FOI_25-267 Human anatomy teaching resources

Date of response: 07 October 2025

We have now considered your request of 12 September 2025 for the following information:

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I would like to request the following information about any resources currently or previously used by the University to support the teaching of human anatomy (including but not limited to digital platforms, 3D software or video resources):

Question 1. A list of all anatomy teaching resources subscribed to, licensed, or purchased by the university (institution-wide, departmental, or library-based) during the last three financial years.

Osmosis

Capsule – administered and paid for by Library

ClinicalKey

Speaking Clinically

Complete Anatomy

Anatomy TV

Geeky Medics

Acland Anatomy

Question 2. For each resource, please provide:

a) The annual cost paid (or one-off purchase cost, if applicable)

b) The contract start and end dates (and any break clauses)

c) The licence model (e.g. FTE-based, departmental, per-seat, or site-wide)

d) The number of users covered (e.g. number of students/staff or “unlimited”)

If any of the above cannot be provided due to commercial sensitivity, please release all non-exempt information and cite the relevant exemption(s).

Our response:

Please note that we cannot identify resources outside of digital resources, such as books and journals, including ebooks and ejournals. This is because the purchase of print and digital media of this type is paid from a single budget which would not allow interrogation to the level required for identification of specific resources. It is also the case that there may be resources which could be used for anatomical teaching but which is not specifically purchased for that purpose.

On that basis, therefore, we have included information relating to digital platforms and resources including software and video as being within the scope of your request.

Please see our attachment FOI_25-267 Appendix A.

In line with your rights under section 1(1)(a) of the Act to be informed whether information is held we confirm the University does hold the contractual value of these contracts.

On this occasion, it is not possible to provide all the requested information. The Act contains a number of exemptions that allow public authorities to withhold certain information from release. We have applied the following exemption to the individual cost per year and supplier. It is our belief that release of this information would likely prejudice the commercial interests of both the University and the third parties.

The Information Commissioner’s Office has established a multi-criteria test for assessing whether a section 43(2) exemption applies.  

The first criterion is whether the information relates to, or could impact on, a commercial activity. The first-tier tribunal (Information Rights) has conclusively stated that universities despite their charitable status, do engage in commercial activities. The University is a successful global institution, operating commercially by competing with other Universities across the world to recruit and retain prospective and existing students from home and overseas. The commercial activity here is the procurement of teaching materials to our students. We procure these services to enhance the student experience and we therefore believe that the contract values we negotiate with our providers is an essential commercial activity which should be kept confidential since doing so is critical to maintaining our ability to compete on a level playing field. 

The second criterion is whether the commercial activity is conducted in a competitive environment. The national and international higher education market size is vast and continues to evolve. There are 164 Universities in the UK, of which approximately 45 offer degrees in Medicine. Places on Medicine courses are capped each year with the total places available being 10,417 for 2024-25.

All medical education is overseen by the General Medical Council (GMC) which has a statutory duty to set the standards for providers of medical education. The GMC undertakes both proactive and reactive quality assurance to check that institutions are meeting the standards required.

For the University to remain successful and commercially viable it clearly needs to deliver Medicine courses to the required standard and quality. One way in which we do this is with investment in teaching materials and aids to support the core course elements.

Procuring, delivering and producing teaching materials for universities is an extremely competitive market. There are hundreds of providers all competing for their share of the market by offering a wide range of products to universities to enhance the student experience and support teaching. Technology providers invest significant resources to maintain their competitive edge to increase their revenue and market share.

The next criterion is whether the information is commercially sensitive. The contract value holds significant commercial value for both the University and our suppliers. Significant resources are devoted to ensuring the investments we place in the procurement of services at the University, are undertaken efficiently, effectively and in accordance with the appropriate procurement frameworks, which are all major contributory factors in our ability to compete successfully in the market. The commercial sensitivity here lies in the pricing mechanisms of our suppliers. Our contract prices have been negotiated individually with each supplier based on a range of criteria.

This pricing information was negotiated specifically with the University in confidence by our suppliers and it is our position that its release into the public domain would be likely to cause economic harm to both the University and our suppliers.

The next criterion goes to the prejudice itself; would there likely be damage to the University and our suppliers’ reputation, business confidence or ability to compete? We have established that the contract values are commercially sensitive because they hold commercial value. Under FOI, release to one requester is as a release to the world at large since it is published externally on our disclosure log. If the University were to disclose this information, release would be likely to seriously undermine the trust and confidence which suppliers and the public have in our ability to effectively procure services since third parties place confidence in the University that their information will remain secure. By disclosing this information third parties may be deterred from competing and sharing commercially sensitive information with the University for future contracts. This would likely seriously affect our commercial relationships as suppliers would be less likely to contract for services in future if they become aware the procurement processes are likely to be prejudiced. It could also damage the trust and confidence that existing suppliers have in our ability to effectively procure services. The contract values are not in the public domain and our suppliers do not publish their pricing lists.

The final criterion is the likelihood of such prejudice occurring. As described above Freedom of Information disclosure is made to the world at large, and we believe that disclosure of the contract value would likely jeopardise our suppliers’ commercial confidence and be commercially harmful since it would expose to their competitors, customers, suppliers and investors their pricing structure and value proposition approach. It would mean that competitors would be able to adjust their pricing to give themselves a competitive advantage.

Likewise, other establishments both inside and outside Higher Education would be able to use the information to drive down prices. This would be likely to impair any supplier’s ability to win new business. Competitors would seek to use this information to gain advantage by undercutting prices. Release of the exempted information is likely to detrimentally impact competitiveness in this market, and it is important that no supplier is disadvantaged in future bids by commercially sensitive information being made available to the public. The disclosure of the information requested would also weaken any supplier’s negotiating position with other actual and potential clients.

Potential suppliers who tender for contracts with the University will be fully aware of the commercial sensitivities around the information requested. They each place trust and confidence in the procurement process being effectively executed and will expect the University to procure services in accordance with the Public Contract Regulations. We are confident that there is a strong possibility that should this information be released into the public domain it would be likely to prejudice the University’s commercial interests and that of our suppliers.

The application of this exemption requires an examination of the public interest in disclosure as opposed to that of non-disclosure. The factors in favour of disclosure would include:

• Increasing public understanding of the amounts invested by universities for technological infrastructure to support the student teaching process

• Enhancing the transparency and openness of the amounts the University spends particularly in relation to the tools and software provided for medical teaching

• Increasing public confidence, integrity and probity in the amounts a university invests on technological infrastructure to support medical teaching

Factors in favour of withholding the information are largely laid out in the explanation for the use of the exemption above but would include: 

• Ensuring there is fair competition in commercial and higher education industries and buyers and suppliers are able to compete on a level playing field. 

• Preventing a distortion of the procurement process that would have the potential effect of raising costs and/or reducing the quality of services procured. 

After consideration of the above factors, we believe, on balance, that the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption.

In the appendix attached, we have aggregated the annual spend for all suppliers to give one total figure for each year.

We hope this information will meet your requirements, however if you are not satisfied you have the right of appeal. If you wish to appeal, please set out in writing your reasons for appealing and send to the above address. You must appeal within 40 working days of the date of this letter. In line with section 5.3 of the Freedom of Information Code of Practice, we are not obliged to accept internal reviews after this date.

You also have a subsequent right of appeal to the Information Commissioner’s Office. Further information is available on their website: https://ico.org.uk/Global/contact_us, or by telephone on 0303 123 1113.