What is essentially unique about MSCA Doctoral Networks?

MSCA-DN is not simply a PhD financing program, but is designed on the basis that great research training must be based on the real intersectoral cooperation. The program compels both academic and non-academic institutions to co-design training programs, share responsibilities of supervision, and introduce doctoral candidates to actual problems in industry on top of basic research. You are not a window dressing addition of an SME partner; their involvement determines the research questions, research methods and professional career paths. This is reflected in the funding model: up to 15 doctoral candidates per network with each candidate receiving a salary, mobility allowance and research cost with each network hosting institution. The envelope of EUR608.6 million this year is an indication of serious commitment by the Europeans on this model.

Who is realistic enough to think of the coordination or even participation in a network?

The coordinators must have shown ability to deal with international alliances of complex partnerships- usually universities or research institutions that have background in doctoral training and European project management. And magic lies in the composition of partners. Effective networks have incorporated academic profundity and industrial value together with geographic diversity. Consider three to five academic beneficiaries who can offer methodological insight, two or three non-academic beneficiaries (SMEs, industry, NGOs) to provide application context, and other partners to provide associated training or secondments. Do not give in to the temptation to form excessive consortia simply because you have the resources to finance 15 candidates. The most potent networks are those that are around 8-12 candidates and partners who actually require each other based on their competencies and not the convenient contact.

Why is microfluidics so interesting with regard to these networks?

Microfluidics is at an opportune crossroad that MSCA-DN evaluation committees admire: basic physics and chemistry scaled down to the extent of useful devices with a real industrial application. A doctoral student who develops microfluidic platforms is not merely learning how to do it, but rather is getting exposed to low Reynolds number fluid mechanics, surface chemistry, microfabrication, automated control systems, and data acquisition- and all the way out to problem solution. This range is shown by the participation of the MIC in networks such as DarChemDN (origin of life in droplets) and NEXTSCREEN (enhanced flow cytometry). It is not just that you want to model cancer on an organ-on-chip or optimize flow chemistry reactors, it is also just that you are examining single cell behavior in droplets, microfluidics can give you both the scientific and transferable skills that can be applied even beyond academia.

What training elements do make competitive proposals?

Assessors draw the line between training programs that are on autopilot and those that are actual systems of skill development. Multidimensional training is worked out in competitive networks: the depth of the discipline through individual research projects, the complementation of skills through network-wide workshops (scientific writing, IP management, communication), intersectoral exposure through compulsory secondments, and transferrable skills such as entrepreneurship or regulatory affairs. The point is coherence elements of training should be logically related to the research aims and professional lines. The training a candidate should get preparing microfluidic diagnostic tools includes quality system, prototype to product translation, possibly regulatory systems, rather than generic project management. Record the difference and complement of training in the SME partner and academic training. There is no tourism but learning a substantive skill in secondments.

What are the foundations of a truly collaborative research, and not a parallel one?

Weak proposals delegate 15 PhD projects that just occur to be sharing a thematic umbrella. Powerful proposals make work packages interdependent with research questions depending on the results of the previous candidates. One such candidate could create new chip geometries, another modulates flow patterns and mixing efficiency, another applies optimized platforms to particular biological or chemical problems, and one more does automation and data analysis pipelines. Each of these projects is a doctoral research project but it produces building blocks to the overall results. Arrange your plan of scientific work in such a way that these dependencies were made clear. Use joint deliverables in which the multiple candidates are expected to combine outputs. It is this form of collaboration that turns a group of PhDs into a real network.

How long and how much does it take to develop the proposal?

A typical time of six to eight months to go through the first idea to submission-ready is longer than many applicants would expect of MSCA-DN. The initial phases include consortium building- finding partners whose capacities are truly complementary to each other, negotiating intellectual property frameworks, writing consortium agreements. The middle phase creates the scientific plan of work, plans individual projects with a balance between autonomy and integration and maps training curricula. Last months hone the proposal narrative, cost computations and managerial arrangements. The coordinator has heavy administrative load but collaborators have the responsibility to play an active role in scientific design and training architecture. Propose at least one full time equivalent month per your group budget, pretty much more, depending on whether you want to build the consortium or use pre-existing relationships.

Which funding model is used and how does the budget allocation take place?

MSCA-DN takes a unit cost model instead of actual cost reimbursement which reduces the financial management by a huge margin. Every recruited doctoral student is triggered by a set monthly payment consisting of their living allowance (depending on the country, mobility allowance, and family allowances are added where necessary), research expenses and institutional administration expense. These unit costs are passed on to the beneficiaries; the partners that are related do not receive direct funding but allow them to charge the costs of particular services. It implies that budget planning is concerned with the number of candidates that each partner accommodates and in what duration such as secondment. 

What do intellectual property rights and exploitation rights actually constitute?

Background IP remains with the one that introduced it: your microfluidic platform designs, proprietary assays, or datasets are yours. The Foreground IP accrued in the project is owned by the beneficiary whose staff developed it, yet consortium arrangements have to establish access privileges to exploitation. Smart networks bargain this initial deal: in case one of the academics comes up with diagnostic approach based on microfluidic technology of the SME, what can be commercialized, under what terms? MSCA demands that the candidates are capable of utilizing project outcomes in their doctoral thesis and publications, which appears quite self-evident but requires formal writing. In the case of SME partners, it is not about the loss of IP, but rather is about being able to actually commercially utilize jointly developed results. 

What are the assessment criteria that are important and are they weighted?

The evaluation is organized using excellence (50%), impact (30%), and implementation (20%). Excellence encompasses aspiration and newness of study, training quality, integrity of the supervisory team, and suitability of techniques. Impact measures the contribution that the network makes to career perspectives, intersectoral and interdisciplinary outcomes and disseminates findings to scientific and non-scientific audiences. Implementation measures how the management frameworks work, mitigation of the risks, quality of the consortium formed and relevant resources. Practically, lots of proposals are only decent in terms of excellence but do not have an impact, i.e. are generic statements about employability and interdisciplinarity without showing how the particular network design delivers on these.