With nominations for the 2025 Biochemical Society Awards opening soon, find out all you need to know about the process of nominating from past and present Chairs of the Awards Committee. Your nominations allow us to recognize outstanding achievement and research across all career stages within our community every year.
Each year, the Biochemical Society delivers an inclusive and accessible Awards programme that celebrates the outstanding achievements and diversity of the molecular bioscience community. Recognizing excellence in both specific and general fields of science, our awards and medal lectureships carry a range of monetary prizes and career-enhancing opportunities.
We’re always looking for nominations that reflect the full breadth of our community, and so we encourage nominations by and for both members and non-members. Recently, we introduced a two-stage nomination process to reduce the work involved (especially for nominators) and, hopefully, lead to a more diverse and representative pool of candidates for consideration.
All award nominations are reviewed by a dedicated Awards Committee consisting of individuals representing a wide range of fields and career stages across the sector. Chaired for the last 5 years by Professor Colin Bingle, we’ll be welcoming incoming Chair, Professor Steve Busby, to the role later this year. Here, we’re pleased to share some of their experience and advice, with a view to helping you produce stand-out nominations.
Stage 1 – Initial nomination: highlighting your nominee’s achievements
If you know an outstanding colleague or support team deserving of recognition, the two-stage process makes it easier than ever to submit a nomination. For the first stage, we simply ask you to complete a short initial nomination form via SurveyMonkey Apply.
As the nomination forms are tailored to the specific criteria for each award, this is your first opportunity to showcase your nominee’s suitability for the award and demonstrate the exceptional work they have been doing. In the past, the Awards Committee has felt that some candidates have been nominated in the wrong category. So, try to ensure that you nominate for the award that best suits your nominee and clearly show how they meet award-specific criteria.
The initial nomination form is usually broken down into four or five questions, each focussing on a different section of the eligibility criteria (e.g., originality of research, quality of outputs, or commitment to build, support and nurture future talent). The Awards Committee is looking for well-rounded, outstanding candidates, who fulfil the criteria (and beyond!), so any evidence that you can provide where your nominee has taken on additional roles or responsibilities is worth mentioning. Make sure also to provide as much evidence as you can for each of these sections, and consider the local, national and international impacts of your nominee’s outputs, remembering that impacts are not just academic. Be sure to address all aspects of the specific criteria. If the award asks for evidence of independence, outline how the candidate fulfils this. In the case of the new ‘Inspiration and Resilience Award’, we are looking for individuals who have managed to produce outstanding advances in their field, despite having to overcome logistical and funding difficulties. We would not expect the academic achievements of such candidates to match those of candidates in some of the other categories.
No further information about the nominee will be submitted to the Awards Committee at this point, so it is essential that your responses create a clear overview of the individual and how they demonstrate excellence. If you’re unsure about how your nominee fits certain criteria, we recommend reaching out to their colleagues and peers for the required information or even contacting the nominee themselves. Being nominated for an award can be a somewhat intimidating process, but working collaboratively with your nominee is a great way to show how highly you respect their work.
Stage 2 – Full nomination: demonstrating the impact of your nominee’s work
After the initial nomination deadline passes, the Awards Committee reviews all nominations against the relevant criteria and finalizes the shortlist. We appreciate the time and effort that goes into each nomination, which is why, alongside the outcome email, we provide personalized feedback for all non-shortlisted nominations to help strengthen your case in future rounds.
For nominations that have been shortlisted, we will now ask you to submit some additional information to help boost the nomination during the final discussions. This includes some additional information from your nominee (e.g., a CV, ORCID number or output list) and two letters of support from anyone well placed to judge the impact of your nominee’s work. This is your final chance to make a strong case for your nominee to win – so support letters need to stand out! These give an opportunity to highlight information that has not already been mentioned in the initial nomination, or other indicators of esteem that demonstrate how your candidate fulfils the criteria of the award. When approaching your chosen supporters, it’s important to avoid duplication – make sure they each bring a unique perspective or viewpoint on the candidate, so that the wider impact of their work clearly shines through.
We suggest that each support letter is no longer than two pages of A4 and should ideally summarize the candidate’s achievements, while clearly describing the context in which these meet specific award criteria. Support letters should provide an overview of the work of the candidate, but not just replicate their CV. Historically, there has been a view that support letters should only come from eminent academics! This is not the case – the committee will look favourably on diversity within the support letters, so they can come from any individual well placed to judge the impact of the nominee’s work, irrespective of the career stage; this could even be a past student or a mentee! Ideally, support letters should also come from outside of the candidate’s home institution, as this enhances credibility and usually results in a more balanced picture of the nominee.
Post-submission and winner announcement
The deadline for full nominations each year is always 31 January, after which the Awards Committee meets to discuss all nominations and decide on the list of winners. We aim to contact you, your supporters and your nominee with the outcome of your nomination by late March, before publicly announcing the results in April.
Nominations for the 2025 awards will be opening in August 2023, so make sure you visit our website for inspiration from our latest winners and to see the full list of awards on offer. If you have any questions about the nomination process or eligibility of your nominee, please contact our awards team.
We wish to thank everyone who contributes to nominations for our Biochemical Society Awards; it’s your continued support that allows us to recognize outstanding achievement and research across all career stages within our community every year.
