Pull to refresh
Logo
What Changed
Following Why Sign Up
U.K. funder uses AI triage to reject half of grant proposals

U.K. funder uses AI triage to reject half of grant proposals

Rule Changes

CRANE cut about 90 of 179 cybersecurity proposals with AI before any person read them; it has now suspended those decisions and will re-review every rejected bid.

October 16th, 2026: EU advisers say AI should not judge research proposals

Overview

Updated Oct 19

CRANE has scrapped the AI screening that rejected about 90 of its 179 cybersecurity grant proposals. The U.K. network apologized for not being transparent, suspended its funding decisions, and said every proposal cut by the AI will now go to human reviewers, with final decisions promised by 20 November.

The reversal follows an outcry from researchers, including Lancaster University's Claire Hardaker, whose proposal on trusting AI in voice analysis was rejected by the models. U.K. Research and Innovation, which pays for CRANE, says its policy does not permit generative AI to assess applications and is reviewing how the call was run.

Why it matters

A machine can quietly kill a grant application, and it takes a public outcry to get a person to read it.

Questions about this story

Free account needed to ask — your question is kept and asked for you right after sign-up. Answers are public.

No questions yet — be the first to ask.

Key Indicators

179
Proposals evaluated by AI triage
Total applications to CRANE's phase one pilot call for cybersecurity projects.
50%
Proposals rejected before human review
The bottom half of the AI-ranked list was discarded before any human reviewer saw it. Those decisions are now suspended.
2
AI assessment methods used
CRANE had separate AI models rate proposals, then had models 'debate' merits before averaging the scores.
8
UKRI assessment modernization measures
Rolling out from October 2026, including a retrospective trial of AI-assisted assessment.
Nov 20
Deadline for new decisions
CRANE told applicants final decisions after the human re-review would be sent by 20 November 2026.

Voices

Curated perspectives — historical figures and your fellow readers.

Sign up to generate historical perspectives on this story.

Log in Sign Up

People Involved

CH
Claire Hardaker
Forensic linguist, Lancaster University
Proposal rejected by AI triage; CRANE has suspended those decisions and ordered a human re-review
 Diana Maynard
Diana Maynard
Computer scientist, University of Sheffield
Researches AI strengths and weaknesses in research assessment
 Mike Thelwall
Mike Thelwall
Data scientist and AI researcher, University of Sheffield
Commenting on the fairness of AI-based desk rejection
 John Stott
John Stott
Astrophysicist, Lancaster University
Proposal rejected by AI triage; his application was never read by a person

Organizations Involved

CRANE
CRANE
Cybersecurity research network
Suspended its AI-triage decisions and agreed to re-review every screened-out proposal

A U.K. network, funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, that supports cybersecurity research through grants.
UK Research and Innovation
UK Research and Innovation
National research funding agency
Reviewing CRANE's compliance; says its policy forbids generative AI assessment and is exploring AI-assisted review only through a retrospective trial

The U.K.'s national funding agency and the source of CRANE's money.

Timeline

July 2026 October 2026

6 events Latest: October 16th, 2026 · 4 weeks ago
Tap a bar to jump to that date

  1. EU advisers say AI should not judge research proposals

    Latest Guidance

    European Commission guidance says the scientific assessment of research proposals should not be delegated to AI, addressing oversight of automated evaluation for funders and research organisations.

  2. UKRI unveils assessment overhaul

    Policy

    UKRI introduces eight measures from October 2026, including a retrospective trial of AI-assisted assessment comparing AI judgments against past human decisions.

  3. CRANE suspends AI decisions and orders human re-review

    Reversal

    After complaints, CRANE apologizes for not being transparent, suspends all grant decisions in the call and says proposals screened out by AI will be reviewed by people. Offers already issued are suspended; a funding panel will reconvene. (Date approximate: reported as the end of the week before 5 October.)

  4. Backlash reaches the national funder

    Statement

    Science reports the story. UKRI says its policy forbids generative AI assessment and it is following up with CRANE to ensure compliance with its assessment conditions.

  5. AI triage rejects half of applicants

    Decision

    Rejection emails tell roughly 90 researchers their proposals failed an AI-based triage, without revealing which AIs judged them or why. (Date approximate: emails arrived the week before the Science report.)

  6. CRANE opens cybersecurity pilot call

    Funding Call

    CRANE issues its phase one pilot call; 179 proposals arrive. Guidelines say AI tools 'may' be used in initial assessment, with final ranking by the award panel. (Date approximate: proposals were drafted over the summer.)

Scenarios

1

UKRI blocks AI desk-rejection, mandates transparency

Likely Resolves by Q1 2027

Discussed by: Science, Times Higher Education

UKRI's compliance review concludes CRANE's generative AI used to reject proposals conflicts with its policy. UKRI issues a framework requiring that AI in triage be disclosed to applicants and that any rejection pass through a human. CRANE revises its process before its next call.

2

AI-assisted triage becomes standard across U.K. funders

Possible Resolves by Q2 2027

Discussed by: Nature, Research Professional News

UKRI's retrospective trial, comparing what AI would have concluded about past applications against human decisions, shows acceptable alignment. Facing surging application volumes and warnings that grant systems could overload, UKRI expands AI-assisted triage with staff-led desk rejection across research councils, with transparency rules attached.

3

CRANE reinstates human review for rejected proposals

Possible Resolves by Jan 31, 2027

Discussed by: Rejected applicants on social media

Under pressure from applicants and the parent funder, CRANE announces a formal appeal process or reopens the 179 proposals for full human review. Some rejected proposals win funding after a person reads them.

4

At least one AI-rejected proposal wins funding after human review

Possible Resolves by Nov 20, 2026

Discussed by: CRANE applicants and the network's advisory board

CRANE has promised that the AI triage results will play no part in the re-review. If a human panel funds a proposal the models had cut, it would show the screening removed viable science.

Historical Context

3 moments from history that rhyme with this story — and how they unfolded.

August 2020

UK A-level grading algorithm (August 2020)

When the pandemic cancelled exams, the U.K.'s exams regulator Ofqual used an algorithm to standardize teacher-assessed grades. It downgraded roughly 40% of students' predictions, with the steepest cuts falling on students from disadvantaged areas and smaller schools.

Then

Within days, after street protests and a government U-turn, the algorithm was scrapped and students received their teachers' grades.

Now

The collapse damaged public trust in algorithmic decision-making in high-stakes settings and showed that opaque scoring systems can be reversed under pressure.

Why this matters now

Like CRANE's AI triage, the A-level algorithm replaced human judgment with an opaque system that could not explain its decisions, and it was abandoned when the public saw the results.

2014–2018

Amazon scraps AI recruiting tool (2018)

Amazon built a machine-learning tool to rank job applicants. Trained on a decade of Amazon resumes, it penalized resumes containing words like 'women's,' effectively favoring male candidates, and the company quietly abandoned it.

Then

Amazon scrapped the tool before it was ever used in real hiring decisions.

Now

It became the standard cautionary tale about AI replicating bias from historical training data.

Why this matters now

It shows a private AI gatekeeper failing and being withdrawn; the difference is that CRANE's decision involves public money and the system's workings were hidden from applicants.

2021–present

La Caixa's AI-assisted review (2021)

Spain's La Caixa Foundation began using AI-assisted assessment for its research funding in 2021, but its guidelines state that 'no proposal will be discarded without expert human intervention.'

Then

The approach ran for years without a comparable scandal, with AI assisting rather than deciding.

Now

It stands as a working example of AI used in peer review with a human backstop.

Why this matters now

La Caixa shows a transparency-first alternative: AI can help triage, but a person always sees the proposal before it is rejected.

Sources

(10)
+4
Science Times Higher Education UKRI The Super Skills Research Professional News Nature Research Senses 2EU.brussels Times Higher Education Research Professional News