College of Medical, Veterinary & Life Sciences

This support scheme is focused on the translation of research towards impact. Fundamental or discovery research is out with remit.

It is important that applicants can demonstrate how their project fits within the remit and provide a short background of their underpinning research, explaining how the funds requested can contribute towards the successful progression of their work with a focus on clear outcomes.

Collaborations with external partners is encouraged, but not necessary for your funding application. Examples of eligible partners include private sector, government bodies, public sector organisations including the NHS, charities, NGO's and other third sector organisations. If such a collaboration is proposed in your applications, you must ensure that formal collaboration agreements are in place with any external partners before the beginning of your project. This can be included as a letter of support. The TRI recommend that you discuss this with your external partners or collaborators at an early stage of the proposal development and before applying for funding.

Principal investigators of IAA awards must be a University of Glasgow employee and have a staff number, as well as being contracted for the duration of the project. Early Career Researchers can apply for standard IAA funding as the principal investigator of a project. Written approval of their line manager will be required.

For secondment projects, all secondees must comply with visa and immigration requirements. Please check with the MVLS HR team prior to applying.

Funding proposals must:

• describe the area of knowledge, including the underpinning research and the anticipated innovation to be developed;
• have a single, named PI who is responsible for the project, who must be a member of staff at the University of Glasgow;
• briefly outline the background research on which the proposed work is based on;
• describe the current stage of development and how it will be moved forward by the funding requested for the proposed IAA project;
• provide details on the existing needs for this work and the opportunities that will be addressed by this project. This can be backed up by evidence derived from the market, existing or identified stakeholders or any other impact drivers, where appropriate;
• outline the current barriers to impact;
• describe any competing technologies and the advantages of the proposed innovation;
• clearly present a budget breakdown per milestone, with timescales, including the value of contributions in-cash or in-kind from partners;
• describe the risks involved with each milestone and the mitigation plans in place to address these;
• provide details of anticipated project outcomes and impacts, including the way of achievement, anticipated timescales, and how the anticipated outcomes will be measured;
• demonstrate that all appropriate agreements and contracts are in place and an appropriate IP strategy is being considered or adopted (where applicable);
• state clear next steps, should the project be successful, along with potential benefits to the University of Glasgow;
• outline how responsible innovation, sustainability and Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) principals will be incorporated into your project.

IAA applications will be assessed by the TRI Management Review Panel and will consider the above criteria. Proposals that fail to address these criteria will be deemed ineligible for funding and may by rejected, or feedback given for resubmission. It is strongly encouraged that you discuss your proposal with the TRI management team before submitting your application.

Following submission, all applications will be assessed by the TRI Review Panel. Below is a list of criteria that the panel will use to assess and score IAA applications. These are included here for your guidance only and not all questions under each criterion will apply to every proposal. Please contact the TRI team at mvls-innovation@glasgow.ac.uk if you have any queries: 

Team

• If a project involves collaboration, are they appropriate and justified? Are there clear benefits to both the partner AND the University? Have the contributions of the partner been articulated and quantified?
• Are letters of support with tangible contribution to project and / or evidence to substantiate claims made in proposal provided?
• If subcontracting, consultancy, or the commissioning of an external consultant is proposed, have the required capabilities / skillsets been defined? Have any suitable potential suppliers been identified and / or approached?
• Is the project team appropriate and able to carry out the work effectively? 

 Need

• Does the proposal demonstrate an understanding of the opportunity and the market/end user need, and provide evidence for this?
• Is there evidence of a demand for the proposed solution from relevant stakeholders (customers, industry, end users, clinicians, patients, etc)?
• Is the approach adopted to address this need appropriate and justified?
• Have competing technologies or solutions (on the market or under development) been considered and assessed? Is the current state of the art well understood?
• Does the proposal consider the current state of the art and does it demonstrate how this project will move beyond the state of the art?

 Impact

• Is there a strong likelihood for impact to be realised (i.e., new products or processes, jobs created or safeguarded, cost savings, increased profits, new policies, improved healthcare, etc.);
• Is there a clear path from research outputs to impact? Has an appropriate route to market for the technology/solution been identified and is there an suitable roadmap?
• Are project risks identified, assessed and appropriately mitigated?
• Are appropriate project objectives, tasks, deliverables, milestones and expected outputs and outcomes described in the proposal?
• Are the plans for the next phase of the project beyond the IAA reasonable, and have suitable and realistic funding mechanisms identified?
• Has the project IP strategy been considered and are the plans outlined appropriate?

 Value 

• Is the proposed project plan and implementation of the project appropriate and well described in the proposal? Are there defined tasks, outputs and milestones and does the proposal explain how these will all contribute to meeting the need / opportunity identified?
• Consider the level of IAA funds requested compared to external partner cash and in-kind contributions as well as any third party funding leveraged.
• Is the scale of the potential impact in proportion to the level of IAA funds requested?
• Are there clear and reasonable potential benefits to the University of Glasgow, project partners, external stakeholders or end users?
• Does the proposal demonstrate potential to leverage further funding or investment?

Please see links to case studies of some of the previously funded MRC IAA projects, and a full list of funded projects below, listed by parent award.

• Solasta Bio: next generation green insecticides
• SalmoSim: optimising aquafeed for sustainable agriculture
• Sci-Seedlets: Developing Plant Science Educational Packages for Classrooms
• Increasing Vaccine Access: Cattle vaccines against malignant catarrhal fever in East Africa
• Everyday Clean: Engaging people and communities in Everyday Clean water, sanitation and hygiene (WaSH) interventions
• Mitotargin: Developing novel diagnostics and therapeutics targeting the mitochondria