������̳

The overall budget has not yet been precisely determined. It will be several million euros per year for between 10 and 15 major programs.

At the AMI stage, the same researcher or team can participate in the submission of several projects, as long as this is based on a genuine scientific rationale and not a simple strategy of opportunity.

At the close of the AMI, the scope of the proposed projects will be discussed by the Research Committee and the Executive Board. This type of situation will therefore be examined.

The participation of a researcher or team in several of the major programs finally selected should remain an exception.

Through this AMI, we have deliberately opted for a “bottom-up” approach in order to see truly innovative, risk-taking projects emerge. No size criteria in terms of number of researchers, teams or laboratories have therefore been set a priori.

That said, a major program must not be conceived as a simple funding window for all researchers and laboratories in a given discipline. A major program must be “major” above all in terms of the scientific ambition it displays in relation to clearly identified issues.

A program may concern only one disciplinary field, but is not intended to cover all researchers and laboratories in the same discipline, simply as a funding window (see also the answer to the previous question).

No, there is no predetermined ratio.

Indeed, a structuring project is expected to bring together and synergize the research strengths of at least two PSL establishments in the same disciplinary field or thematic area.

It is important to bear in mind that the aim is to build the major programs of PSL University.

This does not rule out the possibility that certain actions carried out in the context of a major program may be the subject of collaboration with an academic partner from outside PSL.

However, if an academic institution from outside PSL is to be included as a partner in a major program, and thus have access to its funding, it must clearly state its contribution to the major program's budget. This could, for example, involve the funding of doctoral contracts, post-doctoral contracts or platforms, but not contributions in the sense of the ANR (such as the valorization of a researcher's salary).

It must be a contribution to the budget of the major program, for example to fund doctoral contracts, post-doctoral contracts or platforms, but not contributions in the sense of the ANR (such as the valorization of a researcher's salary).

Under the conditions set out in the answer to the previous question, the partner will have access to the funding proposed in the context of the major program.

The organizations can be involved in the construction of the projects and appear as partners under the conditions specified in the previous questions.

The organizations participating in the governance of PSL University will also take part in discussions during the pre-selection phase (spring to autumn 2023), followed by the selection phase (March-April 2024) of the major programs.

The participation of an industrial partner in a major program is entirely conceivable. As in the case of an external academic partner, the latter must clearly display the funding it will be contributing to the project.

Major programs may include funding for a research platform.

A limited number of platforms that are structuring for PSL but are not associated with a major program may also receive specific support.

Major programs are not specifically expected to include a training component. However, it is important to specify to which graduate program(s) the major program will be linked for actions that combine research and training. In particular, major programs can provide funding for doctoral contracts.

Some major programs may also establish links with cross-disciplinary programs, such as the DATA program (which federates training in Artificial Intelligence at interfaces) or the cross-disciplinary programs planned as part of the ExcellencES project (environment, health, public policy).

At the AMI stage, we expect a description of the major scientific challenges and the approaches proposed to tackle them, as well as the actions and funding mechanisms envisaged (doctoral or post-doctoral contracts, targeted actions, launch of AAPs, etc.). For projects pre-selected at the end of the first phase, a more complete description will be expected in a document (the outline of which will be provided) to be sent to external referees.

Depending on the project, the expected impacts may vary in nature: innovation (technological, social, organizational, artistic and cultural, etc.), openness to the social and cultural sphere (sharing knowledge, science with and for society), links with public policy.

Project sponsors are invited to propose indicators against which the impact of the program they are proposing can be measured (see answer to question below).

In the “Target indicators” section (part 4 of the application form), project sponsors define the objectives they wish to achieve with their project, together with a number of measurable indicators they consider relevant. The indicators selected will depend on the type of project proposed, for example: number of publications, number of invited conferences, ERC funding, distinctions obtained, expert missions carried out, scientific mediation actions aimed at the general public or professional audiences, participatory science, patents, licenses, business start-ups, etc.

It is not essential to have other sources of funding at the time of project submission, but project sponsors are invited to describe any that might be envisaged (section 5 of the application).

In the spirit of seed funding, major programs are intended to finance risky research projects that could not be financed through other channels. Once proof-of-concept has been achieved, the promoters of these projects will be in a position to apply for larger-scale funding at national, regional or European level.

It is indeed desirable that all project sponsors should be able to be heard by the Research Committee. The format of these hearings will depend on the number of projects submitted.

In any case, the pre-selection phase, which will run from spring to autumn 2023, will provide an opportunity for in-depth exchanges between project leaders and the Research Committee. These exchanges will be regularly reviewed by the Board.

The major programs will run for five years (2025-2029). This is long enough to incubate and nurture ground-breaking projects, but short enough to ensure that, in the future, we will be able to free up the leeway needed to support new emerging themes.

Some major programs will undoubtedly be able to find extensions thanks to new funding that they will have helped to identify and attract.