Notice
TÜBİTAK notice: 1 October 2026.
Back to section list ↑Timing
EMBO accepts applications throughout the year. The next hard selection cutoff is 22 January 2027 at 14:00 CET. A new notice does not mean the programme has opened for the first time.
Back to section list ↑Eligibility
EMBO requires a doctorate or equivalent by the fellowship's start, movement between countries and first-author research output. First-author refereed preprints may also qualify; consult the official definition. Support lasts one to two years. Doctorate holders normally need a degree from the preceding two years; exceptions exist.
Back to section list ↑Türkiye's connection
EMBC's institutional explanation describes member-state contributions funding its General Programme, with execution entrusted to EMBO. Its member list includes Türkiye and links to TÜBİTAK. This distinguishes the intergovernmental funding framework from the organisation administering fellowships. A country's presence on that list does not decide an individual applicant's eligibility or whether they will be selected.
Back to section list ↑The history behind the fellowship
EMBO's 25 September 2025 interview with programme head Karin Dumstrei dates its beginnings to 1966. She describes two distinct routes: postdoctoral work and short research visits. Dumstrei also says budget limits can require rejection of good applications. This historical account places scientific mobility within a longer tradition of cooperation, rather than reducing it to a single award announcement.
Back to section list ↑Prepare to explain your project
Our editorial preparation suggestion is to clarify your idea through three short notes: the question you want to answer, the approach currently missing and the contribution another group might make. Rather than listing prestigious institutions, check whether those notes support each other. Naming a method is not the same as explaining why it is needed. Do not conceal points you have not resolved; turn them into concrete questions for a discussion. This exercise is not an official assessment criterion or an example of an accepted application.
Back to section list ↑Make a laboratory discussion concrete
Before contacting a group, compare your objective with its work. Explain the question you hope to discuss, rather than recounting your entire career. Keep questions about supervision, resources and preparation on a separate page. An unanswered question identifies something to clarify, not necessarily a poor laboratory. Equally, a welcoming reply is not a fellowship decision. Establishing a research relationship and receiving the formal outcome are separate steps.
Back to section list ↑Check the draft with a colleague
Ask a colleague whether your scientific question is understandable and where the draft leaves uncertainty. Neither check replaces a formal eligibility decision. Keep your working plan and question list separate. Mark which note represents an institutional rule and which reflects your own preference, making them harder to confuse later.
Back to section list ↑