research funding england

Imperial College London Imperial College London

Latest news.

Imperial celebrates its international scholars and continues to grow programmes

Enterprise Lab and The Greenhouse highly ranked in FT list of top startup hubs

Nigeria expands school food programme following work with Imperial

• Research Office
• Research and Innovation
• Support for staff
• Research policies
• What counts as Research?

Research Funding Landscape

•   Research England distributes public funds to HEIs via annual block grants know as Quality-related Research (QR) funding that supports the University’s research infrastructure, providing core income as well as facilitating knowledge-exchange activities .
•   UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) fund specific research projects and programmes primarily on a competitive basis. UKRI is comprised of the seven Research Councils – AHRC, BBSRC, ESRC, EPSRC, MRC, NERC and STFC – Innovate UK and Research England.

Research Funding is also available from other  sources such as charities, industry and government departments.

Quality-r elated Research (QR) Funding

The annual block grant provided to each university by Research England is known as Mainstream QR funding.  This is calculated using several metrics based on statistical data provided by the College which cover the quality, volume and relative cost of research at Imperial.

Quality data is obtained through the Research Excellence Framework (REF) assessments undertaken every few years by the Higher Education funding bodies in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Information on research volume and the cost of research is based on the amount of active funding held by the College which is reported to the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) each year.

Research England also provides additional support in proportion to the research income received from eligible charities and business and industry, respectively known as the QR Charity Support fund (commonly referred to as C-stream) and QR Business Research element.  See Research England's  How We Fund Higher Education Providers guidance for further detail.

The amount of QR funding the College receives depends on the classification of its research income. I t is important to select the correct Funder Group when setting-up an award because it directly affects the proportion of QR funding received by the College, including accurate allocations of C and B-stream funding as well as maintaining data quality. Please see the  Funder Groups Guidance [pdf] for more information.

Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA)

HESA is responsible for collecting, processing and publishing data about higher education in the UK. The annual Finance Record comprises several data tables which record income and expenditure. One of these is “Table 4: Research Grants and Contracts” which provides a breakdown by source of income and HESA cost centre. Data collation is coordinated by the College’s Finance department with support from the Research Office. Accuracy of  data is essential because this informs the College’s funding allocations in future years.

Research England sets out goals in new £8bn development plan

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share on Linkedin
• Share via email

Funder highlights plans to review strategic institutional research funding and support innovation

Research England has set out its plans to secure the financial sustainability of the UK’s research system and review its own research funding as part of its Strategic Delivery Plan to 2025.

In the plan, which outlines the national funder’s ambitions for 2022-25, Research England pledges to “create and sustain the conditions for a healthy, dynamic, diverse and inclusive research and knowledge-exchange system” across five streams: people and careers; places; ideas; innovation; and impacts.

This article on Research Professional News is only available to Research Professional or Pivot-RP users.

Research Professional users can log in and view the article via this link

Pivot-RP users can log in and view the article via this link .

Internet Explorer is no longer supported by Microsoft. To browse the NIHR site please use a modern, secure browser like Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, or Microsoft Edge.

National Institute for Health and Care Research

We fund, enable and deliver world-leading health and social care research that improves people's health and wellbeing, and promotes economic growth.

Read NIHR news

Read NIHR blog

NIHR launches £50m ‘Challenge’ funding to tackle inequalities in maternity care

The new call will invest in research to tackle inequalities in maternity care. The funding call will establish a diverse research consortium to deliver research and capacity building over five years.

Read the full news story

Project funding

We fund a variety of commissioned, researcher-led and themed call research:

• in health, social care and public health
• in Global Health

Search project funding opportunities

Career development

We support the development of professionals through:

• personal awards including Fellowships
• practitioner academic training
• Global Health Research careers

Find career development opportunities

Making a Difference

Preventing early heart disease in high-risk patients

Use of new software developed with NIHR funding is identifying more patients at high risk of early heart disease and heart attacks. Earlier diagnosis and treatment are saving lives and shaping healthcare policy.

Breaking down barriers to effective cystic fibrosis treatment

In the biggest cystic fibrosis trial in the UK, NIHR-funded research has shown that a personalised web platform, CFHealthHub, could markedly increase adherence to treatment.

NHS programme linked to 20% reduction in risk of diabetes

An NIHR-funded evaluation showed referring people with pre-diabetes to the NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme cut their risk of progressing to diabetes by 20%.

Read our case studies

Applied health and care research on both commissioned and researcher-identified topic areas.

Explore our Programmes

Research Infrastructure

Find out more about our expertise, specialist facilities, research delivery workforce and support services.

Explore our offers

Specialty therapy areas

The NIHR funds and supports research:

• in all specialty therapy areas
• delivered by expert clinical leaders and practitioners
• through effective collaboration

Discover our specialties

Global Health Research

NIHR is a major funder of high quality global health research that directly addresses the diverse health needs of people in low and middle income countries (LMICs). 

Explore our Programme

Journals, publications and data

Explore NIHR-supported research projects, their findings and data from our range of resources:

• 5+ journals and publications for the public, care and research professionals
• 3+ open access health research databases

Explore our research

New figures suggest the public's appetite for taking part in research remains remarkably high after an unprecedented period in research history.

Find out more about the NIHR annual statistics

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Nepal J Epidemiol
• v.12(4); 2022 Dec

Guidance to applying for health research grants in the UK

Brijesh sathian.

1 Geriatrics and long term care department, Rumailah Hospital, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar

2 Centre for Midwifery, Maternal and Perinatal Health, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth, UK

Edwin van Teijlingen

Indrajit banerjee.

3 Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam Medical College, Belle Rive, Mauritius

Russell Kabir

4 School of Allied Health, Anglia Ruskin University, Essex, UK

There is no conflict of interest for any author of this manuscript.

A research proposal is the start and the foundation for many studies, “whether it is to conduct an academic research project or to apply for funding and support for a specific study [ 1 ]. The authors will use their experiences and insights to guide new international researchers who are considering their first research grant application in the UK. The chances of failure in applying for health research funding in the UK should not be underestimated. The typical success rate in the UK in health research varies from one in five [ 2 ] to even lower success rates.

Some funding bodies ask researchers to submit a full proposal in reply to their calls. However, many funders have a two-staged grant application system. First, anybody can submit a general short outline proposal with not too much detail, and once this initial idea has been accepted by the funding panel as having potential, in the second round selected people are invited to submit an in-depth full proposal.

Hundreds of research organizations, funding organizations, and supporting institutions make up the UK research system. These organizations differ in size, emphasis, and internal structure. Whereas this variety is a unique strength for quality of research , but it increases the volume and complexity of research administration, which adds to the competition to get more grants.

Researchers should understand the functions of various organizations, such as funders, authorities, academic institutions, NHS Trusts, and public and non-profit research organizations. An extensive array of research financing options is available to go along with this variety of organizations. Direct government funding, like Quality-Related (QR) funding in Wales, England, and Northern Ireland, the Research Postgraduate Grant and Research Excellence Grant in Scotland, and competitive project funding, like “responsive mode” or challenge-led funding, have very different formats and specifications.

According to the Independent Review of Research Bureaucracy - Final Report, just 20% of research funding applications are generally successful [ 2 ]. As a result, single stage processes that demand applicants to supply all the information up front result in the majority of applicants using this information unproductively and wasting it. Two step application procedures may result in system improvements, but they may also require additional time or resources from funders. UKRI and other organizations are now experimenting similar techniques.

They advised the funders to experiment with application procedures to lighten the load on applicants, such as two-stage procedures where the amount of information needed rises in proportion to the possibility of receiving funding. Funders should cooperate to enhance consistency across their application procedures, including in the language they use and the questions they pose when necessary. In the beginning, UKRI ought to assist Research Councils in this. Funders should consider what modifications to evaluation procedures may be required to account for changes to application models.

This should contain the data required for national security assessments as well as creative strategies, such testing out novel models like randomly allocating funds or using peer reviewer triage to reduce the number of applications requiring complete peer review. Funders need to make sure that the application procedures uphold their pledges to diversity, inclusion, and equality. In most cases, funders should waive the letter of support requirement from applications.

Following the COVID-19 pandemic, the UK clinical research delivery system still faces hurdles in the delivery of research. The pandemic’s continued effects on the backlog in seeing patients, manpower constraints, and the requirement to finish specific COVID-19 research have caused delays in the completion of several studies. As a result, fewer studies are now able to successfully recruit participants and finish on time.

Workload, staffing, and the need to clear the elective backlog due to the combined effects of chronic underfunding and Brexit continue to put strain on the NHS’s ability to support research delivery. Some studies have difficulty in the present context and have limited likelihood of achieving their study endpoints and objectives due to a lack of resources and capacity. For others, the lack of resources and capability makes it difficult to execute studies within reasonable timeframes. The research system must prioritize studies that can be completed given the capability and resources at its disposal, while acknowledging that some studies (such as those involving rare disorders) may require less frequent recruitment of participants.

The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) launched the Research Reset programme in response to the ongoing challenges in research delivery with the goal of making portfolio delivery attainable within anticipated timelines (time and target) and sustainable within the resource and capability we currently have in the NHS [ 3 ]. By working with funders and sponsors to promote the evaluation of studies that have already finished or that are unlikely to be able to fulfill their endpoints in the present climate, it seeks to free up capacity throughout the research system.

The programme is overseen by the DHSC with input from an advisory group made up of representatives from medical research charities, industry, NHS Research and Development, research delivery workforce representatives across NHS settings, patient and public representatives, universities, the Royal Colleges, the Medical Research Council (MRC), and NHS regions throughout the UK.

According to the present standards, NIHR will continue to add new research to the portfolio throughout the Research Reset programme.

Building on NIHR achievements and the lessons learned in response to COVID-19, the future of clinical research delivery outlines the vision for a clinical research environment that is more patient-centered, pro-innovation, and digitally enabled. It also aims to maximize the UK’s capacity to profit from cutting-edge innovations across all treatments and technologies, all research phases, and all conditions [ 4 ]. Five key themes underpin the NIHR’s vision are (1) clinical research embedded in the NHS, (2) patient-centred research, (3) streamlined, efficient and innovative research, (4) research enabled by data and digital tools, and (5) a sustainable and supported research workforce.

There have been efforts in the UK to bring various government departments and research funders working in international development together in the UK Collaborative on Development Research (UKCDR). Which is why we have listed in it separately from several of its constituents in Table 1 .

Key funding agencies in the UK

* Relevant to low- and middle-income countries

Two case studies

We offer two case studies to illustrate some of the issues that may occur in applying for grants from Uk organisations. Both examples relate to research conducted in Nepal. The first example is a three-year project is UK-funded under the Health Systems Research Initiative. This study ‘the impact of federalisation on Nepal’s health system: a longitudinal analysis’ is a collaboration between researchers at the University of Sheffield, Bournemouth University and the University of Huddersfield in the UK and Manmohan Memorial Institute of Health Science and PHASE Nepal both in Kathmandu [ 5-7 ]. We first applied for funding in 2018, the committee seemed to like the research idea but were worried about the potential slow progress of the federaisation process in Nepal, the lack academic experts in Nepal and the large proportion of the cost related to the UK. In the 2019 we addressed these issues, obviously to the funders’ satisfaction as we were successful in our resubmission.

The second case study centres on an application for a DelPHE (Round 4), British Council award [ 8-9 ]. Our study ‘Partnership on Improving Access to Research Literature for HE Institutions in Nepal’ (PARI Initiative) was a collaboration between Tribhuvan University (TU), the oldest and largest university in Nepal, and the University of Aberdeen and Bournemouth University in the UK. Our initial application for DelPHE funding with Stupa College in Kathmandu, a smallish not-for-profit college, was unsuccessful. In the feedback from the funder we were advised to collaborate with a larger university, preferably a government university to increase the chance that our intervention/training would be incorporated in future training and curricula. Therefore, we submitted a similar application the next year with a new partner in Nepal, namely the Central Department of Population Studies at Tribhuvan University (TU). This is resubmission was then accepted and funded.

Always consider collaborating with someone in the home country of the funding agency, in this case with an academic at a UK university. Both getting through the first round of a two-staged application and being asked to resubmit means you have had a dummy run. Submitting after feedback from experts on a funding board/panel or from bureaucrats working for the funder offers you the opportunity to improve the application. The improvements can be methodologically, or in the detail of some of the application of your prosed methods, of financially, or ethically, etc. In other words, you can fine tune your new submission and home in on the issues the funders find important. MRC provides 37-page document Guidance for Peer Reviewers [ 10 ].

An innovative and competitive grant proposal will have greater odds to get success. Making connections with researchers with similar research interest to collaborate can help increase your changes of getting funding. Looking for funding opportunities in your own field of expertise or that of your collaboratiors can assist to make sure that the application and the funder are a suitable fit. It is crucial to thoroughly review funding agencies’ focus because funding requirements and eligibility requirements might differ greatly between organisations, but also from year to year for the same funder. The funder’s past awards may serve as a useful indicator of the kinds of studies they are likely to support and the details of winning proposals.

Acknowledgement

Funding data

We publish data on the funding commitments made through our competitive opportunities.

See our data on competitive funding decisions.

We also publish data on our funding by geographical location. This data includes quality-related research funding and Innovate UK grant allocations.

See our regional breakdown of funding.

You can use information about what we’ve funded to help shape your organisation’s research strategy and improve the competitiveness of grant applications.

See what UKRI councils have funded.

Last updated: 20 October 2021

This is the website for UKRI: our seven research councils, Research England and Innovate UK. Let us know if you have feedback or would like to help improve our online products and services .

• Cranfield University

Taught degrees

• Why study for an MSc at Cranfield?
• Application guide
• Find a course
• Search bursaries
• Fees and funding
• Make a payment

Research degrees

• Why study for a research degree at Cranfield?
• Research opportunities

Apprenticeships

• Apprenticeship programmes
• Apprentices
• MKU Apprenticeships

Professional development

• Professional and technical development
• Level 7 Apprenticeships
• Open Executive Programmes
• Find a programme

Studying at Cranfield

International students.

• Life at Cranfield
• Life at Shrivenham
• Careers and Employability Service
• IT services
• View our prospectus

Choose Cranfield

• Why work with Cranfield
• Who we work with
• Entrepreneurship
• Corporate Sustainability Consultancy
• Networking opportunities
• Access our facilities
• Business facilities and support services

Develop your people

• Short courses and executive development
• Customised programmes
• Recruit our students

Develop your technology and products

• Access funding
• Knowledge Transfer Partnerships
• Work with our students
• License our technology
• Business incubation
• Cranfield spin-out and start-up companies

Our research publications and data

• Case studies
• Research projects

Why research at Cranfield?

• Sustainability at Cranfield
• Theme Research Strategies
• Hydrogen Gateway
• Research Excellence Framework
• Access our world class facilities
• Current research projects
• Cranfield Doctoral Network
• Applying for a research degree
• Entry requirements

Engage with us

• Industry collaboration
• Find an expert
• Research and Innovation Office
• Open research
• Fellowships
• Energy and Sustainability
• Manufacturing and Materials
• Transport Systems
• Defence and Security
• Environment and Agrifood
• Cranfield School of Management
• Centres and institutes
• Academic disciplines
• Virtual Experience

International activity and reach

• Partnerships
• Cranfield in India
• European Partnership Programme
• Global impact
• Information for your region
• Visas and immigration
• Life on campus
• Pre-sessional English for Academic Purposes
• About Cranfield University
• Our structure
• Rankings and awards
• Building on our heritage
• Community and public engagement
• Facts and figures
• History and heritage

Governance and policies

• University management
• Council and Senate
• Corporate responsibility
• Environmental credentials
• Research integrity
• Staff and students
• Work at Cranfield
• School of Management
• Latest news

£69 million boost for hydrogen at Cranfield

• Largest ever research funding win for Cranfield University
• Investment heralds a ‘step change’ in hydrogen research, developing the first large scale hydrogen research hub at any UK airport
• Funding will unlock technical challenges and scale-up hydrogen-enabled aviation to help meet net zero emissions targets

Cranfield University will spearhead the research and development of the first major hydrogen technology hub to demonstrate the potential of hydrogen as a net zero aviation fuel.

The £69 million investment creating the Cranfield Hydrogen Integration Incubator (CH2i) is the largest financial injection for research that Cranfield University has ever secured. £23 million comes from Research England’s Research Partnership Investment Fund (UKRPIF) , with a further £46 million committed from industry partners and academic institutions.

The demand for air travel is rising, with estimates that UK passenger traffic could increase from 284 million in 2016 to 435 million by 2050 . Unless action is taken,  aviation will be the largest source of carbon greenhouse gas emissions by the middle of the century . In this context, the rapid development and scale up of hydrogen-enabled aviation is a critical part of addressing growing demands whist transitioning to cleaner air transport. With domestic aviation set a target of achieving net zero emissions by 2040 in the UK government’s Jet Zero strategy , CH2i will support the aviation industry to explore how to move towards the use of hydrogen at scale.

“This game-changing investment builds on Cranfield’s expertise in hydrogen research and will help the aviation industry to make the leap to using hydrogen,” said Professor Karen Holford CBE FREng, Chief Executive and Vice-Chancellor of Cranfield University.

“CH2i will integrate with other large industry research areas at Cranfield including our novel hydrogen production programmes and our Aerospace Integration Research Centre and the Digital Aviation Research and Technology Centre. Working with research and industry partners nationally and internationally, we will unlock some of the most significant technical challenges around the future development and deployment of hydrogen in aviation. It’s a very exciting prospect for our researchers, partners and for the aviation industry. It will help to build the pathway to net zero emissions aviation.”

New hydrogen ecosystem to rapidly develop technology for a sustainable future

CH2i will create a unique ecosystem at Cranfield, connecting the production, integration and use of hydrogen for net zero aviation, proving how the industry can decarbonise rapidly.

The research collaboration, linking into a new Centre for Doctoral Training in Net Zero Aviation at Cranfield , will provide an environment to develop the production technologies, catalysts, materials, structures, storage tanks, aircraft designs and engines that are urgently required to accelerate the adoption of hydrogen in a net zero world. By developing new laboratories, at scale test facilities and airport infrastructure this project will deliver a transformation in hydrogen technologies.

Bringing together academia, industry, government and regulatory authorities, CH2i’s work will inform policies, services and regulatory practices that are needed to realise regional, national and international economic growth and skills development opportunities.

Co-Principal Investigator of CH2i, Professor Dame Helen Atkinson DBE FREng, Pro-Vice-Chancellor and Head of the School for Aerospace, Transport and Manufacturing and Materials: “The consortium will bring a ‘systems engineering’ approach, accelerating the integration of hydrogen into airports and aerospace propulsion and delivering next generation technologies. Together we are committed to unlocking hydrogen’s potential for airports and aviation globally, realising our collective ambitions for a more sustainable future.”

Investment to enable development across whole supply chain

As the only university in Europe with its own airport, research aircraft and air traffic control facilities, Cranfield has a controlled airside environment which can demonstrate, test and advance new technologies, systems and processes at scale.

Co-Principal Investigator of CH2i, Professor Chris Fogwill, Pro-Vice-Chancellor and Head of School for Water, Energy and Environment at Cranfield University said: “We’re creating the blueprint for sustainable zero emissions flight and infrastructure, by building world-class laboratory and test facilities that integrate the production, storage and utilisation of hydrogen at scale across the campus and airport.”

CH2i will connect and expand existing facilities at Cranfield, supporting research and development across the whole supply chain from production, storage, transport and usage, through to assessment of the environmental impacts. CH2i will demonstrate where hydrogen can be integrated into both ground operations and as a fuel for aircraft propulsion.

CH2i will include three large infrastructure elements:

1. Hydrogen Integration Research Centre – extending an existing facility, this will include new labs for advanced materials synthesis and testing for hydrogen-based technologies, analytical laboratories and a dedicated innovation area to develop next generation hydrogen pilot plant demonstration, electrolysis, catalyst development and green hydrogen.

2. Enabling Hydrogen Innovation (Test Area) - investment into two separate test bed facilities, able to support hydrogen and liquid hydrogen activity, fuel systems, storage and propulsion system integration at mid- and high-technology readiness levels.

3. Development of Cranfield Airport’s infrastructure, increasing its capability for safe operation and testing of future demonstrator hydrogen-powered aviation.

The funding will also provide new equipment, project management and staffing to support the project.

Track record in safe developments for industrial use

“A key part of this initiative is achieving rapid innovation within a regulated, safety-critical context,” commented Professor Leon A. Terry, Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research and Innovation at Cranfield University.

“Cranfield has existing expertise in the production, storage and use of hydrogen in an industrial context, and a track record of building near-industrial scale facilities. This funding heralds a transformation in the hydrogen research trajectory, and our unique expertise and facilities puts Cranfield right at the centre of accelerating hydrogen development in the UK.”

Building capability for the UK and industry

Professor Sir Iain Gray, Director of Aerospace at Cranfield University and a member of the UK Jet Zero Council, noted that new business opportunities will emerge: “CH2i is set to act as a global and regional incubator for sustainable aviation research and innovation. It builds on our strategic relationships with industry and will create an environment where we can openly explore how hydrogen innovations will change aviation. It will also stimulate new business opportunities across the aviation supply chain and help to provide a new talent pipeline of researchers to grow a competitive high technology capability for the UK.”

Marshall CEO Kathy Jenkins commented: “This investment in CH2i is a clear vote of confidence in Cranfield’s unique position as a scientific and industrial flagship for the UK. It demonstrates hydrogen’s transformative potential in aviation. As we continue to advance our strategic relationship with Cranfield, these test facilities will serve as an ideal proving ground for our newly established HyFIVE consortium. It is here we will develop globally outstanding hydrogen technologies and products that support clean growth and future mobility.”

Cranfield Aerospace Solutions CEO, Paul Hutton said: “CAeS welcomes the establishment of the CH2i hydrogen hub at Cranfield and is proud to be a major industrial partner in the programme. The investment will provide valuable facilities for our hydrogen fuel cell propulsion system development programme and we look forward to deepening our relationship with the Cranfield University team as we develop the technology needed for a more sustainable aviation industry."

£1 billion investment since funding scheme began

The investment from Research England brings the total funding figure for the RPIF scheme to £1 billion since its inception. Cranfield is one of four universities to receive funding in this round.

Professor Dame Jessica Corner, Executive Chair at Research England, said: “I am pleased to be able to award four more universities funding from our flagship UK Research Partnership Investment Fund to create four centres in a diverse range of topics, from net zero aviation to wound research, and disease therapies to future transport.

“The fact that we have been able to fund 60 research centres and facilities from the fund since 2012, investing £1 billion to tackle some of today’s biggest research challenges, from developing treatments for Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease to tackling global inequalities, and finding better treatments for cancer to net zero growth, is something I am immensely proud of.

“I very much look forward to seeing how these new facilities deliver against a variety of diverse challenges over the coming years.”

Project partners

Research and industry partners who are co-investors for the project include:

• Cranfield Aerospace Solutions
• GKN Aerospace
• Siemens Energy
• Heathrow Airport
• Modular Clinton Global
• Equilibrion

Academic partners include:

• Imperial College London
• Midlands Innovation Energy Research Accelerator (ERA)
• UKRI NERC National Centre for Atmospheric Science
• UK Aerospace Research Consortium
• UK Collaboration for Research on Infrastructure and Cities (UKCRIC)
• National Physical Laboratory (NPL)

Get in touch

• Media Relations Team
• T: +44 (0)1234 754999

Related academics

Professor Karen Holford CBE FREng FIMechE FLSW FWES

Professor Leon A. Terry BSc (Hons) ARCS MSc PhD DSc PGCert FIAgrE FRSB FHEA

Professor Chris Fogwill

Professor Dame Helen Atkinson DBE, FREng, DL, BA, MA, PhD, Dr<em>hc</em>, CEng, FIMMM, FIMechE, FRAeS, DIC

Read our latest news stories

Cookies on GOV.UK

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We’d like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.

We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

You have accepted additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

You have rejected additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

• Society and culture
• Arts and culture
• Library services

Nearly 70 museums and libraries across England to benefit from £33 million boost

Every part of England to receive funding through the latest round of the Cultural Investment Fund

• 26 museums given funding, in addition to 43 library services
• Funding underlines the Government’s ongoing commitment to supporting culture in all corners of the country

Yorkshire Sculpture Park, Newcastle Libraries and the Isle of Wight’s Dinosaur Isle are among almost 70 organisations which are set to receive a share of more than £33 million through the Government’s Cultural Investment Fund.

The funding will support important upgrades to museums and public libraries – such as vital repairs, renovations and the development of digital infrastructure – which will ensure they can continue to be assets to their communities and improve the visitor experience.

These critical infrastructure projects will help to boost access, maximise income generation opportunities and increase visitor numbers at treasured organisations in places across the country.

Dinosaur Isle, a unique building on the Isle of Wight, has been awarded almost £500,000 for structural repairs to its roof and improvements to the environment and lighting. The museum holds an internationally significant collection of dinosaurs, forming the UK’s second largest collection after the Natural History Museum.

Nearly £400,000 has been awarded to Newcastle Libraries to create a new reading facility in a disused part of the Walker Activity Dome. It will also support increased opening hours and create a flexible community space.

Meanwhile, Yorkshire Sculpture Park has been awarded more than £250,000 to restore and repair its 200-year-old, Grade II-listed Cut Bridge. The bridge forms a key route across the park, as well as forming an integral part of the 18th and 19th century design and development of the estate.

Arts and Heritage Minister Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay said:

Museums and libraries are the bedrock of the community across the country, helping to inspire the creativity and curiosity of young people and begin lifelong passions for reading, learning, history and the arts.

This major cultural investment will continue our work to level up access to culture across the country, with beneficiaries from St Ives to Sunderland and from Medway to Tyneside, building on the £100 million of further Levelling Up funding for cultural and heritage projects confirmed at this month’s Budget.

Darren Henley, Arts Council England chief executive, said:

Museums make a huge contribution to the lives of people in towns and cities across England.  This investment in the physical fabric of their buildings helps to make sure that our museums are able to carry on serving their communities for years to come. We’re excited to be delivering the next round of the programme on behalf of the DCMS because we know the positive impact this investment has on helping museums make a real difference across the country.

Mark Chesman, head of estates and projects at Yorkshire Sculpture Park, said:

We are delighted that the MEND fund, administered by ACE, will be supporting us to carry out urgent repairs to a historic iron bridge within Yorkshire Sculpture Park.

The Cut bridge crosses the River Dearne and is a critical part of the estate’s infrastructure, repairs to the deck and ironwork will ensure continued access to art, nature and our heritage.

It’s only with the support from capital grants such as the MEND fund, and additional partnership funding from Historic Houses Foundation, that these essential works can be progressed.

Newcastle City Council’s Director of City Operations, Neighbourhoods and Regulatory Services, Christine Herriot, said:

This is fantastic news. Libraries play an increasingly important role in our communities and have become much more than just places where people can borrow books.

This extra funding will help make the library bigger by bringing unused storage space back into use, give it a new entrance and enable us to widen digital services on offer while putting in place employment support to help residents with training and accessing new job opportunities.

We want our libraries to be pleasant, inclusive places, offering the best facilities possible for our residents and this funding will help us achieve that at Walker Library.

All regions of England have received funding, which comes through the Museum Estate and Development Fund and the Libraries Improvement Fund, two parts of the Cultural Investment Fund.

Libraries Improvement Fund

The £20.5 million Libraries Improvement Fund transforms public library services in England by helping them upgrade their buildings and improve their digital infrastructure so they are better placed to respond to the changing ways people are using them. Local authorities can bid for the money on behalf of their library services.

This is the third round of the fund, with 52 projects already benefiting from around £10 million of funding in previous rounds. Former recipients include Stoke Libraries, which received £300,000 to modernise Longton and Stoke libraries with updated flexible and welcoming spaces, and Sandwell Library and Information Service, which received £495,000 to install open-access technology at 10 of their 19 libraries, enabling users to access libraries beyond staffed opening hours.

Museum Estate and Development Fund

The £86 million Museum Estate and Development Fund will enable museums across the country to deliver a better experience for visitors and staff, make access and environmental improvements, unlock income-generating opportunities, and continue to protect treasured buildings and collections for future generations. It is open to museums in England accredited by the Arts Council which are not directly funded by DCMS. This is the third round of funding, bringing the total amount of investment so far to more than £62 million for 93 museums. A fourth round of funding, worth £23.8 million, was announced in February with a deadline of 18 April 2024 for expressions of interest. Full guidance and information on how to apply can be found on the Arts Council England website.

Through this third round of the fund, 26 projects will receive a share of £22.6 million. Previous recipients include the Bristol Museum & Art Gallery, which was awarded more than £650,000 in the first round of the fund, while Cannon Hall, a Grade II*-listed Georgian mansion in Barnsley and home of the De Morgan museum, received over £800,000 in round two.

Full list of MEND and LIF recipients

ODS , 23.4 KB

This file is in an OpenDocument format

Share this page

The following links open in a new tab

• Share on Facebook (opens in new tab)
• Share on Twitter (opens in new tab)

Is this page useful?

• Yes this page is useful
• No this page is not useful

Help us improve GOV.UK

Don’t include personal or financial information like your National Insurance number or credit card details.

To help us improve GOV.UK, we’d like to know more about your visit today. We’ll send you a link to a feedback form. It will take only 2 minutes to fill in. Don’t worry we won’t send you spam or share your email address with anyone.

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS. A lock ( Lock Locked padlock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Dear Colleague Letter: Funding Opportunities for Science and Engineering Research with Impact on Women's Health

March 18, 2024

Dear Colleagues:

With this Dear Colleague Letter (DCL), in response to the White House Initiative on Women's Health Research , the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) encourages the submission of research and education proposals related to women's health. Despite making up more than half of the population, women are historically understudied and underrepresented in health research. The historical exclusion of women from scientific and biomedical research studies, combined with the undervaluation of research that advances knowledge on conditions that uniquely, differentially, or disproportionately affect women, has resulted in significant knowledge and health gaps. Addressing these research gaps will ultimately advance the health, prosperity, and welfare of all.

NSF continues to support fundamental science and engineering research with implications for women's health. This DCL reaffirms NSF's commitment to fund discovery, innovation, and research translation on topics of relevance to women's health, from the molecular to the ecosystem level, including input from the full range of science, engineering, and education that NSF supports. Pioneering the next generation of discoveries in women's health will require a sustained effort focusing on the socioeconomic impact of women's health, breaking down disciplinary boundaries in carrying out the necessary research to advance understanding of relevant questions, and building a diverse STEM workforce committed to advancing women's health and the health of a citizens.

The National Science Foundation encourages the submission of fundamental research and education proposals related to women's health topics, including, but not limited to, proposals in the following areas:

• Projects that develop a well-informed citizenry and a diverse and capable STEM workforce that will pioneer the next generation of discoveries in women's health.
• Science and engineering approaches and novel computational models that elucidate factors that interact with and impact women's health, such as studies that examine the genetic, epigenetic, biological, economic, societal, and environmental determinants of women's health and cognition.
• Holistic approaches to women's health and development, including aging, by moving beyond diagnostics and disease management to include novel methods for discovery and monitoring. This includes, but is not limited to, wearable devices, and other types of sensing and imaging technologies that improve early detection, as well as telehealth platforms that broaden accessibility and promote women's health.
• Foundational and transformative research that advances our understanding of engineering biomechanics and/or mechanobiology related to women's health.
• Advanced biomanufacturing of cells, tissues, or organs relevant to women's health.
• Engineering research that advances the understanding of injury mechanisms and rehabilitation technologies for health conditions and disabilities that affect women.
• Development of validated models (living or computational) of healthy and pathological cells, tissues, and organ systems relevant to women's health that improve the understanding of these systems.
• Projects on novel computational approaches (i.e. multi-level and multiscale data, sensing, prediction) that examine the effects of women's health on mental and physical development across the life span and that support health decision making.
• Projects that foster partnerships with government, industry, nonprofits, civil society, and communities of practice to leverage, energize, and rapidly bring to society use-inspired research and innovation that may include, but are not limited to, innovations that enable fundamental research of women's health topics, and breakthrough technologies designed for women.
• Transdisciplinary approaches to environmental change challenges and opportunities to improve understanding of climate, environment, and health pathways to protect and promote women's health, such as research that elucidates mechanisms and/or prevention of pollution transport/exposure implicated in adverse health outcomes.
• Studies that assess theories and models of health, aging, disease, and disease transmission at multiple scales (populational, generational, transgenerational, and geographical), from the molecular to the ecosystem level, including the interaction of environment on molecular scale phenomena.
• Research that seeks to advance knowledge about the processes that shaped biological diversity in living and ancient human species such as effects of life history transitions on women's health; intergenerational effects of violence, stress, and maternal health; and impacts of biocultural context on women's health, reproduction, and epigenetics.
• Research to advance theory on design and management of organizations such as how gendered aging symptoms may affect women's experience at work and in other environments.
• Research and research infrastructure to advance basic knowledge in bias, prejudice, and discrimination directed toward women as well as the intersection of gender and other identities; dynamics of close interpersonal relationships and women's health; and power in relationships.

NSF welcomes proposals that broaden geographic and demographic participation to engage the full spectrum of diverse talent in STEM. Proposals from minority-serving institutions , emerging research institutions , primarily undergraduate institutions, two-year colleges, and institutions in EPSCoR-eligible jurisdictions , along with collaborations between these institutions and those in non-EPSCoR jurisdictions, are encouraged.

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION AND RELEVANT NSF PROGRAMS AND CONTACTS

This DCL does not constitute a new competition or program. Proposals submitted in response to this DCL should be prepared and submitted in accordance with guidelines in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) and instructions found in relevant NSF funding opportunities. Investigators who wish to submit proposals on any of these topics, or others related to women's health, are strongly encouraged to reach out to the cognizant NSF Program Officer(s) listed in the relevant funding opportunity to discuss the fit of their ideas to existing program. Specific programs and opportunities list these contacts. For assistance in determining program suitability for a proposal concept, researchers are encouraged to utilize the NSF "Program Suitability & Proposal Concept Tool (ProSPCT) at https://suitability.nsf.gov/s/ . Note that NSF has limitations on the scope of health-related projects that can be submitted to participating programs. More information on these limitations can be found in "Introduction, Part A: about the National Science Foundation" in the PAPPG. In addition to these limitations, investigators should also review new information regarding human subjects in NSF-funded research at https://new.nsf.gov/funding/research-involving-human-subjects .

Susan Marqusee, Assistant Director Directorate for Biological Sciences (BIO)

Dilma Da Silva, Acting Assistant Director Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE)

Susan Margulies, Assistant Director Directorate for Engineering (ENG)

James Luther Moore, Assistant Director Directorate for STEM Education (EDU)

C. Denise Caldwell, Acting Assistant Director Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS)

Kendra Sharp, Office Head Office of International Science and Engineering (OISE)

Alicia Knoedler, Office Head Office of Integrated Activities (OIA)

Sylvia M. Butterfield, Acting Assistant Director Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBE)

Erwin Gianchandani, Assistant Director Directorate for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships (TIP)

UK Research and Innovation

We invest in research and innovation to enrich lives, drive economic growth, and create jobs and high-quality public services across the UK. We are transforming tomorrow together.

This is the website for UKRI: our seven research councils, Research England and Innovate UK. Let us know if you have feedback or would like to help improve our online products and services .

UKRI strategic themes: focusing on global challenges

101 jobs: meet the circus performer who’s now a science apprentice

New research will help to secure the future of our rivers

Pinned article from 27 March 2024

Major research and innovation infrastructure investment announced

Pinned article from 26 March 2024

Four new research centres put icing on cake of scheme’s success

28 March 2024

£35 million investment to improve population-wide health

Pioneering biotech business programme welcomes first start-ups

26 March 2024

STFC Hartree Centre signs agreement with Lenovo for new supercomputer

View all news

Subscribe to UKRI emails

Sign up for news, views, events and funding alerts.

25 March 2024

The innovation demand paradox

21 March 2024

Research infrastructure comes in all shapes and sizes

View all blog posts

We invest £8 billion of taxpayers’ money each year into research and innovation and the people who make it happen. We work across a huge range of fields – from biodiversity conservation to quantum computing, and from space telescopes to innovative health care. We give everyone the opportunity to contribute and to benefit, bringing together people and organisations nationally and globally to create, develop and deploy new ideas and technologies.

Read our first five-year strategy

• NIH Grants & Funding
• Blog Policies

NIH Extramural Nexus

How Grant Success Rates Do (Or Do Not) Track With the NIH Budget: A Model of Funding Dynamics

From 2014 to 2018, the NIH budget increased every year, and yet, the Research Project Grant (RPG) success rate remained relatively constant at ~20%. From 2003 to 2006 the NIH budget remained relatively flat, yet the success rate decreased dramatically from 30% to 20%. Why don’t success rates neatly track the NIH budget? While inflation plays a role, there are more fundamental forces at play.

Here I present a series of budget and success rate scenarios that are largely based on a Service Science publication by Larson, Ghaffarzadegan, and Diaz. The bottom-line up front: NIH funding dynamics are strongly affected by obligations incurred by grant awards made in previous years – what we call “out-year obligations” – and by responses of the research community to NIH budget increases.

As a reminder, Success rates  are calculated by dividing the number of awards made in a fiscal year (FY) by the number of applications received (see also our recent By The Numbers post ). the calculation includes applications that are peer reviewed and either scored or unscored by an Initial Review Group. Applications having one or more amendments in the same fiscal year are only counted once.

Imagine a simplified funding agency that receives an annual budget of $1 Billion (or $1000 million). This budget has been constant for years. The agency only spends money on competing or non-competing grant awards (in other words, there is no overhead for agency management). Each award costs exactly $1 million each year and lasts for exactly 4 years. We also assume that there is no inflation and that every year the agency receives 1000 competing applications.   

At the beginning of each fiscal year, the agency is already obligated to award $1 million for the second-year non-competing renewal of each award given last year, for the third-year non-competing renewal of each award given two years ago, and for the fourth-year non-competing renewal of each award given three years ago. That means that as the year starts, three-quarters (75%) of the agency’s budget is already obligated to support ongoing awards awaiting expected non-competing renewals. Only 25% of the budget is available for new competing awards .

For those of you who are mathematically oriented (if you’re not, you can safely ignore this paragraph), per Larson and colleagues we can say that:

F ( y ) = B ( y ) – [ F ( y -1) + F ( y -2) + F ( y -3)]

where F ( y ) is funding available for new (competing) grants in any given year y and B ( y ) is the total budget available to the agency for all grants, competing and non-competing, in any given year y .

Table 1 illustrates what this steady-state scenario looks like. In each Fiscal Year (here Year 1 to Year 4) the agency can spend $250 million for new awards; as each award costs $1 million, that translates to 250 awards out of 1000 applications or a success rate of 25%.

Table 1: Baseline steady state – The second column is the budget allocated to the agency. The 3 rd and 4 th columns refer to funds available for new (competing) awards and funds obligated for out-years of previous issued awards.  In this table and all others, the second column is B ( y ) and the third column is F ( y ).  

Now, we imagine that that in Year 5 Congress appropriates a budget increase, from $1000 million to $1100 million per year. As in all previous years, the agency begins the year with out-year obligations of $750 million, which come from $250 million of new awards first issued in Year 4, $250 million of new awards first issued in Year 3, and $250 million of new awards first issued in Year 2. We need not worry about the $250 million of new awards issued in Year 1 as they rotate off after funding in Years 1 through 4; recall, that each award receives $1 million a year for exactly 4 years.

So, as shown in Table 2, Year 5 begins with $750 million of out-year obligations, but with a $100 million increase in total budget, the agency now has $350 million available for new awards. That translates into a dramatic increase in success rate from 25% to 35% (again there are 1000 applications)! Larson and colleagues refer to this magnified increase in success as a cause of “euphoria.” But, in the following year – Year 6 – the agency now finds itself with $850 million in out-year obligations because of the additional 100 awards issued in Year 5. With a flat budget of $1100 million, there are “only” $250 million available for new awards, meaning that the success rate falls right back to 25%. As shown in Table 2, the success rate remains at 25% — despite the higher budget compared to Years 1-4 – until Year 9 when the 100 additional grants issued in Year 5 (four years before) come to an end. The success rate bounces back up to 35% (like in Year 5) and then promptly falls back in Year 10 to 25% (like in Year 6). These every-four-year oscillations would continue unless the agency took steps to mitigate them.

Table 2: Scenario with an increase from $1000M to $1100M, then constant budget

How could the agency maintain the higher success rate of 35% in Years 6 through 8? One approach, shown in Table 3, would require a Congressional budget increase of $100 million in each of those years. Note that despite increasing budgets, the success rate remains flat; this is because of the out-year obligations coming from previous years when the agency issued more awards than in the baseline state (Table 1).

Table 3 also shows what happens if the budget remains flat in Year 9, four years after the initial increase in Year 5. The funds for new awards and the success rate now are flat; effectively, after 4 years (the length of time for all awards) the agency achieves a new steady state.

But now suppose that the agency’s budget is cut in Year 10, from $1400 million to $1300 million. The success rate promptly drops from 35% (where it has been for years) to 25%. A 7.14% decrease in the budget leads to a 28.57% fall in the success rate. In other words, each 1% cut in budget translates to a 4% cut in funding for new awards! As discussed by Larson and colleagues, out-year obligations lead to magnified effects of budget changes.

Table 3: Scenario with steady budget increases in Years 5-8 followed by brief stability and then a $100 million budget cut.

Up until now, we have assumed that the number of applications remains constant at 1000 per year. But, as Larson and colleagues point out, that’s not reflective of reality. Increased agency budgets stimulate growth in research capacity: more scientists, more facilities, more students, more trainees. The agency sees more applications (like we saw in the years of the NIH doubling from 1998-2003). In Table 4 we show the same budget scenario as in Table 3, but we have the number of applications increase by approximately 5% per year starting in Year 6. The combined growth in applications (reflecting the growth in research capacity) plus the increase in out-year obligations conspire to cause a markedly dramatic decline in success rate in Year 10 to only 20%, below where we were during the steady state Years 1-4. It’s a “pay-line crash” much like what happened at NIH between 2003 and 2006.

Table 4: Scenario with steady budget increases in Years 5-8 followed by brief stability and then a $100 million budget cut. In contrast to Table 3, extramural research capacity growth beginning in Year 6 leads to a growth in the number of applications.

During this discussion we started with a simple “steady-state” and gradually added new complexities: one budget increase, multiple budget increases, a budget cut, and finally an increase in the number of applications. Of course, the real world is much more complex. There are so many other factors to consider: different grant mechanisms, varying grant durations, training programs, small-business set-asides, intramural research, inflation which itself varies from year to year , and shifting priorities. But, I am reminded of a saying attributed to George Box, a statistician: “All models are wrong, but some are useful.”

In their paper, Larson and colleagues discuss steps an agency can take to mitigate the magnified effects of budget changes. These include varying grant durations and taking steps to “optimize” budget increments. Other options include reducing budgets on non-competing awards, down-negotiating budgets on new, or reducing the number of new awards while making sure that among those awards a maximum number of scientists are supported. None of these options are easy or straightforward, yet we remain committed to doing what we can to support as much outstanding biomedical research as possible.

RELATED NEWS

What portion of an Institute’s budget is dedicated to internal research? Expansion of internal research/facilities and growing salaries can use up a large fraction of the institute’s funding increase, yes?

In general, around 10% of NIH’s total budget goes to intramural research each fiscal year. Specific data are available here: https://report.nih.gov/nihdatabook/category/1 . Intramural research, as the blog post noted, is one of the many factors to consider.

Hi Mike, very elegant and useful work as always! I have been wondering how much the continuous increase we have seen in the budgets requested/approved for new NIH applications (in addition and well beyond the increase due to inflation ) have affected the success rate? Intuitively, a continuous significant increase in the individual award budgets would decrease the number of applications that can be funded even if the NIH budget is (slowly) increasing.

Every year, cost of employees, grad students, fringe benefits and supplies increase, but grant budget limits have stayed the same for decades. Each year, more grants are submitted, Allowing lower scores for junior investigators makes it harder for established investigators to compete, and funded junior investigators to be renewed. The solution is a large infusion of cash into NIH. Pretty unlikely.

Before submitting your comment, please review our blog comment policies.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Bank of England steps up scrutiny of private equity and bank valuations

BANK VALUATIONS

Get a look at the day ahead in European and global markets with the Morning Bid Europe newsletter. Sign up here.

Reporting by Huw Jones; editing by Christina Fincher

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. , opens new tab

Banks and industrial stocks lift Dubai, Abu Dhabi falls

Dubai's main share index closed higher on Friday, boosted by gains in banking and industrial sector stocks while the Abu Dhabi index declined on the day.

Governments give up on pancreatic cancer, woman says

A woman whose mother died from pancreatic cancer has joined calls for more government investment in research.

Sam Weldon, from Wimborne in Dorset, lost her 78-year-old mother Sylvia Lloyd in January 2023, less than five months after the cancer was diagnosed.

Ms Weldon is supporting a campaign by the Pancreatic Cancer UK charity, which said successive UK governments had not done enough to improve survival rates.

The Department of Health and Social Care has been approached for comment.

Ms Weldon said her mother became lethargic and also developed back problems in 2021.

Ms Lloyd was initially diagnosed with a heart condition and anaemia before the cancer was discovered in August 2022.

Her daughter said: "What I find quite difficult to digest is survival hasn't changed since the 1970s.

"Because pancreatic cancer isn't diagnosed until very late, it's almost as if governments say: 'There's nothing we can do about it.'"

Pancreatic Cancer UK said most European countries had better five-year survival rates for the disease than England.

England's rate for those diagnosed between 2010 and 2014 is 7%, compared to 9.6% in Ireland, 10.7% in Germany and 13.7% in Latvia, according to the charity.

The charity's Demand Survival Now campaign urges politicians to commit to spending at least £35m a year on research.

It is currently funding a study to produce a breath test which could mean early diagnosis.

Pancreatic cancer

• Symptoms can include jaundice, itchy skin, darker pee, paler poo, unexplained weight loss, tiredness and high temperature
• It can be difficult to diagnose because symptoms often do not appear in the early stages and can point to other conditions
• More than half of people with pancreatic cancer die within three months of diagnosis
• Three per cent of annual UK research spending on cancer is invested in the disease

(Sources: NHS, Pancreatic Cancer UK)

Follow BBC South on Facebook , X , or Instagram . Send your story ideas to [email protected] or via WhatsApp on 0808 100 2240 .