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.

The LOI should be written to communicate at least three things:

• That you have researched the donor and know the project fits their guidelines as well as their culture and language.
• That this is a substantial and needed project with real outcomes that serve the constituents.
• That you, your team, and institution are capable of succeeding if funded.

A Letter of Intent should be composed as follows:

• The opening paragraph should include the summary statement, which will be the roadmap of your proposal. This first section should stand alone and address: what, who, how much, and over what period.
• The Statement of Need (1-2 paragraphs) will include the problem, the science/field as it currently stands, what is unknown, what is proposed, and who will benefit by the intervention.
• The Project Activity or approach will address: what and how, innovation, partnerships, and all activities to be undertaken. This will be the bulk of your letter.
• Outcomes (1-2 paragraphs) will relate directly to your measurable objectives, will contain the specific deliverables/outcomes, and will show how you propose to achieve them.
• Credibility/credentials will address the project director’s and team’s credibility and why they are best equipped to carry out the project. Indicate awards, rankings, and tangible measures that set you apart from your peers. Also, describe what each team member will contribute to the project and how they will work together.
• The Budget (1-2 paragraphs) should be abbreviated; save the detail for the complete proposal. Instead, write a few sentences addressing other funding you have received or plans to raise the rest, and how the program will be sustained after the project is complete. Try to imagine the questions the reviewer will ask.
• The Closing Paragraph should refer to the solicitation instructions and the contribution that the intervention will make to the field/constituents. If it is a scientific research, reference should be made to the contribution you will make to your science and science in general.

Additional tips:

• Visualize your proposal and how it will unfold.
• Address the match between the donor’s mission and yours.
• Ensure that you avoid jargon, unnecessarily flowery language, superfluous adjectives and adverbs, and remove indefinite terms such as “might” “possibly” and “hope.”
• Get feedback from your colleagues.
• Review, if possible, other LOIs written to your donor.

The post The Letter That Will Get You Funded appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

When the faculty were asked to identify the causes of their dissatisfaction and what would improve their satisfaction, 53% percent of the sample said increased compensation, 46% said modifications to teaching schedules or loads, and 34% cited new technology or better access to technology support.

At the same time, the research efforts and consequent funding levels of faculty have been drastically reduced. Many faculty were unable to go to their labs, schedule meetings with colleagues and connect with donor agencies, which has resulted in difficulties which may have long term effects. More than almost two years after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the scientific community is still feeling the effects of the vastly disruptive event — and may for many years to come.

Northwestern University led study found that although researchers’ productivity levels have mostly returned to pre-pandemic highs, scientists who did not pursue COVID-19 related research initiated 36% fewer new projects in 2021 compared to 2019. This dramatic decline in new projects suggests the pandemic’s impact on science may be longer lasting than commonly imagined (Dashung Wang – Nature Communications).

What Can Be Done?

Administrative support of faculty:

Although it is also true that the university administrators have been and continue to be at a loss of what to do, ongoing communication with faculty could begin to alleviate some of the problems. Faculty feedback that is taken seriously and implemented can greatly increase faculty confidence and reduce stress.

Rewarding faculty efforts in research:

Institutions throughout the US wish to stand-out as research institutions with high productivity on the part of their faculty; however, it is not unusual to want faculty to “produce” without a reward system in place. This is especially the case with teaching institutions where the teaching load is such that it does not allow time for productive research and for seeking funding.

Modifications of teaching schedules and loads:

Hybrid teaching approaches, now becoming more and more common, may increase faculty loads for some. While some faculty can easily adapt to these new approaches, others cannot, and as a consequence may lose the quality time they need to pursue research and grant funding.

Increasing support infrastructures for grant writing:

In the wake of COVID-19 many sponsored research offices have reduced staff and administrative support services previously given to faculty. Fortifying such services as team building, rewards for interdisciplinary research, training of faculty, and content reviews and editing of proposals can go a long-way toward alleviating the effects of COVID-19.

This is only the beginning of the introspection and creativity needed to address the post COVID-19 world for colleges and universities. Not only do institutions need to tackle the immediate concerns of faculty members, but broader issues such as tenure, promotion, and economic and philosophical support for faculty research need to be addressed.  At the end of the day, how institutions deal with the fallout of COVID-19 in the short and long term will define the recovery of the academic community.

The post How Can the Academic Community Recover from the Impact of COVID-19 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.

Most US institutions of higher education encourage faculty to apply for external funding, but the assistance they provide varies extensively. Teaching institutions, now more than ever, stress the importance of research. Unfortunately, due to the heavy teaching loads, many provide little if any assistance to faculty, while at the same time expecting them to submit successful grant requests. Among the most well-funded institutions, including R1 Doctoral Universities (very high research activity) and R2 Doctoral Universities (high research activity), assistance given to faculty varies, but all financially support projects that lead to faculty success in procuring external funding.

The following, although not inclusive, are some of the necessary infrastructure support steps an institution needs to take to assure increased funding and faculty support:

• Institutional level: This includes development of an administrative unit, such as a Sponsored Research Office, which will support many grant-related activities such as grant searches, grant compliance with the Requests for Proposals (RFPs), budget development and grant submissions. The university should recruit and pay graduate research assistants and financially and philosophically support departments that encourage and assist faculty in their funding pursuits. Some of these areas might be content reviews, editing, evaluation and statistical services.
• Departmental level: On the departmental level, the key faculty incentives are salary increases and reduced teaching loads. Also, the departmental goals should include funding success in the tenure and promotion criteria. In addition, many departments hire support staff to assist faculty in grant seeking and writing.
• Individual level: Faculty should be encouraged to augment their grant writing skills by attending ongoing extensive workshops sponsored by their department or conducted by external contractors. Another essential activity is creating partnerships and mentorships between the established senior and junior faculty in order for the former to review proposals and recommend changes. Ongoing mock grant review panels, whereby senior faculty review and score junior faculty proposals, are extremely helpful in order for faculty to see how their proposals will be critiqued and scored by the donor agency panels.

Other key aspects are visits by grant program officers, sharing and dissecting of successful proposals, online tutorials, departmental writing retreats, centers of research excellence, and standing committees that can work with faculty on a continuous basis. All of these must be institutionalized and conducted throughout the year. Faculty need to be incentivized and encouraged to attend the training, mentoring and other related activities. Coordination between all areas of the institution is essential. In addition, the orientation for all newly entering faculty should stress the importance of research, grant procurement and the assistance that the university provides in those respects.

From my extensive experience in working with universities throughout the nation, those that implement a culture of grant procurement including as many as possible of the above activities are the institutions with the highest funding success rate.

The post University Support for Faculty Funding Success appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

The questions that follow are catalysts that will help provide initial answers to where your research will start, but after answering them, you may discover that it might not be where your research will end up. These questions will not only shape your search for the answer(s) to the problem, but will also increase your understanding of additional and alternative information that will be needed to clarify the road map and direction of your project.

Although the list of questions that will assist you in constructing and focusing your project can be extensive, the ones below center on the idea, purpose, focus, approach and institutional support:

Idea questions: What is the argument you are making about your idea? Why is your idea timely, urgent, compelling, and unique? Why does your idea matter? How might others challenge your idea? What kind of sources will you need to support your idea?

Purpose questions: What is the purpose of your research? How will you achieve the purpose? What will change once your proposal is implemented? How will you know that changes have taken place as you implement the proposal?

Narrowing your focus questions: Why is your proposal needed to advance the studies within your field? How are your preliminary data relevant? Why did you choose this way of approaching the gap in knowledge versus other options? What results will be evaluated in your project? How will you evaluate the results? What difficulties might appear within your research plan? How is your research limited?

Justifying the research questions: Who cares about the postulation of your argument? How is present opinion divided? How important is it to have the right answer? What are the implications of various possible answers?

Research methods questions: What are the variables to be measured during your research project? What population and samples will be used in your research project, including explanations of sampling and procedures? What methods will you apply to collect primary and secondary information? What might be any relevant biases in your methods and the means by which these biases would be overcome?

Institutional questions: How will this project capitalize on your institution’s/department’s strengths? How will this project help your institution/department overcome some of its weaknesses? How will your institution/department support you to succeed?

Science begins by first asking relevant questions and then seeking answers. The manner in which your research will unfold will emerge from the critical questions that you will need to answer prior to building your research proposal. These questions will assist you in solidifying your idea and eventually lead you to critical, significant, and substantive insights into the purpose, focus, and methods of your research proposal.

The post Critical Questions to Clarify Your Research 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.