Grant decision-making process
The Wellcome Trust runs a diverse range of grant schemes tailored to the needs of the research communities with which it interacts. Essentially all these schemes are run on a competitive basis: applications are assessed in competition with one another.
Peer review
Assessment of grant applications is based on peer review. Comments on each application are sought from expert external referees. The applicant may then be invited to respond to an anonymised version of selected comments before the application is considered by a decision-making committee, which will decide whether or not to fund the application. An interview forms part of the assessment process for many of the Trust's career awards.
The Trust's decision-making committees comprise independent scientists from the research community with appropriate expertise and research experience. They are asked to express their own views on the research proposal and to adjudicate on the external expert opinions received on it. Thus the written reviews of referees are an important element, but by no means the sole criterion, for deciding the success or failure of an application.
Applications are judged on the merits of the proposal put forward.
Members of the Trust's decision-making committees are required to abide by a 'code of conduct', which is designed to protect and preserve the integrity of the Trust's advisers and processes. This code of conduct dictates that committee members may not discuss any aspect of the deliberations or recommendations of the committee with applicants, and that they must refuse any requests for information as to how a particular decision was reached.
Applicants or their colleagues must never attempt to contact a committee member to discuss any aspect of an application or the decision reached on it. All such requests must be referred to the Trust.
Types of decision that may be taken by a decision-making committee
Award in full |
The award is made at the level requested in the application. |
Reduced award |
The application is funded but at a reduced level. |
Conditional award |
A committee may wish to ensure that a specific condition is met before an official award is made (e.g. additional justification may be required for an item of equipment or an animal licence to be obtained). The Trust's staff are able to implement the award if and when the specified condition is met. |
Deferred award |
A committee may withhold a decision in order to seek further information, or to await the outcome of some event. The application must return to the next suitable committee meeting before a final decision can be made. |
Reject |
The application is not funded. |
Feedback on applications
Applicants may be invited to respond to an anonymised version of selected referee comments before an application is considered by a committee.
Once a decision has been taken, the Trust normally provides feedback to applicants. This feedback will include referee comments not already relayed to the applicant and the views of the committee that made the funding decision. Feedback is provided solely at the Trust's discretion, and is intended to convey the substance of the independent scientific critique of the proposal in order to help the applicant. Although the Trust is normally willing to relay the views of its referees, it is not prepared to discuss the merits of individual referees' opinions.
Feedback is provided to applicants for some but not all competitive personal award schemes (fellowships and scholarships).
Timescales
In general, a decision is made within about four to six months of receipt of the completed full application, but certain awards are made once, twice or three times a year. Applicants are generally notified of the outcome, in writing, shortly after a decision-making committee meeting has taken place. Successful applicants can normally implement their awards immediately after receipt of this notification.
If awards are not taken up within 12 months of the anticipated start date, they will be withdrawn.
These timescales are only intended as a general guide for applicants. For particularly large or complex applications, or those with unusual features, the decision-making process may take longer.