The ERC Starting Grant is a five-year opportunity to establish an independent research programme around a frontier-research question. The strongest proposals combine a large scientific vision with a programme that is precise enough to evaluate, challenge and execute.
This hub brings together the current ERC rules and Arvacore's scientific strategy material for researchers preparing a 2027 Starting Grant proposal. It is designed as a working resource rather than a collection of generic grant-writing tips.
ERC Starting Grant 2027 at a glance
For the 2027 call, researchers can apply for a Starting Grant from immediately after successfully defending their PhD and within the following ten-year eligibility period, subject to the detailed rules and possible extensions in the ERC Work Programme. A Starting Grant provides up to EUR 1.5 million for a maximum of five years, with additional funding possible for justified eligible costs. The 2027 Starting Grant deadline is 14 October 2026.
The Scientific Proposal is divided into two parts. Part I is limited to five pages and is assessed at Step 1 together with the CV and Track Record. Part II is limited to seven pages for Starting Grants and is assessed at Step 2 together with the rest of the proposal. The ERC states that feasibility is assessed at Step 2 rather than Step 1.
Official sources: ERC Starting Grant, ERC Work Programme 2027 announcement, Changes to the 2026 and 2027 Work Programmes.
The scientific starting point
A Starting Grant proposal benefits from one central question that is important enough to justify a five-year programme and precise enough to support a sequence of scientific decisions.
The question should sit inside a larger vision. The vision may be broad: a new understanding of a physical mechanism, a different way of observing a biological system, a new mathematical framework, or an experimental capability that opens a class of questions. The funded programme then tackles a rigorous subset of that vision.
A useful test is:
If the strongest version of this programme succeeds, can it create important work for the field for the next 10-15 years?
That does not require exaggerated claims. It requires a clear explanation of what the field does not know, why the unknown matters, and how the proposed programme can change the space of questions researchers are able to ask.
Start with these five resources
1. ERC Starting Grant 2027: scientific strategy guide
The flagship guide develops the full proposal logic: central question, hypothesis, scientific objectives, Part I and Part II, figures, preliminary evidence, scientific optionality, team architecture and risk.
Read: Designing a Frontier-Research Programme
2. ERC Starting Grant eligibility 2027
A rules-first explanation of the 0-10 year eligibility window, the PhD defence reference point, extensions, host institution basics and the distinction between being eligible and being ready to submit an ERC-level idea.
Read: ERC Starting Grant Eligibility 2027
3. How ambitious should an ERC Starting Grant be?
A scientific strategy note on ambition, uncertainty and payoff. Ambition is not the number of work packages or a specification improvement. A strong proposal asks an important question whose answer is genuinely uncertain and potentially consequential.
Read: How Ambitious Should an ERC Starting Grant Be?
4. How to formulate the central scientific question
A practical framework for moving from topic to problem, from problem to unknown, and from unknown to a question that can organise the entire research programme.
Read: How to Formulate the Scientific Question
5. How to write Part I / B1
Part I must establish the scientific idea at Step 1. This guide focuses on the five-page argument: what the field knows, what remains unresolved, the central proposition, the objectives, the research strategy and the field-level consequence.
Read: ERC Part I / B1 Guide
Proposal strategy: from Part I to execution
The next group of guides develops the parts of the proposal that become critical once the scientific concept is stable.
ERC Part II / B2
Part II converts the scientific case into a seven-page implementation argument: methodology, work plan, decision points, risks, team and resources.
Read: ERC Part II / B2 Guide
Scientific risk and optionality
A high-risk project should preserve genuine uncertainty in the answer while controlling avoidable execution risk. The proposal should show what different outcomes mean scientifically.
Read: Scientific Risk in an ERC Starting Grant
Preliminary results
Preliminary evidence is not mandatory. Use it when it establishes plausibility, access or scientific tension without making the central question look already solved.
Read: How Much Preliminary Evidence Does an ERC Need?
Building the research team
Design the team from the scientific architecture. The grant can establish a real PI-led research group rather than a collection of disconnected support roles.
Read: How to Build an ERC Starting Grant Research Team
CV, Track Record and independence
The CV should show why the PI is ready to lead this programme, with emphasis on scientific contribution, trajectory and independence rather than raw publication count.
Read: ERC CV and Track Record Guide
Practical applicant decisions
These pages cover choices that affect whether, where and how the proposal is submitted.
Starting Grant or Consolidator Grant?
From 2027 the schemes have overlapping eligibility windows. The choice should follow proposal maturity, scientific independence and the programme the PI is ready to lead.
Read: ERC Starting Grant or Consolidator Grant?
Host Institution
The PI does not need to be employed by the host at submission, but the host must support the PI's independence and provide a credible environment for the programme.
Read: ERC Host Institution Guide
Budget
Build the budget from the science: team, equipment, facilities and additional funding should each remove a specific constraint in the research programme.
Read: ERC Starting Grant Budget 2027
Choosing an ERC panel
Choose the panel most likely to understand the central scientific breakthrough rather than matching the panel to a department label or perceived success rate.
Read: Which ERC Panel Should You Choose?
Resubmission rules
Check current restrictions before investing heavily in a draft. If resubmitting, diagnose whether the previous weakness was scientific, structural or editorial before revising.
Read: ERC Resubmission Rules for 2027
Evaluation, interview and final review
These resources become especially useful once the scientific concept and draft are mature.
How ERC evaluation works
A two-step explanation of what panel members see at Step 1, what changes at Step 2, how remote reviewers contribute and why Part I must establish the scientific case without depending on Part II.
Read: How ERC Starting Grant Evaluation Works
ERC Starting Grant interview
A scientist-to-scientist guide to defending the central question, assumptions, outcome space, team and budget under panel questioning.
Read: ERC Starting Grant Interview Guide
Figures in ERC proposals
A practical guide to deciding when a conceptual figure earns space in Part I or Part II, how to reduce cognitive load and how to use figures as part of the scientific argument.
Read: How to Use Figures in an ERC Proposal
Common ERC proposal mistakes
A diagnostic guide to specification-driven ambition, hidden scientific questions, over-written methodology, brittle risk plans, unclear independence and decorative figures.
Read: Common ERC Starting Grant Proposal Mistakes
Final proposal checklist
A submission-stage checklist covering the scientific question, Part I, Part II, team, risk, evidence, budget, panel, evaluation readiness and interview preparation.
Read: ERC Starting Grant 2027 Final Checklist
30 applicant questions
For a faster entry point, the questions page gives concise answers to 30 recurring applicant questions and routes each question to the deeper guide where relevant.
Read: 30 Questions Researchers Ask About ERC Starting Grants
A practical proposal architecture
A useful ERC Starting Grant can be developed in the following order:
- Define the field-level problem. What is important enough to justify sustained attention?
- Identify the unresolved scientific limitation. What is genuinely unknown rather than merely technically inconvenient?
- Formulate the central question. What answer would change interpretation, capability or direction?
- State the central proposition or hypothesis. What idea makes the question addressable now?
- Design objectives as scientific decisions. Each objective should resolve uncertainty, not merely describe activity.
- Map plausible outcomes. A preferred hypothesis may be wrong while the programme remains scientifically productive.
- Use Part I to establish the scientific case. The reader should understand why the question deserves deeper evaluation.
- Use Part II to establish execution confidence. Methodology, work plan, risk and resources should show how interpretable evidence will be generated.
This sequence helps preserve the difference between a vision proposal and a methods paper.
Arvacore's perspective on ERC proposal development
My background combines research training, deep-tech company building and European R&D project management. I completed my DPhil in Engineering Science at the University of Oxford and have worked in European R&D project management at UMONS since May 2021. I have also participated in multiple successful European funding proposals.
That experience has made one point particularly clear: strong proposals become easier to understand when the scientific judgement is visible. The reader should see why the problem matters, which uncertainty is worth resolving, what the strongest outcome would change, and how the programme remains scientifically useful across more than one plausible result.
A proposal does not become more ambitious because it contains more methods or higher specifications. The ambition is in the question, the intellectual distance travelled, and the scientific payoff.
Current 2027 resources
Use the official ERC material for rules and call conditions. Use Arvacore's guides for scientific framing and proposal strategy.
- ERC Starting Grant official page
- Applying for an ERC grant in the 2027 competitions
- ERC Work Programme 2027 announcement
- ERC proposal structure and evaluation changes
- ERC 2027 Starting Grant evaluation timeframe
Deciding whether to start
A strong project can still be the wrong shape for an ERC Starting Grant. Before writing, I would ask five questions:
- Is there one scientific question I can state clearly?
- Is the answer genuinely uncertain?
- Would the strongest result change understanding or capability beyond my immediate project?
- Can I build a coherent research group and programme around the question?
- Does the programme establish an intellectual direction that is recognisably mine?
If these answers are strong, the proposal has a useful foundation. The next task is to make that scientific logic visible in five pages of Part I without flattening the ambition.