How to Write an ERC Starting Grant Proposal From Scratch

The hardest moment in an ERC proposal often comes before B1, B2, the budget or the CV. It is the blank page.

You know the field. You may already have years of results, unfinished questions, methods you want to develop and experiments you would like to run. The challenge is deciding which scientific idea is large enough to become a five-year frontier-research programme and precise enough to be evaluated.

My recommendation is simple:

Do not start by filling the ERC template. Start by designing the science on one blank page.

The template becomes useful after the central argument exists.

The blank-page method

Before writing proposal prose, answer eight questions in plain scientific language.

1. What is the important scientific problem?

Write one paragraph.

Do not begin with your method, device, model or work package. Describe the problem that would still matter if your preferred method disappeared tomorrow.

A useful formulation is:

In field X, we can currently explain or achieve A and B, but C remains unresolved because...

The problem should be large enough to matter beyond a single experiment, while remaining connected to a question you can investigate rigorously.

2. Why does it matter?

Scientific importance should be visible from the beginning.

Ask what changes if this problem is resolved. Does it alter a mechanism we think we understand? Open a previously inaccessible regime? Allow a class of measurements that could not be performed before? Establish a new theoretical framework? Change what the field considers possible?

The answer does not need exaggerated language. It needs a clear scientific consequence.

3. What is genuinely unknown?

Separate three things:

• what the field knows;
• what the field assumes;
• what the field does not yet know.

This distinction is often where the ERC idea becomes visible.

An incremental project may optimise something already understood. A frontier-research programme often begins when an accepted explanation stops being sufficient, a regime remains inaccessible, or two plausible mechanisms cannot yet be distinguished.

4. What is the central scientific question?

Write one question that the entire programme exists to answer.

If you need six questions to describe the proposal, the conceptual hierarchy may still be unclear. Supporting questions can become objectives. The central question should remain recognisable throughout the programme.

A good question usually has three properties:

• its answer matters;
• the answer is genuinely uncertain;
• the proposed programme can generate evidence that changes our understanding.

5. What do you think might be true?

State the hypothesis, proposition, mechanism or conceptual claim that makes the problem addressable.

Different fields use hypotheses differently. The important point is that the proposal contains an intellectual position that can be challenged by evidence.

For an ERC-scale project, I would prefer a proposition that can genuinely fail. If the preferred outcome is effectively guaranteed, the project may be technically difficult without containing enough scientific uncertainty.

6. What would discriminate between the plausible answers?

Now move from question to evidence.

Do not write the full methods section. Identify the observations, experiments, calculations, datasets or theoretical results that would meaningfully distinguish between competing explanations.

The question is:

What evidence would make me change my scientific interpretation?

That is more useful at this stage than listing every instrument and protocol.

7. What happens under different outcomes?

Map at least three possibilities:

• the central proposition is strongly supported;
• it is only partially supported or has important boundary conditions;
• it is rejected.

For each outcome, write what you would learn and how the next scientific decision changes.

This is what I call scientific optionality. The programme contains real uncertainty, while more than one plausible result remains scientifically valuable.

8. What changes if the programme succeeds at its highest level?

Return to the larger vision.

Do not answer with a publication count or a prototype. Describe the scientific consequence.

My own test is:

Could this programme create important work for the field for the next 10-15 years?

The ERC does not use this as an evaluation rule. It is a way to test whether the scientific vision extends beyond the immediate project.

Draw the proposal before you write it

Once the eight answers exist, draw one conceptual figure.

A useful structure is:

current understanding -> unresolved limitation -> central question -> proposition -> decisive tests -> plausible outcomes -> new understanding

The figure does not need to be graphically sophisticated. It needs to make the scientific logic visible.

A good figure may save paragraphs of explanation later. A decorative figure consumes scarce page space without doing scientific work.

Read: How to use figures in an ERC proposal ->

Turn the blank page into Part I / B1

The current ERC structure gives Part I a maximum of five pages for Starting Grants. At Step 1, it is the scientific proposal content the panel sees together with the CV and Track Record.

The blank-page elements map naturally into Part I:

Part I should not read like a compressed methods paper. It should let an expert generalist understand why the problem matters, what is new and why the programme deserves deeper evaluation.

Read: ERC Part I / B1 guide ->

Build Part II only after the scientific case is stable

Part II is where you expand the implementation logic: detailed methodology, work plan, risk assessment and mitigating measures.

This is the right moment to answer questions such as:

• What sequence of experiments or analyses generates decisive evidence?
• Which dependencies are genuine bottlenecks?
• Which execution risks can be mitigated?
• How will the programme adapt when evidence changes the scientific direction?
• What team and resources are needed to carry out the programme?

Part II should make the ambitious idea executable without reducing the scientific uncertainty that made the project interesting in the first place.

Read: ERC Part II / B2 guide ->

Do not design the proposal around the constraints too early

Scientific projects are always constrained by page limits, time, recruitment, equipment, budget and the capabilities of the Host Institution.

Those constraints are real and should be assessed honestly. They should not be the first thing that determines the scientific ambition.

My approach is to begin by identifying the important question and strongest plausible scientific programme. Then test the programme against the real constraints and redesign it intelligently.

There will already be enough external limitations. Avoid introducing unnecessary ones before the scientific idea has had room to develop.

A five-day first draft plan

You can use the blank-page method to produce a first scientific skeleton in one working week.

Day 1 - problem, importance and unknown

Write the field-level problem in one paragraph. Separate current knowledge from the unresolved limitation.

Day 2 - central question and proposition

Reduce the project to one question and one intellectual proposition that can be challenged by evidence.

Day 3 - outcome map and conceptual figure

Define the evidence and possible results. Draw the scientific architecture.

Day 4 - objectives

Turn the central question into three or four scientific objectives. Each objective should resolve an uncertainty or make a decision possible.

Day 5 - Part I skeleton

Create the five-page argument as headings, claims, figures and evidence requirements. Do not polish the language yet.

At the end of the week, you should have a scientific argument that can be challenged by peers before you invest heavily in prose.

Questions to ask before opening the full template

• Can I state the central question in one sentence?
• Is the answer genuinely uncertain?
• Can I explain why the question matters without relying on technical specifications?
• Is there a clear intellectual proposition?
• Do I know what evidence would discriminate between plausible outcomes?
• Would more than one outcome still produce important science?
• Is the proposed direction recognisably mine?
• Can I draw the programme on one page?

If several answers are unclear, spend more time on the scientific architecture before writing the formal proposal.

Use the blank-page tool

Arvacore's ERC Blank-Page Builder follows this method and converts your answers into a one-page concept sheet you can copy or print.

The tool does not need to send your scientific content to an external AI service. Its purpose is to structure the thinking before proposal drafting.

What comes next

Once the blank page is coherent:

1. Check the official ERC templates and materials
2. Write Part I / B1
3. Build Part II / B2
4. Review scientific risk
5. Build the team
6. Stress-test the final proposal

If you want an independent view before the proposal becomes expensive to rewrite, Arvacore can review the concept, Part I architecture or complete proposal strategy.

Explore ERC support ->

Official source

The current application structure and call documents are available from the official ERC Starting Grant page.