MRC Partnership Grants for Research Teams: How to Secure Long-Term Funding for Collaborative Medical Research

If you’re sitting on a brilliant idea that needs a team, not just a single PI soldiering away at the bench, this is the kind of scheme that can change the trajectory of your research programme.

The Medical Research Council (MRC) Partnership Grant (Applicant-Led) is designed for exactly that: serious, strategic collaborations that build something bigger than a single project. Think shared platforms, interdisciplinary alliances, or long-term capabilities that will continue to pay off long after this specific grant ends.

This isn’t a travel fund for “let’s have a workshop and see what happens.” It’s structural money. You can use it to:

• Build new, high-value research collaborations across institutions or disciplines
• Strengthen and extend existing MRC-funded research
• Create capacity in areas of unmet need, so the next wave of projects has the infrastructure and relationships it needs

If you’re employed by an eligible UK research organisation (university, research institute, some NHS bodies and UKRI-approved independent research organisations), you should have this scheme on your radar.

MRC is very clear about one thing: contact them before you apply. If your idea is out of scope, they’ll simply reject it. No second chances, no partial credit. So strategy matters here.

Let’s unpack how to use this grant intelligently, not just optimistically.

MRC Partnership Grant at a Glance

What This Opportunity Actually Offers (Beyond “Collaboration” Buzzwords)

The Partnership Grant is about infrastructure and capability, not just another project code to add to your CV.

You can use this grant to:

• Establish new, high-value collaborative activities
  Maybe you’ve been talking with a data science group for years about pooling patient datasets, or you’ve got clinicians, statisticians, and molecular biologists all circling the same problem but never quite funded as a unified team.
  This scheme can pay for:

  • Shared data platforms or biobanks
  • Joint research coordinators or project managers
  • Cross-institutional postdocs or fellows
  • Technical staff who glue the collaboration together

• Add value to existing high-quality research
  Already have an MRC or Wellcome grant doing something interesting? Partnership funding can help you:

  • Expand into new work packages that weren’t fundable in the original grant
  • Integrate complementary expertise (e.g., health economics, AI, social science)
  • Build shared tools, pipelines, or methodologies that multiple projects can use

• Underpin future funding
  This is where the scheme really shines. You can treat this as:

  • A pre-platform for a major centre or programme grant
  • A proof-of-collaboration phase to show that your cross-institution team works in practice
  • A place to develop preliminary infrastructure that will make your later large applications look more convincing and less speculative

• Build capacity in areas of unmet need
  MRC cares a lot about gaps:

  • A field with almost no methodologists
  • An emerging area (e.g., AI in diagnostics, multi-omics integration, mental health in underserved populations) that needs more people, tools, or data
  • Underdeveloped infrastructure, such as standardised outcome measures, shared protocols, or training pipelines

Funding length—18 months up to 5 years—is critical. Five years is enough time to build something meaningful: a functioning multidisciplinary partnership, an established pipeline of trainees, fully-operational shared infrastructure.

In short: this is strategic money. You’re being funded not just to discover something, but to build a durable collaborative engine for discovery.

Who Should Apply (And Who Probably Shouldn’t)

This grant is not for everyone. It suits researchers who think beyond their own lab.

You’re likely a strong fit if:

• You’re employed by an eligible UK research organisation
  Typically:

  • UK universities
  • MRC units/institutes
  • Some eligible NHS organisations
  • Approved independent research organisations
    If you’re unsure, your research office will know.

• You already have credible research funding or outputs
  Partnership Grants preference:

  • Teams with strong ongoing work (MRC or other major funders)
  • Groups who can clearly show that their planned partnership builds on real scientific substance, not just aspirations

• You’re coordinating a multi-person, often multi-institution, team
  Example profiles:

  • A PI at a Russell Group university working with an NHS Trust and an informatics group at another university to build a shared clinical-genomic dataset
  • A mid-career scientist with an MRC project grant who wants to connect three smaller labs, a statistics unit, and a bioinformatics core into a more integrated partnership
  • A senior PI building capacity in an underdeveloped, high-priority area (e.g., long COVID mechanisms, antimicrobial resistance, early mental health interventions)

• You’re serious about interdisciplinarity
  Not just “we added a token mathematician.” MRC wants:

  • Genuinely complementary expertise
  • Clear explanation of why those disciplines are needed for the scientific goals
  • Evidence that the partnership structure lets them work together in more than name only

You’re probably not a good fit if:

• You’re a single-PI, single-discipline project with no clear collaborative or capacity-building element
• You’re very early career with no existing substantial funding and no senior co-leads or mentors
• Your proposal is essentially “we’d like to network and explore ideas” with no concrete plan for tangible outputs or infrastructure
• Your topic sits clearly outside MRC’s remit (for example, purely social science with no clear health/biomedical link)

If you’re somewhere in the grey area, that’s exactly when you should email the relevant board contact (see addresses above) and ask.

Insider Tips for a Winning MRC Partnership Application

This scheme will be competitive. Here’s how to give yourself a genuine shot.

1. Call MRC Early and With a Clear Pitch

You are strongly encouraged to contact them before applying. Take that seriously.

• Don’t send a 5-page essay. Prepare:
  • A half-page summary of aims
  • A short paragraph on why this is a partnership, not just a project
  • A bullet list of key collaborators and institutions
• Ask direct questions:
  • “Is this within scope for the Partnership Grant scheme?”
  • “Is our aim better suited to [X other MRC scheme]?”
  • “Are there particular boards or panels we should be aware of?”

If they tell you it’s out of scope, believe them—and pivot.

2. Make the “Added Value” Impossible to Ignore

You must show why this should not just be another project grant.

Spell out:

• What exists already (current grants, datasets, facilities, networks)
• Exactly what will exist after this grant that doesn’t exist now:
  • New shared data resources
  • Cross-institutional pipelines
  • Joint training structures
  • Stable technical capacity (e.g., a central analyst team)

Ask yourself: If a reviewer removed this partnership funding from the story, would the field be significantly worse off? If the answer is “not really,” your case isn’t strong enough yet.

3. Treat the Partnership as the Primary Output

Yes, you’ll have scientific questions, work packages, milestones. But:

• The partnership structure itself is a key deliverable
• Plan governance:
  • Steering committees
  • Workstream leads
  • Conflict resolution processes
  • Data-sharing agreements
• Plan sustainability:
  • How will this collaboration keep going after the grant ends?
  • What future schemes will you target (e.g., programme grants, centres, consortia)?

Reviewers want to see that you’re not building a sandcastle that washes away in year five.

4. Show Real Interdisciplinarity, Not Window Dressing

If you say it’s interdisciplinary, prove it.

• Describe how decisions will be made jointly, not discipline-by-discipline
• Give concrete examples:
  • “Clinicians will identify patient phenotypes; the statistics group will co-develop analysis pipelines from the outset; wet-lab teams will adapt experiments based on early modelling outputs.”
• Make sure the budget reflects interdisciplinary work:
  • Time for cross-discipline meetings and integration
  • Shared staff who sit across teams (e.g., data managers, analysts, coordinators)

5. Build a Tight, Credible Team

Reviewers will look at who is on board as much as what you plan to do.

• Include:
  • A mix of senior and mid/early-career researchers
  • Technical staff with clear roles
  • External partners where appropriate (NHS, industry, charities), with defined contributions
• Avoid:
  • Giant, unfocused collaborator lists with vague roles
  • Token partners added purely for show

Write the team section so a reviewer can say, “Yes, this group can actually do what they claim.”

6. Nail the Capacity-Building Story

“Capacity building” is more than training a single PhD student.

Strong examples:

• A cohort of cross-trained fellows who rotate between labs or institutions
• Standardised protocols and data models that lower the barrier for future teams
• Training workshops with open-access materials that others can reuse
• Pipelines that move from discovery through validation to implementation

Be explicit: What capacity is missing now? What will be in place by the end of this grant?

Application Timeline: Working Backward from 10 December 2025

Here’s a realistic planning timeline.

By mid-November 2025 (4 weeks before deadline)

• Finalise full draft: case for support, partnership description, workplan, budget
• Circulate to:
  • At least one non-specialist colleague
  • One collaborator from a different institution
• Book internal review with your research office (many universities have earlier internal deadlines)

September–October 2025 (2–3 months before)

• Confirm all partners and roles
• Draft:
  • Aims and objectives
  • Partnership structure and governance
  • Capacity-building elements
  • Risk management (for both science and collaboration)
• Start full budget:
  • Staff costs
  • Shared equipment/consumables
  • Coordination/management costs
  • Training and meetings

July–August 2025 (4–5 months before)

• Hold at least one all-partner planning meeting (virtual is fine)
• Map:
  • Who leads each work package
  • How outputs connect between teams
  • How you’ll monitor progress
• Start writing one-page “value proposition” for the partnership: why MRC, why this scheme, why now.

By June 2025 (6 months before)

• Contact relevant MRC team/board (via listed email addresses) with a short concept note
• Confirm with your research office that:
  • Your organisation is eligible
  • There are no extra internal approval stages that might slow submission

Now–May 2025

• Gather intelligence:
  • Talk to colleagues who’ve held MRC Partnership or similar collaborative grants
  • Read MRC’s strategic priorities and board remits
• Start building your preliminary narrative and team.

Required Materials (and How to Prepare Them Well)

Exact document names will be in the UKRI Funding Service, but you should expect to prepare:

1. Case for Support / Project Description

This is the core narrative. It should include:

• Rationale and background
• Scientific objectives
• Description of the partnership (structure, roles, institutions)
• Workplan and timelines
• Capacity-building and sustainability plan

Tip: Make the partnership a distinct, clearly signposted section, not just sprinkled throughout.

2. Justified Budget

You’ll need:

• Detailed costings for staff, consumables, travel, management, and any equipment
• Clear explanation of:
  • Which costs are shared
  • Which are site-specific
  • How each cost supports the partnership aims, not just individual labs

Reviewers absolutely read budget justifications. Treat them as part of your argument, not an afterthought.

3. CVs / Track Records

For key personnel:

• Highlight:
  • Previous collaborative work
  • Relevant funding
  • Evidence of building and running teams, not just publishing papers
• If someone is key but less experienced, show how they’re supported by senior colleagues.

4. Management and Governance Plan

Spell out:

• Who chairs which committees
• How you’ll make decisions on:
  • Data access
  • Publication
  • Authorship
• How you’ll review progress and adapt if things aren’t working

5. Letters or Statements of Support (if requested)

From:

• Partner institutions
• NHS sites, if patient access is involved
• External partners (industry, charities, etc.)

These should be specific about contributions—data, staff time, facilities—not just “we think this is excellent.”

What Makes an MRC Partnership Application Stand Out

Reviewers are asking: Is this the best possible use of Partnership Grant money?

Your application will stand out if it shows:

1. Clear, Strategic Purpose

Not just “we’d like to collaborate,” but:

• “Here is a specific capability or structure that currently doesn’t exist.”
• “Here’s why this team is uniquely placed to build it.”
• “Here’s how it will change what’s possible in this field in 5–10 years.”

2. Strong Existing Foundations

You don’t need everything already in place—that’s the point of the grant—but reviewers want to see:

• Mature scientific questions
• Preliminary data, where appropriate
• Evidence that the collaborators have already worked together, or at least have a credible plan to integrate quickly

3. Genuine MRC Remit Fit

Make it absolutely obvious why this is medical/health research:

• Human health outcomes, mechanisms, diagnostics, interventions, prevention
• Clear potential to impact patient care, population health, or biomedical understanding

4. Realistic Ambition

A five-year partnership should aim high, but:

• Don’t propose a full national service when you’ve never shared a database before
• Show stepping stones:
  • Year 1–2: Establish data structures, small pilot studies, initial training activities
  • Year 3–5: Full-scale studies, broader recruitment, more complex integration

5. Measurable Outputs

Examples of good outputs:

• Shared datasets or tools with documented access models
• Standard operating procedures adopted across multiple sites
• Trainees who move into independent roles with clear partnership-derived skills
• Joint publications that could not have arisen from a single team

Common Mistakes to Avoid (and How to Fix Them)

1. Vague “We Will Collaborate” Language

If your application could swap out the partner names without changing anything, it’s too generic.

Fix:
Describe:

• Exact interactions (monthly analysis clinics, cross-lab rotations, shared staff)
• Specific joint tasks, not just “we will all contribute”

2. Treating This Like a Normal Project Grant

If your focus is one hypothesis and one dataset, this isn’t the right scheme.

Fix:
Ask:

• What shared resources or capabilities will many people use after the grant?
• How does that justify the partnership structure?

3. Overstuffed, Unfocused Teams

Twenty PIs, no clear leadership. Reviewers hate this.

Fix:

• Identify:
  • 1–2 overall leads
  • 3–6 key work package leads
• Everyone else is clearly defined as collaborator, advisor, stakeholder, etc.

4. No Sustainability Plan

If the grant ends and everything stops, reviewers will be unimpressed.

Fix:

• Map future bids:
  • MRC programme/centre applications
  • Other UKRI cross-council schemes
  • Charity or industry funding to extend the work
• Show how infrastructure and relationships built here will make those bids more competitive.

5. Poor Contact with MRC

Submitting a full-scale partnership proposal without checking scope is risky.

Fix:
Email them early with a concise concept and be honest about uncertainties.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Do I need existing MRC funding to apply?

You don’t strictly have to, but it helps massively.

• The scheme specifically mentions adding value to high-quality research supported by existing funding.
• That existing funding doesn’t have to be MRC, but it should be:
  • Competitive and peer-reviewed
  • Clearly relevant to your partnership goals

If you have nothing at all in place, you may want to look first at standard project grants, then build toward a partnership.

2. Can early-career researchers be involved?

Yes, and they should be. But:

• The lead PI is usually someone with a solid track record of managing projects and people.
• Early-career researchers can:
  • Lead sub-work packages
  • Be named co-investigators
  • Take on cross-disciplinary fellowships within the partnership

Use the partnership to grow the next generation, but anchor it in credible leadership.

3. How interdisciplinary does this need to be?

Interdisciplinarity is encouraged where appropriate, not mandatory at all costs.

Examples of good fit:

• Clinicians + data scientists + lab scientists on a disease mechanism and prediction project
• Behavioural scientists + epidemiologists + public health practitioners on intervention design

If your question is best answered within one discipline, this scheme may not be ideal.

4. Can we include international partners?

Typically, the funding flows to UK-based eligible organisations, but international collaborators can:

• Provide expertise
• Share data or methods
• Co-author outputs

They usually can’t receive large chunks of the grant budget directly, but check specifics in the UKRI guidance once the call is fully open.

5. What happens if our scope is borderline?

That’s what the multiple MRC contact emails are for:

• [email protected]
• [email protected]
• [email protected]
• [email protected]
• [email protected]

Send a brief description and ask which board or scheme fits best. It’s far better to course-correct early than to submit a superb proposal to the wrong place.

6. How competitive is this scheme?

MRC doesn’t always publish specific success rates by scheme, but partnership-style grants tend to be selective. Your mindset should be:

• This will require real effort—don’t treat it as an afterthought.
• The bar is not just “scientifically interesting,” but “strategically valuable to the UK research base.”

How to Apply (Next Steps and Where to Start)

1. Read the full official guidance carefully
   Go beyond this guide and check all the formal details here:
   Official opportunity page:
   https://www.ukri.org/opportunity/mrc-partnership-grant-applicant-led/

2. Confirm your organisation’s eligibility
   Talk to your research or grants office. They’ll:

   • Confirm eligibility
   • Tell you about internal deadlines and approvals
   • Support you with budget format and UKRI portal requirements

3. Contact MRC early
   Send a concise concept email to the most relevant contact (e.g., [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], or [email protected]).
   Ask directly whether your idea fits the MRC Partnership Grant scheme.

4. Register and explore the UKRI Funding Service
   Make sure:

   • You and your institution are set up in the system
   • You understand the section structure and character limits
     Don’t leave portal logistics to the final week.

5. Build your team and hold a planning session
   Get all key collaborators into one (virtual) room to:

   • Agree on aims
   • Define roles
   • Map the workplan and governance structure

6. Draft early, revise hard
   Aim to have a complete draft at least 4–6 weeks before the 10 December 2025 deadline.
   Use that time to:

   • Tighten your argument
   • Clarify the partnership value
   • Refine the budget and capacity-building story

Get Started

Ready to go from “we should really work together more” to a funded, structured partnership?

Start here:
Official opportunity page (full details and application portal):
https://www.ukri.org/opportunity/mrc-partnership-grant-applicant-led/

Questions about the system or process?

• General support: [email protected]
• Scientific remit and scheme fit: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

If you’ve got a serious idea, a credible team, and a vision for something bigger than one project, this is absolutely worth the effort.