(A) The Exercise

1.	Number of applications received:	69 (including 17 related to COVID-19 and/or novel infectious diseases (NIDs))
2.	Number of full proposals received:	28 (including 5 related to COVID-19 and/or NIDs)
3.	Number of proposals recommended for funding:	8 (including 2 related to COVID-19 and/or NIDs)
4.	Success rate (over the number of applications):	11.6%
5.	Total approved budget of the funded projects:	$414.941 million1 (including $111.112 million1 for COVID-19 and/or NIDs related proposals)
6.	Total funding amount from the RGC:	$367 million1 (including $100 million1 for COVID-19 and/or NIDs related proposals)

 ¹ Inclusive of indirect costs /on-costs

(B) Selection Panel's Comments for Applicants' Reference

1. Quality of applications (i.e. strengths, weaknesses and gaps of proposals):

• The proposals were of a very high standard and relevance to Hong Kong. The overall standard and number of applications received reflected positively on the quality and vitality of related research areas and the possession of world class research teams in Hong Kong.
• Some proposals were ambitious with a high risk / reward profile. Individual proposals had policy-oriented elements and should be able to contribute to Hong Kong in a meaningful and concrete way.
• Some of the project teams performed exceedingly well at the interviews. Others also performed well and answered most of the questions appropriately but in some instances they might miss the point of question or might not able to convince the panel that their approaches were well thought through. The video presentations of the project team submitted before the interviews did address some of the concerns raised in the review process.
• For re-submitted proposals, the project teams in general accepted the reviewers’ advice on the weaknesses of their previous applications. There were still re-submitted proposals that were not sufficiently revised to address the concerns of the reviewers.
• Some of the project teams were well structured with collaborations established among team members. Some project teams were rather big and failed to present a cohesive research forefront.

2. Other comments:

• The right to reply to the comments of external reviewers was helpful, leading to improvements in the research plan and clarification of confusing parts of the applications.