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

1,512 disclosures

  1. FOI2026/00840: Follow up to FOI2026/00749 - Innovation Loans Expressions of Interest

    Request Received: 16 September 2026

    This is a follow up request to FOI2026/00749. We therefore require meaningful information showing:

    1. The precise period covered by the application figures you have supplied.

    2. The total number of applications received during that period.

    3. The number and percentage of applications submitted by universities.

    4. The number and percentage submitted by private companies.

    5. The number and percentage submitted by other types of organisations, with those organisations categorised.

    6. The number and percentage of successful applications within each of those categories.

    7. The amount of funding awarded to each category of organisation.

    Published: 9 November 2026

  2. EIR2026/00809: Index to Statutory Borehole Notifications (BGS Ref - IDA 311107)

    Request Received: 2 September 2026

    Under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3391), regulation 5(2), I request an extract from the Index to statutory borehole notifications, that is the index of notifications made under section 198 of the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Mining Industry Act 1926. I understand the statutory response period is 20 working days, extendable to 40 working days for a complex request.

    The request is a narrow one, and it turns on a single question: does the notification index carry a purpose field that would allow ground source heating and cooling boreholes to be counted?

    (1) Please tell me which fields the notification index holds for each entry, and in particular whether the purpose or intended use of the borehole is recorded as a structured field or a coded value, and if so, what values that field can take.

    (2) If a purpose field exists, please supply the count of boreholes notified per year with the purpose recorded as ground source heating, ground source cooling, geothermal, heat pump, or any equivalent value, for each year from 2015 to 2025 inclusive.

    (3) For the same entries, in electronic format (CSV or XLSX), and with no owner names and no street addresses:
    (a) notification index number, and the municipality, local authority area or postcode district;
    (b) the purpose or use value as recorded;
    (c) the notification date, and the intended or actual start of drilling date where held;
    (d) the notified or recorded depth, and the number of boreholes covered by the notification;
    (e) the notifying party or drilling contractor where held;
    (f) whether a completion record or log was subsequently deposited against the notification.

    (4) Please also give the number of notifications recorded per year from 2015 to 2025 in total, so that the geothermal count can be read against the whole, and any figure you hold on the rate at which notifications are matched to a deposited borehole record.

    (5) If the index carries no purpose field, please say so expressly. That answer is complete and useful in itself: it establishes that the statutory notification stream cannot be used to count ground source heat pump boreholes, and I will not press further. In that case I would be grateful if you would tell me whether any other BGS holding, for example the National Well Record Archive or the onshore borehole records in GeoIndex, carries a usable purpose classification.

    Include, if held, any field indicating whether the borehole replaced, re-drilled or reused an existing borehole at the same address, and any abandonment or decommissioning record for a previous borehole at that address.

    Published: 9 November 2026

  3. EIR2026/00791: GeoReports Sales Volumes and Well Construction Notifications

    Request Received: 2 September 2026

    I am writing to request the following information under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and, where applicable, the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

    1. For each financial year from 2021–22 to 2025–26 inclusive: the number of GeoReports sold by BGS, broken down by product code (including but not limited to GRC_C003, GRC_C105, GRC_C106, GRC_C107 and GRC_C108) and, where held, by customer region or country.

    2. For each calendar year from 2021 to 2025 inclusive: the number of notifications of water well or borehole construction received by BGS pursuant to the Water Resources Act 1991, broken down by county or, if not held at that level, by region.

    Published: 9 November 2026

  4. FOI2026/00835: Use of Animals in Research (FOI2026/00709 revised request)

    Request Received: 15 September 2026

    Thank you for your response to my request for information - FOI2026/00709.

    You indicate that you will be able to provide information for the first part of my request, and have already done so in a previous FOI request for 2023.  Please can you supply the following information:

    The total value (in £s) of funding provided by UKRI to research projects using animals conducted under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, for 2024, 2025 and 1st January - 31st August 2026 - providing separate yearly figures.

    Published: 6 November 2026

  5. FOI2026/00827: Research Involving the use of Live Animals (FOI2026/00743 revised request)

    Request Received: 14 September 2026

    Thank you for your attached response to my FOI reference FOI2026_00743. Thank you also for your advice and assistance under Section 16 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

    I am now filing a new FOI request having removed my original question 2.

    MRC, EPSRC, Innovate UK, BBSRC, 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 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.

    (3) 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: 6 November 2026

  6. FOI2026/00786: MRC-Funded Research Involving Animals

    Request Received: 30 August 2026

    I am writing to request aggregate information concerning MRC-funded research involving animals regulated under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA).

    For each financial year from 2019/20 to 2025/26, please provide:

    1. All regulated animal research

    • The number of MRC-funded research grants awarded involving animals regulated under ASPA.

    • The aggregate total value of those grants.

    2. Research involving dogs

    • The number of those grants involving dogs.

    • The aggregate total value of those grants.

    3. Animal costs

    Where this information is held in an existing and reasonably extractable form, please provide:

    • the aggregate value of animal purchase/acquisition costs included within the grants in question; and

    • the aggregate value of animal maintenance/upkeep costs included within those grants.

    If possible, please provide these figures separately for:

    • all ASPA-regulated animal research; and

    • research involving dogs.

    For clarity, I recognise that the total value of a grant involving animals is not necessarily the amount spent on the animal component of that research. I am therefore requesting these figures separately rather than treating the total grant value as expenditure on animals.

    I am seeking aggregate information only and do not require the names of individual researchers, institutions or projects.

    If any of the requested information is not held in recorded or readily extractable form, please simply confirm that it is not held in that form; I am not asking UKRI to create new information.

    Published: 6 November 2026

  7. FOI2026/00445: UK Biobank discussions - Follow up to FOI2026/00276

    Request received: 20 May 2026

    Follow up to FOI2026/00276 - UK Biobank discussions

    MRC previously stated “MRC maintains continuous engagement with these investments and does not undertake formal mid-point reviews. Progress is monitored and discussed through established management structures and agreed monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, which operate on an ongoing basis” in response to an FOI request with your reference FOI2026/00276 which is visible here1.

    Under the Freedom of Information Act, further to that previous response, can you please provide:

    1) any emails, teams/slack/other messages, or documents concerning "monitoring and evaluation mechanisms” (as described above) for UK Biobank, that were "monitored and discussed through established management structures" visible to members of the MRC Senior Executive Team between 10 March 2026 and 13 May 2026.

    2) any “lines to take” or briefings for media inquiries to MRC concerning UK Biobank between 10 March 2026 and 13 May 2026. (this can be limited to only those where UKBiobank is the primary investment discussed in the document - if they’re mentioned only as one of multiple UKRI/MRC projects then that document is not of interest)

    3) Any internal MRC discussion related to the website at biobank.rocher.lc

    References to the 10 March include those immediately prior to the Guardian disclosures that Biobank had leaked re-identifiable data to the internet hundreds of times, the BMJ editorial in mid April, and events surrounding the statements to Parliament in late April which announced UK Biobank had a 10 May deadline (which they missed).

    Clarification received: 16/06/2026

    By 'visible to', I mean, for example that if an email/message includes a link to the document, then it is in scope, but if there's no reference to it in other communications, then it is not in scope. That an FOIable document was shared by means of a link to a shared office365/googledoc rather than an attachment (as previously) should not be a mechanism to evade this request.

    On your reference to Biobank's ongoing issues. I am not particularly interested in communications after the 13 May, but if MRC wish to extend the period of my request to provide a more complete (but not misleading) view, MRC are welcome to do that at MRC's discretion (without the extended period being covered by the cost limit). It is, of course, better that more correct information is in the public domain.

    Clarification received: 24/08/2026

    [UKRI advised the requestor that in its current form their request would exceed the cost threshold under section 12 of the FOI Act and were asked to refine their request]

    In terms of sequencing, please prioritise part 2, part 3, and then part 1.

    If it helps, you can limit part 1 to material originated by the Senior Executive Team of MRC.

    Published: 5 November 2026

  8. FOI2026/00723: Professor Panos Koutrakos and AHRC Peer Review College declarations

    Request received: 05 August 2026

    I am preparing an article concerning Professor Panos Koutrakos, his membership of the Arts and Humanities Research Council Peer Review College and the handling of potential conflicts arising from his marriage to Kelly Dart, daughter of Kenneth Dart.

    Our reporting establishes that Professor Koutrakos is married to Kelly Dart. The evidence presently available indicates that their relationship or marriage may have begun during or around the COVID-19 period. We are therefore principally examining Professor Koutrakos’s AHRC activities from 2020 onward.

    We are not suggesting that the family relationship itself disqualified Professor Koutrakos from serving as a reviewer or panellist. We are also not suggesting that he is responsible for Kenneth Dart’s business or investment activities.

    The questions concern whether Professor Koutrakos’s membership overlapped with the relationship, what declarations were required, and whether AHRC had sufficient information to identify any particular application or decision in which a relevant personal, household or family interest arose.

    We are not seeking the names or contents of confidential funding applications.

    Please answer the following questions.

     

    1.     On what date did Professor Koutrakos first join the AHRC Peer Review College?

     

    2.     During which membership terms has he served, and does he remain a current member?

    3.     Has he served only as an external reviewer, or has he also participated in assessment, moderating or funding panels?

    4.      How many reviews and panel assignments has he completed in each year from 2020 onward? We are not seeking the identities of applicants. Annual aggregate figures would be sufficient.

    5.      What conflict-of-interest and declaration rules applied to Peer Review College members during each relevant year?

    6.     Were members required to disclose interests held by:

    a.      a spouse;

    b.      a close family member;

    c.      a person living in the same household;

    d.     a family trust;

    e.     or a company or investment structure from which the member or household benefited?

     

    7.     Were members required to maintain a general declaration or register of interests, or were conflicts assessed only when an individual application was assigned?

    8.     Did Professor Koutrakos notify AHRC that he was married to Kelly Dart or connected through marriage to Kenneth Dart?

    9.     Did he declare any financial, beneficial or household interest connected with the Dart family, a Dart family trust or a Dart-controlled entity?

    10.  If such information was provided, when was the first disclosure made?

    11.  Was Professor Koutrakos required to update AHRC when his personal or household circumstances changed during a membership term?

     

    12.   Has he ever declined or been removed from a review or panel assignment because of:

    a.     his relationship with an applicant or project partner;

    b.     a financial or household interest;

    c.      a Dart-related connection;

    d.     his external legal practice;

    e.     or another personal conflict?

     

    13.  Has AHRC ever sought advice or additional information from Professor Koutrakos concerning a possible conflict?

    14.  Were his declared interests available to the staff responsible for allocating reviews and panel appointments?

    15.   Has Professor Koutrakos ever reviewed or participated in the assessment of an application involving:

    a.     Kelly or Kenneth Dart;

    b.     a Dart-controlled entity or foundation;

    c.      an institution receiving material Dart support;

    d.     or a named project partner in which his household possessed a financial or beneficial interest?

     

    16.  Where confidentiality prevents a case-specific response, please confirm whether any such situation was identified and appropriately managed.

     

    17.  Does AHRC’s system depend on a reviewer personally recognising a connected person or organisation, or can declared interests be screened centrally against applications and project partners?

     

    18.  Can AHRC confirm that Professor Koutrakos completed all declarations required during his membership?

     

    19.  Can AHRC confirm that it has identified no occasion on which he reviewed or ranked an application despite an undisclosed relevant personal, household or family interest?

     

    20.  Has this enquiry prompted AHRC to review his membership dates, declarations, review assignments or panel participation?

     

    21.  Is there any factual or procedural context that should be included to ensure fair and accurate reporting?

    Published: 4 November 2026

  9. FOI2026/00706: STFC prioritisation exercise 2026–2030, Executive Board, Multidisciplinary Facilities and PPAN

    Request received: 12 August 2026

    I am writing to request recorded information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 concerning the STFC prioritisation exercise and the STFC prioritisation outcomes for 2026 to 2030.

    For this request, I am primarily seeking information held within STFC, including information held by its Executive Chair, Executive Board, Science Boards, directorates, facilities and relevant programme teams.

    The relevant period for this request is 1 January 2025 to 12 August 2026, covering the development of the STFC Transformation and prioritisation process through to the announcement of the final prioritisation outcomes and PPAN project-level outcomes.

    Please provide the following information.

    1. STFC Executive Board correspondence

    Please provide all emails, including relevant attachments, concerning the STFC prioritisation exercise that were sent or received by members of the STFC Executive Board during the above period.

    This should include correspondence concerning:

    ·        the requirement to bring STFC to a balanced financial position by 2029/30;

    ·        the scale of savings or cost reductions required;

    ·        prioritisation principles and methodology;

    ·        proposed savings options;

    ·        individual facilities, laboratories, programmes or projects being considered for reduction, restructuring, mothballing, alternative funding or closure;

    ·        the allocation of reductions between PPAN, Multidisciplinary Facilities, National Laboratories and Estates, professional services and other parts of STFC;

    ·        alternative scenarios considered;

    ·        scientific, financial, operational or reputational risks;

    ·        recommendations made to UKRI; and

    ·        the final prioritisation outcomes.

    Routine emails unrelated to the prioritisation exercise can be excluded.

    2. Executive Board and Multidisciplinary Facilities

    Please provide all emails and relevant attachments concerning the prioritisation exercise exchanged between members of the STFC Executive Board and the directors, senior leadership or representatives responsible for STFC's Multidisciplinary Facilities.

    This should include correspondence relating to:

    ·        Diamond Light Source;

    ·        ISIS Neutron and Muon Source;

    ·        the Central Laser Facility;

    ·        Lasers for Science Facility;

    ·        ISIS muon beamlines; and

    ·        proposals for efficiency savings, reduced operating time, reductions in user or technical support, alternative operating models, additional external income or possible closure of capabilities.

    Please also include relevant correspondence between the Executive Board and Facilities and Laboratories Directors relating to the development and assessment of these options.

     

    3. Executive Board and PPAN

    Please provide all emails and relevant attachments concerning the prioritisation exercise exchanged between members of the STFC Executive Board and:

    ·        Science Board PPAN;

    ·        the chairs or members of relevant PPAN advisory panels;

    ·        STFC officials responsible for Particle Physics, Astronomy and Nuclear Physics;

    ·        relevant programme or portfolio managers; and

    ·        representatives of individual PPAN projects where their future funding was discussed as part of the prioritisation exercise.

    This should include correspondence relating to:

    ·        the budget-reduction scenarios supplied to or considered by Science Board PPAN;

    ·        the appraisal of individual projects;

    ·        proposed portfolio reductions;

    ·        rankings, scoring or prioritisation of projects;

    ·        recommendations made by Science Board PPAN;

    ·        subsequent changes made by the Executive Board to those recommendations;

    ·        decisions to maintain, reduce, reprofile or cease future support for projects;

    ·        the level of protection afforded to PPAN grants, postdoctoral researchers, PhD studentships and fellowships; and

    ·        consideration of whether PPAN should remain within STFC.

    4. Minutes and records of meetings

    Please provide minutes, agendas, papers, presentations, briefing documents, action logs, decision logs and contemporaneous meeting notes for meetings at which the STFC financial position or prioritisation exercise was substantively discussed.

    This should include relevant meetings of:

    ·        the STFC Executive Board;

    ·        STFC Council;

    ·        Science Board PPAN;

    ·        Science Board Facilities and Laboratories;

    ·        meetings between the Executive Board and Facilities and Laboratories Directors;

    ·        meetings between the Executive Board and PPAN representatives;

    ·        meetings involving the cross-UKRI Facilities Strategic Advisory Group where records are held by STFC;

    ·        joint or extraordinary meetings convened specifically to consider prioritisation or financial reductions; and

    ·        meetings between STFC and UKRI concerning the proposed prioritisation outcomes.

    Where formal minutes were not produced, please provide any recorded notes, summaries, action records or decision records that exist.

    5. Prioritisation methodology and evidence

    Please provide all recorded information describing how options were assessed and prioritised, including:

    ·        prioritisation criteria;

    ·        scoring frameworks;

    ·        ranking methodologies;

    ·        decision matrices;

    ·        project assessment forms or pro formas;

    ·        instructions or guidance supplied to assessors;

    ·        budget-reduction scenarios;

    ·        financial assumptions;

    ·        impact assessments;

    ·        risk assessments;

    ·        equality or workforce impact assessments where these relate to the prioritisation decisions;

    ·        scientific assessments;

    ·        recommendations from advisory boards or panels; and

    ·        documents showing how recommendations were modified or balanced by the Executive Board.

    I am particularly interested in the recorded output of the exercise described publicly as Science Board PPAN's comprehensive appraisal of options across different funding-reduction scenarios.

    6. Options for Multidisciplinary Facilities

    Please provide recorded information relating to the options considered for the Multidisciplinary Facilities before the final decisions were reached, including:

    ·        potential operating reductions;

    ·        possible facility or capability closures;

    ·        alternative operating models;

    ·        external-income assumptions;

    ·        reductions to user support;

    ·        reduced facility operating time;

    ·        savings estimates;

    ·        financial and scientific consequences of each option; and

    ·        the criteria by which options were accepted or rejected.

    Where different savings scenarios were prepared, please provide each scenario or version that was formally considered by the Executive Board or Science Board.

    7. PPAN project-level decisions

    For the PPAN projects included in the final prioritisation annex, please provide the recorded information used to reach the project-level outcome, including where held:

    ·        the project's submission or pro forma used in the prioritisation exercise;

    ·        assessments of that submission;

    ·        scoring or ranking information;

    ·        recommendations made to the Executive Board;

    ·        Executive Board decisions or amendments;

    ·        recorded reasons for maintaining, reducing, re-profiling or not prioritising future support; and

    ·        any correspondence communicating or discussing the proposed outcome before it was formally announced to the project.

    8. Correspondence with UKRI

    Please provide emails and relevant attachments exchanged between the STFC Executive Chair or STFC Executive Board and:

    ·        the UKRI Chief Executive;

    ·        UKRI Executive Committee;

    ·        UKRI Board or Board secretariat; and

    ·        UKRI finance or strategy officials

    concerning the STFC prioritisation exercise, the proposed savings package, the balance between PPAN, Multidisciplinary Facilities and National Laboratories, and approval of the final recommendations.

    This should include the recorded recommendation submitted by STFC Executive Board to the UKRI Executive Committee and any correspondence concerning changes requested or made before the proposal was considered by the UKRI Board on 1 July 2026.

    9. External correspondence

    Please provide relevant emails and attachments exchanged by STFC senior management concerning the prioritisation exercise with external stakeholders, including where applicable:

    ·        Diamond Light Source and its shareholders;

    ·        Wellcome;

    ·        universities and research organisations;

    ·        representatives of PPAN projects;

    ·        facility user communities;

    ·        scientific societies or representative organisations;

    ·        international scientific partners; and

    ·        government departments.

    I am seeking correspondence specifically relating to prioritisation proposals, proposed reductions, alternative funding arrangements, impacts of the proposals or the final decisions, rather than routine operational correspondence.

    10. Community engagement

    Please provide recorded information arising from the engagement roundtables and town halls that informed the prioritisation exercise, including:

    ·        agendas;

    ·        presentations;

    ·        written submissions;

    ·        meeting notes;

    ·        summaries of feedback;

    ·        reports analysing the feedback; and

    ·        records showing how that feedback influenced or altered the final recommendations.

    Format and handling

    I would prefer disclosure electronically to my email address. Where spreadsheets or scoring matrices exist, I would prefer them in their original electronic format where reasonably practicable.

    For emails, please include relevant attachments.

    Where part of a record is exempt, please redact the exempt material and disclose the remainder wherever reasonably possible.

    If information is withheld, please identify the exemption relied upon and, where a qualified exemption applies, explain the relevant public-interest assessment.

    If compliance with the request in full would exceed the section 12 cost limit, I would ask you to provide advice and assistance under section 16 before refusing it outright, including an estimate of which elements create the greatest burden and how the request could be narrowed.

    If prioritisation is necessary to remain within the appropriate limit, my preferred order is:

    1.     minutes, papers and decision records of STFC Executive Board and the two Science Boards;

    2.     prioritisation criteria, scoring, scenarios, recommendations and decision matrices;

    3.     emails between the Executive Board and Multidisciplinary Facilities leadership;

    4.     emails between the Executive Board and PPAN/Science Board PPAN;

    5.     correspondence between STFC Executive Board and UKRI Executive Committee/UKRI Board;

    6.     project-level PPAN records; and

    7.     other internal and external correspondence.

    For each numbered part of this request, please confirm whether information falling within that category is held, even if disclosure of some information is subsequently refused.

    Published: 4 November 2026

  10. FOI2026/00644: Contracts for Innovation: Enabling Commercial Quantum Networking

    Request Received: 28 July 2026

    For Contracts for Innovation: Enabling Commercial Quantum Networking competition, please could you release the following information:

    1. The number of applications

    2. The number of assessed applications

    3. The number of applications invited to the interview stage

    4. The number of successful applications

    5. The success rate

    6. The minimum successful score

    7. The maximum successful score

    8. Average grant fund value per project

    9. Average score of funded projects

    10. Names of the winning companies

    Published: 3 November 2026