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

1,495 disclosures

  1. FOI2026/00876: Union general secretary meetings 2025-26

    Request Received: 26 September 2026

    Please treat this as a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 relating to Innovate UK Monitoring Officers, Monitoring Service Providers and Assessors.

    I am not requesting the names or identities of any individual Monitoring Officer, Assessor or other person. All numerical information requested may be provided in aggregate.

    Please provide the information for 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026 year-to-date.

    For 2026, please provide figures up to the date on which the relevant data is extracted for this response, and state the extraction/reference date used.

    If the information is held only by financial year rather than calendar year, please provide the closest equivalent breakdown available and state the reporting periods used.

    Where possible, please provide the information in Excel format.

    Monitoring Officers and Monitoring Service Providers

    1. Monitoring Officers – registered and active For each of 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026 year-to-date, please provide:

    a) the total number of Monitoring Officers registered on the relevant Innovate UK / UKRI Monitoring Officer system or community;

    b) the number of those Monitoring Officers considered live / active / available for allocation of monitoring work during that year; and

    c) if held, the number of Monitoring Officers who were actually allocated at least one monitoring project or assignment during that year.

    If Innovate UK uses a specific internal definition or status for “active”, “live” or equivalent, please state that definition/status and provide the figures using the terminology held within your systems.

    2. Monitoring Service Providers

    For each of 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026 year-to-date, please provide:

    a) the number of Monitoring Service Provider (MSP) companies or organisations registered; and

    b) if different, the number of MSP companies or organisations that were active and/or supplied Monitoring Officers during that year.

    3. IR35 / off-payroll status

    For each of 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026 year-to-date, please provide the breakdown held of Monitoring Officer engagements or assignments according to IR35/off-payroll status, for example:

    outside IR35;

    inside IR35;

    and any other status/category used.

    If IR35 status is recorded by assignment rather than by individual Monitoring Officer, please provide the figures on that basis and state the basis used.

    4. Engagement / business structure

    For each of 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026 year-to-date, please provide any breakdown held showing Monitoring Officers engaged as:

    sole traders / individuals;

    through their own limited company or Personal Service Company; through a Monitoring Service Provider company; and any other engagement category used.

    If these categories are not recorded in this form, please provide the closest equivalent information held. Allocation and procurement of monitoring work

    5a. Are all Innovate UK monitoring project opportunities, assignments or contracts offered and awarded through the Monitoring Officer Community (MOC) procurement / bidding system, or its equivalent current system?

    5b. If not, for each of 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026 year-to-date, please provide the number of monitoring assignments, projects or contracts allocated outside the normal MOC competitive bidding/procurement process. Please state whether the figures relate to individual projects, assignments, contracts or another unit.

    5c. Where monitoring work can be allocated outside the normal MOC bidding/procurement process, please provide:

    the policy, procedure or guidance governing such allocations; the criteria used to determine when work may be allocated outside the normal bidding process; the criteria used to select the Monitoring Officer or Monitoring Service Provider; the job role, team or function authorised to make or approve such allocations; and the job role or level which makes the final decision.

    Personal names are not required.

    Assessors

    6. Assessor numbers For each of 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026 year-to-date, please provide:

    a) the total number of Assessors registered with Innovate UK;

    b) the number considered active / live / available to undertake assessments; and

    c) if held, the number who actually completed at least one assessment during that year.

    If Innovate UK uses a particular definition of “active” or “live”, please provide the figures according to that definition.

    7. Assessors who are also Monitoring Officers

    For each of 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026 year-to-date, please provide:

    a) the number of registered Assessors who were also registered Monitoring Officers;

    b) the number of active Assessors who were also active Monitoring Officers; and

    c) the percentage this represents of the relevant Assessor population. Aggregate figures only are requested.

    8. Other roles and conflicts of interest Please provide the current policy, terms, guidance or rules governing whether an Innovate UK Assessor may also:

    a) be an employee, director, shareholder, consultant or adviser to an organisation which applies for Innovate UK funding;

    b) provide consultancy services to organisations applying for Innovate UK funding;

    c) act as a grant bid writer or assist in preparing Innovate UK funding applications; and

    d) subsequently act as a Monitoring Officer for Innovate UK-funded projects.

    Please also provide the relevant rules/procedures relating to declaration and management of conflicts of interest arising from these activities.

    If aggregate information is held for 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026 year-to-date on the number of Assessor conflict-of-interest declarations, recusals or exclusions from particular assessments, please provide those figures by year.

    General

    Where information requested above is not held using exactly the terminology I have used, please provide the closest equivalent information held and explain the terminology or categorisation used.

    If any part of this request would exceed the appropriate cost limit, please provide the remaining information and advise how the affected part could be refined so that it can be answered within the cost limit.

    Published: 26 October 2026

  2. FOI2026/00749: Innovate UK Innovation Loans Expressions of Interest

    Request Received: 18 August 2026

    For the most recent three-month period for which information is available, please provide:

    1. The total number of Innovation Loans Expressions of Interest received.

    2. The number that were permitted or invited to progress to the next stage.

    3. The number that were rejected or not invited to progress.

    4. The broad sectors, technologies or project categories represented by the Expressions of Interest that were invited to progress.

    5. Where information can lawfully be disclosed, the principal reasons or assessment categories under which Expressions of Interest were rejected.

    6. The assessment criteria, scoring methodology, internal guidance or other criteria used when determining whether an Expression of Interest should progress to the next stage.

    We are not requesting confidential information belonging to other applicants, and anonymised or aggregated information is acceptable where necessary.

    Published: 26 October 2026

  3. FOI2026/00743: Research Involving the use of Live Animals

    Request Received: 15 August 2026

    MRC, EPSRC, Innovate UK, BBSRC and NERC.

    For each of the above 5 councils for calendar years 2024 and separately for 2025 please may I have:

    (1) The total amount granted for research involving, the use of live animals, licenced under ASPA 1986.

    (2) The amounts granted to develop human relevant research which would reduce/replace the use of animals.

    (3) The amounts granted and the number of grants specifically where, in full or part, the less commonly used species of dogs are used or are intended to be used.

    (4) The amounts granted and the number of grants specifically where, in full or part, the less commonly used species of Non- Human Primates are used or are intended to be used.

    If any on your other councils grant money for research under ASPA 1986 please can I also have figures as above for these years. I understand that data is collected by financial year for BBSRC, could you please let me know the start and end dates of the financial year.

    Published: 26 October 2026

  4. FOI2026/00709: Use of Animals in Research

    Request Received: 12 August

    Clarification Received: 17 August

    I would like to request information held by UKRI relating to the use of animals in research conducted under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. I do not seek any information that relates to places, people or intellectual property.

    Please provide me with details of:

    The total value (in £s) of funding provided by UKRI to research projects using animals conducted under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, for 2023, 2024 and 2025 - providing separate yearly figures.

    Showing what % of these yearly totals were for UKRI grants which provided partial funding to a project, and those that were funded in full by UKRI.

    The total value (in £s) of funding provided by UKRI for research projects specifically using non-animal technologies, also referred to as New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) for 2023, 2024 and 2025 - providing separate yearly figures.

    Showing what % of these yearly totals were for UKRI grants which provided partial funding to a project, and those that were funded in full by UKRI.

    Published: 26 October 2026

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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