annex B).
  • Additional individual partner agency requirements to be added on request.

Review at full proposal stage (Back)

  • Involves external written reviews organized by the IUPAC Polymer Division Committee (monitored by the Call Secretariat) and it requires at least three(3) written reviews per submission.
  • Reviews are from external reviewers. These reviewers are different from the panel members, who will discuss the results at the panel meeting.
  • The Panel is composed of about ten(10) reviewers nominated by both the IUPAC Polymer Division Committee and the Partners.
  • Each written review provides an overall score.
  • Each proposal is finally reviewed and presented by at least two(2) Panel members (speakers) at the panel meeting.
  • The Panel proposes the scientific evaluation and ranking; the Partners consider the evaluation and takes the final funding decision (can be done by email or video conference).
  • Scientific officers of the Partners are encouraged to attend the Panel meeting (as observers only).

Review criteria at the full proposal stage (Back)

The written reviews of the full proposal stage are finally discussed at the Panel meeting:

1. Scientific merit and significance (broader impact) of the project.

2. The scientific and collaborative added value.

3. The track record of the applicants.

4. Feasibility of the project taking into account the costs.

Each written review provides a single overall score as a starting point for further discussions at the panel meeting. Details are given in the guidelines for reviewers.

6. Time schedule and actions to be taken (Back)

The Partners and the IUPAC Polymer Division Committee agree on the following time schedule and the specified actions to be undertaken:

Preparing the call (Back)

- February 2009: IRCSET and DFG have submitted a skeleton of the call procedure to the IUPAC Polymer Division Committee. Then CNRS prepared and submitted a draft of the Call Agreement to IUPAC.

- 15 March 2009: The IUPAC Polymer Division Committee presents a first draft for a call including the call text and procedures and budget estimations to the CCRF planning group.

- Meanwhile, members of the CCRF planning group advertise the call among more Partners.

- 15 July 2009: A document including the call text and all call procedures (agreement) is finalized and circulated among the Partners, a central Call Secretariat is established.

- 3 August 2009: CCRF meeting in Glasgow, Scotland, final list of participating Partners, last preparatory steps and adjustments.

- 15 September 2009: The Call Agreement is submitted for signature to all Partners, and to IUPAC representatives.

The call procedure (Back)

- 15 September 2009: Final version of call text and guidelines for applicants will be completed and agreed to.

- 1 October 2009: Call is announced on websites and in print media (IUPAC and Partners).

- 15 November 2009: Deadline for submission of letters of intent to the Call Secretariat (electronic mail, pdf) using template in Annex A.

- 1 December 2009: Letters of intent are made available by Call Secretariat for eligibility check by the Partners.

- 15 December 2009: Call Secretariat received results of eligibility check and suggestions for Panel members by each Partner. The applicants are informed on the next steps to be taken.

- Meanwhile, the IUPAC Polymer Division Committee works out a list of reviewers and panel members.

- 15 February 2010: Closing of the call for full proposals.

- 1 March 2010: Full proposals are made available by Call Secretariat to the Partners.

- 15 March 2010: Administrative work of Partners is finished, additional documents are completed by applicants, where necessary.

- Meanwhile, the representatives of IUPAC Polymer Division Committee and the Call Secretariat collect at least three(3) written reviews for each full proposal, the list of panel members is modified if necessary, two(2) speakers are appointed from the Panel members, panel members are invited.

- 15 June 2010: All reviews completed and collected.

- 11-15 July 2010: Panel meets at the Glasgow World Polymer Congress. The final recommendations are produced and conveyed to the IUPAC Polymer Division Committee and the Call Secretariat.

- 16 July 2010 – The Partners meet at the Glasgow World Polymer Congress. The IUPAC Polymer Division Committee and the Call Secretariat provide all the supporting documents (the proposals, reviews, panel summaries and rankings) recommended for awards. The Partners decide whether to accept or reject the Panel recommendation. An award could only be made, if all the Partners involved in the proposal agree to do so. Each Partner has a right of refusal. The proposal is declined by all the Partners if only one of them decides to reject.

- 15 September 2010: Last date for notification of results to applicants (rejection/funding and reviewer’s comments). Notification is prepared by Call Secretariat and submitted to the applicants by the Call Secretariat following review by the Partners.The PIs receive anonymous copy of the reviews and panel recommendation. In any communication with the PI following notification, IUPAC will keep the confidentiality of the review process.

Funding procedure (Back)

- Funding for all joint proposals no later to start than January 2011.

- Successful applicants to speak at a special session of the IUPAC World Polymer Congress 2012.

7. Reporting and follow up (Back)

According to national rules each Partner may request his PI(s) to provide progress and/or final reports on the status and outcome of research activities.

A final scientific workshop of all successful applicants will be held during the third year of funding on the occasion of one of the IUPAC conferences. The expenses will be supported by the relevant Partners.

As part of a “lessons learnt analysis” for this call and in addition to the usual reports for national projects, the collaborating researchers should provide an insight to the synergy effects and their experiences in the trans-national collaborations.

8. Provisional budget (Back)

Since a reasonable key for the calculation of suitable national contingents could not yet be negotiated, the Partners agree on the following principles:

- IUPAC Polymer Division Committee provides only the scientific monitoring, in connection with the funding agencies/research organizations,

- Each Partner supports its own expenses generated by the program (local secretariat, relevant personnel, videoconference, administrator travel costs, etc.). In case of meeting, the Partner of the hosting country provides the room and facilities.

- Each Partner will be responsible for the issuance and management of awards to their PIs in accordance with the Partner's agency issuance and post-award guidelines. (A reasonable estimation for this call might be about 9 to 12 successful applications, with an average of 1 to 3 per Partner)".

- Each Partner supports the travel/local expenses of its national reviewer(s) and of the IUPAC Polymer Division Committee member(s) from its country.

- For reviewers or IUPAC members not affiliated with a participating country, expenses will be covered by the Partners involved in the program to be decided on case by case basis.

- No extra fee will be provided to the reviewers.

- If extra meetings are required, the travel/local expenses of the participating scientists (laureate applicants and granted PhDs/Post-docs), administrators, reviewers and involved IUPAC members should be covered by their relevant Partners.

9. Further aspects (Back)

• Possibility of extension of funding (Back)

The funding period for this call is limited to 3 years. Extensions may occasionally be granted by the relevant Partners.

• Intellectual property rights (Back)

Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) should be handled according to special agreements to be negotiated between the relevant funding Partners and involved scientists following the national rules.

• Non-Disclosure (Back)

It is expected that all Partners and involved reviewers will keep all information confidential with respect to the review procedure and content.

Article 4. Disputes (Back)

It is agreed that, in the event one of the above provisions raises a problem of construction, or if the Partners identify new problems which are not provided for in this Agreement, the latter shall start amicable negotiations to solve these problems. The results of these negotiations shall be amended in this Agreement.

Any dispute between the Partners relating to the terms of this Agreement shall be settled out of court and as soon as possible.

If no settlement out of court is possible, the applicant shall ask for the settlement of the dispute before an arbitrary court, which shall rule in accordance with the rules of international law. Unless the Partners decide otherwise in writing, the arbitration regulation of the Committee of the United Nations for International Business Law (CNUDCI) shall apply.

Article 5. Counterparts (Back)

We, the undersigned, do hereby agree to the terms and conditions specified in this agreement for an international joint call for proposals including annexes A, B, and C.

 


Annex A: Application form for letters of intent (Back)

Project title

 

Project reference (to be completed by the call secretariat)

 

Administrative details and project summary

First applicant (Project Coordinator)

Family name  

First name(s)

 
Gender

Female ?

Male ?

Date of birth

(DD/MM/YYYY)

Nationality

 
Applicant's position title    
Address at the university/research institute

University/research institute

 

Street name and number

 

PO Box

 

Postal code

 

Cedex

 

Town

 

Country

 

Phone

 

Fax

 

E-mail

 

Web site

 

Qualifications

University degree

Date of award

(DD/MM/YYYY)

 

Doctorate

Date of award

(DD/MM/YYYY)

 

                       

Second applicant

Family name

 

First name(s)

 

Gender

Female ?

Male ?

Date of birth

(DD/MM/YYYY)

Nationality

Applicant's position title  
Address at the university/research institute

University/research institute

 

Street name and number

 

PO Box

 

Postal code

 

Cedex

 

Town

 

Country

 

Phone

 

Fax

 

E-mail

 

Web site

 

Qualifications

University degree

Date of award

(DD/MM/YYYY)

 

Doctorate

Date of award

(DD/MM/YYYY)

 

Third applicant

Family name  

First name(s)

 
Gender

Female ?

Male ?

Date of birth

(DD/MM/YYYY)

Nationality

Applicant's position title  
Address at the university/research institute

University/research institute

 

Street name and number

 

PO Box

 

Postal code

 

Cedex

 

Town

 

Country

 

Phone

 

Fax

 

E-mail

 

Web site

 

Qualifications

University degree

Date of award

(DD/MM/YYYY)

 

Doctorate

Date of award

(DD/MM/YYYY)

 

                 

Project summary (Maximum 300 words)

 

Annex B: Application form for full proposals (Back)

Project title

 

Project reference (to be completed by the call secretariat)

 

Administrative details and project summary

First applicant (Project Coordinator)

Family name  

First name(s)

 
Nationality  

Applicant's position title

 
Address at the university/research institute

University/research institute

 

Street name and number

 

PO Box

 

Postal code

 

Cedex

 

Town

 

Country

 

Phone

 

Fax

 

E-mail

 

Web site

 

Qualifications

University degree

Date of award

(DD/MM/YYYY)

 

Doctorate

Date of award

(DD/MM/YYYY)

 

                 

Second applicant

Family name

 

First name(s)

 

Nationality  

Applicant's position title

 
Address at the university/research institute

University/research institute

 

Street name and number

 

PO Box

 

Postal code

 

Cedex

 

Town

 

Country

 

Phone

 

Fax

 

E-mail

 

Web site

 

Qualifications

University degree

Date of award

(DD/MM/YYYY)

 

Doctorate

Date of award

(DD/MM/YYYY)

 

Third applicant

Family name  

First name(s)

 
Nationaiity  

Applicant's position title

 
Address at the university/research institute

University/research institute

 

Street name and number

 

PO Box

 

Postal code

 

Cedex

 

Town

 

Country

 

Phone

 

Fax

 

E-mail

 

Web site

 

Qualifications

University degree

Date of award

(DD/MM/YYYY)

 

Doctorate

Date of award

(DD/MM/YYYY)

 

                 

Project summary (Maximum 300 words)

 

Requested budget

 

 

Applicant

No

Personnel

(please check max. one box per year per applicant)

Travel & subsistence

[€]

Consumables

[€]

Minor equipment

[€]

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

Year

Ph D

student

Post doc

Ph D

student

Post doc

Ph D

student

Post doc

1

?

?

?

?

?

?

                 

2

?

?

?

?

?

?

                 

3

?

?

?

?

?

?

                 

Project title

 

Signatures

Applicants’heads of institution (where appropriate):

I agree with the herewith submitted application and I guarantee access to equipment, facilities and resources to conduct the project in my institution.

Signature of the authorized institutional representative of the first applicant Date

Signature of the authorized institutional representative of the second applicant Date

Signature of the authorized institutional representative of the third applicant Date

Applicants:

We confirm that to the best of our knowledge and belief, the information given in the application is correct.

Signature of the Project Coordinator Date

Signature of the second applicant Date

Signature of the third applicant Date

Annex C: Good practice and conflicts of interest (Back)

An important aspect of this code is the avoidance of any conflicts between personal interests and the interests of the applicants. In the context of peer review of research proposals and final reports, a conflict of interest might arise, for example, if a reviewer has, or has had in the past, a close working relationship, financial or personal connections with any individual(s) in the academic department(s) or organization (or any collaborating company or body) from which a proposal originates. Such interests may be indirect and relate to immediate family members or any other persons living in the same household as the reviewer.

Such circumstances may include the following:

  • Relatives, personal ties or conflicts;
  • Close scientific collaboration, e.g., implementation of joint projects or joint publications within the past 4 years;
  • Direct scientific competition with personal projects or plans;
  • Close proximity, e.g., member of the same scientific institution or impending change of the reviewer to the institution of the applicant or vice versa;
  • Teacher/student relationship, as for PhD and Postdoctoral advisors of a PI;
  • Dependent relationship in employment during the past 3 years;
  • Participation in ongoing or just previously concluded professorial appointment proceedings;
  • Current or prior activity in advisory bodies of the applicant's institution, e.g., scientific advisory boards;
  • Personal economic interests in the funding decision;
  • Competitive relationship or common economic interests, e.g., common business management.

The acid test is whether a member of the public, knowing the facts of the situation, might reasonably think the judgment could be influenced by the potential conflict of interest.