Freedom of information (FOI) releases from UK Research and Innovation (UKRI)

This is a disclosure log of UK Research and Innovation's responses to freedom of information (FOI) or environmental information regulations (EIR) requests that might be of wider public interest.

If you can't find the information you're looking for, you can make a new FOI request.

Filters

Clear filters

  • Keywords filters

  • Year filters

  • Month filters

1,491 disclosures

  1. FOI2026/00597: Agenda and Minutes of STFC's Science Board - Facilities & Laboratories and PPAN Meetings

    Request Received: 15 July 2026

    I am requesting the agenda and minutes of any meetings of STFC's Science Board (Facilities and Laboratories) and Science Board (PPAN) since January 1st 2026, including drafts of any minutes.

    I am also requesting any documents, papers or recommendations from the above boards that relate to the recent STFC Prioritization Exercise.

    Clarification Received: 4 August 2026

    1. Please provide an estimate for the cost of the full request.

    2. Please proceed with the request limited in scope to the STFC Science Board for Facilities and Laboratories.

    Published: 21 October 2026

  2. FOI2026/00582: STFC Prioritisation Activity 2026

    Request Received: 11 July 2026

    I would like to request the following information held by UKRI/STFC:

    1. All documentation, papers, and briefings prepared for or considered as part of the STFC prioritisation exercise conducted in 2026 (the process leading to the announced £162 million savings programme by 2029-30), including but not limited to options papers, impact assessments, and scenario/modelling documents.

    2. All agendas, papers, and minutes of STFC Council and any related committee or board meetings at which the prioritisation exercise, its options, or its outcomes were discussed, from January 2026 to the date of this request.

    3. For each set of minutes referred to in item 2, all draft versions produced prior to the final approved version, together with any tracked changes, revision logs, or records showing what amendments were made between drafts and by whom.

    4. Any correspondence between STFC/UKRI and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) relating to the prioritisation exercise or its outcomes during the same period.

    Clarification Received: 6 August and 2 September 2026

    Thank you for your response and for the helpful context on the scope of the STFC prioritisation activity. I would like to refine my request as follows, focusing solely on STFC Council. I would like to request:

    1. The agendas and papers [that related to and mention the prioritisation activity] for all STFC Council meetings held in 2026 to date at which the prioritisation activity, its options, or its outcomes were discussed or presented, including any recommendations submitted to Council by the Science Board (PPAN), Science Board for Facilities and Laboratories (F&L), or the cross-UKRI Strategic Facilities Advisory Group.

    2. The minutes of those same Council meetings. If, having reviewed the above, it is possible to do so without exceeding the appropriate cost limit under Section 12 of the FOIA, I would also like to request:

    3. Any earlier draft versions of the minutes at item 2, together with any record of substantive changes made between drafts and the final approved version.

    I am not requesting correspondence between UKRI/STFC and DSIT, or documentation from the PPAN and F&L boards and their sub-committees, at this stage.

    Published: 21 October 2026

  3. FOI2026/00667: AI-related Complaints

    Request Received: 3 August 2026

    Please provide the following information for Innovate UK for the period 1 January 2022 to 31 July 2026:

    1. The total number of concerns, complaints, or formal complaints received from applicants (individuals or organisations who applied for Innovate UK funding or competitions) that explicitly mention artificial intelligence, automated decision making, algorithmic assessment, machine learning, large language models, or AI in each calendar year.

    2. Yearly counts by allegation category (if recorded), for example: use of AI in assessment; automated rejection/shortlisting; bias or discrimination by AI; lack of transparency about AI use; misuse of applicant data for AI training; incorrect AI outputs affecting decisions; other AI related concerns. Please provide the categories you use and counts for each.

    3. A yearly breakdown by outcome (for example: upheld, partially upheld, not upheld, resolved informally, ongoing).

    4. A yearly breakdown by funding programme or competition (if available).

    5. The number of complaints escalated to a formal review or appeal each year.

    6. Copies of any policies or guidance used to record, classify, and handle applicant complaints during the period.

    7. The format and location of the complaint records (e.g., case management system name) and whether anonymised case-level data can be provided (date received; programme; outcome; anonymised summary).

    Published: 19 October 2026

  4. FOI2026/00648: Psychoelectric, Neural & Electromagnetic Weapons

    Request Received: 28 July 2026

    I am submitting this request to obtain clarification about whether any UK government departments, defence organisations, research laboratories, subcontracted institutions, universities, or police units are involved in research, testing, or operational activity related to technologies sometimes described publicly as psycho electric, electromagnetic, remote neural monitoring, neurological interference, or directed energy systems.

    Over several years, I have interviewed more than 300 individuals from diverse backgrounds who report highly similar neurological, sensory, and physical symptoms. These symptoms appear artificial in nature and are consistent across many unrelated people. Because of the scale and consistency of these reports, I am seeking formal clarification from the relevant authorities.

    I want to emphasise that this request does not accuse any organisation of wrongdoing. It is strictly a request for information under the FOI Act. I am attaching case studies, publicly available research patents, articles, and videos that describe technologies some individuals believe may be relevant. These materials are provided only for context.

    Summary of Reported Symptoms

    Cognitive / Mental

    • Forced memory blanking

    • Induced erroneous actions

    • Perceived reading or broadcasting of thoughts

    • Controlled dreams

    • Forced waking visions, sometimes synchronised with body motion

    Auditory / Sensory

    • Sudden changes in hearing (direction, volume, or content)

    • “Microwave hearing” sensations

    • “Transparent eyelids” (seeing shapes through closed eyes)

    • Artificial tinnitus

    Physical Sensations

    • Sudden violent itching inside eyelids

    • Remotely induced itching without rash

    • Needle like pains

    Motor / Bodily Control

    • Forced manipulation of airways

    • Perceived externally controlled speech

    • Forced jaw movement or teeth clacking

    • Forced nudging of arms during delicate work

    • Forced precision manipulation of hands

    • Forced muscle quaking in back muscles

    Cardiovascular / Bodily Responses

    • Rapid heart rate without cause

    Sensitive Areas

    • Itching in genital areas

    • Forced sexual arousal

    • Intense pain in sensitive regions

    FOI Questions

    1. Whether any UK government department, MOD unit, MOD research laboratory, subcontracted research organisation, MOD affiliated university, or police department is conducting research, testing, or operational activity involving electromagnetic, psycho electric, neurological interference, or remote neuro stimulation technologies capable of producing effects similar to the symptoms listed above.

    2. If such research or testing exists, please provide:

    • The name of the programme or project

    • The responsible department or unit

    • Any publicly available documentation, safety guidelines, or ethics oversight procedures

    • Any external regulatory bodies involved in oversight

    3. Whether any individuals in the UK have been enrolled, selected, monitored, or observed as part of such research, and if so:

    • The number of individuals involved

    • The criteria for selection

    • Any consent or safeguarding requirements

    • Whether vulnerable groups (students, migrants, temporary workers) are included

    4. Any publicly available patents, technical descriptions, or research documentation held by UK institutions relating to:

    • electromagnetic stimulation technologies

    • remote neural interaction systems

    • psycho electric or neuro interference devices

    • directed energy research

    5. Any internal MOD, policing, or research institution policies relating to:

    • human subject protection

    • non consensual exposure safeguards

    • testing limitations

    • reporting or whistleblowing procedures

    Published: 19 October 2026

  5. FOI2026/00830: CAM Pathfinder competition assessment principles and practice

    Request received: 15 September 2026

    I request clarity concerning some of the principles used in the assessment of applications to the recent CAM Pathfinder: Enable and CAM Pathfinder: Demonstrate competitions. They seem to differ from those of other Innovate UK competitions, with some aspects not aligning with best practice recommendations in GovS 015.

    Questions

    1. For each of these competitions, please provide the following information:

    a)     number of applications submitted. How many passed the written assessment stage?

    b)     the interview score of the highest and lowest scoring applications that were funded

    c)     the interview score of the highest and lowest scoring applications that were not funded

    2. The Enable competition stated "UK Government will invest up to £15 million to fund up to six projects from this competition. This is subject to a sufficient number of high quality applications being received."

    a)     how many projects were funded from this competition?

    b)     what was the total grant value of projects funded?

    c)     from the interview stage, how many applications were considered to be of sufficiently high quality to be funded?

    3. The Demonstrate competition stated "UK Government will invest up to £20 million to fund up to fifteen projects from this competition. This is subject to a sufficient number of high quality applications being received."
    Please respond to the same three questions as in 2 above.

    4. Was a 'top-down' approach used for selection within these two competitions? Or were portfolio criteria used? If the latter, please say what those criteria were and how they were made known to applicants.

    5. Government Functional Standard GovS015, Section 5: Competition for Funding Para 30 states: "It is best practice to add weightings to the assessment criteria, as part of the details of the scheme, to signal their relative importance and help applicants to focus their efforts appropriately."

    For some competitions, Innovate UK provides links to assessor guidance criteria, but with no explanation of the weightings that will be used.

    However, for the two competitions under discussion, neither assessor guidance criteria nor explanation of any weightings were evident. I am concerned by this apparent lack of consistency and transparency.

    Perhaps there are good reasons why IUK did not follow best practice recommendations for the CAM Pathfinder: Enable and Demonstrate competitions, but I believe it is in the public interest to know what these reasons were.

    Does Innovate UK intend to comply fully and consistently with the recommendations of GovS015 Section 5 Para 30? If so, please indicate a time-scale for this to be implemented.

    Published: 12 October 2026

  6. FOI2026/00734: Birkbeck UoL AHRC grant AH/S001654/1

    Request Received: 14 August 2026

    I would like to make a Freedom of Information request about the AHRC grant AH/S001654/1 of £202,250 to Birkbeck, University of London, 2019 to 2021.

    In the budget submitted with the funding application, how much money was allowed for transcription services?

    Published: 7 October 2026

  7. FOI2026/00645: Follow up to response FOI2026/00102 - Breakdown of STFC Grants Programme - Other

    Request Received: 28 July 2026

    Thank you for your response to FOI2026/00102, setting out the breakdown of the STFC budget from FY 2018-19 to FY 2025-26.

    I would like to request a breakdown of 'STFC Grants Programme - Other' over the same period, specifically the amounts spent on Talent Fellowships, Studentships, innovation grants, and DSIT Managed Programmes including the Isambard AI and International Science Partnership Fund (ISPF).

    Published: 7 October 2026

  8. FOI2026/00670: Innovate UK Loans Rounds 23-25

    Request Received: 30 July 2026

    I would be very grateful if you could please provide information on the above scheme for all of the following rounds:

    1. Innovate UK Innovation Loans round 23

    2. Innovate UK Innovation Loans round 24

    3. Innovate UK Innovation Loans round 25

    For each/all rounds please can you share data on the following:

    1. The total number of loan applications submitted

    2. The total number of applications sent for business loan suitability assessment

    3. Minimum scores required to be sent for business loan suitability assessment

    4. The number of applications progressed to detailed credit analysis

    5. The total number of applications that were offered a loan

    6. The total number of applications within each theme and sub-theme and the number of those that were offered a loan in each theme and sub-theme

    7. The average loan size request awarded

    Published: 7 October 2026

  9. FOI2026/00635: UKRI funding of the Nuclear Justice Project at the University of Liverpool

    Request received: 27 July 2026

    A copy of all documentation, including but not limited to, bid application, spending, receipts, emails, expense claims, connected to the UKRI funding of the Nuclear Justice Project at the University of Liverpool


    By way of explanation, I understand this project was funded to the tune of about £40,000 via AHRC and Research England's Policy Fund, in a grant awarded at the back end of 2025.


    The project was run by the Centre for People's Justice at the University of Liverpool, administered by Prof Helen Stalford and Dr Jon Hogg.


    For the avoidance of doubt, I am looking for a release of all documentation UKRI or its agencies holds about the project, and any provisos, rules or requirements under which the money was released.

    Published: 7 October 2026

  10. FOI2026/00270: UKRI Business Case Summaries and Impact Assumptions for SR25

    Request Received: 25 March 2026

    Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I am requesting the following information:

    1. Copies of the business case summary documents submitted by UKRI to DSIT and/or HM Treasury as part of the latest Spending Review (SR2025).

    2. Any supporting documentation detailing the economic impact assumptions or cost-benefit analyses, particularly relating to societal impacts, employment growth, and productivity.

    3. Internal or external documents explaining the modelling methodology behind such impact estimates.

    4. Correspondence between UKRI and DSIT or HMT that discusses or supports these figures

    If parts of this request are withheld under any exemption, please provide a justification for each, and consider partial disclosure where possible. Please note, I did request this last year, but it was refused on the grounds of confidentiality associated with discussion and negotiations at the time around UKRI's internal allocations process.

    This process is now complete and CEO Sir Ian Chapman has been in front of the SITC to discuss the allocations and implications of the decision made. As such, I trust sufficient time has now elapsed to enable UKRI to fulfil this FOI request.

    Published: 6 October 2026