Establishing a UK Ultra-high Field NMR National Research Facility (Invite Only)

Establishing a UK Ultra-high Field NMR National Research Facility (Invite Only)

This opportunity is unusual in UK funding practice because it is not a standard call where any EPSRC-eligible organization can compete. It is an invite-only infrastructure opportunity from UKRI/EPSRC to establish a national facility for ultra-high field NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance) access and capability across the UK. The official page classifies the call as open, with a published opening date of 12 May 2026, closing date 7 July 2026 (4:00pm UK time), and a five-year award period starting 5 January 2027.

The call is aimed at creating a shared national service, not a classic project grant for a single lab experiment. It seeks a sustainable, high-capability service model with clear cost-recovery, broad user reach, strong governance, and measurable community value. If your organisation is not in EPSRC grant channels or expects an unrestricted grant process, this is not it. But if you are in the ecosystem that can host and operate a multi-user national platform, this is likely the closest fit.

At a glance: key details

What the call is actually funding

The call explicitly aims to establish a facility that gives the UK research community user-oriented access to ultra-high field solid-state and solution-state NMR at multiple field strengths (including ≥850MHz), including wide-bore capability and service integration with UK investments in high-field systems.

The expected facility is not a one-off instrument purchase route. UKRI defines a service-level model: a national facility with expert infrastructure, user support, and integration across disciplines. The programme text emphasises cross-disciplinary reach across physical sciences, materials, biomedical, and life sciences use cases. This matters because reviewers will likely expect evidence that the facility is not narrowly serving one department but supporting a broad community with coherent outreach and access rules.

A large part of this opportunity is about infrastructure governance and operational quality:

• access architecture for users (academic and industrial)
• transparency and fairness in instrument scheduling
• technical training pathways across skill levels
• online and on-site support that is resilient and accessible
• data workflow and processing capability integrated with community infrastructure
• clear impact reporting via KPIs and SLAs over five years

If you are searching for a grant to fund a single piece of high-value equipment, this opportunity is not a good fit. It is explicitly a shared-service model with long-term operational obligations.

Strategic fit: what organisations this is built for

This scheme is geared toward organisations that already operate or can host high-end instrumentation and coordinated service delivery. The official requirements imply that this is for a national facility lead rather than a project team requesting travel, consumables, or short pilot support.

The profile likely matches teams with the following traits:

• existing infrastructure management maturity
• strong links to external user communities and industry
• proven capability in technical staffing and instrument uptime management
• research office and finance teams with experience handling large UKRI grants

The opportunity is explicitly positioned as a successor in purpose to existing ultra-high field investments, not a standalone innovation grant. UKRI expects applicants to demonstrate how the new service complements national landscape, avoids duplication, and raises capability for broader UK researchers.

Because of the invite-only status, the key strategic condition is not “who has a great idea” but “who is visible and credible in this infrastructure domain and aligned with EPSRC strategy at this moment.”

Eligibility and constraints you should treat as hard filters

The official listing makes three practical constraints central:

1. Invite-only pathway.
2. EPSRC standard organisational eligibility.
3. Only UKRI lead-submission model through UKRI Funding Service, with only the lead research organisation submitting.

For practical planning:

• A team can still include partners, but only invited applicants can submit.
• UKRI expects the host organization and collaborators to show institutional capacity for facility operation, not just technical feasibility.
• The text explicitly states that the UKRI-RCN Money Follows Cooperation Agreement does not apply, and international co-leads are not allowed.

Other implicit constraints from the call details:

• This is a five-year grant with specific output expectations across infrastructure, governance, and user outcomes.
• The call places explicit limits on what is funded: no costs for research effort; equipment over £25,000 is excluded.
• Reviewers will scrutinize sustainability, recovery strategy, operational governance, and inclusion/access architecture as seriously as scientific merit.

What can and cannot be funded (core budget logic)

The opportunity has a strict budget philosophy:

Fundable intent

• software, technique, and instrument-development work needed to deliver internationally relevant NMR capability,
• costs supporting diverse users from novice to expert,
• operational and service systems that expand access and impact,
• core service and technical delivery structures,
• support planning for public benefit of the broader community.

Explicit non-fundable or tightly restricted items

• Research effort costs are not funded.
• Equipment costing over £25,000 (including VAT) is not available.
• Recurrent running costs need to be matched by a realistic cost-recovery model.

The page requires cost sharing and recovery planning, with explicit minimum recurrent cost recovery targets that rise over the funding period:

• Year 1: 30%
• Year 2: 35%
• Year 3: 40%
• Year 4: 45%
• Year 5: 50%

Applicants must include a proposed charging model and evidence that the facility can continue service through a mix of charged usage, free-at-point-of-access where relevant, and internal cost support from the host.

This has two consequences for proposal quality:

• if your budget is “all grant-supported service costs”, it will likely be judged weak;
• if your budget explicitly demonstrates where cost-recovery risk is covered by letters of support, policy on pricing, and a realistic pathway to sustainability, it will be stronger.

How to apply (and how people usually get blocked)

This call uses UKRI Funding Service, and this is not optional. The process is not Je-S.

1. Confirm project lead status in the Funding Service flow.
2. Create/verify a UKRI Funding Service account tied to the host organisation.
3. Complete the application questions directly in the portal.
4. Save and revisit; ensure all required sections are internally complete.
5. Validate read-only checks where required.
6. Route draft internally through your research office for compliance and finance checks.
7. Submit via the lead institution before the hard deadline.

The official page also states that once submitted, applications cannot be amended; withdrawn and rejection events cannot be re-submitted.

Important operational notes from official guidance:

• Internal review should happen before final submission; the deadline is hard.
• Only the lead research organisation submits.
• The project lead is accountable for the process, but multiple partners can contribute content.
• Images are tightly constrained in application text (captioned, no tables within application text), so visuals must be used carefully and intentionally.

Timeline, assessment logic, and what reviewers look for

The call states interviews are expected in September–October 2026. In practical terms, teams should not only build a proposal for submission but one with interview readiness from the same narrative.

The assessment areas are:

• vision,
• approach,
• management and governance,
• ability to deliver,
• resources and cost justification,
• ethics and responsible research and innovation.

Your application should map directly to these six areas and avoid generic statements. Build dedicated sections in your internal planning pack that show concrete evidence:

• user needs mapping and demand management,
• governance structure and decision rights,
• director and operational leadership experience,
• maintenance and staffing continuity,
• cost-recovery strategy with fallback sources,
• measurable KPIs for usage, publication output, training, and sustainability.

Because this is a service facility, reviewers are likely to score weakly funded entries that describe science but fail to describe operations, governance, or user impact reporting.

Practical readiness checklist (2026 context)

A practical pre-submission rhythm for this opportunity:

8–10 weeks before deadline

• Confirm invitation status and invitation conditions internally.
• Appoint a named director plus operational director (or one person where justified), then validate role boundaries.
• Build a draft user access policy with clear categories (academic, industrial, interdisciplinary, external).

6–8 weeks before deadline

• Draft cost recovery model by year with realistic pricing assumptions and utilization assumptions.
• Secure host letters that explicitly cover underwriting and continuity commitments.
• Establish governance chart and advisory board composition.

4–6 weeks before deadline

• Produce detailed instrumentation plan (including ≥850MHz and wide-bore capacity where relevant).
• Confirm sample handling, remote access, data tools and training pathways.
• Draft KPIs and SLAs aligned to output monitoring (user mix, usage intensity, processing throughput, support response, complaint resolution, case studies).

2–4 weeks before deadline

• Complete ethics/TR&I sections, including data, security, and compliance.
• Confirm no restricted costs (for example, disallowed research effort funding and >£25,000 equipment funding requests).
• Verify all names, institutional details, and publication/contact claims.

Final week

• Complete a read-only review.
• Submit by internal deadline ahead of deadline to account for institutional checks.
• Confirm no unanswered mandatory fields remain.

Common application mistakes in this type of infrastructure grant

Treating it like a research grant

The strongest applications are infrastructure governance applications, not research hypothesis applications.

Underestimating cost-recovery

A weak submission often says “we’ll recover costs later.” The official framework requires a year-by-year recovery path with operational rationale.

Vague user strategy

High-quality entries describe who can use the facility, through what access routes, and how prioritization is managed.

Weak leadership map

The call expects a clear director, technical director, and governance model with succession risk thinking.

No measurable impact framework

Applications without measurable KPIs are difficult for reviewers to score, because the output expectation is multi-dimensional and long-term.

Weak host commitments

Because recurrent sustainability matters, host support letters that are vague on financial backstops and data/access security reduce credibility.

Frequently asked questions

Is this open to anyone in UK academia?

No. The listed funding is invite-only. The call may still be visible publicly, but submission is only by invited applicants.

Is this still relevant for 2027 planning?

Yes. Although the close date is in 2026, the project start is fixed at 5 January 2027 and the award is for five years.

Can non-UK researchers lead?

The opportunity states international applicants should be handled under UKRI’s own constraints; international co-leads are not allowed. Only organisations eligible for EPSRC funding can lead within the intended model.

Can you use this for standard lab-level NMR work?

No. This is for a national facility model with shared access, governance, sustainability, and broad community use.

Is there a minimum funding floor?

The call lists max totals, expected profile, and recovery requirements. It does not advertise a single minimum comparable to project awards where only lower bound is explicit, so treat budget scale as opportunity-dependent and design-driven.

Required preparation materials to gather early

Gather these in advance because they are usually asked for or expected in narrative form:

• organisational eligibility confirmation for EPSRC,
• proof of internal governance and finance sign-off chain,
• draft letter commitments on cost recovery and continuity,
• operational model for scheduling, training, support, incident handling,
• evidence of broad demand (letters, consultation process, planned access routes),
• draft KPIs and reporting logic tied to review expectations.

If you already have these, your application can focus on the strategic narrative: why your facility design and operations architecture are the best national outcome for UK users.

Official links

• Official opportunity page: https://www.ukri.org/opportunity/establishing-a-uk-ultra-high-field-nmr-national-research-facility-invite-only/
• Funding Service entry point (from UKRI page): funding-service.ukri.org
• EPSRC opportunity-specific support contacts listed on the page: [email protected] and [email protected]
• UKRI Funding Service helpdesk: [email protected], phone 01793 547490 (Mon–Thu 8:30am–5:00pm, Fri 8:30am–4:30pm)

This opportunity is not a broad general-interest grant. It is a strategic infrastructure award where technical capability, service design, and operational maturity are reviewed as rigorously as research quality. If your institution is ready to build and run a national-class shared service for several scientific communities, this is a genuine 2026–2027 pathway to do it.