Invite only: Precision prevention: biological mechanisms of response variation

What the assessor looks for

• aligns to the aims of the funding opportunity
• is of excellent quality and importance within or beyond the field(s) or area(s)
• has the potential to advance current understanding, or generate new knowledge, thinking or discovery in the context of precision prevention
• is timely given current trends, context, and needs
• impacts world-leading research, society, the economy, or the environment
• provide details of the current clinical challenge or knowledge gap
• summarise the current state of understanding about the relevant mechanisms of disease
• identify the current gap in mechanistic understanding
• state the mechanistic hypothesis to be tested, which will generate mechanistic insights which would allow tailoring, targeting, and optimisation of existing prevention interventions or the development of new ones
• identify the potential direct or indirect benefits and who the beneficiaries might be
• identify potential improvements in human health, whether through contributing to preventing disease progression, relieving disease or disability burden, improving quality of life or providing benefit to the health service or health-related industry
• if applicable, describe the route to patient benefit

A filled dot only means your answer mentions that ground. It is not a judgement of how well.

What the assessor looks for

• the type of intervention, which must be biomedical such as for example, pharmacological or immunological
• relevant background information, including its established safety profile and use in other mechanistic studies
• if applicable, summarise the development history of the intervention
• if applicable, provide details of any existing intellectual property (IP) associated with this intervention

A filled dot only means your answer mentions that ground. It is not a judgement of how well.

What the assessor looks for

• the objectives of the proposed research in order of priority
• the primary and secondary experimental outcomes and how they relate to the experimental objectives
• how the proposed work packages will ensure the project objectives are achieved
• your explanation of how your approach is effective and appropriate to achieve your objectives
• project tasks (these being short, achievable and measurable activities) with, where relevant, the party responsible for delivering the task and dependency relationships between tasks
• at least two progression milestones (to include the project end goal), these being major specifically-timed decision points
• the experiments you will undertake to probe the stated hypothesis
• the data you will collect and how it will test the hypothesis
• the proposed trial design and why this approach is appropriate to meet the study objectives
• the characteristics of the participants (such as age, disease) and the rationale for their selection
• the specific population groups in relation to their diversity characteristics and the proposed analysis, following the MRC embedding diversity in research design policy
• target and acceptable levels of participant recruitment across the project timeline

A filled dot only means your answer mentions that ground. It is not a judgement of how well.

What the assessor looks for

• delineate the proposed work into costed project phases with clear go or no-go decision points
• establish success criteria with target and acceptable thresholds
• detail robust go or no-go criteria (failure to meet these will result in early termination of the project)
• be structured so that critical questions are addressed as early as possible in the plan
• a quantified target value you aim to achieve
• a quantified acceptable value, which, if achieved, would still support project progression
• study design
• study participants
• study endpoints
• dose (if applicable)
• analysis plans
• duration (in months) from project start and from the previous milestone (not applicable for the first milestone, Milestone one)

A filled dot only means your answer mentions that ground. It is not a judgement of how well.

What the assessor looks for

• population cohorts; longitudinal studies; genetic, omics and imaging data; biobanks, and other collections that are potentially a rich resource for the wider research community: maximum of 1,500 words
• all other research, less complex, the plan may be as short as 500 words

A filled dot only means your answer mentions that ground. It is not a judgement of how well.

What the assessor looks for

• the relevant experience (appropriate to career stage) to deliver the proposed work
• the right balance of skills and expertise to cover the proposed work
• the appropriate leadership and management skills to deliver the work and your approach to develop others
• contributed to developing a positive research environment and wider community
• contributions to the generation of new ideas, tools, methodologies, or knowledge, this may include your previous funding and key outputs such as publications
• the development of others and maintenance of effective working relationships
• contributions to the wider research and innovation community
• contributions to broader research or innovation users and audiences and towards wider societal benefit, including public partnerships

A filled dot only means your answer mentions that ground. It is not a judgement of how well.

What the assessor looks for

• collaboration agreements
• definitions of basic or applied research
• internationally based companies
• subsidy control
• intellectual property (IP) arrangements
• fully flexible and gated contributions
• the ICF assessment criteria
• Name the industry or company project partner considered under ICF.
• Indicate whether your application is basic research or applied research.
• Explain why, in the absence of the requested UKRI funding, the collaboration and the planned research could not be undertaken.
• State whether your application is under the category of fully flexible contribution or gated contribution (based on the IP sharing arrangements with the industry or company).
• Outline the pre-existing IP (‘background IP’) that each partner, including the academic partner, will bring to the collaborative research project and the terms under which partners may access these assets.

A filled dot only means your answer mentions that ground. It is not a judgement of how well.

What the assessor looks for

• the relevant ethical and RRI considerations, including both the research or topic area itself and the design and delivery of the project
• the wider implications of the proposed work, and how you will maximise the positive societal, environmental, and economic benefits arising from the project, while minimising unintended negative impacts, such as research misuse or accidental harm
• how you will manage these considerations throughout the lifecycle of the project

A filled dot only means your answer mentions that ground. It is not a judgement of how well.

What the assessor looks for

• project staff
• significant travel for field work or collaboration (but not regular travel between collaborating organisations or to conferences)
• any equipment that will cost more than £25,000
• any consumables beyond typical requirements, or that are required in exceptional quantities
• all facilities and infrastructure costs
• all resources that have been costed as ‘Exceptions’
• support for international co-leads, demonstrating this is within the 30% costs cap for co-leads from high-income countries, India and China. There is no cap on costs requested for international applicants from DAC list countries
• NHS research costs , when they are associated with NHS studies
• any work to be outsourced, including the reason for outsourcing, scope, provider and cost
• support for public and patient involvement and engagement. See payments to public partners
• are comprehensive, appropriate, and justified
• represent the optimal use of resources to achieve the intended outcomes

A filled dot only means your answer mentions that ground. It is not a judgement of how well.