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.
1,058 disclosures
-
Request Received: 7 March 2024
Clarification Received: 28 March 2024
Please advise:
1. The estimated total number of acres of land that you own.
2. The estimated total number of acres that you own which are not in operational use.
3. The annual spending on managing and maintaining your property estate in the financial year 2022/23. Please provide a breakdown.
4. The number of empty homes you currently own.
5. The number of empty buildings you currently own that are not homes.
Please provide a copy of your [land and buildings] asset register.
Published: 10 June 2024
-
Request Received: 28 March 2024
If the information is available and you are able to share it could you please answer the following requests:
For Smart Grants September 2023, by stream:
1. The total number of submitted applications
2. The number of assessed applications
3. The number of successful applications
4. The success rate
5. the minimum successful score
6. the maximum successful score
7. maximum score of failed applications
8. average grant fund value per project
9. the score distributions of the applications (e.g. % (or number) of applications which scored <70, 71-75, 76-80, 81-85, 86+)
10. the count of applications by innovation area
11. the count of successful projects by innovation area
12. The number of successful projects that were a consortium of 2 partners
13. The number of successful projects that were a consortium of 3+ partners
14. The number of successful projects which included a university or research partner
15. The number of applications which included a university or research partner
16. the number of 1) applications and 2) successful projects with total project cost within £100k increments
17. I would also like to request the number of unsuccessful applications, if any, which scored above the minimum funded score, please.
Published: 10 June 2024
-
Request Received: 2 April 2024
I would be very grateful if you could please provide the below information on the [Innovate UK Smart Grants: September 2023] competition for both:
a)Stream 1 projects (6-18 months duration, eligible project costs between £100K-£500K), and;
b)Stream 2 projects (19-36 months duration, total eligible project costs between £100K-£2M).
The information I would like to request is as follows:
1. The total number of applications submitted and the number of those that were assessed (i.e. deemed eligible for funding);
2. The overall number of applications awarded funding and a breakdown of how many of these were first-time applications and how many were resubmissions;
3. The total number of applications within each innovation area and the number of those that were successful in each area;
4. The average grant request and project size of the applications successfully awarded funding;
5. The funding thresholds and average scores of successful applications;
6. The percentages of successful applications that were Industrial Research and Experimental Development;
7. The number of successful Industrial Research and Experimental Development projects that were (i) single applicant/partner, (ii) 2 partners, (iii) 3+ partner;
8. The total funding allocated in this competition round.
9. How many projects awarded went to project set up.
Published: 10 June 2024
-
Request Received: 13 May 2024
I request to know the information for the years 2022 (01/01/2022 to 31/12/2022) and 2023 (01/01/2023 to 31/12/2023).
1. Did the MRC experiments on animals?
2. How many animals were used in experiments(species & number of each)?
3. How many animals were bred on the premises (species & number of each)?
4. What was the nature and outcome of these experiments?
5. What are the Home Office licence classifications for these experiments in terms of pain, lasting harm, etc. if classified (species & number of each)?
6. How many animals were killed without being used for experiments (species & the number of each)?
7. How many animals were rehomed (species & number of each)?
8. Of those that were not re-homed, why not?
9. Does the MRC receive an income for performing animal research?
10. Does the MRC incur any costs by performing animal research?
11. Were there more non-animal research methods used than animal methods? Eg. 70% where non-animal models were used and 30% where animal models were used.
12. Which non-animal research methods are available at the MRC? Eg. 3D printing, human skin cells, organ-on-achip.
Published: 10 June 2024
-
Request Received: 16 February 2024
Thank you so much for your response - your response is very helpful. However, I am writing further to your recent letter/email about my freedom of information request because I have some follow up questions.
Since you have refused to share the formal proposal and documentation associated with the application process, I would like to obtain copies of the minutes from the 2018 meetings where AHRC formulated MSPEC's proposal - involving both the research community and other interested stakeholders. Further, I would like to request the following information:
(a) How many people were invited to these meetings?
(b) Who was responsible for selecting these individuals?
(c) What criteria were used for their selection?
(d) Which universities were represented by the attendees?
(e) How many attendees were present at both these meeting(s)?
(f) Who or what entity made the final decision on the composition of the consortium?
(g) Was there an open application process accessible to all individuals working on modern day slavery issues in the UK? If yes, please provide the relevant document and link.
(h) Were any individuals' interests rejected, or did anyone decline to participate in the consortium? What are the reasons for that?
Published: 3 June 2024
-
Request Received: 22 February 2024
Thanks for the further clarification.
So this means, just so I am clear, that you are formally reporting that you do not have minutes, summaries or additional records associated with the two meetings in 20218 referenced in your response to my request as follows;
A workshop was convened in October 2018 for researchers working in related fields as AHRC was investigating the appetite and scope for research in the area of modern slavery and human rights, partly with an aim to develop a bid to the UKRI Strategic Priorities Fund. There were 12 delegates from academia with 4 representatives from AHRC.
This was followed by a second workshop in November 2018 including non-academic stakeholders from arts, media, business, non-governmental organisations, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Office. The consortium was formed from the various attendees of these workshops who expressed an interest and availability in taking part in the Policy and Evidence Centre on Human Rights and Modern Slavery in line with the UKRI Strategic Priorities Fund timeline.
Or do you actually hold these documents (and the level of detail in your response suggests that you do have something on file), and have determined that these documents should be withheld. If this is fact the case I would ask that you clarify the legal grounds on which a decision to withhold has been made. This is not a peer review process, where I understand that reports by reviewers may sometimes be withheld from FOI.
I would have anticipated that the documents associated with these two meetings would have fallen under the rubric of my original request, but if you do not understand my previous request in this way can you now please take this email as a follow up FOI request which specifically asks for primary documentation associated with these two meetings and associated email correspondence regarding how and why specific people were invited to these meetings to be shared.
I believe this information is in the public interest and will be used for research purposes
Published: 3 June 2024
-
Request Received: 6 March 2024
Please can you tell me, in the time from 1st January 2015 until 3rd March 2024, how many projects that UKRI have worked on where 'exposure' 'indecent exposure' 'flashing' or 'non-contact sex offences' are any of the key words used in the research.
Please can you also tell me, of these projects that focus on sex offences, what the names of these projects are ?
Published: 3 June 2024
-
Request Received: 8 February 2024
This FOI request relates to the use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) and/ or Large Language Models (LLMs) against people's data as part of research funded by UKRI, including its seven Research Councils, Innovate UK and Research England.
• The request covers 1st January 2020 to the current date.
• It includes grants that have been awarded and proposals approved for award which are not yet public or have yet to have contracts completed - collectively referred to as 'awards'/ 'funded research' herein.
• 'People's data' herein encompasses participant data gathered as part of the funded research, secondary data analysis involving human participants' data, and data available online about individuals - for example, via social media platforms and public records that are visible online.
• 'Assessment process' refers to the funder's process of assessing a submitted proposal for funding.
Answers should be provided (i) at UKRI level, and (ii) broken down by Research Council - i.e. - AHRC, BBSRC, ESRC, EPSRC, Innovate UK, MRC, NERC, Research England, STFC.
1) How many awards include plans to use GenAI/ LLMs against people's data?
2) Which UK universities hold awards as the lead institution on funded research involving the use of GenAI/ LLMs against people's data?
3) What methodological approaches have been described to the use of GenAI/ LLMs against people's data as part of funded research? - for example, generating new data from existing participant data, writing reports, analysis of qualitative data.
Data management plans
4) For awards that document the planned use of GenAI/ LLMs against people's data:
a) What percentage of awards reflect this use in the associated data management plan?
b) Is the data management plan explicitly reviewed in relation to the use of GenAI/ LLMs against people's data as part of the assessment process? If so, please provide a high-level summary of this review process.
c) If data management plans are not explicitly reviewed in relation to the use of GenAI/ LLMs against people's data, what plans exist to introduce this review process in future?
Ethics and responsible research and innovation (Ethics & RRI)
5) For awards that document the planned use of GenAI/ LLMs against people's data:
a) What percentage of awards consider Ethics and RRI in relation to this use within the application?
b) Are Ethics and RRI explicitly reviewed in relation to the use of GenAI/ LLMs against people's data as part of the assessment process? If so, please provide a high-level summary of this review process.
c) If Ethics and RRI are not explicitly reviewed in relation to the use of GenAI/ LLMs against people's data, what plans exist to introduce this review process in future?
Published: 3 June 2024
-
Request Received: 22 March 2024
I am wondering if you have data on how long STFC-funded students take to complete their PhD.
I would like data from 2010 onwards, for Physics, Astronomy and Astrophysics PhD students, funded by the STFC, the start date of their program, submission date and the date they had their viva (Or just the number of months from start to completion of the entire PhD program), as well as how long the student was provided funding.
Based on the STFC student survey annual report, data is collected on students' opinion on "Do you think have sufficient time within the funded duration of your studentship to complete your PhD, including writing up?". It would be useful to also have data for those who answered this question, along with what duration these students were funded for (i.e. answers to the question 'How long is funded period?').
Published: 3 June 2024
-
Request Received: 22 January 2024
1. Comprehensive Assessor Information: Please provide a comprehensive overview of all individuals involved in the assessment process of my current and previous applications, including any external consultants or advisors. This information is vital for a complete understanding of the decision-making process and to ensure that all perspectives and areas of expertise were adequately represented.
2. Disability Access Training: Given the nature of my work in metaverse technology and mental health, and the significance of inclusive and accessible technology, I request information on the disability access training that assessors and other involved personnel have undergone. This is crucial to understand their proficiency in evaluating projects that require a deep understanding of accessibility and inclusivity, especially in the context of mental health technologies.
3. Disability Access Policies: Additionally, I would like to inquire about the disability access policies that are in place within Innovate UK and how these policies influenced the assessment of my application. It is important to ensure that such policies are not only in place but also actively guide the evaluation process, particularly for projects like mine that are at the intersection of technology, mental health, and accessibility.
4. The specific criteria and scoring metrics used by each assessor.
Published: 3 June 2024