HORIZON EUROPE
Europeo
Scope:Specific challenge: The conventional risk assessment approach, i.e. deriving no-effect levels or limit values from dose-effect relationships is inadequate for enabling safe use for newly developed materials in the fast moving market of nanomaterials. The challenge is to build a state-of-the art and flexible risk banding tool to keep pace with developments in innovation and risk research by harvesting and implementing results from concluded, ongoing and planned research in next generation risk governance frameworks. For nanotechnology, as with any new and rapidly evolving technology, analysis of risk is technically and methodologically limited, and thus associated with a high degree of uncertainty which should be understood and quantified. Stakeholders' concerns, including those of the insurance sector, and risk perception should be understood and communicated. Risk acceptance is strongly affected by a clear understanding of the risks, the benefits and the uncertainties perceived on equity and trust.
Scope: Research should focus on the testing, the calibration and the further development of risk prioritisation (or banding) tools for both human and environment...
ver más
Scope:Specific challenge: The conventional risk assessment approach, i.e. deriving no-effect levels or limit values from dose-effect relationships is inadequate for enabling safe use for newly developed materials in the fast moving market of nanomaterials. The challenge is to build a state-of-the art and flexible risk banding tool to keep pace with developments in innovation and risk research by harvesting and implementing results from concluded, ongoing and planned research in next generation risk governance frameworks. For nanotechnology, as with any new and rapidly evolving technology, analysis of risk is technically and methodologically limited, and thus associated with a high degree of uncertainty which should be understood and quantified. Stakeholders' concerns, including those of the insurance sector, and risk perception should be understood and communicated. Risk acceptance is strongly affected by a clear understanding of the risks, the benefits and the uncertainties perceived on equity and trust.
Scope: Research should focus on the testing, the calibration and the further development of risk prioritisation (or banding) tools for both human and environmental risks, with emphasis on:
a) the use of inputs from computational toxicology and/ or ‘high concern grouping approaches’ in risk banding tools to identify potential hot spots for risk,
b) Scientific foundation of the ‘risk bands’, by linking the hazard based with ‘dose’ relevant exposure banding,
c) Inclusion of data and monitoring strategies on the efficacy of risk mitigation measures and
d) Alignment with user capacities and needs, including ensuring the ability of the nanomaterial sector to avail of risk transfer/insurance.
The selected project should identify the major processes of individual and societal decision making, placing particular attention on the aspect of uncertainty. To ensure the highest possible quality in regulatory decision making, emphasis should be given to the development of guidance for important issues in Risk Assessment, based on in-depth analysis of the current scientific basis concerning the addressed hazards and the possible exposure, and joining forces with other projects
Activities expected to focus on Technology Readiness Level 5.
The Commission considers that proposals requesting a contribution from the EU between EUR 6 and 8 million would allow this specific challenge to be addressed appropriately. Nonetheless, this does not preclude submission and selection of proposals requesting other amounts. No more than one proposal will be funded.
Expected impact:
• A framework for the risk governance of nanomaterials entering the market by developing tools for risk appraisal, risk transfer and guidance for risk communication;
• Demonstration in specific industrial settings or industrial sectors of the feasibility of the developed approaches and tools through worked examples as case studies and pilots with outcomes as guidance, good practices and tools for risk management and risk communication;
• Leveraging and building on current knowledge related to hazard mapping, exposure and control banding and risk prioritization as well on inter/national and company level risk governance and risk dialogue efforts with key stakeholders including regulators and insurers.
Type of action: Research & Innovation Actions
Cross-cutting Priorities:International cooperation
ver menos
Características del consorcio
:
La ayuda es de ámbito europeo, puede aplicar a esta linea cualquier empresa que forme parte de la Comunidad Europea.
Características del Proyecto
Los costes de personal subvencionables cubren las horas de trabajo efectivo de las personas directamente dedicadas a la ejecución de la acción. Los propietarios de pequeñas y medianas empresas que no perciban salario y otras personas físicas que no perciban salario podrán imputar los costes de personal sobre la base de una escala de costes unitarios
Los otros costes directos se dividen en los siguientes apartados: Viajes, amortizaciones, equipamiento y otros bienes y servicios. Se financia la amortización de equipos, permitiendo incluir la amortización de equipos adquiridos antes del proyecto si se registra durante su ejecución. En el apartado de otros bienes y servicios se incluyen los diferentes bienes y servicios comprados por los beneficiarios a proveedores externos para poder llevar a cabo sus tareas
La subcontratación en ayudas europeas no debe tratarse del core de actividades de I+D del proyecto. El contratista debe ser seleccionado por el beneficiario de acuerdo con el principio de mejor relación calidad-precio bajo las condiciones de transparencia e igualdad (en ningún caso consistirá en solicitar menos de 3 ofertas). En el caso de entidades públicas, para la subcontratación se deberán de seguir las leyes que rijan en el país al que pertenezca el contratante
Características de la financiación
List of countries and applicable rules for funding: described in part A of the General Annexes of the General Work Programme.
Eligibility and admissibility conditions: described in part B and C of the General Annexes of the General Work Programme.
Evaluation
3.1 Evaluation criteria and procedure, scoring and threshold: described in part H of the General Annexes of the General Work Programme, with the following exceptions:
For single-stage and second-stage evaluations, the threshold for the criteria Excellence and Impact will be 4. The overall threshold, applying to the sum of the three individual scores, will be 12.
In case of equal overall scores in the ranked list, the priority order of proposals will be established in accordance with part H of the General Annexes, except that proposals will be ranked on the basis of individual scores for the Impact criterion before the Excellence criterion.
3.2 Guide to the submission and evaluation process
Proposal page limits and layout: Please refer to Part B of the standard proposal template.
Indicative timetable for evaluation and grant agreement:
Information on the outcome of two-stage evaluation: maximum 5 months from the final date for submission.
Signature of grant agreements: maximum 3 months from the date of infor... Please read carefully all provisions below before the preparation of your application.
List of countries and applicable rules for funding: described in part A of the General Annexes of the General Work Programme.
Eligibility and admissibility conditions: described in part B and C of the General Annexes of the General Work Programme.
Evaluation
3.1 Evaluation criteria and procedure, scoring and threshold: described in part H of the General Annexes of the General Work Programme, with the following exceptions:
For single-stage and second-stage evaluations, the threshold for the criteria Excellence and Impact will be 4. The overall threshold, applying to the sum of the three individual scores, will be 12.
In case of equal overall scores in the ranked list, the priority order of proposals will be established in accordance with part H of the General Annexes, except that proposals will be ranked on the basis of individual scores for the Impact criterion before the Excellence criterion.
3.2 Guide to the submission and evaluation process
Proposal page limits and layout: Please refer to Part B of the standard proposal template.
Indicative timetable for evaluation and grant agreement:
Information on the outcome of two-stage evaluation: maximum 5 months from the final date for submission.
Signature of grant agreements: maximum 3 months from the date of informing successful applicants.
Provisions, proposal templates and evaluation forms for the type(s) of action(s) under this topic:
Research and Innovation Action:
Specific provisions and funding rates
Standard proposal template
Standard evaluation form
Annotated Model Grant Agreement
Additional provisions:
Horizon 2020 budget flexibility
Classified information
Technology readiness levels (TRL) – where a topic description refers to TRL, these definitions apply.
Financial support to Third Parties – where a topic description foresees financial support to Third Parties, these provisions apply.
Open access must be granted to all scientific publications resulting from Horizon 2020 actions, and proposals must refer to measures envisaged. Where relevant, proposals should also provide information on how the participants will manage the research data generated and/or collected during the project, such as details on what types of data the project will generate, whether and how this data will be exploited or made accessible for verification and re-use, and how it will be curated and preserved.
Información adicional de la convocatoria
Otras ventajas
Ayudas Similares
| Abierta
| Próximamente
| Abierta