UKRI 2026 to 2027 Strategic Longer and Larger (sLoLa) Outlines

UKRI 2026 to 2027 Strategic Longer and Larger (sLoLa) Outlines

UKRI and BBSRC are running this call for people who normally would be frustrated by routine grant sizing. The opportunity is designed for big, integrated bioscience programmes that need a bigger scope than a standard responsive award and a team structure that can sustain cross-organisational work. It is currently open and has an outline-stage close date of 25 June 2026 (4:00pm UK time) with a publication date of 16 April 2026.

Key details at a glance

This page is a practical guide focused on what the official page confirms. It is not a generic template: the details below are tied to the specific scope and process of this call.

What the sLoLa outlines scheme is trying to fund

This is not a generic curiosity grant and not a small project award. The page describes it as a route for large, team-based discovery research that requires longer and larger funding because the ambition exceeds what smaller awards can reasonably support. The call asks for projects that should generate “major breakthroughs” in understanding of living systems and deliver more than incremental progress.

You should treat this as a “programme-of-discovery” call where the value is in collective capability. The scheme is designed for a cluster of coordinated work—not a set of independent activities stitched together at the end. If your design is essentially parallel projects with weak integration, it will likely lose against proposals that explain how parts are coupled.

Several aspects of the call are unusually explicit:

• The proposed science must be primarily within BBSRC remit and in bioscience discovery.
• The project must justify why it is not achievable through separate smaller awards.
• The team and work packages should produce synergistic outcomes, not a sum of standalone reports.
• The work should strengthen UK bioscience capability and competitiveness at a strategic level, not only produce isolated knowledge outputs.

This call is therefore most aligned to teams with the ability to coordinate across disciplines, institutions, and methods while producing a coherent output plan.

Who this opportunity is for (and who should not apply)

The opportunity is explicitly for teams of researchers, not isolated solo scientists. It is a strong fit for teams with:

1. A scientific question that genuinely benefits from large-scale, longer timeline exploration.
2. A strong base of capabilities distributed across multiple organisations or departments.
3. Leadership capacity to run a complex, integrated programme, including governance, cost justification, and delivery planning.

The official page emphasises that the opportunity is open to organisations that meet standard UKRI eligibility and to teams at:

• higher education institutions
• research council institutes
• approved independent research organisations
• public sector research establishments

Teams should not treat “team science” as a rhetorical label. In practice, this means your proposal should show that different members carry complementary, non-redundant roles and that those roles are coordinated from day one.

Examples of reasons a strong candidate is probably a weak fit:

• The scientific question is modest and can be done in a standard 1–2 year grant.
• The same team has multiple pieces that function independently, with no shared integration logic.
• The project lead cannot show a realistic management model for cross-site delivery.
• The project relies heavily on international organisations for core team membership where only partners (not eligible core members) can be included.

There is also a non-obvious restriction in this round: project leads of currently active sLoLa awards may not apply again in the same round unless their existing award is in its final year. If your principal lead has an active sLoLa award, assume a potential conflict unless that exception applies.

How funding, duration, and costs are structured

The published minimum is a minimum FEC of £2,000,000. That minimum is not a cap; instead it is a floor tied to scheme intent. The page says the total budget is still to be confirmed and that up to four awards are typically made, depending on quality and budget.

Most applicants misread the funding rate. “BBSRC funds 80%” is on FEC, which includes full direct and indirect costs relevant to UK research operations. In many institutions, this means the host organisation covers the balance through standard contributions, baseline support, or other mechanisms. So you should not treat this as “80% cash support and done”; it is an 80% partial coverage model for the full economic cost you are asking for.

If you are planning a proposal around this scheme, your financial logic should follow the same principle throughout:

• First define the programme-level milestones.
• Translate milestones into resource needs.
• Show that the requested budget maps directly to scientific delivery.
• Demonstrate why the minimum threshold and scale are unavoidable.

Because this is a new 2026/27 call with no hard total cap stated publicly in the headline section, your budget should be defended by strategic need and team complexity, not only by aspirational scale.

The duration can be up to 5 years, and this duration aligns with the “longer and larger” premise. That has implications for staffing plans, project governance, and succession planning for role coverage.

Eligibility, leadership, and team composition rules that matter

The call clarifies practical applicant mechanics that are often overlooked:

Project lead requirements

There is a single project lead required as the administrative lead for UKRI and BBSRC. This is not just a name on the form; the lead must be clearly positioned to carry responsibility for the application and future project management decisions.

Leadership model flexibility

Roles can be distributed across co-leads, including across institutions. The call allows shared leadership if your team governance is clear and each role is specified with explicit responsibilities.

The upside of this model is it lets teams avoid overloading one person and can improve scientific depth. The downside is that weak governance logic is punished. If co-leads are listed without a real management model, reviewers can interpret that as diffusion, not collaboration.

No hard career-prestige barrier for team leads

The page states there is no requirement that project leads/co-leads already have managed similar-sized awards. That is unusual for some high-value grants and signals that the scheme is explicitly developmental for leadership growth, provided evidence and management quality are present.

Team members and partners

Core-team internationality is constrained: individuals at non-eligible international organisations cannot be members of the core team. International collaborators can appear as partners when appropriate. This distinction is important. If your idea assumes key scientific drivers sit outside UKRI eligibility and are essential to execution, design them as project partners, not core-team placeholders.

What not to do

You cannot submit multiple applications with the same project lead in the same round. It may seem administrative, but for teams with many concept options this requires early decision discipline. Choose one proposal with the strongest strategic fit and do not spread the lead across parallel attempts.

The two-stage process: why the outline is the first hard filter

This opportunity uses a mandatory two-stage design:

• Stage 1: outline submission (current open round).
• Stage 2: full submission only for invited applications, with details announced later.

For this round, the key confirmed dates include:

• Outline opening: 16 April 2026 09:00 UK time
• Outline deadline: 25 June 2026 16:00 UK time
• Stage two invitations are expected to be communicated after outline assessment; the page says full-stage details were to be published in November 2026.

A lot of teams fail at stage 1 because they treat it like a draft. The official framing implies it is a real gate. If you are not shortlisted, you do not move to stage 2. So the outline should not be a teaser—it must be complete enough to prove:

1. Novel and transformational scientific logic.
2. Credible team integration.
3. Clear justification for scale and duration.
4. Administrative readiness through a UK-eligible lead institution.

What to include in a competitive outline application

The page is explicit about content themes reviewers expect. Build your outline around them.

1) Scientific scope and strategic contribution

State the core biological question in plain terms first, then map how your approach advances fundamental understanding rather than immediate, applied outputs. The scheme is discovery-led. If your proposal is mainly translational with short-term deliverables and weak fundamental rationale, it may be out of scope.

Your outline should identify the conceptual step-change you are trying to create and explain why the expected contribution is transformative rather than incremental.

2) Why longer and larger is necessary

This is central. Be explicit about why smaller calls are insufficient and why multiple separate awards would fail. The strongest applications usually include:

• A dependency map showing how each work stream is co-dependent.
• A sequencing logic showing why outcomes depend on shared infrastructure, data, methods, or interpretation.
• A “single architecture” narrative of integration, not only parallel work packages.

3) Team architecture and delivery plan

The call rewards genuinely interdisciplinary teams, but only if integration is operational. Include:

• Lead and co-lead roles.
• Project manager function (which the page encourages).
• Technical and specialist roles, including technical professionals where relevant.
• Communication and coordination mechanisms across organisations.

4) Skills and technical capacity

Evidence should include research and technical capacity planning. Reviewers are increasingly concerned with execution competence on large programmes. You should describe who does what at the point of scientific risk, leadership risk, and data integration risk.

5) UK position and strategic value

The page asks for strategic value to UK bioscience capability. Explain how the work strengthens the UK position, improves capacity, or builds long-term capability beyond the life of the project.

Application preparation timeline for teams still in early planning

If you are reading this in mid-application cycle, this is a practical timeline that matches the published dates:

• 16–22 April 2026: Finalise call fit, confirm host eligibility, and lock a single lead organisation.
• Late April 2026: Draft scope and outline structure, including integration logic between work streams.
• Early May 2026: Finalise consortium composition and roles, including project management and technical support roles.
• Mid May 2026: Circulate draft with internal reviewers and ensure research office is engaged for compliance, cost logic, and submission.
• By 11 June 2026: Have an internal-ready full draft version, including rationale for FEC scale.
• By 22 June 2026: Internal sign-off complete and contingency planning for system upload and backup materials.
• Final days: Submit before deadline and verify confirmation status in system.

You should treat internal institutional deadlines as binding even when the public deadline is still some days away. UKRI-style systems can become congested; the best applications are often complete before stress testing.

Common mistakes and how to avoid them

Weak justification of scale

Teams sometimes submit excellent science with weak scale logic. A sLoLa outline must prove why it cannot be split into smaller calls. If this is not explicit, the proposal is vulnerable.

Leadership tokenism

Listing many co-leads without defining coordination and decision rights creates a management risk signal. Reviewers read this as ambiguity. Better to show fewer, clearer roles than many decorative names.

Overreliance on non-eligible core members

Because core-team rules are specific, designing the centre of gravity around ineligible organisations creates eligibility and governance problems. Use international partners where they add strategic value, but preserve a UK-eligible operational core.

Confusing ambition with volume

Large budgets can hide weak focus. The strongest outlines show depth and integration rather than the largest work list.

Failing to prove “UK strategic position”

This call expects more than technical science. Proposals with limited evidence of UK ecosystem strengthening are likely to be considered less compelling in comparative scoring.

Ignoring the two-stage reality

If you write as if stage 2 is guaranteed, you will over-build and under-communicate. Stage 1 needs to persuade first, then stage 2 expands.

Required materials and readiness checklist

The official page references detailed sections and supporting information, but in practical terms, prepare:

• One-page outline-level concept statement (aims, integration logic, and novelty).
• Team map with explicit leadership and co-lead governance.
• Eligibility confirmation for lead institution and core team.
• FEC narrative and role-level cost rationale (even if costs are requested at stage 2, logic must be present).
• Contingency planning and risk-aware sequencing for a 5-year timeline.
• Draft internal compliance and submission checklist with date-stamped responsibilities.

Because outline costs are not requested at stage one, teams sometimes delay costing discipline. Do not do this. Reviewers still infer feasibility from whether your staffing and delivery design is believable.

Frequently asked questions

1) Is this a grant or fellowship?

This is a grant opportunity. The official page lists it as a grant, with a BBSRC funding model on a team-based research programme.

2) What is the minimum award size?

The minimum full economic cost is £2,000,000.

3) Is there a fixed maximum amount?

The page does not publish a fixed single maximum in the headline, only that the minimum is £2m and up to four awards are typically made depending on quality and budget.

4) Can project leads apply if they already run active grants?

Multiple applications from the same project lead within the same round are not allowed. Existing active sLoLa leads may be restricted unless they are in final-year status.

5) Is there a funding period cap?

Up to five years.

6) Who can I contact with questions?

The page provides dedicated opportunities contacts, including a BBSRC sLoLa mailbox and UKRI funding service support for technical issues.

7) Is there a project/award manager requirement?

It is strongly encouraged for all applications. The guidance says inclusion can support coordination and execution on large programmes.

Official links and practical follow-up

• Official opportunity page (primary source): https://www.ukri.org/opportunity/2026-to-2027-strategic-longer-and-larger-slola-outlines/
• Start application (official UKRI Funding Service link) appears on the opportunity page.
• BBSRC-specific contact for this call: [email protected]
• UKRI funding service support is the route for portal issues.

If you are planning a formal application, use this page as your planning base and cross-check any updates on the UKRI opportunity page before submission, because close-date details and stage timing notices are updated when needed.

Final note

The practical takeaway is straightforward: this is a large-scale, high-expectation outline opportunity for UK bioscience teams that can prove integration, ambition, and delivery capacity. It is not a high-volume “many small ideas” program. It is a strategic, competitive filter for proposals that want to do discovery work too big for ordinary grant mechanics.