We asked, you said, we did

In January 2024, we asked for feedback on the Medical Research Council’s (MRC's) draft public partnerships strategy. The strategy was drafted following a process of co-development and sets out MRC’s ambition and priorities for effective collaboration and genuine partnerships between the research community and wider society.

We received 354 responses to the consultation. These responses came from a variety of individuals, groups, and organisations from the research community, the voluntary sector and wider society. The consultation responses were overwhelmingly positive. 87% agreed with the strategy overall, and 81% said that the strategy was written in clear language.

Respondents welcomed specific aspects of the strategy, including its inclusiveness, the focus on non-clinical research and the ambition to build long-term sustainable partnerships between the research community and wider society. Respondents highlighted specific initiatives which they considered vital to the success of the strategy such as, having a clear payment policy, appointing a new MRC programme director for public partnerships, and setting up a public advisory group at MRC.

Respondents recommended that MRC publish the new strategy in a variety of formats, alongside clear delivery (action) and evaluation plans.

We used findings from the consultation to inform the final MRC public partnerships strategy. Key changes included:

• Clearly stating that this strategy is an initial three-year commitment to our long-term ambition
• Clarifying that the strategy has been co-developed
• Specifically mentioning the involvement of international researchers, public partners, and public involvement and engagement professionals
• Making clear that the consultation informed the final strategy
• Emphasising that this strategy is intended to be inclusive, and will be aligned with MRC’s Embedding Diversity in Research Design policy
• Acknowledging the importance of sharing power
• Making clear that we will implement our new payment policy for public partners, and that other rewards and recognition are additional to payment
• Emphasising that we will support public partners to take on leadership roles and responsibilities, such as chairing groups or co-leading projects
• Committing to publish our action and evaluation plans

The consultation findings have been summarised in an infographic and are detailed in full in our consultation report. 

Next steps:

The final MRC public partnerships strategy will be published on the MRC website in summer 2024.

For opinions on the definition and scope of a categorisatino of UKRI funding as either 'Investigator-led' or 'Directed'.

Only 8 responses were received, and there was no clear consensus on many questions. Most respondents were from universities.

In the absence of opinion to the contrary we will continue to develop and apply the indicator to all UKRI funding. It will be applied as a binary indicator.

In April 2022, we asked for feedback on the new MRC expectations on the inclusion of sex in experimental design of studies involving animals, tissues, and cells. We also asked what MRC could do to aid researchers in implementing these requirements.

We received 91 responses from researchers and research staff, with many constructive and detailed suggestions. We also received a written submission from the Academy of Medical Science, on behalf of their fellows.

We were pleased that many were already using both sexes in their experiments or were ready to begin doing so (32% and 5% of respondents, respectively). We recognise that many (57%), even though they were very often supportive in principle, felt barriers existed to implementing this in their research.

One of the most commonly mentioned concerns was a likely increase in grant costs. Respondents sought clarity from MRC as to how this would be handled. Ensuring animal welfare standards and the logistics of single housing male animals were also mentioned as barriers.

Roughly a third of respondents had questions about the changes, particularly around:

• When the new expectation would begin to apply and how compliance would be ensured
• How and when MRC would grant exceptions for single sex studies
• How MRC would handle grants where costs were significantly increased due to using both sexes of animal

The support from MRC that was identified as being most helpful was:

• Advice from MRC Head Office about applications
• Training in statistical design and analysis
• Written guidance
• Case studies or worked examples

As a result of this feedback, we have been working to make more information available about the upcoming change and to ensure the research community receives the necessary support. We have:

• Updated our Guidance for Applicants with details about how to comply with these new expectations
• Made it clear that there is no retrospective application of this requirement for grants that have already been awarded
• Clarified that the requirement of including both sexes does not mean ‘balancing’ or using equal numbers of both sexes, as for many experiments this would result in unnecessary use of animals, but including both sexes as appropriate for the experimental design 
• Made the cases where MRC will consider single sex studies clearer both on our website and in our Guidance for Applicants
• Planned a webinar for applicants together with NC3Rs to be held on 21 July 2022, in which animal handling and statistical design will be discussed, and applicants can ask questions
• Made it clearer on our website that there is no cap on MRC awards, and researchers should submit grant costings based on the cost of performing the work, and justified by the importance and potential of the work

In the coming months, we will:

• Update our guidance to Peer Reviewers to ensure proposals submitted to the deadlines starting from September 2022 are reviewed in accordance with the new requirements
• Develop case studies to show the level of information that would be required in applications, including examples of where single sex studies would be appropriate
• Ensure that MRC Programme Managers are available to support applicants that have further questions
• Look into what other support we can provide

In November 2020 we asked for input on which funders UKRI should recognise as an endorsed funder under the Global Talent Visa.

The Global Talent Visa is an immigration route provided by the UK Government to provide a fast and efficient visa offer to those working in science and research. Under the scheme, UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) can recognise other funders as an ‘Endorsed Funder’. 

We want to increase the number of endorsed funders. Endorsed funders may be based in the UK or internationally.

We have had nine responses with a total of 27 funders suggested to UKRI.  

66 percent of you said that this tool was ‘Good’ or ‘Very good’.

This was an expression of interest stage and was the first step in the process to becoming a recognised funder. We will now review the organisations that have been nominated and will decide whether or not to take these forward via our due diligence process.

We will update this section in January 2021 to update on progress. Thanks to your feedback we will look to use this tool again in Spring 2021 to ask for more input of who UKRI sound recognised as an endorsed funder.

In October 2020 we asked for feedback on the Future Leaders Fellowships proposed terms and process for the +3 funding point within the 4+3 model. 

We were really delighted with the constructive and detailed feedback that we gained from the 20 responses. These responses came from 17 existing Fellows and 3 staff members based at Host Organisations.

Mostly the comments were positive about the terms and process for the +3 funding point and have given us steer on how to communicate our processes with Fellows and Host Organisations, as well as informing our approach to supporting documents to guide Fellows through the application process.   

The themes that emerged from feedback included:

• Fixed funding limit of £500k UKRI contribution  
• Assessment of original objectives and the impact of challenges
• Review timing factors with no-cost extensions and maternity/ paternity
• Process of obtaining reviews, guidance on the renewal process for reviewers and the opportunity for fellows to respond to comments
• Further guidance on the flexibility for Fellows to undertake non-fellowship activities
• Bigger window to receive and assess proposals.

As a result of what you said, putting together detailed guidance on all the topics you raised in your feedback.

Which will include more details on:

• Advice on costing the £500k +3 period including the role of other sources of support for your fellowship.
• How your fellowship progress and plans for phase two will be assessed, including guidance on pursuing ‘new’ lines of enquiry
• The response stage that will allow fellows to respond to reviewer comments.
• The guidance to reviewers on taking into account the impact of challenges faced in the first four years of funding, including the impact of the pandemic on plans (fellows will not be ‘penalised’ for being disrupted).
• The range of activities a panel will assess
• No cost extensions and impact of review timing (timing will be adjusted to take any no costs extensions into account).
• confirmation that fellows are not in competition with one another

We will extend the window to receive and assess proposals. Further guidance on the flexibility for Fellows to undertake non-fellowship activities will be made available.

Further details and full guidance will be published in April 2021.