High-risk / high-gain in EIC Pathfinder Open

Among the core conditions that an EIC Pathfinder Open proposal must fulfil – the high-risk/ high-gain “gatekeepers” are the most prominent yet counterintuitive ones. Simply put, the expectation is that the project’s gain will be so high that it is worth the significant risk (and potential failure) taken to obtain expected results. This counterintuitive approach is typically not common in many EU grants (except in the case of the ERC funding scheme). Therefore, in this article, we summarize the important information one needs to know in order to fully realize the requirement for high-risk high-gain in EIC Pathfinder Open.

The high-risk factor in EIC Pathfinder Open

Without clear guidelines to work by, the high-risk concept in EIC Pathfinder Open projects can be highly challenging, and bring forth significant scientific uncertainty and unpredictability. In order to decipher this challenging counterintuitive high-risk concept – we recommend breaking it down into two key dimensions. The first dimension refers to the type of risk entailed in the project, namely “Operational risk” or “Conceptual risk”. The second dimension addresses the feasibility of the proposed scientific approach.

Type of Risk: Operational vs. Conceptual

Operational and conceptual risks are inherently different, and it is important to successfully understand these core distinctions.  To start, an operational risk relates to a risk that can be diminished by acquiring resources (for example time, equipment, personnel, materials, etc.). In other words – operational risks can typically be resolved given the right budget, with little to no uncertainty involved in the process. On the other hand, a conceptual risk focuses on scientific challenges that involve significant uncertainty in novel unknown paths. These scientific challenges may entail high levels of working assumptions (which may be either right or wrong) and as such, they require more than the “simple” acquisition of resources. Such scientific and technological challenges are prone to (scientific) failure. In other words – if you know the answer to the scientific challenge at the core of your research proposal, it probably does not carry the expected conceptual risk, and as such may not be competitive enough in the case of the EIC Pathfinder Open grant.

To effectively determine the level of the conceptual risk carried in a project:

• Assess the level of uncertainty involved.
• Assess the creativity, extent and boldness of the theoretical framework and/or hypothesis that guides the research, as well as the quantity and quality of the expected working assumptions stemming from that.

If the way to accomplish the objectives of a project is clear and requires few to zero assumptions, it may indicate that the conceptual risk is low. On the other hand, when treading an unknown path with far-reaching assumptions – the conceptual risk will typically be high. This is one of the notions that underlie groundbreaking, innovation-oriented funding programs such as the EIC Pathfinder Open. It distinguishes it from other programs that support a more traditional, incremental, and stepwise progress in research, which typically carry lower scientific and conceptual risks.

Feasibility: Risk-mitigating scientific approach

The notion that an EIC Pathfinder Open project must be a high-risk one does not mean that nothing is to be done to increase the probability of achieving successful results. Naturally, risk and feasibility have a contradicting nature. A highly risky project may imply that its feasibility is low, and vice versa – high feasibility is perceived to diminish the risk. However, in EIC Pathfinder Open, high-risk and feasibility do not have to contradict one another. In fact, projects are evaluated based on both high-risk and potential feasibility. This means that proposals should set highly ambitious objectives, and clearly describe the steps to be taken in order to reduce the likeliness of failure, while relying on the leadership, ability and competence of the consortium members, and potentially their preliminary findings. This may seem like a confusing hurdle to overcome, but a unique scientific approach and research methodology (is not only required), can greatly help achieve this!

Such an approach will benefit from having the following characteristics:

• Realistic methodological plan – a detailed, coherent, doable methodological plan, designed and tailored to explore the path towards innovative technology. For example, operational objectives, deliverables and milestones should be reasonable and achievable within the time and budget framework.
• Reliance on preliminary findings – reliance on basic principles and findings that support the novel idea and/or approach of the project. This should be handled carefully since too much former knowledge can call into question the extent to which the suggested project is novel and of high-risk in nature.
• Execution capability – the capacity to execute the plan should be evident in the proposal. This can be done by showing that the consortium encompasses all the needed expertise & skills, the resources are efficiently allocated, and the work plan is coherent and effective.
• Flexibility – while moving forward in an unknown path towards novelty, changes are likely to happen and new information will probably be obtained. Hence, showing the ability to adjust the plan in order to handle potential future barriers and unforeseen challenges or changes is essential.