How to Write an ERC Starting Grant Proposal

This guide covers the decisions that separate a funded ERC Starting Grant from one that stalls at the shortlist: framing the ground-breaking claim, structuring Part B1, building the CV narrative, and preparing for the interview. The points below are drawn from published evaluation summaries and panel feedback. They assume you have confirmed you fall inside the 2-7 years post-PhD eligibility window and have a host institution in an EU or associated country.

Start with the ground-breaking claim

The ERC evaluation criteria are weighted heavily toward "ground-breaking nature, ambition and feasibility of the research." Panels reject proposals that are incremental, even if the proposed science is well-designed and the PI is strong. Your first paragraph must state, in plain language, what paradigm you are challenging or what question has been unanswered. Do not bury it inside the methodology. A reviewer who reaches the end of Part B1 still unable to state your claim in a sentence is unlikely to fight for it in the panel room.

• •Lead Part B1 with a 3-4 sentence "high-risk / high-gain" framing, not with background literature.
• •Name the field-level assumption you are overturning. "We assumed X; this project tests whether Y is possible instead."
• •Panel reviewers read 10-15 proposals per round. Make yours memorable in the first 30 seconds of reading.

Structure of Part B1 (extended synopsis)

Part B1 is five pages (plus references) and must work as a standalone pitch. Panels decide shortlisting from B1 alone. A good allocation is roughly: half a page on the ground-breaking claim and why the timing is right, two pages on objectives and methodology, one page on preliminary results or feasibility evidence, half a page on risk mitigation, and half a page on the PI's track record framed around this project. Keep figures to 1-2 maximum in B1. Reviewers rarely zoom in.

The CV narrative: one story, not a list

The PI track record matters more than most applicants treat it. Your CV and achievements section should read as one story that ends at this proposal. Pick the publications that explain why this project is the obvious thing for you to do next, rather than simply your five most cited. A counter-intuitive result from your earlier work that pushed you toward the new direction makes a good anchor if you have one. First-author and corresponding-author papers in strong venues count for more than long co-author lists, and panels know the publishing norms in your field well enough to spot padding.

Risk, feasibility, and the "why now" question

ERC rewards genuine intellectual risk but punishes operational risk. The pattern to aim for: the science is risky (the result is uncertain) but the plan is feasible (you have the skills, equipment, and preliminary data to run the experiments). Every risky aim should be paired with a mitigation strategy or fallback experiment. Explicitly address why this work is feasible now (a new method, a new collaborator, newly available data) and not five years ago.

Preparing for the interview

If you are shortlisted, the interview is typically 10 minutes of presentation plus 15-20 minutes of questions with a multidisciplinary panel. The panel has already read the full B2. Do not re-summarise the proposal. Spend 8 of your 10 minutes on the one experiment that best demonstrates the ground-breaking claim, and on what a successful outcome looks like. Practise answering: "What is the single most important result this project will produce?" and "What would make you abandon this direction halfway through?"