MRC Doctoral Landscape Awards: Fully-Funded PhD Training in Medical Research Across the UK

MRC Doctoral Landscape Awards: Fully-Funded PhD Training in Medical Research Across the UK

Status and what this page represents

The Medical Research Council (MRC), part of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), published this opportunity for organisations that wanted to design and deliver doctoral training programmes in medical research. The official UKRI page now labels the opportunity Closed. Its application window opened on 17 November 2025 and closed on 24 February 2026 at 4:00pm UK time.

This page is therefore a historical reference, not an open student scholarship listing. The official page does not publish a later application opening or closing date. The references to possible intakes in 2030 to 2031 describe a potential continuation for successful awards following satisfactory review; they are not a newly announced application round. Do not treat those years as a deadline for a new application.

The call was also not a direct application route for an individual PhD candidate. A UKRI-eligible research organisation had to lead the application, either alone or with a consortium. Students who are looking for a place should use this record to understand the programme model and then check individual universities or research organisations for their own recruitment notices. Those local recruitment processes are separate from the institutional funding application described here.

At a glance

What the award was intended to fund

The award was designed to build a broad doctoral training environment rather than fund one narrowly defined PhD project. MRC described the purpose as developing a highly skilled workforce able to address medical research and innovation challenges across a range of careers. The programme could cover discovery and translational research within the MRC remit, with a clear connection to improving human health.

The official objectives were to support skilled researchers, advance understanding and generate new knowledge, support a diverse doctoral community, and improve collaboration and knowledge exchange between academia and other sectors. This means a strong proposal needed to explain both the scientific training and the programme infrastructure that would help students become capable researchers. A list of impressive projects without a credible cohort model, supervision plan, or student support system would not answer the call.

MRC expected programmes to include cohort-level training alongside individual research projects. The required cross-cutting skills included digital and data skills within medical sciences and commercialisation and entrepreneurial skills. Applicants also had to explain how students would build a cohort identity, share ideas, access professional development, and receive support for a range of career paths. Placement opportunities had to be available to students who wanted them, and programmes were expected to maintain links with graduates so that career pathways could be tracked.

The model replaced the previous way this doctoral training was delivered through MRC doctoral training partnerships (DTPs). It did not mean that every university received an automatic allocation, nor that students could apply to MRC directly. The award was made through a competitive organisational application.

Eligibility and application structure

The lead applicant had to be based at a UK research organisation eligible for UKRI funding. A single organisation could apply if it could demonstrate enough capacity and infrastructure to deliver high-quality training across its proposed programme. MRC strongly encouraged multi-organisation consortia, but there was no stated requirement for a particular consortium size or geographical spread. A consortium had to justify its structure, show complementary strengths, and demonstrate meaningful added value from each member.

Any organisation acting as a principal host for students had to be included as the project lead (PL) or project co-lead (PcL) where there were multiple hosts. Where there were multiple hosts, one organisation had to be identified as the project lead. MRC strongly encouraged that lead to be a higher education PhD-awarding body; if it was not, a justified consortium needed to include one. An organisation could act as project lead on only one application and, in general, was not expected to appear in multiple applications as a lead or co-lead.

Project partners were distinct from the core team and host organisations. They could be organisations in the UK or overseas, including industry, charities, public sector bodies, and other academic organisations that were not hosting students through the core team. A partner could provide placements, training, facilities, equipment, cash, or other in-kind support. Every named partner had to provide a statement of support, and a formal collaboration agreement would be required if an award was made. An organisation could act as a project partner on any number of applications.

The application needed one project lead, with project co-leads added for additional host organisations where appropriate. A grant manager could also be named in the core team. Having more than one project lead would cause a checking failure, so the lead and administrative responsibilities needed to be settled before submission.

Funding model and amount

The official page gives an indicative total of £136,898 for each four-year notional studentship. That figure comprises an estimated £92,231 stipend, £23,467 in fees, £20,000 for a research training support grant (RTSG), and £1,200 for travel and subsistence. Up to £2,000 per studentship could also be requested as a contribution towards administrative costs.

These are not promises of a fixed personal payment to a student. MRC says the stipend and fee figures are estimates projected from the 2025 to 2026 UKRI minima, excluding London allowance. At the time of award, stipend and fees would be indexed to accommodate changes in the minimum levels over the award lifetime. Eligible awards would receive London allowance where applicable. A notional studentship is a planning unit for the institutional programme and includes research and travel costs for four years of doctoral study.

The initial plan was approximately 200 notional studentships in total per year across three annual intakes from 2027 to 2029. The page allowed for a further two intakes in 2030 to 2031 only following satisfactory review. The first cohort was expected to start in October 2027. The minimum cohort size was five studentships per year, and there was no upper limit stated in the guidance. Applicants still had to demonstrate enough supervisory and pastoral capacity for the number and breadth of studentships requested.

MRC said it would fund 100% of full economic cost for supported elements. This did not remove the need for a realistic delivery plan. Applicants had to explain administrative arrangements and show how any costs not covered by the notional allocation would be handled through programme flexibility, additional support, or a combination of sources. There was no formal requirement for match-funded studentships or cash contributions for the general award. Students had to be funded at least 50% by MRC to be classed as an MRC student.

Collaborative studentships and flexible funding

Collaborative studentships, formerly associated with iCASE, were embedded in this award. They had to be delivered with non-academic partners and provide training that would not be available in an academic setting. A non-academic partner had to host the student for at least three months during the PhD; the placement did not need to be continuous. The partner also had to provide co-supervision and meet appropriate costs incurred by the student while visiting and working at the partner establishment, including travel and accommodation where relevant. The host research organisation remained responsible for agreeing intellectual property arrangements under the MRC Industry Collaboration Framework.

For a collaborative studentship, a non-academic partner was expected to contribute no less than 20% and no more than 50% of the total notional studentship costs. Small and medium-sized enterprises were exempt from those contributions. MRC said there was no longer an expectation of a stipend supplement or additional project costs from the partner. Applicants had to state how many collaborative studentships they expected to support each year and show that they had the administrative capacity and prospective partnerships to deliver them.

The separate flexible supplement was subject to spending review allocations and was intended for high-cost or exceptional training, placements, industry or interdisciplinary training, transitions from PhD, cohort events with a defined training component, and equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) activities. Allocations would be proportional to the total population of MRC-funded students affiliated with each consortium, could vary from year to year, and would be issued annually. The application needed to describe how these funds would be administered for the benefit of eligible students.

Programme quality, EDI, and governance

The training programme had to align directly with the MRC remit and with the host organisation’s scientific strengths and strategies. Applicants needed to identify UK skills gaps, support interdisciplinary work where appropriate, and provide a scientifically strong training environment with suitable research capacity and infrastructure. The programme also had to support the wider UKRI expectations for students: subject knowledge, research and methodological skills, professional development, career progression, and the ability to work across collaborative and challenge-led environments.

EDI was a core assessment feature, not an optional statement. Applicants had to explain how their strategy would improve access and recruitment, working practices, supervision, individualised support, wellbeing and mental health support, monitoring, and evaluation. The proposal needed evidence-based actions, a baseline, and plans for improvement. Examples named by MRC included career breaks, caring responsibilities, flexible working, and alternative working patterns.

Consortia had to show how decisions would be made, how risks would be managed, and how students and stakeholders would be involved. The governance structure needed to fit the size and complexity of the programme, support continual improvement, meet legal duties, and allow best practice to be shared among partners and with other doctoral training programmes. MRC also expected annual reporting on recruitment diversity, partner engagement, training and development activity, student achievements, and use of the flexible supplement.

How the closed round worked

The first step was a mandatory expression of interest. The EOI opened on 5 December 2025 and closed on 8 January 2026. It was not assessed, but MRC used it for planning and reserved the right to reject a full application if the EOI had not been submitted. The EOI requested the project lead details and the list of research organisations expected to participate.

The full application ran through the new UKRI Funding Service. Je-S could not be used. The project lead was responsible for completing the application, while all team members and project partners were expected to contribute. The practical sequence was:

1. Confirm that the organisation is eligible and that the applicant is the project lead.
2. Sign in or create a Funding Service account, select the organisation, verify the email address, and set a password.
3. Contact the Funding Service if the organisation was not listed; UKRI advised allowing at least 10 working days for an organisation to be added.
4. Create the application, answer the questions in the Funding Service, and add the core team and any project partners.
5. Upload the required partner support document if partners were included. The document had to contain letters or emails from the identified partners, in English or Welsh, combined into a single PDF. Each partner letter could be no more than two sides of A4.
6. Check the application in read-only view and send it to the research office for checking.
7. Allow the research office to return any required edits, then have the research office submit the checked application to UKRI.

The application sections and limits were: Summary, 250 words; Vision, 550 words; Approach, 1,500 words; Positive culture and environment, 750 words; Capability to deliver, 750 words; Partnerships and governance, 750 words; and Flexible fund, 500 words. The partner letters or emails of support had a 10-word response limit in the Funding Service because the substantive evidence belonged in the uploaded document. Only support from named project partners was wanted; general endorsement letters from other people would be ignored.

Assessment and historical timeline

The official timeline recorded a webinar on 4 December 2025, an expression of interest opening on 5 December 2025 at 9:00am, an expression of interest closing on 8 January 2026 at 4:00pm, and the full application closing on 24 February 2026 at 4:00pm. The published deadline was hard: applications could not be submitted after that time and could not be amended after submission. Internal research-office deadlines could be earlier.

The assessment process began with independent expert panel review. The panel then shortlisted competitive applications for interview. Up to four representatives of a shortlisted application could attend the interview. The official timeline listed a shortlisting meeting on 12 May 2026 and interviews and the funding decision meeting in the week commencing 15 June 2026. MRC stated that applicants would be informed of the funding decision within 20 working days of the funding decision meeting. The assessment areas were vision, approach, positive culture and environment, capability to deliver, partnerships and governance, and flexible fund.

Because the call is closed and the official page provides no later application date, there is no current application step to complete for this specific record. Institutions considering a future call should monitor the UKRI Funding Finder and consult their research office. They should not reuse the closed deadline as if it were a live opportunity, and they should not assume that the potential 2030 to 2031 intakes constitute a newly announced competition.

Practical fit for different readers

For a university, institute, NHS research organisation, or consortium, the relevant question was whether it could operate a coherent doctoral programme at the proposed scale. That required more than a collection of supervisors. The organisation needed an accountable lead, enough research and pastoral capacity, a workable student experience, a plan for cohort training, and evidence that any partners would add specific value.

For a student, the relevant question is different. This record does not accept individual applications, guarantee a place, or provide a single central list of projects. A student should look for recruitment notices from participating institutions, check each institution’s own eligibility and timetable, and confirm whether a particular studentship is funded through an MRC award. The indicative notional-studentship budget on the UKRI page should not be read as a guaranteed personal stipend or as proof that every participating institution will offer the same student terms.

For a potential project partner, the useful preparation is to define the contribution clearly: placement time, co-supervision, training, facilities, equipment, data, staff, cash, or other in-kind support. The partner should be ready to explain its commitment, the value and relevance of the proposed work, and the additional value it would bring. If named in an application, it would need to provide the required support letter or email and be ready for a formal collaboration agreement if funding was offered.

Official source and contact route

The authoritative record is the UKRI funding opportunity page. It identifies MRC as the funder, gives the closed status, sets out the institutional eligibility rules, and contains the funding amounts, application questions, assessment process, and historical timeline.

For this specific opportunity, the official page lists [email protected]. It lists [email protected] for general MRC funding questions and [email protected] with phone number 01793 547490 for Funding Service system or submission queries. Research organisations should contact their own research office first for costings, internal review, and submission planning.