From May 2026, UKRI’s Funding Service asks a new, structured set of “ethics and responsible research innovation (RRI)” questions on new research and fellowship funding opportunities. This is not the same as the general free-text ethics statement many applicants were used to writing: it is a defined question set that assessors score against specific criteria. This guide is scoped tightly to that new section — the exact wording, what it covers, how it is assessed, and how to draft an answer that will hold up under review. For the wider structure of UKRI and its nine councils, see UKRI Funding: How UK Research and Innovation Works and UKRI Grants: How the Nine Councils and Funding Service Fit Together.
What changed, and when
UKRI’s own guidance confirms that the Funding Service began using structured research policy questions from the start of May 2026. Before this change, ethics content was typically a free-text field or an attached statement, and its length, structure, and level of detail varied by council and by scheme. The May 2026 change replaces that ad hoc approach with an explicit, structured question set applied consistently across relevant opportunities.
The questions are mandatory for new research and fellowship funding opportunities, and applied “where relevant” to other funding types. Because the exact fields shown can still vary by scheme and by council, always check the specific opportunity’s page on the Funding Service (Funding Finder) rather than assuming every application form looks identical.
The core question, and what it actually asks
The central question in the ethics and RRI section is put to applicants directly:
“What are the ethical or RRI implications and issues relating to the proposed work? If you do not think that the proposed work raises any ethical or RRI issues, explain why.”
Two things about this wording matter for how you answer it. First, it asks for implications and issues — not just a list of risks, but the broader effects of the work, positive and negative. Second, the “if you do not think” branch is not an opt-out: UKRI expects a reasoned justification, tied to your actual methodology, not a blank field or a one-line “not applicable.” Assessors are explicitly checking whether that justification holds up, so treat it as a real answer to write, not a box to skip.
The four areas the structured questions cover
Within the ethics and RRI section, UKRI asks additional, more specific questions in four areas. Applicants can indicate at the application stage where a given area does not apply to their project.
Research misuse
UKRI asks applicants to consider whether the proposed work could be misused — used for harmful purposes, released accidentally in a way that causes harm, or exploited with malicious intent. This sits alongside, but is distinct from, the more specific dual-use concern in life sciences research; UKRI directs applicants working in that space to its policy statement on the risks of biological and biomedical research, and researchers should also be familiar with the general concept of Dual-Use Research of Concern (DURC) when describing safeguards.
Animals and the 3Rs
Where the proposed work involves animal research, UKRI expects applicants to address the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction, Refinement) directly in this section, in addition to whatever separate licensing and named-role approvals (for example under the UK’s Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act regime) already govern the work. See Animal Research Ethics: The 3Rs, IACUC Oversight, and the Law for the underlying regulatory picture this section is drawing on.
Human participants in health-related research
Where the work involves human participants in a health-related study, the section asks applicants to set out the ethical considerations specific to that participant group and study design. This is a summary for assessors, not a substitute for formal review — see “How this differs from formal ethical approval” below.
GMOs
Where genetically modified organisms are part of the proposed methodology, applicants are asked to address the relevant considerations here as well, in addition to whatever contained-use or environmental-release consents already apply under UK GMO regulation.
How UKRI assessors actually evaluate your answer
Per UKRI’s own guidance on core section questions and assessment, reviewers are looking for whether an applicant has:
- identified and analysed the ethical considerations that are actually tied to the specific research design being proposed, rather than generic disclaimers;
- considered the broader implications of the work, not only the narrow risks named in the four areas above;
- set out plans to enhance positive societal, environmental, and economic benefits of the work;
- set out concrete strategies to minimise negative impacts, including the potential for research misuse or accidental harm; and
- shown how these considerations will be managed across the lifecycle of the project, not only addressed once at the application stage.
That last point is easy to miss: a strong answer describes ongoing management (monitoring, review points, who is responsible) rather than treating ethics and RRI as a single box ticked at submission.
A practical approach to drafting your answer
- Start from your actual methods, not a template. Assessors are explicitly checking that considerations are tied to your specific research design. A paragraph that could be pasted unchanged into any application in your field is a weak answer, whatever its length.
- Separate benefit from harm. Write distinct, short passages on (a) how the work could positively affect society, environment, or the economy, and (b) what could go wrong and how you will limit it. Conflating the two into a single vague paragraph is a common way strong projects lose marks here.
- Name specific mitigations, not aspirations. “We will consider ethical issues as they arise” is not a mitigation; “access to [specific material/data/protocol] will be restricted to named, trained personnel, reviewed at each project milestone” is.
- Show lifecycle thinking. Note who is responsible for ethics and RRI oversight during the project (not only at the proposal stage) and at what points it will be revisited — this maps directly onto the “lifecycle management” criterion above.
- If claiming no ethics or RRI issues arise, justify it against your actual methodology. Explain specifically why your study design does not raise these issues (e.g., no human participants, no animals, secondary analysis of an already-anonymised dataset) rather than asserting it without reasoning.
- Write for a generalist assessor. Funding panels are not always subject specialists in ethics; avoid unexplained jargon and define any discipline-specific terms briefly.
- Check for council- and scheme-specific additions before submitting. Individual councils can add discipline-specific supplementary questions on top of the core structured section, and some opportunities may still require a separate PDF attachment rather than only the structured fields — confirm the exact requirements on the specific opportunity page, since UKRI has stated it intends to reduce attachment requirements over time but has not removed them everywhere yet.
Common mistakes to avoid
- Treating it as boilerplate. A generic ethics paragraph reused across applications is exactly what the “tied to research design” assessment criterion is built to catch.
- Leaving the “not applicable” branch unjustified. A bare “N/A” does not meet the explicit instruction to explain why, and reads as an incomplete answer rather than a considered one.
- Confusing this section with formal ethical approval. Answering the structured questions well does not substitute for obtaining actual ethics review, licensing, or consent approvals your project needs before work starts — see the next section.
- Addressing only the four named areas. The core question asks about ethical and RRI implications broadly; a project with no animals, GMOs, or health-related human participants can still raise RRI issues worth addressing (for example, dual-use potential, data privacy, or environmental impact).
How this differs from formal ethical approval
The ethics and RRI section is part of the funding application — it tells assessors how you have thought about the ethical and RRI dimensions of the proposed work, and it factors into the funding decision. It is not the same process as obtaining ethical approval from your institution’s Research Ethics Board or equivalent Research Ethics Committee, and it does not replace any statutory licensing (for animal research, GMO work, or human-participant health research) that must still be obtained separately, generally before the funded work can begin. For the broader landscape of what formal ethical review does and does not cover, see Principles of Research Ethics and, for the general concept UKRI is invoking, Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI).
Frequently asked questions
Does answering this section replace the need for ethical approval?
No. It is an assessment input for the funding decision. Formal ethical approval, animal-research licensing, or GMO consents are separate processes governed by your institution and, where applicable, UK regulators, and are typically still required before funded work involving those areas can start.
What if my project genuinely has no ethics or RRI implications?
You can indicate this, but UKRI’s guidance expects a reasoned explanation tied to your actual methodology, not an unexplained “not applicable.” Explain specifically why the named risk areas do not apply to your study design.
Which opportunities require the structured ethics and RRI questions?
UKRI states the questions are mandatory for new research and fellowship funding opportunities from May 2026, and applied where relevant to other funding types. Check the specific opportunity’s page on the UKRI Funding Service, since exact fields can vary by scheme.
Do individual research councils add their own questions on top of this?
Yes, per UKRI’s guidance, individual councils may add discipline-specific guidance or supplementary questions beyond the core structured section, and some opportunities may still require a separate attachment. Always check the specific opportunity page rather than assuming the core section is the whole requirement.
Where is the current, authoritative version of this guidance?
UKRI publishes and updates its own guidance on ukri.org, including a dedicated page on core section questions and how they are assessed, and a broader resource hub on ethical research and innovation. Because funder application requirements change, always confirm current wording directly on ukri.org before submitting.
