Scope a research pilot

Start with one
decision that matters.

Define the question, the evidence, and the next stage. A focused pilot can test the usefulness of the research service before a larger engagement.

Prepare your pilot brief

This form creates a downloadable brief on your device. It does not send a request or upload research data. Share the brief with your established Accelerator contact.

Laboratory or organization Use the lab or research team responsible for the decision.Research service Select the service closest to your research question.Pilot example (optional)Choose a hypothetical starting point, or describe your own project.The decision you need to make Describe the decision and what result would change your next step. Use nonconfidential information.Evidence already availableList the types of evidence. Do not paste raw data, unpublished sequences, or confidential files.

Research stageChoose the closest current stage.Preferred timeframeTiming is confirmed during scoping.

Before the review begins

What the laboratory
needs to agree.

A useful pilot has a defined question, named responsibilities, a clear comparison, and written terms. The examples describe possible scopes; they are not fixed packages.

Question and acceptance criteria.

State the decision, the intended use, the minimum relevant effect, and what evidence would support advancing, revising, or stopping. Agree the comparison and analysis before new results arrive.

Data and file preparation.

List the records available: tables, instrument exports, process models, analysis code, reports, and calibration records. Identify units, versions, missing data, sample provenance, and restrictions. File formats and any specialist tools would be confirmed during scoping.

Confidentiality and secure exchange.

Keep the first brief nonconfidential. Before confidential data is shared, agree the transfer method, authorized recipients, access limits, retention, deletion, and any confidentiality agreement. This website does not provide a secure research-data upload.

Intellectual property and publication.

Written terms should distinguish pre-existing intellectual property from new analysis and deliverables, and specify ownership, permitted use, and any publication rights. No public disclosure of a laboratory’s work should be assumed.

People, experiments, and specialist work.

The laboratory would name its project lead and decision authority. The scope would identify the review expertise required, the experiments or calculations to be performed, and who is responsible for approvals, equipment, testing, and independent review.

Timing, costs, and support.

The proposed 15-30 day period concerns a scoped evidence review. New experiments, field studies, long-duration storage work, and external testing may need longer. Fees, third-party costs, and any grant or program support must be confirmed in writing.

What would the laboratory receive?

The agreed deliverables would include a dated technical review, the data and assumptions used, reproducible calculations where included, unresolved issues, and a next-test plan with decision criteria. Any specialist output and its validation requirements would be named in the scope.

What happens after a brief is prepared?

The brief downloads to your device. Review it and share it through the published program contact or your established Accelerator contact. An enquiry, a research engagement, and a grant award are separate steps.

Contact and enquiry routes