This week, the Academy of Medical Sciences kindly hosted an online meeting to discuss changes the Medical Research Council (MRC) is making to assessment processes when we reopen applicant-led funding on 7 April.
Thank you to everyone who joined the session, shared their insights, and asked thoughtful questions.
Feedback from our research community, partly through in person visits across the UK over the last six months, has informed our redesign, and will guide us as we move into implementation.
The broader system
The discussion also touched on some broader questions ranging from the balance between curiosity driven and strategically aligned research, to the need for midscale infrastructure, and the challenges of navigating a system undergoing significant change.
These issues form an essential backdrop to how researchers experience the research system.
Curiosity driven research remains central to our mission, and we will ensure that our funding schemes, including infrastructure, training and careers, will support the full breadth of the MRC research portfolio which is not changing.
Reopening applicant-led funding
While there is broad support for the direction of travel, many are rightly thinking about how the new system will work in practice.
I want to address some of the themes that emerged at the open meeting and set out how the new assessment process has been re-designed.
As part of reopening applicant-led funding, we are introducing a structured two stage assessment process supported by flexible panels drawn from our new College of Experts.
Our aim is to provide greater cross flexibility across medical disciplines and technologies, and to increase opportunities for researchers to directly inform our assessment of applications.
Identifying ambitious, important ideas
Shortlisting panels of around 25 experts will be drawn flexibly from the college to take a holistic view of each application. This stage is designed to:
- determine whether the research addresses an important question
- identify proposals with the strongest scientific ambition and potential impact (we are looking for high-risk high-reward science)
- assess whether the team and environment are suitable to deliver their ambitions
This supports our intention to remove artificial boundaries which can impede science tackling the most important questions.
Written expert review
Applications that are shortlisted will then undergo detailed written expert review focused on:
- importance of the scientific question
- approach to the project (including reproducibility, statistical design and data management)
- capability of the applicant or applicants and the project team to deliver the project
- ethical and responsible research and innovation considerations of the project
- resources requested to do the project
Applicants will continue to have the opportunity to respond to written reviews before interview.
Enabling applicants to present their science directly
The introduction of interviews is a major and deliberate shift.
Interviews are intended to give applicants the best possible platform to convey the scientific strength of their proposal. They have long proven effective in MRC’s fellowship assessments and will now play a similar role for all applicants and their teams.
Interviews are designed to:
- allow applicants to articulate the ambition, importance and expected impact of their research
- enable panels to explore the team’s capabilities, environment and cross disciplinary working
- provide space to address any remaining issues from written reviews through constructive dialogue
To ensure interviews are fair, consistent and accessible, we will:
- use structured formats with clear, interpretable questions
- assess applicants against standardised criteria
- offer virtual interviews where appropriate
- ensure accessible venues and provide reasonable adjustments
- cover travel, modest subsistence and caring costs
We will closely monitor interview outcomes to identify and address any emerging disparities.
Accessibility and reducing burden
The open meeting highlighted the real pressures researchers face in developing applications and sustaining momentum while waiting for decisions.
We also heard concerns about application effort and the impact of long timelines on staff retention, career progression, and the ability to pursue bold ideas.
The redesigned process is intended to shorten the overall assessment period for the majority of applications. Interviews, in particular, offer a more efficient route to resolving remaining questions.
We will monitor both demand and applicant burden carefully as the system beds in and adapt if needed.
Ensuring the right expertise
Attendees asked how we will ensure the right balance of expertise, particularly for interdisciplinary or emerging areas of research.
We will do this by building panels around the applications received, initially drawing on our existing board members as the College of Experts grows.
This flexibility is central to reducing boundaries between research areas, but we recognise the importance of consistency and depth of expertise during the transition.
Supporting early career researchers (ECRs)
We remain committed to ensuring ECRs thrive under the redesigned system, including retaining the New Investigator Award and enabling up to three team members to attend interviews.
We will continue to put ECR needs at the forefront as the new process evolves.
Resubmissions
To improve alignment across UK Research and Innovation, funding opportunities will always remain open, and applications submitted after 1 April 2026 that are unsuccessful can only be resubmitted if invited.
This is intended to reduce unnecessary burden and help applicants focus their efforts where they are most likely to be competitive.
An evolving model
It was clear in the open meeting that several elements of the new system will continue to develop as we learn what works best in practice and hear your feedback. These include:
- how decision points operate within an always open system and whether submission cut-off dates are useful
- whether we should retain a single stage application process with full applications or move to a two-stage application process will need careful thought
The coming year will be a learning period. We expect to refine aspects of our approach as evidence builds, and your continued feedback will be essential in shaping these adjustments.
Looking ahead and stepping back
Combining molecular, cellular and population level science has accelerated dramatically over the past few years.
Advances in structural biology, single cell technologies, data driven discovery and national scale health datasets are beginning to converge in ways that would have been hard to imagine a decade ago. And now including advanced analytics, including artificial intelligence.
Taken together, these developments create opportunities to understand disease with far more precision, link biological mechanisms to patient outcomes, and move closer to prevention rather than treatment.
This brings with it both excitement and responsibility. Our funding processes must match the pace and ambition of modern biomedical science.
The changes we are making are intended to help unlock that potential by reducing boundaries, speeding up decision making, and creating space for bold, high impact ideas.
The response at the open meeting from colleagues reaffirmed our enthusiasm for this ambition and the importance of delivering the reforms effectively.
We will continue to listen, learn and adapt as we reopen opportunities on 7 April and move through the first cycles of assessment.
Most importantly, I remain confident that, together, we can build a system that ensures UK biomedical research continues to lead the world by improving human health and driving economic growth.
Professor Patrick Chinnery FRS FMedSci FRCP is the Executive Chair of the Medical Research Council (MRC).
Professor Chinnery is also a practising neurologist at Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge, where his clinical expertise complements his leadership, bridging advanced science and healthcare delivery.