Royal Society Darwin Medal 2026: Medal and £2,000 Prize for Excellence in Evolutionary Biology

If your work sits at the intersection of evolution, biodiversity, or organismal biology and it has changed how colleagues think about life’s variety, the Royal Society Darwin Medal is one of those honours that quietly signals you moved a field. This award — a silver gilt medal accompanied by a modest purse of £2,000 — recognizes research of distinction across evolutionary, developmental, population and organismal biology. It is not a typical grant; it is recognition from one of the oldest scientific societies in the world, and that recognition opens doors as surely as cash sometimes does.

Nominations are open for the 2026 Darwin Medal, and this guide walks you through who belongs on the shortlist, what to include in a nomination that reviewers will actually read, and the tactical moves that raise a candidate above “very good” to “unmissable.” Expect practical advice, realistic timelines, and frank talk about common mistakes. Read this and you (or the person you nominate) will be ready to submit a nomination that stands a real chance.

At a Glance

Note: The source material contains conflicting deadline text (some lines indicate 2025, others 2026). Before you hit Submit, check the Royal Society’s official nomination page linked at the end. Small administrative errors in public copy happen; don’t let one derail your nomination.

What This Opportunity Offers

The Darwin Medal is not a research grant meant to bankroll years of work. It is a prestigious recognition that signals to hiring committees, funders and international peers that the work has had significant impact. The tangible item is a silver gilt medal and a £2,000 gift. The intangible benefits are larger: professional visibility, an association with Charles Darwin’s legacy, and the imprimatur of the Royal Society.

A medal from the Royal Society communicates sustained excellence rather than a single flashy result. Past recipients include people whose theoretical insights reframed whole subfields and those whose long-term empirical work established new principles in evolution and diversity. Winning can accelerate invitations to speak, offers of collaboration, and influence on policy or curricula. For early- to mid-career scientists it can be career-affirming; for senior researchers it’s a capstone recognition that often expands an individual’s platform for public engagement and mentorship.

Because teams are now eligible, the medal can also celebrate collaborative projects — the kind that knit together genomics, fieldwork, and theory across continents. For multi-author work, the nomination should clarify the specific contributions of nominated individuals or the organizing structure of a nominated group.

Who Should Apply (or Be Nominated)

This medal is aimed at researchers whose body of work has demonstrably advanced our understanding of evolution, biodiversity, development, population dynamics or organismal biology. That definition is broad by intent: it captures theoreticians who change how we model selection, field biologists who reveal new patterns of diversity, experimentalists who uncover developmental mechanisms, and interdisciplinary scientists whose methods bring new clarity to organismal questions.

You are a plausible candidate if your publications and influence show one or more of the following: you introduced an idea that others now use as a standard tool; you produced long-term, high-quality data sets that shifted prevailing theories; or you built methods or frameworks adopted widely across the community. Young researchers can be nominated — there is no career-stage restriction — but your nomination needs to make a strong case that the work is already of lasting significance, not merely promising.

For teams, the Royal Society now accepts group nominations. If your lab led a decade-long project that rewrote regional biodiversity maps, or a consortium produced a major new dataset or synthesis, nominate the team. But be careful: if you nominate a group, you must be explicit about leadership, contributions and how credit is shared. Ambiguity is the quickest way to dilute an otherwise compelling nomination.

Real-world examples of strong candidates:

• A long-term field ecologist whose decades of demographic data on a species revealed previously unknown life-history strategies with broad implications for conservation policy.
• A theoretician whose models reoriented thinking about sexual selection and were widely adopted by experimentalists and modelers.
• A multi-institution consortium that integrated genomic, developmental and ecological data to redefine a major clade’s evolutionary history.

Eligibility Details and Edge Cases

Eligibility is straightforward but worth checking: nominees should be citizens of (or have resided for three or more years in) the UK, Commonwealth countries, or the Republic of Ireland. If you or your nominee moved recently, document residency dates carefully. Honorary nominations from outside this group are generally not accepted unless specific residency or citizenship criteria are satisfied.

Nominations remain active and will be considered across three nomination cycles, which means if you submit now and the committee defers funding or decides on a later year, the nomination doesn’t die immediately. That buys you time, but don’t rely on it — use the current cycle as your best shot and improve the dossier if you resubmit later.

Insider Tips for a Winning Nomination

1. Tell a crisp story in plain language. The selection committee includes recognized experts, but your citation should be readable by a broadly trained biologist. Start with a one-paragraph synopsis: what you discovered and why it changed the field. Use concrete verbs — “demonstrated”, “quantified”, “developed” — not vague praise.

2. Quantify impact. Don’t just say “widely cited.” Show it: mention citation counts where appropriate, major awards, highly used datasets or software, and evidence of uptake in policy, conservation plans, or textbooks. If your dataset is driving conservation decisions, say so and provide the policy document citation.

3. Prioritise quality letters. Soliciting strong, specific supporting letters is essential. Ask referees who know the nominee’s work deeply and can explain contributions in detail. A letter that summarises specific experiments, data contributions, or conceptual advances will outshine a generic paean to brilliance.

4. Use narrative to separate contributions in multi-author work. If the nominated person is a co-author on widely read papers, the nomination must explain their unique role: lead concept, data collection, analysis, tool-building, coordination, etc. Concrete specifics beat assumptions every time.

5. Anticipate counterarguments. If your nominee’s field is niche or methods are unconventional, address that head-on. Explain why niche work matters beyond specialist journals — perhaps it offers a model system, a testable prediction, or a transferrable method.

6. Polish the nomination form like it’s a manuscript. Clear headings, clean paragraphs, and no typos. Have at least two colleagues read it: one specialist to check accuracy and one non-specialist to check clarity.

7. Time your letters and documents. Provide letter-writers with a 2–3 page summary and a short bullet list they can use to craft targeted paragraphs. Give them at least three weeks and send reminders politely. People who agree to write often find time crunches derail their best responses.

8. Leverage non-academic impact. If your work influenced conservation practice, public outreach, museum displays, or education, document it. The committee values work that reaches beyond ivory-tower citations.

These steps cost little money and lots of thought. Spend the intellectual capital early and you’ll save frantic late-night edits the week the portal closes.

Application Timeline (Work backward from deadline)

Assuming the deadline is 20 February 2025 (confirm on the official page), here’s a realistic schedule:

• 10–12 weeks before deadline: Decide to nominate and identify nominators, referees and the nominee. Draft the one-page impact summary and a two-to-three page scientific statement.
• 6–8 weeks before deadline: Ask letter writers formally; provide the nominee’s CV, publication list, and a draft nomination narrative. Confirm that team nominations have a clear statement of roles.
• 4–6 weeks before deadline: Collect supporting letters and compile bibliographic evidence: key papers, citation metrics, dataset DOIs, policy citations. Draft the final nomination form and get two reviewers to read it.
• 2 weeks before deadline: Final proofreading, convert any documents to required formats, confirm portal account access, and upload early to avoid last-minute portal hiccups.
• 48–72 hours before deadline: Submit. Don’t wait until the last day — submission systems can glitch and referees sometimes fail to upload supporting letters in the 11th hour.

If you miss one cycle, remember nominations remain valid for three cycles but the strongest approach is to improve materials and submit again with updated evidence of impact.

Required Materials and How to Prepare Them

The Royal Society’s portal will request specific documents. Typical required items include:

• Completed nomination form (the core narrative).
• A concise citation or “case for the award” (one paragraph) suitable for press releases.
• A detailed statement describing the nominee’s contributions (2–4 pages).
• Nominee’s CV and list of selected publications.
• Supporting letters (usually 2–4), ideally from independent and influential scholars.
• Additional evidence of impact: DOIs for datasets, software links, policy documents, or descriptions of public engagement.

Preparation advice:

• The citation paragraph should be punchy and exact — the Royal Society often publishes these if the award is made.
• The 2–4 page statement must explain what was known before the nominee’s work and what changed because of it. Use figures or timeline bullets if allowed.
• For datasets or tools, include persistent identifiers (DOIs) and download or citation metrics if available.
• If nominating a team, include an organizational chart and a short paragraph for each named individual summarizing their role.

What Makes an Application Stand Out

Committees look for novelty and sustained influence. Standout nominations usually show multiple threads: innovative ideas, robust empirical or theoretical work, and clear uptake by others. Specific markers of excellence include:

• Work that changed prevailing hypotheses or opened new research directions.
• Evidence that methods or datasets created by the nominee are broadly adopted.
• Demonstrated influence beyond academia — in conservation policy, industry application, education, or public understanding.
• Leadership in large collaborative efforts with clear evidence of significant coordination and outcomes.

A standout nomination balances breadth and specificity. It documents achievements with concrete examples (papers, datasets, policies) and ties them to a convincing narrative about why the work matters across biology.

Common Mistakes to Avoid (and Fixes)

• Vague letters of support: Letters that offer only praise without specifics are useless. Fix: ask letter writers to describe precise contributions and give examples.
• Over-reliance on citation counts: Raw numbers alone don’t tell the story. Fix: pair metrics with narrative examples showing how the work was used.
• Poorly explained collaborative roles: If the nominee is one of many authors, the committee will wonder what they actually did. Fix: include a clear statement of specific contributions for each major paper or dataset.
• Last-minute uploads: Portals fail and email loops break. Fix: submit at least 48–72 hours early.
• Jargon-heavy narratives: Dense technical text loses readers. Fix: have a non-specialist read the nomination and rewrite anything they don’t understand.
• Ignoring public impact: If your work influenced policy or public understanding, but you don’t mention it, you’re leaving points on the table. Fix: document real-world effects with links or PDFs.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Who can nominate someone for the Darwin Medal? A: Typically, nominations are submitted through the Royal Society portal by qualified nominators — often Fellows, senior academics or institutional representatives. Check the portal for specific nominator eligibility. If you’re unsure whether you qualify as a nominator, contact the Royal Society nominations office early.

Q: Can you nominate a team? A: Yes. The Society accepts group nominations. If you nominate a team, explain the structure, the leadership, and the distinct contributions of named individuals.

Q: Is there an age or career-stage limit? A: No. The Darwin Medal has no formal career-stage restriction. Both early-career researchers with exceptional records and established figures are eligible.

Q: Will the £2,000 cover research costs? A: The monetary gift is symbolic. The main value of this award is prestige, visibility and the endorsement it signals.

Q: What if the nominee is based outside the UK? A: Nominees must be either citizens of the UK, Commonwealth, or Republic of Ireland, or have been residents in those jurisdictions for three or more years. Check residency documentation carefully.

Q: Can nominations be updated after submission? A: Policies vary. Generally, after submission you may not be able to alter the core nomination, though you might be able to add late letters. Don’t rely on this — prepare a complete package before submission.

Q: Will nominees receive feedback if not chosen? A: The Royal Society sometimes provides summary information but not extensive reviewer reports like a grant. Treat the nomination process as a high-stakes application and build a durable dossier for future cycles.

Next Steps and How to Apply

Ready to move forward? Here’s a concise action plan:

1. Confirm the nomination deadline on the official Royal Society page linked below.
2. Identify your primary nominator and 2–4 strong referees; brief them immediately.
3. Draft a one-paragraph citation and a 2–4 page impact statement that explains what changed because of the nominee’s work.
4. Gather the CV, selected publications list, and evidence of impact (DOIs, policy references).
5. Upload documents to the Royal Society nominations portal at least 72 hours before the deadline.

Get Started

Ready to apply? Visit the Royal Society nomination portal and the Darwin Medal page for full instructions and to start your submission: https://portal.royalsociety.org/my-home/nominations-nominator/

If you want, tell me about the nominee now — I can help draft the citation paragraph and a 2–3 page impact statement tailored to the Darwin Medal criteria.