Request Received: 14 January 2026
Please provide the following information regarding UKRI's (including its councils such as MRC and BBSRC) expertise, skills, and capacity in New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) / non-animal alternatives, particularly in light of UKRI's role in funding biomedical and life sciences research, its new Policy on Research and Innovation Involving Animals (launched prior to 2026), and its contributions to the November 2025 “Replacing animals in science” strategy. UKRI funds a significant proportion of animal-based research (e.g., via MRC grants involving animals) while also supporting 3Rs/NAMs through NC3Rs and other mechanisms.
To ensure a balanced and comprehensive response, please address both traditional animal methods expertise and NAMs/non-animal alternatives expertise.
Details of current in-house expertise and skills within UKRI (across councils, funding panels, grant assessors, and policy staff) related to NAMs and non-animal alternatives in research funding and oversight.
This includes:
1. Approximate number of staff, panel members, or assessors with specialist knowledge or training in NAMs (e.g., in vitro assays, organ-on-a-chip/microphysiological systems, computational/in silico toxicology, AI/machine learning for predictive modelling, organoids, validated alternatives such as the Monocyte Activation Test for pyrogens, or integrated approaches like AOP/IATA).
2. Any dedicated teams, roles, or working groups focused on NAMs/3Rs in grant review, funding decisions, or policy development.
3. Comparison of expertise levels: proportion of funding decision-makers/assessors experienced primarily in traditional animal models vs. those with equivalent or greater expertise in NAMs/non-animal methods.
4. Any internal assessments, reports, audits, gap analyses, training needs analyses, or reviews (from 2020 onwards) that identify deficiencies, skill gaps, capacity constraints, risks of bias toward animal methods, or challenges in UKRI's ability to:
a. Fairly evaluate and prioritise NAMs proposals in funding competitions.
b. Avoid or mitigate any institutional or panel-level preference/bias toward animal-based research over validated non-animal alternatives.
c. Ensure robust scrutiny of the 3Rs (especially Replacement) in grant applications.
5. Actions taken or currently planned by UKRI to address any identified gaps in NAMs expertise and capacity, promote balanced evaluation, and reduce reliance on animal methods.
Please include:
a. Training programmes, courses, workshops, or certifications provided or commissioned for staff, grant panel members, or reviewers (with dates and approximate numbers involved since November 2025 if possible).
b. Recruitment, secondments, external hires, or partnerships (e.g., with NC3Rs, UKCVAM, MHRA, or charities) aimed at building NAMs capability and countering any pro-animal testing bias.
c. Funding allocations, budget lines, or resources dedicated to upskilling in NAMs or to training in animal methods bias awareness.
6. Any internal guidance, standard operating procedures, panel briefing materials, or metrics used to measure and improve capability in assessing NAMs proposals fairly, including safeguards against bias toward animal models.
7. Progress against UKRI-specific commitments in the November 2025 “Replacing animals in science” strategy and related policies (e.g., embedding 3Rs more deeply in funding processes; sharing policy/implementation plans with other funders; prioritising human-relevant research; offering 3Rs training to PhD students and early-career researchers by end-2026; or joint funding with Wellcome/Innovate UK for human in vitro models announced in November 2025). Include details on how UKRI is measuring success in shifting toward NAMs expertise and uptake.
Clarification of your request:
Further clarification was received on the 5th and 9th February, and on 11th February you confirmed that your request had been revised as follows:
• Questions 1 and 3 of your FOI request have been withdrawn
• For Q2, provide information from June 2024
• For Q4, additional context was provided: …as originally phrased, including on fair evaluation of NAMs proposals, bias risks toward animal methods, and 3Rs scrutiny
• For Q5, additional context was provided: including training, recruitment/partnerships, funding for upskilling, etc.
• For Q6, provide information from June 2024
• For Q7, additional context was provided: e.g., embedding 3Rs in funding; sharing plans with other funders; prioritising human-relevant research; 3Rs training for PhD students/early-career researchers by end-2026; joint funding for human in vitro models
• Confirmed that the request can focus on MRC and BBSRC
An additional question was added to your request:
8. I would also like information on this issue from the key decision makers for research funding that includes NAMs in the main UKRI body
