RCP Sir Michael Perrin Research Scholarship 2026: Up to £11,000 for Resident Doctors' Mentored Research

RCP Sir Michael Perrin Research Scholarship 2026: Up to £11,000 for Resident Doctors’ Mentored Research

The Royal College of Physicians Sir Michael Perrin Research Scholarship is a focused entry point into clinical academia for a resident doctor who has a research question but has not yet followed a formal doctoral pathway. The scholarship provides up to £10,000 to a host institution for a 12-month medical or health-services research project, with an additional allowance of up to £1,000 for conference costs, travel, and accommodation. It is intended to help an early-career doctor build meaningful research experience with supervision, rather than to fund a large laboratory programme or a full academic degree.

The 2026 application window opens on 12 August 2026 and closes on 16 October 2026. The Royal College of Physicians (RCP) says the scholarship is open to resident doctors in foundation years, integrated medical training, or a UK specialty training programme. Applicants must be subscribing RCP members, must have a host institution that can administer the award and support the research, and must not already hold or be undertaking a PhD or MD. Doctors who are not enrolled in an academic programme must explain how they will create enough time for the work, such as through annual leave or flexible working arrangements.

This is a good opportunity for a doctor who wants to turn a service problem, patient-safety concern, health-inequality question, or clinical observation into a properly supervised project with a concrete output. It is not a general cost-of-living award, a salary replacement package, or a doctoral studentship. The host institution must be involved, and the application should make clear how the research can be completed in 12 months with the time and resources available.

Key details

What the scholarship offers

The main award is up to £10,000 for the host institution to support the recipient’s research project. The public call does not describe this as a personal stipend. Applicants should therefore avoid presenting the award as guaranteed salary support or as money that will be paid directly into their personal account. The host institution will administer the funds, and its research office or finance team should be involved before submission so that the proposed costs are realistic and acceptable.

The RCP lists several acceptable uses: travel for data collection or collaboration, research consumables, access to specialist resources, and other project-related expenses. Those categories leave room for different types of clinical or health-services research, but they do not remove the need for a defined budget. A project that needs only a small amount of software, data access, or participant materials should not inflate its costs simply to reach the maximum. Conversely, a project that depends on specialist testing, data collection across sites, or a conference presentation should show where the money will be used and why each cost is necessary.

The separate allowance of up to £1,000 can support conference costs, travel, and accommodation. This is useful when the research can be shared with a professional audience or when collaboration requires travel. It is still a ceiling, not a promise that every expense will be paid. Applicants should distinguish research delivery costs from dissemination costs and explain the expected benefit of attending a conference or meeting. A presentation, poster, methodological workshop, or collaboration meeting is more persuasive when tied to a specific output or development goal.

The award also offers public recognition and profile through RCP channels. The central benefit, however, is the opportunity to complete a supervised project and produce tangible research outputs. The RCP says the scholarship aims to encourage early-career doctors to become clinical academics, improve diversity and accessibility in clinical academic careers, and support work that leads to useful outputs. Applicants should treat the money, mentorship, host setting, and output plan as one package.

Who is eligible

The scholarship is for resident doctors in foundation years, integrated medical training, or a UK specialty training programme. That wording makes the opportunity especially relevant to doctors who are still building a research record and who want to test whether a clinical academic path is right for them. It is not framed as a senior investigator award, and the exclusion of current PhD or MD holders reinforces that the programme is intended to support an earlier stage.

Applicants must be subscribing members of the Royal College of Physicians. The RCP’s wider funding page says that applicants who are not yet members may become members on the same day they apply for its awards, but the scholarship page itself identifies subscribing RCP membership as an eligibility requirement. Anyone relying on same-day membership should confirm the current process and timing with the RCP before submitting. Do not assume that creating an account or beginning a membership application automatically satisfies the final application requirement.

The applicant must have a host institution through which the funds will be administered and which will support the proposed project. A host could be a hospital, university, research unit, or another eligible organization connected to the doctor’s work, but the public call does not provide a universal list. The important point is institutional responsibility: someone at the host must be able to support the research, administer the award, and help the applicant complete the work.

Doctors who are not currently enrolled in an academic programme must demonstrate how they will allocate sufficient research time. The RCP gives annual leave and flexible working arrangements as examples. This requirement should be addressed directly. A strong application does not merely say that the doctor is enthusiastic; it states when the research will happen, what clinical commitments remain, who will supervise the work, and how the proposed schedule fits within the 12-month period.

People who hold or are currently undertaking a PhD or MD are not eligible because they are already engaged in substantial research activity. The scholarship is designed for a first meaningful research opportunity before that stage. If an applicant has completed a master’s degree, published a small project, or contributed to audit or quality-improvement work, the application should explain how this scholarship would provide a distinct first mentored research experience without overstating prior work.

Choosing a suitable research project

The best project will be narrow enough to finish in 12 months and important enough to matter to patients, services, clinicians, or policy. The RCP does not prescribe one specialty or one methodology on the scholarship page. That means the applicant must make the fit understandable. A project might examine access to care, clinical outcomes, service design, patient safety, health inequalities, workforce practice, diagnostic pathways, or another medical or health-services question, provided the proposed host and supervisor can support it.

Begin with a specific problem. Instead of saying that a service should be more equitable, identify the point where access or outcomes differ, the population affected, and the evidence that shows the problem exists. Instead of proposing to improve patient safety generally, identify a defined process, risk, or communication failure that can be measured. A short baseline description helps reviewers see that the project is grounded in practice rather than being an abstract topic selected for the application.

Next, write one answerable research question. The question should match the method, available data, ethics pathway, and timeframe. A retrospective analysis may be feasible where a new longitudinal study is not. A qualitative project may be appropriate for understanding patient or clinician experience, while a service evaluation or mixed-methods study may be needed to connect experience with measurable outcomes. The application should not claim that one small project will resolve a major national problem.

The supervisor and host are part of the research design. Explain why the proposed supervisor has the relevant clinical, methodological, or service expertise and how they will provide regular guidance. Identify the host’s data access, specialist resources, analytic support, patient or public involvement structures, and governance route where relevant. The goal is not to name the most prestigious institution; it is to show that this particular setting makes the project possible.

Required application materials

The RCP lists three core components: the application form, a two-page CV, and a brief letter of support from the supervisor. Because the CV is capped at two pages, every line should help establish eligibility, research readiness, or project fit. Include training stage, current role, relevant clinical experience, audit or quality-improvement work, prior research exposure, presentations, publications if any, and skills that relate to the proposed methods. Do not turn the CV into a full employment history if that pushes the important evidence out of view.

The application form should carry the central argument. It should connect the research problem, the proposed question, the methods, the 12-month timetable, the budget, the host environment, and the expected outputs. Use plain language for a clinical audience that may not work in the applicant’s specialty. Define unavoidable abbreviations and distinguish research from routine service activity.

The supervisor’s letter should do more than confirm that the applicant is a pleasant colleague. It should state that the supervisor understands the project, can provide appropriate mentorship, and supports the time and institutional arrangements needed to complete it. It should also explain how the applicant will develop as a researcher. Ask for the letter early and give the supervisor a one-page project summary, proposed timetable, budget outline, and the official eligibility requirements.

The public page does not list a separate reference-letter form, institutional approval form, ethics approval, or detailed budget template. That does not mean those items will never be relevant. Clinical research may require information-governance review, research ethics approval, local capacity confirmation, or a host finance sign-off before work begins. State the likely approvals and their timing without claiming that approval has already been granted if it has not.

Application process and timeline

Applications open on Wednesday 12 August 2026 and close on Friday 16 October 2026. The official page links to the scholarship application form. Applicants should use that live form as the final authority for field limits, upload instructions, and submission steps. Save a copy of the completed application and any confirmation message after submission.

A practical schedule is to spend the first week confirming membership, eligibility, supervisor support, and host-institution involvement. Use the next few weeks to refine the research question, check data or participant access, sketch the budget, and identify governance requirements. Leave time for a supervisor review and for the host’s administrative checks. Submitting early is particularly sensible where the doctor needs annual leave, flexible working, or a formal institutional signature.

The RCP page does not publish a decision date or a fixed project start date. Applicants should not invent one. Instead, present a proposed 12-month schedule that can begin after award and host approval. Divide it into preparation and approvals, data collection or analysis, interpretation, writing, and dissemination. Include milestones that show what will exist at the end of each stage, such as an approved protocol, cleaned dataset, completed interviews, analysis plan, draft report, abstract, or manuscript.

Preparing a credible budget

The award ceiling is £10,000 for the host institution, with up to £1,000 for conference costs, travel, and accommodation. Build the project budget from actual activities. For data collection, explain the travel route, number of visits, or participant-related materials. For collaboration, identify what expertise or resource the travel makes available. For specialist resources, name the access, service, or consumable and state how it affects the research question.

Separate essential costs from optional costs. If the project can be completed with a free institutional tool, do not ask for an expensive alternative without a clear reason. If the project needs a paid database, specialist analysis, transcription, or laboratory consumable, explain why the cost cannot be absorbed by the host. Ask the host finance team whether VAT, procurement rules, or internal overhead policies affect the figure. The public call does not promise indirect-cost recovery, so do not assume the full award can be spent as personal research income.

The conference allowance deserves its own justification. Name the likely audience and the output that would be presented or developed. If the conference is not yet selected, describe the type of meeting and the reason it matters. A realistic plan might include one presentation after preliminary results or a workshop that improves the applicant’s method. Avoid budgeting for travel merely as a reward for participation.

What reviewers need to see

Reviewers need a clear reason to believe that the project is both worthwhile and finishable. Show the problem, the question, the method, the host’s capability, and the applicant’s time commitment in a connected sequence. Explain what the scholarship adds that ordinary clinical duties, a local audit, or an existing training programme cannot provide.

Evidence quality matters even in a short application. Use a small number of relevant sources, service data, guidelines, or local observations to establish the need. Do not bury the project under a long literature review. The reviewer should be able to tell which claim is supported, which part is the applicant’s proposed work, and what result would change practice or understanding.

The RCP’s stated aim of supporting tangible outputs should shape the final section. Outputs might include a report for the host service, a conference presentation, a manuscript, a validated tool, a patient-information resource, a service recommendation, or a follow-on funding application. Match the output to the research design and the 12-month timeframe. A modest, completed result is stronger than a list of ambitious products with no delivery route.

Common mistakes to avoid

Calling the award a personal stipend. The £10,000 goes to the host institution for the research project. Describe the support accurately and confirm how the host will administer it.

Applying without a time plan. Doctors outside formal academic programmes must explain how they will protect research time. A sentence about fitting the work around shifts is not enough.

Proposing a doctoral-scale question. This scholarship supports a 12-month opportunity, not a multi-year programme. Reduce the scope to one population, service, dataset, or defined research question.

Treating clinical audit as automatically sufficient. Audit or quality-improvement experience can strengthen the application, but the proposal should explain the research contribution, method, and supervision it needs.

Leaving membership and host approval to the deadline week. Both are eligibility and administration issues. Resolve them before the narrative is final.

Ignoring governance. Clinical data, patient interviews, and access to records may require approvals. Include a realistic route and timetable, and do not promise immediate data collection if permissions are not in place.

Frequently asked questions

Is this a salary or living-cost scholarship?

The published award is up to £10,000 for the host institution to support the research project, plus up to £1,000 for conference costs, travel, and accommodation. The RCP does not describe it as a personal salary or living-cost stipend.

How long is the research opportunity?

The scholarship supports a 12-month research opportunity. The RCP does not publish a fixed start date on the public call, so applicants should propose a practical schedule with the host institution.

Who can apply?

Resident doctors in foundation years, integrated medical training, or a UK specialty training programme can apply if they meet the other conditions, including RCP membership and host-institution support.

Can someone with a PhD or MD apply?

No. Applicants who hold or are currently undertaking a PhD or MD are not eligible because the scholarship is intended for doctors who have not yet entered that level of formal research activity.

What if I am not enrolled in an academic programme?

You can still be considered, but you must explain how you will allocate enough time for the project. The RCP gives annual leave and flexible working arrangements as examples.

Can the award pay for conference travel?

Yes, the RCP lists up to £1,000 for conference costs, travel, and accommodation. The main £10,000 project award can also support project-related travel, but the host institution administers those funds.

Must I already be an RCP member?

The scholarship requires subscribing RCP membership. The RCP’s wider awards page says applicants may become members on the same day they apply, but confirm the current process before relying on that route.

What is the deadline?

Applications close on 16 October 2026. The application window opens on 12 August 2026.

Official links and next steps

Read the official RCP Sir Michael Perrin Research Scholarship page and open the application form linked there. Before submitting, confirm your training stage, subscribing membership, host institution, supervisor, protected-time arrangement, and the restriction on current or completed PhD and MD study.

The most useful next step is to write a one-page project brief for your supervisor and host research office. State the problem, research question, proposed method, 12-month timetable, expected output, and first-pass budget. Then ask whether the host can administer the award and whether any ethics, data, or governance review should be started before submission. A focused proposal with a credible schedule will give the scholarship committee a clearer basis for judging both the research value and the applicant’s readiness for clinical academic work.