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

1,417 disclosures

  1. FOI2026/00377: Madesmarter.uk

    Request received: 28 April 2026

     Made Smarter website: https://www.madesmarter.uk/ 
     
    Where information is already published online, a link is sufficient. Where a question asks for a breakdown you do not hold in that exact form, please provide the closest equivalent breakdown you do hold, and confirm what is and is not held. 
     
    If any part of this request is held by another public authority, please transfer it under your section 1(3) duty to advise and assist, and let me know which authority you have transferred it to. 
     
    Procurement and spend 
    1. Please provide the name(s) of the supplier(s) contracted to design, build, and maintain Made Smarter UK,  
    2. the total value of each contract, the contract start and end dates, and the procurement route used (framework name and lot, or open tender reference). 
    3. Please provide the Find a Tender and/or Contracts Finder reference number(s) for the contract(s) covered by Question 1. 
    Problem statement 
    4. Please provide the problem statement or business case used to justify the original commissioning of Made Smarter UK. 
    User research 
    5. Please confirm which user research methods (list provided below) in the GDS Service Manual, were used during the design or build of Made Smarter UK. And for each method used, please confirm the number of participants included in each round of research and testing you did before publishing the Made Smarter UK campaign site.  
    • User interviews (one-to-one) 
    • Contextual research (observing users in their own environment) 
    • Usability testing of prototypes 
    • Usability testing of the live service 
    • Accessibility research with disabled users 
    • Diary studies 
    • Co-design or participatory design sessions 
    • Survey research 
    6. Were disabled people and people with a range of access needs included in the research? Please provide how participants were recruited and a summary of the backgrounds and access needs participants were recruited against (for example, disabled users, users of assistive technology, users with lower digital literacy, users with English as an additional language). 
    7. Please provide a summary of the main user needs identified through your user research for Made Smarter UK. 

    Accessibility 

    8. Please provide the following information about the accessibility of Made Smarter UK: 
    a. The date the published accessibility statement was last reviewed. 
    b. A list of any parts of Made Smarter UK that are not fully accessible and/or not compliant with WCAG 2.2 AA and the plan, including and deadlines set to fix each issue. 
    User-centred design roles 
    9. For each of the following roles, as described in the Government Digital and Data Profession Capability Framework, please state how many people in each role worked on  Made Smarter UK: 
    • User researcher 
    • Content designer 
    • Service designer 
    • Interaction designer 
    • Solution architect 
    • Technical architect 
    10. What proportion of the total contract value paid to the supplier(s) named in Question 1 was allocated to staff in the roles listed in Question 9 (User-centered design roles)? If this breakdown is not held, please provide whatever role or cost breakdown is held. 
    Service Standard assessment 
    11. Did Made Smarter UK undergo a GOV.UK Service Standard assessment before being published/going live? If yes, please provide the date of each assessment, the panel's recommendation (pass / pass with conditions / not pass), and the assessment report. If not, please confirm the reason and identify any alternative governance framework or process used. 
    Measuring success 
    12. Please provide the success metrics and targets defined for Made Smarter UK and the most recent reporting against those metrics covering at least the last 12 months, and include post-campaign evaluation, behavioural impact assessment, or value-for-money review. 

    Published: 7 July 2026

  2. FOI2026/00406: Mouse Models of Neuropsychiatric Disease

    Request Received: 11 May 2026

    I am writing to request information under the Freedom of Information Act concerning procedures under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

    I understand that the Mary Lyon Centre has/will be providing the MURIDAE Cluster with mouse models of neuropsychiatric disease, including schizophrenia. My questions are as follows:

    1) Could you please describe how such models of mental disease will be created, both in terms of the method adopted and the protocols involved? (It is, I believe, recognised within the field of psychiatric research that such brain disorders arise through a combination of genetic and environmental influences.)

    2) What characteristics/phenotype would suggest such a model of neuropsychiatric disorder? Please distinguish between different disorders if the characteristics/phenotypes differ.

    3) Which early life measures are being referred to in ‘Modalities for Understanding, Recording and Integrating Data Across Early life’, (https://nmgn.mrc.ukri.org/clusters/muridae/) when it states: ‘as proof of principle, we will first use an existing model that has been previously characterised both as an adult and on a limited number of early-life measures.’

    Published: 7 July 2026

  3. FOI2026/00487: AI Champions - Frontier Phase 1 Applicant Declarations and Obligations

    Request received: 6 June 2026

    Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I request copies of any documents applicable to the 2026 Innovate UK AI Champions: Frontier AI Phase 1 competition which describe:

    1. Declarations, certifications, warranties or representations that applicants must confirm regarding the accuracy, completeness and truthfulness of information provided in funding applications.

    2. Legal obligations or guidance relating to scientific and research integrity, misrepresentation, false statements or misleading information in funding applications.

    3. Eligibility requirements relating to the project delivery team, including requirements that work be delivered by existing employees and any restrictions on reliance upon new hires or subcontractors, specifically in relation to the AI Champions: Frontier AI Phase 1 competition.

    4. Requirements or representations relating to ownership of, or rights to, intellectual property relied upon in the delivery of funded projects.

    5. Consequences of inaccurate, misleading or false information being provided in an application or during subsequent grant management activities.

    For each of the above, please indicate whether the relevant requirements apply at:
    (a) application submission
    (b) notification of award
    (c) prior to commencement of the funded project

    6. Please also provide any documents describing the process or obligations for applicants to notify UKRI of changes occurring after submission of an application.

    If any of the requested information is already publicly available, I would be grateful if you could provide links to the relevant documents or webpages rather than duplicate copies.

    Published: 6 July 2026

  4. FOI2026/00458: Follow up to FOI2026/00220 - AI Skills Hub

    Request Received: 26 May 2026

    Thank you for your response to FOI2026/00220 sent on 23 April 2026, about the AI Skills Hub (aiskillshub.org.uk).

    Your response said a formal service assessment was not required because the AI Skills Hub did not meet the criteria of a government transactional service under the Government Digital Service framework, and that proportionate governance was used.

    I have 3 follow-up questions to understand more about the governance steps that led to the launch and evaluation of the AI Skills Hub.

    I would be grateful for your response within 20 working days.

    Question 1: Audience research Please clarify how the AI Skills Hub was designed to reach its intended audience, including:

    a) the purpose of the site and what evidence was used to justify the decision to commission it

    b) how the intended audience were identified and defined

    c) what evidence or research was gathered about the audience's information needs, digital access, reading level, and language needs before the launch

    d) how many of your user research participants included people from any of the following groups: disabled people, people with low digital confidence, people for whom English is an additional language, people from minority ethnic backgrounds, and people in lower socio-economic groups.

    Question 2: Accessibility Please explain:

    a) the reasoning behind treating accessibility requirements differently for the AI Skills Hub than compared to a transactional government service

    b) which WCAG 2.2 AA success criteria the site was tested against, and which were not

    c) whether any disabled users were involved in testing, and if so, across which impairments (visual, cognitive, motor, hearing)

    d) whether the site was tested with assistive technologies (screen readers, magnifiers, voice control), and if so, which ones

    Question 3: Value for money and outcomes Public money was spent on the AI Skills Hub. Please provide:

    a) the success measures, outcomes, or KPIs defined before launch, including learner uptake targets across the 4 target sectors (Agriculture and Food Processing, Construction, Creative Industries, and Transport, Logistics and Warehousing)

    b) performance against those measures from launch to the most recent available month (including total unique visitors, traffic sources, and any measure of meaningful engagement or onward action)

    Published: 2 July 2026

  5. FOI2026/00374: IUK Growth Catalyst – Investor Partnerships Rounds 1 and 2

    Request Received: 27 April 2026

    Can I please submit a clarification on question 1 [in follow up to FOI2026/00296]:
    Can you provide the same breakdown for Round 1 and Round 2 for the successful applications only. ie. For both Round 1 and Round 2 please indicate for each successful application how many were new vs follow-on investments.

    Published: 1 July 2026

  6. FOI2026/00370: Battery Innovation Funding Call Results

    Request Received: 27 April 2026

    I would like to request the following information in relation to the previous Battery Innovation funding competition administered by Innovate UK:

     

    1.    The full list of funded projects, including project titles and lead organisations.

    2.    The total number of applications received and the number of successful applications.

    3.    The total value of grant funding awarded through this competition.

    4.    The individual grant amounts awarded to each successful project, where this information is not commercially sensitive.

    5.    A breakdown of funded projects by technology focus area (e.g. cell chemistry, battery management systems, recycling/second life, manufacturing, etc.)

    6.    The Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) targeted by funded projects, where available.

    Published: 1 July 2026

  7. FOI2026/00334: Innovate UK Bio Medical Catalyst in 2023, 2024 and 2025

    Request received: 17 April 2026

    Innovate UK Bio Medical Catalyst in 2023, 2024 and 2025 Information Required for each round of IUK BMC in 2023, 2024 and 2025 broken down by stream 1 and stream 2:

    - Total Number of Applications Submitted for each round

    - Total Number of Applications Assessed for each round

    - Total Number of Applications that passed the threshold for innovation in each round

    - Total number of applications that were considered in the portfolio meeting for each round

    - Total Number of Applications that were approved for funding in each round

    - Lowest grant Funding request offered to a successful applicant for the rounds

    - Highest grant Funding request offered to a successful applicant for the rounds

    - How many applications were approved for funding at portfolio stage with a lower score than applications that were considered at portfolio stage with a higher score

    Published: 1 July 2026

  8. FOI2026/00255: MRC Brain Cancer and Brain Tumour Research Funding

    Request Received: 25 March 2026

    For the financial years 2018/19 to 2024/25, please provide the following information for UKRI funded brain cancer and brain tumour research (including MRC):

     1.    Awards by year\ A table showing, by financial year:

    • number of awards starting, and

    • total value (£).

    2.    Payment timing\ For each award, or the nearest recorded summary if award level detail would exceed the cost limit:

    • approval or decision date.

    • date of first payment, or confirmation that payment has not yet been made.

    3.    Approval roles\ The role titles responsible for approving awards and authorising first payments.

     Please state “not held” where information is not held.

    Clarification Received: 23 April 2026

    This letter constitutes my final refinement of FOI2026/00255. It is expressly drafted to fall within the section 12 cost limit and to require disclosure under sections 1 and 16 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

    1. ABSOLUTE SCOPE (NON-NEGOTIABLE)
    Research Council: Searches must be limited exclusively to the Medical Research Council (MRC).
    Time Period: Financial years 2015/16 to 2024/25 inclusive.
    Subject Identification: Awards already recorded as relating to brain cancer or brain tumours, determined solely by existing fields such as titles, abstracts, keywords, or classification codes. No manual review is requested.
    Funding Types: Researcher-led or investigator-led grants and strategic funding programmes only. Fellowships, studentships, training, and infrastructure awards are explicitly excluded.

    2. INFORMATION REQUIRED (AGGREGATED ONLY)
    For each financial year: total number of awards and total aggregate value (£). Where already held, a breakdown by funding scheme or call and approval/decision year.

    3. EXPLICIT EXCLUSIONS
    No first payment dates, payment authorisation data, staff names or roles, or any award-level manual review. Data not readily extractable should be disregarded and not relied upon to engage section 12.

    4. PARTIAL DISCLOSURE
    If any discrete element exceeds the cost limit, all information that can be provided within the limit must still be disclosed, with remaining information supplied in aggregated or summary form where possible.

    5. SECTION 16 DUTY TO ASSIST
    Any claim that further refinement is required must specify exactly which element exceeds the cost limit, provide a separate cost estimate, and confirm what information will be disclosed regardless.

    6. SEARCH CERTIFICATION
    Please confirm that systematic searches were conducted across all relevant MRC central grant and award management systems using objective criteria aligned with this request.

    Published: 30 June 2026

  9. FOI2026/00322: Biomedical Catalyst 2025 - Industry led R&D large and small projects

    Request received: 14 April 2026

    For Biomedical Catalyst 2025: Industry led R&D large projects and Industry led R&D small projects - please could you release the following information:

    1. The number of 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. Average grant fund value per project

    8. Average score of funded projects

    Published: 29 June 2026

  10. FOI2026/00316: Biomedical Catalyst Competition Statistics (2021-2026)

    Request received: 10th April 2026

    I am writing to request information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 regarding the Innovate UK Biomedical Catalyst (BMC) programme. Please provide the following information for each Biomedical Catalyst competition round from 2021 to 2026 inclusive:

    1. Total number of applications submitted

    2. Number of applications assessed

    3. Number of projects funded (awards made)

    4. Total funding budget available for each round

    Published: 24 June 2026