Board & panel meeting outcomes

All the research councils publish information on the funding decisions made by their boards and panels so that applicants and research organisations can understand the relative position of their proposals compared with others assessed at the same board or panel meeting. Along with written feedback, we believe this will help applicants and research organisations improve the quality of their proposals.

At the MRC, applications are assessed by independent national and international scientific experts who consider the viability, quality, cost-effectiveness and likely impact of the science concerned. Funding decisions made by boards and panels are an integration of referees’ scores and comments, the response to reviewers’ comments and board or panel members’ opinions. During the meetings, proposals are first discussed and then scored by all non-conflicted board/panel members against criteria addressing scientific excellence and potential impact. At the end of the meeting applications are then grouped according to their median scores as a basis for further discussion, which may take into account strategic priorities, prior to reaching final funding decisions.

The scoring structure (PDF, 81KB) for boards/panels runs from 1-10 and is used for all types of application at all review meetings.

10 Exceptional – Top international programme or of exceptional strategic importance
9 Excellent – Internationally competitive and leading edge in most areas
8 Very High Quality – Internationally competitive and leading edge nationally
7 High Quality – Leading edge nationally and internationally competitive in parts
6 High Quality – Leading edge nationally, but not yet internationally competitive
5 Good Quality – Nationally competitive
4 Potentially Useful – with significant weaknesses
3 Potentially Useful – With major weaknesses
2 Poor Quality – Bordering on unacceptable
1 Unacceptable quality or has serious ethical concerns

Whilst median scores of 6 and above are considered fundable, the funding cut-off is dependent on the available budget at any given meeting. It is not valid to make comparisons between different board or panel meetings.

Meeting Outcome Reports are published following each meeting - usually within 4 weeks. Applications are listed in numerical order within blocks according to: i) median score groups and ii) funding decision.

Please note that applications which are rejected after a triage or sift meeting are not discussed in board or panel meetings, and therefore are not included in these lists.

Meeting outcome reports

Please note, only meeting outcomes from May 1, 2015, onwards are kept on this page. For previous meetings please visit the Archive page.

African Research Leaders

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR)

Biomedical Catalyst Developmental Pathway

Capital Tissue Banking

Career Development Award and Senior Non-Clinical Fellowships

Child and adolescent mental health

Clinical Research Training Fellowship

Clinical Scientist Fellowship / Senior Clinical Fellowship

Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF)

Health Systems Research Initiative

Industrial Case

Industry Asset Sharing

Infections and Immunity Board

Methodology Research Panel 

Molecular and Cellular Medicine Board

Neurosciences and Mental Health Board

Newton Fund

Population and Systems Medicine Board

Public Health Intervention Development Scheme (PHIND)

Regenerative Medicine Research Committee

Skills Development Fellowships

Further information

Please see our peer review pages for details of our assessment process for MRC proposals. 

You may also be interested to view the MRC success rates page, which contains details of Research Grant, Fellowship, Studentship and Research Organisation success rates.