Two very different types of changes reshaped the research landscape this year. First came the planned reforms. Starting January 25, the NIH rolled out a streamlined peer review process, condensing five evaluation criteria into three core questions: Should this research be done? Can it be done well? And are the right people in place to do it? The goal was noble for it is meant to reduce bias, ease reviewer burden, and refocus attention on scientific impact rather than institutional prestige.

Researchers also adopted new application forms and updated fellowship processes designed to level the playing field for early-career scientists from diverse backgrounds. On paper, these administrative changes promised a fairer, more efficient system for discovering tomorrow’s medical breakthroughs.

But 2025 also delivered the unexpected. Throughout the year, the Trump administration froze or terminated over 5,000 NIH research grants that were already underway on everything from pediatric brain cancer to addiction recovery. While many were eventually restored, nearly $2 billion in medical research remains in limbo. Some researchers received four years of funding upfront rather than gradually, creating a short-term windfall that actually reduced the total number of available grants. Others faced proposed caps on infrastructure costs that threatened the very labs where discoveries happen.

For early-career scientists, the impact has been particularly devastating. Graduate students lost paid research positions. Postdocs postponed academic careers. One researcher described the current generation of young scientists as “the most demoralized early-career workforce” they’ve ever seen, not because of the science, but because funding that seemed secure vanished overnight.

Why should you care? Because medical research isn’t an abstract academic exercise. It is how we develop treatments for diseases that don’t yet have cures, understand emerging health threats, and improve quality of life for millions. When promising young researchers leave science because funding is too precarious, we all lose the discoveries they would have made.

The silver lining? Researchers are resilient. They’re finding alternative funding sources, advocating for stability, and continuing their work despite uncertainty. Universities are adapting to the new review framework, and some scientists report the simplified criteria actually help them focus on what matters most, which is the science itself.

As we move forward, the question isn’t just whether individual grants get funded. It’s whether we maintain a research ecosystem stable enough to attract brilliant minds and support the long-term projects that lead to genuine breakthroughs. The discoveries of 2035 will depend on the researchers we support or lose today.

The post Navigating the New NIH Landscape: What 2025`s Changes Mean for the Future of Medical Breakthroughs appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

Ingredients    

1. Excellent match between the grant proposal and the donor’s priorities
2. Answering the “so what” question of your research
3. Simple prose and white space on the paper
4. Examples of the approach
5. A clearly written proposal
6. The grand finale: the significance of the results

Preparation

Read the entire RFP, from top to bottom. Once you clearly understand the directions that the donor provided, you can begin to put the pieces of the proposal together. Double check that you and your organization are eligible for the grant you are seeking, and that your project or research aligns with the donor’s mission. This makes certain that the match is made between yourself and the donor, and preparation of the pieces of the proposal can begin. These segments will be the product of extensive research on your part to move in the right direction. The pieces are:

1. Abstract – This will take careful preparation since it is the most important part of the application. It is the first impression, the precise summary of the entire proposal, and the evidence that success is possible.
2. Introduction – This is where you will present the problem or question to be addressed. The “so what” question for your project or research must be apparent, and should begin or lead into the narrative.
3. Need Statement/Statement of Significance – This is where the convincing argument for the project takes place. You will tell your impressive story, citing research and examples with enthusiasm and clarity.
4. Plan of Operation/Methodology – This is the heart of the proposal. Your plan should be tightly structured and consist of the goal (or hypothesis), objectives (or Specific Aims), and activities. Each segment will clearly illustrate the way your proposal will unfold in a logical manner. The evaluation follows, which should be clearly outlined in the incremental measurements of each activity – and these will be used to ensure your success in meeting your goal.
5. Outcomes and deliverables– This will be the section that demonstrates how the outcomes have unfolded, and what you are delivering to your constituents and the donor. In short, this is the resulting product of your proposal.

Presentation

Your presentation should be memorable. Don’t assume that reviewers will overlook sloppiness because your idea is phenomenal. You can achieve a superior presentation with images, graphs, and Gantt charts, which are easy to understand and memorable. Most importantly, if your proposal will make a significant impact, it should be stated as such. For instance, provide examples of how your work will make a difference, change the field, save lives, or set the stage for future change. Whether the presentation necessitates the elegance of a fine dining restaurant or the simplicity of a well-prepared meal at home, the true mark of success lies in what was expected and what has been delivered in an impressive manner.

The post Three Essentials for Grant Success: Ingredients, Preparation, and Presentation appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

According to The State of Global Giving by U.S. Foundations, during a five-year study from 2011-2015, grant-making by American foundations to charitable organizations outside the United States reached an all-time high. In 2018, international funding topped $10.3 billion, compared to $2.1 billion sixteen years before (an increase of almost 500 percent).

International donorship represented over 27 percent of all grants made by American foundations, while the average grant amount tripled from just over $200,000 to more than $604,000.

The major funding categories are as follows: health (52 percent); economic development (12.5 percent); environment (11 percent); agriculture and food security (8.3 percent); education (7 percent); and natural disaster funding, though on the rise, currently amounts to only a single percentage point.

The top three categories for these grants – amounting to more than 100 percent (due to some overlap) were as follows: project-related (65.2 percent), research & evaluation (39 percent), and capacity building (10 percent).

It is notable that the majority of these grants were channeled through intermediaries, which then parceled the money to other organizations.

Also significant is the fact that over half of all international giving by private foundations came from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Sub-Saharan Africa benefited from the largest share of global grant-making by United States foundations and accounted for a full quarter of total grant dollars provided in the five years between 2011-2015.

Besides the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, examples of other major U.S. foundations that make international grants are:

• The Ford Foundation in addition to other programs, funds rural communities to gain more secure rights over land and forests, focused especially on indigenous peoples, racial and ethnic minorities and women.
• The Open Society Foundations funds programs to build vibrant and inclusive societies, grounded in respect for human rights and the rule of law.
• The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation provides funds for family planning and reproductive health, with a decided focus on East and West Africa.
• The Walton Family Foundation seeks grantees who can expand access to high-quality education and also address global environmental issues.
• The Rockefeller Foundation primarily funds public health, eradicating disease (by seeding the development of vaccines for yellow fever and malaria), as well as visionary approaches to rural development in Asia and Africa.
• The Jane Jacobs – The Center for the Living City funds opportunities for community engagement through the lens of the ecology of cities in order to advance understanding of the interconnected human and ecological systems.
• The David and Lucile Packard Foundation supports rural communities, developing future leaders, restoring ecosystems and protecting the oceans.
• The Bloomberg Philanthropies funds economic development for emerging economies, public health, as well as education.
• The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation provides money for wildlife conservation, environmental protection and science education.

The top ten corporate foundations making international gifts are the: Coca-Cola Foundation, Citi Foundation, JP Morgan Chase Foundation, Caterpillar Foundation, GE Foundation,  ExxonMobil Foundation, UPS Foundation, Walmart Foundation, Johnson & Johnson Family of Companies Contribution Fund and Goldman Sachs Foundation.

Every one of these donors has its own application criteria, but for the majority the following primary considerations are paramount and include:

• Alignment with the foundation’s funding priorities
• Organization’s capacity to carry out the expected activities
• Effectiveness of the proposed activities to address global urgent needs
• Ability to achieve measurable and positive impact

It is axiomatic that by its very nature, international funding is an extremely complex business. Clearly, it is also enormously competitive and more often than not there are several layers of different approaches as well as challenges that need to be addressed. These include governmental protocols, currency fluctuations, and partnership issues as well as fiscal controls and responsibilities.

Successful proposals to these funding agencies start by understanding their culture, “language”, interests, criteria, and previous funding history as well as partnership engagements. Other key areas that govern funding for these donors are credibility, a solid and perspicacious insight into the specific international arena that is in need of funding, as well as a proven record of success.

The post Foundations & Corporations: The Art of Procuring International Funding appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

The best way to proceed is to give careful consideration to the donor’s critiques and decide whether you should reapply or not. Before you decide what to do, you need to determine whether the application is fixable.

How to Decide What to Do

• Contact the Program Officer for feedback. Ask him/her: (1) what his/her assessment of your proposal is; (2) whether the panel reviewers were enthusiastic about your idea; (3) if there are additional problems not addressed in the reviewer’s summary document sent to you; and (4) what your options may be.
• If the reviewers noted many fixable problems, it is good news, as it demonstrates that they are interested in your idea and that the application is worth fixing.
• If you have to revise more than 50% of your proposal, it is best to rewrite it altogether. If the revisions required are less extensive, then it is best to follow the rules for an amended application.
• If the scores of your proposal are strong, consider amending and resubmitting as soon as possible.

How You Should Proceed

• If your decision is to revise the original application, you should retain most of what you submitted, while addressing the reviewers’ concerns. That way, the next review group will look at the application in the context of the previous critiques and how you addressed them.
• In the resubmission, capitalize on your strengths and eliminate or revise the noted weaknesses.
• Respond to all reviewers’ comments and suggestions, even if you disagree with some. If you disagree, explain why and, if possible, provide additional information.
• Add new findings and make adjustments that you believe will strengthen your proposal.
• Address all items mentioned in the summary statement sent to you; however, remember that you are not limited to those.
• There is always the possibility of not resubmitting right away. The reasons might be: (1) you need to wait until you have the strongest possible application; and (2) you need time to polish your application.

Ultimately, the decision to resubmit depends on the various factors mentioned above. If the application has flaws outside of the idea itself, you should fix them and proceed with a resubmission. If, on the other hand, the idea is flawed, weak or not innovative, you should go back to the drawing board.

Most importantly, you should not be discouraged, as success rates for first submissions can be as low as 12%; thus, you are not alone. The encouraging news is that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has anecdotal evidence that applicants who resubmit have as much as 50% greater chance of being funded.

The post Proposal Rejection – Next Steps appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

Every donor is unique. For example, the institutes that comprise the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have dissimilar missions, and each has its own culture and requirements. The same can be said of the Department of Defense (DoD) and a myriad of other donors. Chasing the money rather than good ideas is a major flaw. Donors do not fund those focused on money, they fund those who are passionate about a good idea that aligns with their goals. Consequently, here are the five things you need to know about the language and culture of any donor before you write:

• What are the priorities of the donor? Each donor has its own priorities. For example, the National Science Foundation (NSF) encourages interdisciplinary programs and transformative ideas, and their definition and characteristics appear on their website. The DoD has five major foci: peacekeeping and war-fighting efforts, homeland security, evacuation and humanitarian causes. Each of these subcategories has their own mission and language. Turning to foundations, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation seeks to understand the world’s inequities. “Whether the challenge is low-yield crops in Africa or low graduation rates in Los Angeles, we listen and learn so we can identify pressing problems that get too little attention. Then we consider whether we can make a meaningful difference with our influence and our investments, whether it is a grant or a contract.” As this demonstrates, each donor clearly addresses their funding culture via their priorities.
• What is the mission of the donor? All donors have their own missions, which give us an understanding of how they visualize their funding priorities. For example, the NSF’s mission is: “To envision a nation that capitalizes on new concepts in science and engineering and provides global leadership in advancing research and education.” The NIH’s mission is: “To seek fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce illness and disability.” The Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program (CDMRP) run by the US Army Medical Research and Materiel Command of DoD has a similar emphasis to NIH, but its mission is to relate health research to the armed forces. Even though both NIH and DoD fund innovative ideas to combat disease, their missions and foci are different.
• What have donors funded in the past and why? One of the best insights into a funding agency is who and what they funded in the past and how much money they awarded. Federal donors list abstracts of winning proposals, along with the name of the funded institution and the Principal Investigator/Project Director. Accordingly, we can instantly know who they consider credible and their focus. Foundations will often describe what they have funded in the past on their website. Their 990pf tax forms will also show how their funds were allocated. The decisive question for you to ask is how your idea and their funding patterns match.
• What are the evaluation criteria for awarding grants? How grants are evaluated is one of the best indicators of the donor’s culture. This will include the evaluation criteria, who the evaluators are and how they are chosen. For some donors, such as NIH and NSF, reviewer selection is not a blind process as reviewers who are chosen have a deep understanding of the agency culture. In the case of foundations, it is more difficult to discern who the reviewers are, but one good way is to understand the vision of the leadership and the makeup of the board, which will be reflected in the reviewers chosen.
• What is the language of the donor? In many cases donors speak different “languages”, which are in the same family of languages. For example, the various US Department of Education Title Programs (e.g. Title III or Title VI), address different topics. Some address underrepresented groups, others international and others centers of excellence. Similarly, NSF directorates and NIH institutes have different missions, speak to different audiences, and address their vision of the world on their own terms. It is these “languages” that need to be understood, spoken, and incorporated into grants in order to give you the competitive edge.

In conclusion, submitting similar proposals to different donors is a fatal flaw. In order to succeed, we have to understand first and seek to be understood secondly.

The post 5 Things to Know About the Language and Culture of a Grant Donor appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

1. Begin early – In many cases this could mean starting about nine months before the submission deadline. There are many phases prior to the final proposal submission, and it is difficult to assess ahead of time how long each of these will take. Therefore, it is wise to allow extra time for completion of the proposal.

2. Understand that grant writing is a team effort – Getting buy-in from all who will be involved in the various phases of the proposal is the very first step that needs to be taken. An initial meeting to determine the commitment, expertise, and division of labor will start the process. Once the overall structure is delineated, systematic follow-up sessions should occur.

3. Research the situation that requires an intervention – A thorough literature review of the existing problem is necessary in order to understand the intervention that will be the ultimate purpose of the grant. Once the specifics on what is working and what is not in the field are laid out, the need for the proposal becomes very clear.

4. Address the innovation gap – In almost all cases, donors are looking for innovative approaches that will solve an existing problem or contribute to advancement in the field. Innovative models that will improve the field emerge from preliminary data, pilot studies, and extensive research.

5. Comprehend that simplicity equals complexity understood – A grant is a business plan that is linear and methodically developed. The more the grant requester understands what he/she is asking of the donor, the easier it will be to write the proposal in a way that can be easily understood by the reviewers.

6. Know the culture and language of the donor – Speaking the language of the donor and navigating their culture with ease will win the confidence of the reviewers by ensuring that the proposal addresses what they want to fund and how the request aligns with their mission and vision.

7. Take their audience with them – Understanding who will review the proposal is a key characteristic of every successful grant writer. Thus, they write for their audience – the reviewers. It also goes without saying that the review criteria used to score proposals must be understood. If writing to a foundation, this approach may not be possible in all cases; however, speaking with the donor’s program officer will provide useful insight.

Upon submission, the components of a winning grant proposal will be: an excellent idea that needs to be implemented for change to occur, focusing or narrowing the request to what is realistic and doable, innovation, extensive preliminary work, and strong teams.

The post Seven Characteristics of Successful Grant Writers appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

Our objective is to transform eight different communication courses over a period of one year via the integration of a two-week instructional module on negotiating skills, to be included in each course.

The process is as follows:

Questions

What do you want to know to determine if your objective was realized? For the example above, you would want to know if:

• criteria for course transformations were met
• subject matter was appropriate for the module
• criteria for negotiating skills are achievable and being met
• measurable outcomes are accomplished along the way

Indicators and Evidence

How will you know that the above questions are being answered? Examples include, but are not limited to:

• pre- and post-project tests
• surveys, observations, interviews, and other methods that gather qualitative information
• quantitative data collection such as: number of students, instructors involved, course transformations, tests, and grades
• Involvement in and success rates of mock negotiations

Timing

When should you collect this data? Your project will determine the timing; however, gather your data incrementally according to the percentage of change for established baselines of your proposal. A timeline demonstrating each of the changes as they are measured and happening is an extremely valuable tool.

Data Collection

The data-collection process assists the evaluation team in revising the design of the program and methods based on resources – both financial and human. The team can also examine how the evaluation process is received by participants and other people from whom information is collected. Assessment of the usefulness of the information collected is another factor the team can determine. This will include:

• Sources: Who has the information? What are the measurable criteria and expected outcomes for each of the objectives? In our example above, sources may be the evaluator, the faculty, the course transformation experts, a committee of experts who will evaluate each module, and of course, the students.
• Methods: How and when will the information be gathered? Your approach might be quantitative, qualitative, or mixed method research. Very often an evaluation consultant is included to ensure the statistical design and methodology are well-developed and logical.
• Sample: From whom will the data be collected?In large studies, a stratified random sample may be obtained by separating the population into mutually exclusive sets, or strata, and then drawing random samples from each stratum. Since the population for our example objective is not very large, chances are that the data will be collected from everyone involved in the project.
• Instruments: What tools will be used in gathering the data? These can range from quite simple to extremely complicated. Developing the instruments may be a lengthily process and relate directly to what needs to be known about each objective. Some examples may include attitudinal instruments, surveys, and pre- and post-tests. Once again, you may require the assistance of an evaluation consultant.

An evaluation plan is a written document that states the objectives of a project and the questions that will be used to determine its success. It also includes the information that will be collected and the timeframe of data collection. You can think of the evaluation plan as the instructions which will guide you through each step of the process. It is the key to demonstrating accountability to the donor.

The post Evaluation: Measuring Success appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.