Our Scientific Committee is responsible for assessing the many applications we receive for the Lister Prize each year and determining who will become our next Prize Fellows. To learn more about what the process involves we spoke with two Committee members, Professor Clare Isacke and Professor Angus Lamond.
What’s the role of the Scientific Committee?
The Committee comprises experts from a broad range of biomedical disciplines who help select each year’s group of new Lister Fellows, reflecting the wide diversity of expertise among the applicants. It is a rewarding role that provides an inspiring overview of the cutting edge of biomedical science.
“As well as reviewing applications, I publicise the Lister Prize to younger scientists around the UK and often talk to potential applicants about how the Committee operates and what we’re looking for,” says Clare.
“I am a big fan of the Lister Prize,” she adds. “It can transform the early years of an independent career. And there is nothing better than getting to meet the next generation of scientific leaders and hearing about exciting new projects. It is also a pleasure to be on a panel covering such a broad range of subjects – I learn a lot.”
“It really inspires you with confidence,” Angus concurs. “The Lister Prize is all about empowering really talented people to help them advance their careers and achieve great things.”
The application process: scores and peer review
The number of applications each year is high, so as a first step, the Committee uses a scoring system to assess them.
“While virtually all the applications have merit, only a very limited number of Prizes can be given out,” says Angus. “We apply a scoring system to reduce the number to a scale reviewers can deal with. Applications are allocated to members of the Committee with different backgrounds and areas of expertise to rank, without consultation with one another.”
“Each grant is sent to three or four members of the Scientific Committee, so each of us has to provide comments and score about 30 grants,” says Clare.
The applications are then narrowed down further through an external review process.
“The Chair shortlists about a quarter of the applications to go out to external review,” Clare explains. “We receive a broad range of applications, so it’s important to seek the opinions of external referees who are experts in the relevant subject. Or, in the case of multi-disciplinary applications, to seek opinions from experts who, between them, cover the different disciplines.”
“All members of the Committee receive the comments from the external peer reviewers,” says Angus, “and we use those comments to help us re-score the candidates and draw up a further shortlist to invite to interview.”
[There] is nothing better than getting to meet the next generation of scientific leaders and hearing about exciting new projects. It is also a pleasure to be on a panel covering such a broad range of subjects – I learn a lot.
– Clare Isacke
Interviews
The interview is the last step of the process and takes place face-to-face in London. “The Chair selects 10-12 candidates, taking all the external reviewer comments and scoring from the Committee members into account,” says Clare.
“Although we have read and considered each application, hearing the candidate talk about their work makes a huge difference in our ability to assess them,” Angus says.
Once an applicant has reached this stage, the odds are in their favour and the quality of all the candidates is exceptionally high.
“By the time you’re at the interview stage, everyone is very good. But sometimes we see an individual whose exceptional quality wasn’t immediately obvious, but when you speak with them, their ability to articulate their vision and demonstrate an encyclopedic knowledge of their subject comes through.”
Each interviewee gives a five minute presentation followed by 25 minutes of questions from the panel. Then, once the candidate leaves, there is a 10 minute discussion and each Committee member provides a score. “At the end of the day, everyone sees everyone else’s scores and the candidates are ranked based on those,” Clare explains.
“Having a consistent structure for each interview is important for fairness,” comments Angus. “We only have one day and we want to give as many people as possible a chance to come and make their pitch within that period.”
Choosing the Prize winners
Choosing candidates among such a high standard of applications is no easy task, even with the benefit of interviews and peer review.
“The majority of the discussion focuses on the candidates just above and below the cut-off to ensure robust decision making,” says Clare. “Selection is difficult, especially as applicants come from all corners of medical research from the basic to the clinical. But the Scientific Committee members are very experienced and will all have served on other grant panels with similar challenges.”
“All candidates, whether or not they are selected for interview, receive the comments from the external reviewers and Committee. The commenters explain whether they would support a re-application and offer guidance on what the candidate might address in a second application,” she confirms.
Although we have read and considered each application, hearing the candidate talk about their work makes a huge difference in our ability to assess them.
– Angus Lamond
Tips for applicants
Both Clare and Angus have advice for those considering an application for the Lister Prize.
- You have to be in it to win it
“The first piece of advice I give is to apply,” says Angus. “If you don’t apply you won’t get an award.”
- Seek feedback
“Discuss your application with colleagues and collaborators and listen to their advice, being open to making changes,” says Clare.
“Speak to someone who has previously received the Prize or has been on the Committee, if at all possible. Get someone who is in touch with the process to give feedback on your application,” Angus adds.
- Take your time and be thorough
“Start your application in plenty of time, and don’t underestimate how much time is needed to fill in all the other bits of the form. A great proposal can be brought down if the candidate doesn’t explain what they will do with the Lister funding, how it will transform their research and so on,” advises Clare.
- Write a persuasive application
“Clearly presenting your proposal in a format that is accessible to a broad range of reviewers can make a big difference to your chances of success,” says Angus. “You need to convince the reviewers that you are one of the very small number of people in a large pool of applicants who deserve this award. So write in a way that highlights why what you’re doing will make a difference – to your career, to medical science, or ideally to both.”
- Organise practice interviews
“If you get selected for interview, organise practice interviews, particularly with scientists who haven’t seen your application in the draft stage. Get them to comment on your presentation and ask tough questions. It really helps,” Clare says.
- A low-key presentation can be powerful
“At interview, it’s not all about a showy performance. A quiet, thoughtful candidate can wow the panel as much as a showboat,” Clare says.
- Read our guidance to applicants
“The application form includes advice about applying and I would encourage any applicant to read it carefully, because a lot of applications don’t properly address the things we are looking for,” Angus says.
Applications for the 2026 Lister Prize open in July 2025. Find out how to apply
