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.

The erosion of informal relationships with federal agencies has fundamentally altered how universities assess risk. When routine questions go unanswered and faculty fear surveillance of their collaborations, innovation suffers as researchers retreat from proposals and international partnerships.

Faculty exhaustion has deepened beyond pandemic-era stress into permanent strain. At teaching-intensive institutions, even small seed grants require navigating weeks of bureaucratic obstacles. In the humanities, major NEH program cuts and shifting donor priorities toward immediate impact have left experienced scholars struggling to sustain long-term critical work.

Counter intuitively, the most stable research leaders practice restraint rather than bold transformation. By refusing to outpace federal guidance and clearly communicating realistic institutional capacity, they’ve maintained steadier operations. Many institutions have abandoned broad, small-scale bridge funding for targeted faculty cohorts receiving intensive support, while others invest in shared proposal development resources and grant-writing consultants. Yet leaders agree the critical factor isn’t funding, it is morale.

Research administrators increasingly spend time interpreting political signals and strategically reframing work. Some train faculty to avoid problematic keywords, while others align messaging with phrases like “Make America Healthy Again”. This strategic repositioning reflects a troubling reality: research is becoming a political act.

The shift toward industry partnerships to replace declining federal support raises fundamental questions about who determines research priorities and why. Leaders fear that political instability and funding volatility will force institutions to abandon long-term research strategies for short-term survival, undermining the patient cultivation necessary for transformative scholarship.

Despite these challenges, cautious optimism persists. Cross-institutional humanities collaborations are emerging, STEM fields are organizing around AI initiatives, and some leaders embrace moral clarity by honestly communicating what they cannot support. Many focus on strengthening internal collaboration rather than external competition.

The post Mounting Pressures Facing University Research appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

The following is a step-by-step guide on how to write the NIH DMP:

Understanding the NIH Data Sharing Policy:

Familiarize yourself with the specific data sharing requirements and policies outlined in the Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) or the agency-specific guidelines. Each NIH institute may have slightly different expectations for data sharing, so be sure to tailor your plan accordingly.

Starting early:

Begin working on your DMP early in the grant writing process. This detailed document requires thoughtful consideration, and rushing through it could lead to oversight or errors.

Types of data to be collected:

Clearly outline the different types of data that will be generated in your research project. This can include experimental results, survey responses, clinical data, genomic data, imaging data, etc.

Data collection procedures:

Explain how you will collect and generate the data. Describe the instruments, protocols, and methodologies you will use. Address issues like data quality control and validation.

Data organization and documentation:

Detail how you will organize and document your data during the research project. This can involve establishing a standardized naming convention, using metadata, and creating data dictionaries or codebooks.

Data storage and backup:

Describe how you will store your data securely during the project. This may involve using institutional servers, cloud-based storage, or other dedicated data repositories. Include information on data backup procedures to prevent data loss.

Data sharing:

Clearly state your intentions regarding data sharing. If you plan to share data, specify the timing and conditions under which the data will be made available to other researchers and through which platforms or repositories.

Data access controls and restrictions:

Address any sensitive or confidential data and explain how you will protect the privacy and confidentiality of human subjects, as well as any intellectual property considerations.

Data preservation:

Outline your plan for the long-term preservation of the data beyond the project’s duration. Identify suitable data archives or repositories for depositing the data and explain how you will provide access to the data after the project ends.

Data sharing agreement (if applicable):

If data sharing involves collaborations with other institutions or researchers, mention any data sharing agreements that will be established.

Roles and responsibilities:

Clearly define the roles and responsibilities of team members regarding data management. This includes data ownership, access permissions, and data custodianship.

Compliance and ethical considerations:

Address any compliance requirements related to data management, such as data use agreements or Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals.

Budget:

If data management activities require additional funding, ensure that you include a well-justified budget for these expenses.

The DMP should ultimately be a comprehensive plan along with a timeline that identifies the data types and resources that will be generated, where they will be stored, and who will have access to them. Given the innovative and sensitive nature of the research that agencies such as the NIH and the NSF fund, this is a closely scrutinized part of the proposal.

The post What You Need to Know About the NIH Data Management Plan appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

Advantages

The advantages and opportunities of collaboration across disciplines are numerous; however the following are key factors:

Broader scope:

Interdisciplinary proposals can address research questions from multiple perspectives, which can lead to a more comprehensive understanding of the problem and potential solutions. For example, a team of researchers might include experts in biology, engineering, and social sciences to study the impacts of climate change on a particular ecosystem. Each researcher brings their own knowledge and expertise to the project, allowing the team to explore the problem from multiple angles.

Cross-pollination of ideas and techniques:

When researchers from different fields come together, they can learn from each other and apply techniques from one field to another. This can lead to new ways of approaching problems and new discoveries that might not have been possible otherwise. For example, a team of computer scientists and psychologists might collaborate on a project to develop new methods for analyzing large datasets of social media interactions. By combining their expertise, they might be able to develop new insights into human behavior and social networks.

Innovation:

Interdisciplinary grant research can also lead to the development of new technologies and innovations. By bringing together experts from multiple fields, researchers can leverage their collective knowledge to develop new tools and technologies that can benefit society. For example, a team of researchers from biology, engineering, and materials science might collaborate on the development of new materials for use in medical implants. By combining their expertise, they might be able to develop materials that are biocompatible, durable, and able to stimulate tissue regeneration.

Bridging the gap between academia and business:

Interdisciplinary grant research can help to bridge the gap between academia and industry. By working together on research projects, academic researchers and industry professionals can share knowledge and expertise, and develop new technologies that can be commercialized. This can lead to the development of new products and services that can benefit society and the economy. This is one of the major reasons that eleven of the federal funding agencies include and fund the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and the Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) grant competitions.

Challenges

Interdisciplinary proposals also have challenges that can make them more difficult to write and evaluate. For example, coordinating the research and collaboration among multiple disciplines can be complex and require careful planning and communication. Also, Integrating different methodologies and approaches from multiple disciplines can be challenging and require careful consideration, preparation, and coordination. In addition, when it comes to the review of these proposals, reviewers with expertise in a single discipline may find it difficult to evaluate the interdisciplinary nature of the proposal, which can lead to bias or misunderstandings.

In conclusion, interdisciplinary grant research is an important tool for addressing complex problems and developing innovative solutions. By bringing together experts from multiple fields, researchers can draw on a diverse range of perspectives and expertise, develop new technologies and innovations, and bridge the gap between academia and industry. Overall, while interdisciplinary proposals can be more competitive due to their potential for innovation and impact, they also require careful planning and coordination to be successful.

The post Donors Want to Fund Interdisciplinary Research appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

Specifically:

• National Institutes of Health – 20% increase to spur innovation across the economy, renew America’s global leadership, build on efforts to combat the COVID-19 pandemic and improve the public health infrastructure. Two-thirds of the $9 billion increase for NIH is to establish the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H) in order to drive transformational innovation in health research.

• National Science Foundation – $1.7 billion increase is intended to fund research across NSF’s portfolio and improve equity in science and engineering, advance climate science and sustainability research, and augment research infrastructure.

• Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs) – $3.45 billion increase, including Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and tribal colleges and universities to improve research and development infrastructure and the creation of a tuition assistance grant program, which would reduce tuition and fees for low-income students attending HBCU and MSI institutions during their first two years of college.

• Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) – $15 million increase is to be allocated equally for research on integrated treatment for opioid and multiple substance abuse disorders in ambulatory care settings and for its initiative to improve maternal health.

• National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) – $10 million increase for climate change research through the expansion of its existing geospatial program, informing the impact of extreme weather events and establishing baseline data for climate change tracking.

• Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) – $9 million increase to ensure the US Department of Commerce remains a leader across government in data innovation and implementation. The majority of the funds, $7 million, is to develop a federal data service.

• National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) – $6 million increase supports the creation of America’s DataHub, a research center to share and link existing data to solve complex problems and improve the informational infrastructure around understanding racial equity.

• Economic Research Service (ERS) – $5 million increase to expand the modeling, data, and analysis between climate change and the agriculture sector.

The FY 2022 Biden Administration Budget support for education is robust and has been applauded by educational institutions at all levels. For higher education, research and development in the sciences as well as equity takes a leading role. Minority Serving Institutions and Historically Black Colleges and Universities will see benefits for their organizations and students. Equally important is the reinstated increase of funds for climate change research and agricultural innovations.

Ultimately, these budget increases will benefit researchers and those in higher education at various levels through the grants, cooperative agreements and contracts for which they can apply.

The post Higher Education Applauds the Biden Administration FY 22 Budget appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

Of the eleven federal agencies participating in the SBIR program and the five participating in the STTR program, the major donors (approximately 70% of funding) are the Department of Defense (DOD) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). These agencies fund innovative research that meets their objectives. All have unique missions and should be viewed as distinct donors.

Generally speaking, there are two types of agencies that participate in SBIR/STTR. The first falls into the category of agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF), which use their research budgets to improve human health or science, education and national welfare. These agencies will typically advance general topics of research and allow the principal investigator and the small business to present their ideas for how to help them achieve their missions. This type of research is investigator-initiated, and often the researcher or company can choose to apply for a grant under SBIR or STTR.

Other agencies, such as the Department of Defense (DOD) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), fund companies and academic institutions to develop technologies to meet their own goals. These agencies have much more specific needs in mind when they solicit research, and their solicitations, which address much more specific topics, are typically awarded in the form of contracts. It is not uncommon for those solicitations to specify whether they will fall under SBIR or STTR.

According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), the original charter of the SBIR/STTR program was to address four goals:

• Stimulate technological innovation
• Use small business to meet federal R/R&D needs
• Foster and encourage participation in technological innovation by socially and economically disadvantaged small businesses, and those that are 51 percent owned and controlled by women
• Increase private sector commercialization of innovation derived from federal R/R&D, thereby increasing competition, productivity, and economic growth

Since the SBIR/STTR program started in 1982, the charter has expanded to:

• Require evaluation of commercial potential in Phase I and Phase II applications
• Provide seed capital for early stage R&D with commercial potential

This source of funding is of importance to institutions of higher education that contract with small businesses (under 500 employees) to plan and deliver high risk technological and innovative programs that will eventually have a high probability to be commercialized. Thus, a small business will develop a partnership with a non-profit research institution, in most cases a university or a federal laboratory such as the MIT Lincoln Laboratory. The focus will be on the transfer of technology from the Research Institution (RI) to the small business.

There are three phases to the program, including:

• Phase I – Feasibility – approx. $50K-$250K
  • Proven and validated proof of concept
  • Confirmed value proposition
• Phase II – Prototype – approx. $500K- $1.6M
  • Working and testing the prototype
  • Commercialization partners identified
• Phase III – Commercialized – $0 for SBIR
  • Bringing the solution to market

Everyone wins when small businesses and academic institutions collaborate with each other under SBIR/STTR to achieve the goals of specific government agencies, and ultimately get innovative technology to market. This collaboration can assist universities transfer technology, help small companies access remarkable facilities, highly skilled people, intellectual property, and through both mechanisms, help everyone achieve collective goals.

The post SBIR/STTR: A Win-Win Partnership for Private and Public Sectors appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

Let’s begin with Joan Didion, who talked about the “infinite power” of grammar: “To shift the structure of a sentence alters the meaning as definitely and inflexibly as the position of a camera alters the meaning of the object photographed.”

She reminded me of Gopen and Swan’s seminal paper, “The Science of Scientific Writing,” which replaced the standard rule-focused approach to writing improvement with an interpretative approach focused on readers’ expectations.

Your readers — the reviewers of your proposal — are looking for answers to specific questions. But more importantly, they expect to find them in particular places. When the answers aren’t where they expect them, they’re more likely to miss your point entirely, or worse, assume that whatever they do find there is the real point.

Their first question is ”whose story is this”, and they look for that answer in the subject of your sentence. Consider these two sentences, which describe the same activity but have different subjects:

• Training in responsible conduct of research will be provided.
• Students will receive training in responsible conduct of research.

For the first sentence, reviewers are more likely to expect details about the curriculum; for the second, details about how many or which students will be trained.

Their second question is “what is this about”, and they look for the answer in a strong and active verb. Too much academic writing converts strong verbs into nouns — a process called nominalization. Usually, this requires adding a weak or auxiliary verb. Consider these sentences:

• The team will meet monthly.
• The team will have a monthly meeting.

Those two extra words seem negligible here… but if you nominalize just half your verbs, you’ll waste a full page in a 20-page proposal.

The reviewers’ third question is “how does the material link backward and forward?” They look for context and perspective at the start of a sentence or paragraph – what Gopen and Swan call the topic position. To maintain your proposal’s logical flow, reserve the topic position for old material and connect it to what follows. If you put new material here, you’ll change the focus of your story and increase the chance readers will follow the wrong trail.

Their final question is ”what material warrants my attention?” They expect to find new and important material at the end of a section, paragraph, sentence, or even a clause. This is the stress position – and Gopen and Swan claim that the misplacement of stress-worthy information is the number one writing/reading problem.

The topic and stress positions are especially important in panel reviews which have a mix of “expert” and “lay” readers. Even a National Institutes of Health (NIH) study section which appears to be populated by experts in your field will include people who are less attenuated to the fine points of your arguments.

The lay readers need context to understand where you’re headed. They’re more likely to parse the topic position closely but defer to the experts’ judgments about their details. The opposite holds for the experts — they’ll skim the topic position but read the stress position closely to evaluate your theory and methods.

You will win more grants if you align your points with reader expectations. This reader-oriented approach echoes Joan Didion’s thoughts about sentence structure. Rhetoric is like real estate: the three most important concerns are location, location, and location.

The post Critical Tips for Captivating Grant Writing appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

Given the impact of international research in my own experience, I will dedicate this blog to U.S. federal funding, and the one that will follow to foundation funding.

Where to Look for International Funding

• Grants.gov lists all current discretionary funding opportunities from the 26 agencies of the United States government. This includes the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy (DOE), and many others — in other words, all the most important public funders of research in the United States.

• Websites of each of the 26 U.S. federal agencies list their international funding opportunities. For more in-depth descriptions, I would highly recommend that you visit their sites.

• Newton’s List is a free resource open to individuals searching for international funding and organizations looking to market their grants to an international audience. Established in 2013 and co-sponsored by CRDF Global (originally named the U.S. Civilian and Research Foundation) and the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), Newton’s List is a user-driven aggregate of current international funding opportunities for researchers working in natural and social science fields.

• Databases to which many agencies subscribe, such as: Pivot, GrantForward, and SPIN, are available for a fee.

Examples of International Funders

Although there are more international funding agencies than the ones I am listing below, these will give you an insight into what is currently being funded:

Department of Energy (DOE)

The DOE budget of $6.6B includes grants and contracts supporting over 25,000 researchers, including students, located at over 300 institutions and all 17 DOE national laboratories. The budget also supports a suite of 27 open-access scientific user facilities that provide tools and resources to over 35,000 users each year from universities, national laboratories, industry, and international research partners. The Office of International Affairs has primary responsibility at the Department of Energy for international cooperation in energy, science, and technology.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

The EPA carries out bilateral cooperative programs with many countries around the world. These programs allow other countries, especially emerging economies, to benefit from U.S. experience in developing appropriate and effective environmental programs. The EPA, in collaboration with a wide variety of multilateral organizations and institutions, makes funding available to protect human health and the environment.

National Institutes of Health (NIH)

The NIH and its Fogarty International Center invest in research on a variety of topics vital to global health. These include, but are not limited to, chronic noncommunicable diseases (cancer and diabetes), infectious diseases (Ebola, HIV/AIDS, Zika, malaria, tuberculosis), maternal and child health, neurological and mental disorders and diseases, oral and dental health, trauma and injury, tobacco control, global health security, and mentorship training. Various NIH institutes fund collaborative international research. Additionally, the NIH and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) partner on infectious disease research in the U.S. and abroad.

National Science Foundation (NSF)

The National Science Foundation’s transformative integrative approaches fill the most substantial gaps in the understanding of the diversity of life on Earth. Their research funding emphasizes novel ways to understand the synergistic roles of critical ecological and evolutionary processes. Funding reflects the mechanisms driving the origin, maintenance, and functional roles of biodiversity. Other areas include, but are not limited to, Collaborative Research in Computational Neuroscience, Cyber Infrastructure Training, Graduate Research Opportunities Worldwide, and Partnerships for Enhanced Engagement in Research.

U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)

USAID, a bilateral agency, fosters partnerships between experts in the U.S. and developing countries in order to build capacity, tackle global challenges ranging from the environment to health, and drive innovation that supports new endeavors in science and technology. In many cases, USAID coordinates programs with NGOs, multilateral organizations, and with funding agencies in the U.S. such as NSF, NIH, EPA, and USDA. One of the best ways to get funding from USAID is to initiate a strong collaboration with in-country institutions and/or communities in need of assistance.

National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA)

NIFA, under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) recognizes the daunting challenge of meeting the world’s future food security needs. NIFA’s Center for International Programs (CIP) strives to advance global engagement by partnering with universities, among other agencies. The benefits derived from international cooperation in agriculture advance competitive grant programs that harness a myriad of research and education resources. Some examples of the programs CIP sponsors, often in coordination with NGOs, include agriculture development programs, food and nutrition, and international science and education projects.

Many other programs fund and support international cooperation and research, such as the U.S. Department of Education, Title VI Projects; the Fulbright Scholars Program; the U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs; and the Department of Defense.

Global cooperation is of major importance, and because of the increasing critical issues facing all of us, it is destined to become of even greater significance. What is certain, as demonstrated by the agencies mentioned in this article, is that global health, security, environment, sustainability, and infrastructure development are urgent issues that are being addressed by funding innovative and transformative research.

The post Increase Your Funding via International Partnerships 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.

I am of the belief that you need to “start small” in order to build up your expertise prior to competing with those who have been in the game for a long time. At the same time, it is important to “think big” and visualize all the steps toward future success. This way you can prove to the donor that you have been successful, develop a track record of experience and/or publications, and demonstrate that you have methodically followed a particular path prior to reaching for the big prize. So where should you begin?

Foundations

Foundations often fund pilot, planning, and seed grants, which ultimately can lead you to understand how best to develop larger and more comprehensive proposals. This is always a good place to start:

Planning Grants help if you or your organization are planning a major new program, and you may need to spend a good deal of time and money just figuring out how it will work as a finished product. Before you can even write a proposal to fund your new effort, you may want to research the needs of your constituents, consult with experts in the field, or conduct other planning activities. A planning grant supports this kind of initial project development work.

Seed Money or Start-Up Grants help support your new organization or program during its first few years of existence. The idea is to give the new effort a strong push forward, so that you can devote energy right away to setting up programs, without constantly worrying about raising money. Such grants often last more than one year, and frequently will decrease in amount each year. For instance, a start-up grant might provide $25,000 in the first year, $15,000 in the second year, and $7,000 in the last year.

Pilot Grants are offered by foundations as well as federal agencies, and are intended to specifically assist young investigators in developing proof-of-concept studies, which will provide preliminary data for subsequent and more substantive applications. Applications from any area of medical, biological or veterinary research are available. These can be for individual investigators or interdisciplinary partnerships. The latter are often highly encouraged.

Federal Funding

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has various grants that are geared towards new investigators. These are normally referred to as the K awards or Career Development Awards. A good example of one is the K99/R00, which supports an initial mentored research experience (K99), followed by independent research (R00) for highly qualified, postdoctoral researchers who would like to secure an independent research position. Many other similar opportunities can be found on the NIH website under the Career Development Awards section.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) provides small research grants to advance various disciplines. One such grant program supports pilot projects, modest research travel needs, and occasional conferences to advance a variety of research areas in sociology. Other similar grant opportunities can be found on the NSF website.

Other federal agencies such as the Department of Defense (DoD) offer small pilot grants for young investigators and those who will enhance STEM education at their institutions. These opportunities can be found on the websites of various DoD directorates, such as the Department of the Army (DA) or the Department of the Navy (DoN).

There are numerous donors, both federal and private who understand the importance of “thinking big” but “starting small”, therefore allowing new ideas to flourish from their initial beginnings and emerge into innovative concepts that, in some cases, will lead to paradigm shifts in the field.

The post Grant Success: Start Small, Think Big appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.