UKRI Translation: MRC Impact Acceleration Awards (Grant)

About this opportunity

Word limit: 550In plain English, provide a summary we can use to identify the most suitable experts to assess your application. We usually make this summary publicly available on external-facing websites, therefore do not include any confidential or sensitive information. Make it suitable for a variety of readers, for example: opinion-formers policymakers the publicthe wider research community Guidance for writing a summary Clearly describe your proposed work in terms of: context the challenge the project addresses aims and objectives potential applications and benefits relationship with MRC priority areas or highlights Core team List the key members of your team and assign them roles from the following: project lead (PL) project co-lead (UK) (PcL) project co-lead (international) (PcL (I)) specialist grant manager professional enabling staff research and innovation associate technician visiting researcher researcher co-lead (RcL) Only list one individual as project lead. If you include more than one project lead your application will fail at the checking stage.UKRI has introduced a new addition to the ‘Specialist’ role type. Public contributors such as people with lived experience can now be added to an application. Find out more about UKRI’s core team roles in funding applications . Application questions Background to application Word limit: 600What is the background of this application and the evidence supporting the proposed solution? Describe the gap in funding as outlined in the description of this question. What the assessors are looking for in your response Ensure that you structure your response to this question with the following headings: background overview previous funding and funders resubmission correspondence with MRC Background overview Provide a brief overview of the scientific background of your application. Previous funding and funders Provide information related to any of your previously funded applications (including details of the funder), where this previous work has enabled and informed the work proposed in your application, specifying any previous UKRI application references. If there is no relation between any of your previously funded work and your current application, you should still include the “Previous funding and funder” heading, indicating N/A to show a response to this question is not applicable. Resubmission You are required to identify if your application is a resubmission and include any invitations from MRC permitting your resubmission and how the proposed work has developed. Correspondence with MRC Reference any other correspondence with MRC relevant to and regarding your current application. You may demonstrate elements of your responses in visual form if relevant. Further details are provided in the Funding Service. We encourage applicants to use images including figures, diagrams, or visual representations in place of lengthy text. Effective visuals can convey complex ideas more clearly and concisely than words alone. Ensure that images are well-labelled, relevant, and enhance clarity, rather than being used to extend the word count. Fit to funding opportunity Word limit: 400How do you consider your project to meet the aims of this funding opportunity? What the assessors are looking for in your response You must respond to each of the following four compulsory questions: What is your ‘elevator pitch’ for this project? Summarise your project in two or three impactful sentences, focusing on its purpose, the problem it addresses, and the transformative potential of the proposed work in terms of clinical impact. You should note that familiarity with the remit of the Impact Acceleration Award is essential and your wording should be tailored to our remit. What is the single high-risk development step your project addresses? Clearly and concisely define the single step you aim to tackle. Why is it critical, and what challenges or barriers does it address in your field? You must not include more than one step and consider not requesting the full amount of the award, if not justified by scientific need. How does the proposed work align with this funding opportunity’s objective to prepare you for substantive funding (DPFS or another funding opportunity) or direct patient benefit? Explain how completing this step will unlock further opportunities, such as attracting major funding, forming industry partnerships, or delivering immediate or downstream patient benefits. What is the potential impact of your project in its respective field and on patient benefit? Highlight the significance of the anticipated outcomes, what your criteria for success are and how this will lead to the next steps in development. If you fail to respond to one or more of the four questions above, your application will be rejected. MRC Impact Acceleration Account Word limit: 200Does your research organisation (RO) have an MRC Impact Acceleration Account (IAA)? What the assessors are looking for in your response Contact your research office to enquire if your RO currently holds (or have previously held) an MRC IAA award. If your RO has confirmed they hold an MRC IAA award, you must provide the following details in the text box: quote the MRC award reference (detailed within the offer letter sent to your RO) confirm the name of the RO awarded the IAA award describe why your proposed work is more suitable for a ‘Impact Acceleration Award’ rather than IAA support If your RO confirms they have not received an IAA award from MRC, you may apply to this funding opportunity as an earlier-stage project, noting that while your proposed project may not require extensive preliminary data, it will still be assessed with the same level of rigour. Compete the section by detailing such as ‘IAA has not been awarded to [confirm host RO name]’ within the text box. Projects involving significant use of artificial intelligence (AI) Word limit: 500Does your project involve a significant use of AI? What the assessors are looking for in your response A significant use of AI in a Impact Acceleration Award project refers to the integration of artificial intelligence as a core enabling technology that fundamentally shapes the project’s functionality, development, and value proposition. This means that AI is not merely an add-on feature but a major technique that drives the project’s capabilities, automation, decision-making, or user experience. If your application fits this description, respond to the questions in this section. If not, indicate ‘N/A’.Specify which of the detailed categories your application falls under. You must indicate only one category from the following: training a model based on existing data clinical validation of a model repurposing existing models into new interventions collecting new data and building a new model other (please define) You must also provide a brief description explaining why you have chosen the category you have selected (maximum 100 words). You must provide a response to each of the four additional questions: justify why the available data or your plans for data collection are sufficient (maximum 100 words) justify why the proposed methodology is a sufficiently suitable approach (maximum 100 words) justify the AI and clinical (if applicable) expertise of the individuals involved in this application (maximum 100 words) outline the proposed success criteria and explain how these will demonstrate that your project has been successfully de-risked and is ready for the next stage of funding, once the current funding has been completed (maximum 100 words) This is a compulsory section for applications that include significant use of artificial intelligence. If you fail to answer the questions above, your application will be rejected. These questions provide a high-level summary of key aspects of your AI-based application. The panel expects concise yet impactful responses rather than detailed explanations. Full details should be included elsewhere in the application, while this section should set the overall tone of your submission. You should refer to the ‘Scope’ section of this application form for more guidance on constructing an effective application involving significant use of AI. Your research organisation’s support Word limit: 200Provide details of support from your research organisation (RO). What the assessors are looking for in your response The assessors are looking for you and your RO to interact with meaningful engagement and agree the strong support you will require to successfully undertake your proposed work. The information you will provide within this section should be approved by an appropriate institutional authority, such as your RO’s ‘tech transfer office’ or ‘translational research office’ before submitting your application. You must include the following information within the text box: a significant person’s name, their position and office or their department office address or web link describe the strong support your RO will provide you when you undertake your proposed work Approach Word limit: 1,500How has the idea or solution been developed to date and what is the proposed approach for further development? What the assessors are looking for in your response Explain how you have designed your approach so that it: is effective and appropriate to achieve your objectives is feasible, and comprehensively identifies any risks to delivery and how they will be managed uses a clearly written and transparent methodology (if applicable) will maximise translation of outputs into outcomes and impacts describes how your, and if applicable your team’s, research environment (in terms of the place and relevance to the project) will contribute to the success of the work Ensure you describe how the idea or solution has been developed to date and what the proposed approach for further development is. You should outline: the previous work and current status of the innovation or technology and how the proposed