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

1,489 disclosures

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. FOI2026/00654: UKRI Open Access policy

    Request received: 29 July 2026

     

    Freedom of Information request relating to UKRI's Open Access policy, which was adopted in 2021.  
     
    In particular, I have three questions arising from the associated Equality Impact Assessment:  
     
    1. Pursuant to question 5 of the first table (page 5), what evaluation, if any, has been made of "unintended EDI consequences"? 
     
    2. What sources informed the row in the second table about early-career researchers (pages 9–10)? (For example, footnote 2 gives an FCDO source for the row relating to race, but no reference is given for early-career researchers.) 
     
    3. Further to the explanation/justification given on page 15, what evaluation, if any, resulted from UKRI's resolution to "monitor the policy through its implementation" with respect to "the precise degree to which author choice may be affected"? 

    Published: 6 October 2026

  10. FOI2026/00653: Number of equivalent post-doctoral research assistant roles

    Request Received: 29 July 2026

    I’m making the following request under the Freedom of Information.

    Please share the number of equivalent full time postdoctoral research assistant roles funded by UKRI in 2025-2026 HESA reporting year ending on the 31st of July, and the previous years 2024-25, 2023-24, 2022-23, 2021-22, 2020-21, 2019-20, 2018-19, 2017-18, 2016-17, 2015-2016. This is not to ask the number of individuals in post, or number of individuals who have held those posts, but the total number of equivalent full time roles that could be funded across that year. Where the funding for postdocs is provided as, for example, a four year grant, this can be understood as the average funding per year across the four year grant, represented as an equivalent number of full time post doctoral research assistant roles. For each year, please share the breakdown of how many equivalent full time roles in a given year were funded for each research council. If some of the funding does not fit under a research council, please provide this under ‘other’ with a description of the funding.

    Published: 5 October 2026