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.

1. Planning Ahead: “What are the steps I need to take before I write?”

Grant writing takes time. This includes excellent research, exceptional writing, understanding the donor’s mission, making the match, collaborating with colleagues, planning strategically, and developing an outstanding business plan. If your proposal is prepared correctly, it will have higher chances of rising to the top of the competition and receiving the funds. In the planning process, laying out proposal steps clearly and realistically can be achieved by organizing the activities in terms of the time it will take to effectively accomplish them.

2. Matching the Idea With the Donor: “How can you assure that you found the right donor?”

 One of the most fatal mistakes any grant writer can make is to ignore the interests of the donor. “Making the match” means aligning your mission and your funding request with the donor’s mission. The closer both of you are in what you wish to accomplish, the more likely you will be funded. Also, looking at funded projects will give you a very good idea of the donor’s interests and focus. Ultimately, donors do not care what you need or want funded; they care about what they wish to fund.

3.  Being Concise and to the Point: “What steps will narrow the scope of my proposal?”     

 One of the major reasons for proposal rejection is that the request is overly ambitious and tries to tackle far more than can be accomplished within the timeline of the grant. Rather than trying to solve every problem related to your request, focus on one or two issues that can realistically be resolved within budget and time constraints of the proposal. Also, many grants require the consideration of various potential factors before concluding that the idea is doable, focused, and promising. You need to envision as many of these elements as possible to be certain that you are on the right path. Narrowing the scope of your idea to a smaller scale is often a much safer and more successful approach.

4. Knowing the Review Process: “How do I understand the proposal review process?”

To successfully survive the review process, you must know the review criteria by which you will be judged and who is reviewing your proposal. In some cases this is easy, but in others, where the process is blind, it is extremely difficult. In the latter case, you can ask the administrator in charge of the process what the experience and expertise of the reviewers will be. Your reviewers have a very short window to review your proposal and worse yet, an even shorter window for the panel discussion. The easier you make it for the reviewers to understand your idea, the greater your chances of being funded.

5. Networking and Collaboration: “How do I identify collaborators to strengthen my proposal?”

Creating effective partnerships requires collective vision, purpose, buy-in, and mutual respect. Without these elements, it is difficult to maintain the momentum of true collaboration. Each partner must be able to contribute knowledge and expertise that would be missing without their involvement. The complexity of many projects requires interdisciplinary efforts and networking. Understanding this, funding agencies now believe in the power of partnerships; and so should you.

At the end of the day, there are many components to a grant proposal. The first and most important is spending the time to understand the donor, then positioning all the pieces of the puzzle effectively together, and finally writing a stellar request. The pieces must include careful planning, focus, and collaboration.

The post Five Common Problems Facing Grant Writers – Part II appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

1. Timelines: “We can never find the time to dedicate to writing grant proposals.”

The most important solution is to work proactively rather than reactively. One participant said that her not-for-profit developed a yearly timeline of the grants they wished to submit, rather than waiting for the announcements, which can come late as 10 days prior to the submission deadline. This may sound like a difficult undertaking, but once done, it will be easy to match the amount of labor to available personnel and understand the capacity of the organization.

2. Rejections: “We fear rejections and when we get them, we often feel angry and frustrated, almost to the point of not wanting to rewrite the proposal.”

The answer is to understand that a grant should be viewed as an opportunity, and not taken personally. If the team has a strategic and broad picture of the funding landscape for which they apply throughout the year, it will be understood that some grants will fail. Ultimately, when it comes to requests for funding, one has to place their ego in their pocket.

3. Telling a good story: “The reviewers said that we need to tell an enthusiastic story, but it was difficult for us to understand what they meant.”

The universal answer is to engage the donor. Thus, as a proposal writer, one must know how grants will be evaluated and, if possible, who the evaluators will be. Connecting with donors and reviewers is vital to successfully getting funded. The more one knows about them, the more effectively one can spark their interest with the story.

4. Innovation: “We had a difficult time understanding what the donor meant by innovation.”

The answer here is that innovative concepts emerge from preliminary data, pilot studies, and extensive research. In almost all cases, donors are looking for innovative approaches that will solve an existing problem or contribute to advancement in the field.

5. Overambitious idea: “Our grant was rejected because the idea was overambitious. How do we narrow the focus?”

Rather than trying to solve every problem related to the project at hand, it is best to focus on one or two issues that can realistically be resolved within the budgetary and time constraints of the proposal. Narrowing the scope of the idea to a smaller scale is often a much safer and more successful approach.

The participants chose these key obstacles, for it takes time to narrow ideas, assure innovation and write a good story. In the following blog, I will discuss other obstacles that my audience brought to the table.

The post Five Common Problems Facing Grant Writers 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.

The pre-review steps are:

• A rigorous review of your grant by one or more of your trusted colleagues, who are equally knowledgeable in your discipline.
• Comments from a naïve reader, who is a professional outside your field. If that person does not understand 50% of what you are trying to say, your grant is in trouble. The reason for this is that often, the donor reviewers who score your proposal are not necessarily knowledgeable in your area of expertise.
• Proofreading by a professional editor, who will check for correct grammar, transitions, effective language, and the fit for the audience you will be addressing.

Alternatively, you can enlist the services of an organization that conducts professional grant reviews for a small investment. This type of grant review will encompass all three colleague reviews described above in one package.

Following is the pre-review process further broken down into key elements:

The Content Reviewer(s)

Experts in your field should be your first reviewers. My recommendation is that you select one or more trusted colleagues, who will be critical, have received grants in your area, and who serve on review panels on an ongoing basis. They will give you invaluable information about the strengths and weaknesses of your proposal, and how to address any problems.

We follow this process at the Grant Training Center. In many cases, our pre-reviews are more extensive than the donor review process your grant will undergo. We rigorously address each sentence and paragraph, along with the totality of the proposal, according to the RFP/RFA directions and the review guidelines. Once you receive this methodical feedback, you will be in a much better position to assess what needs to be changed and proceed accordingly.

The Naïve Reviewer

It is a good practice to have your grant reviewed and scored by those who may not be in your field. Consequently, you will be able to gauge how much of your grant can be understood by an educated layperson through their comments. They could be professionals who have been funded in the past, but in other areas of expertise. As is the case with most foundations, you might not know who the reviewers of your grant will be; it could be the program officer or perhaps some of the board members, who may not necessarily be knowledgeable in your specific discipline. Thus, it is essential that when you write, you write for a broad audience that will need your assistance in understanding your proposal. I have seen very complicated research grants that were written so effectively that they could be understood on a variety of expertise levels.

The Editor

Editing the proposal is the last phase of polishing your final product. Editing should take place after you have made all content changes and simplified your concepts for a larger audience. This phase is much more extensive than just grammar corrections. The editor should address effective transitions, make sure sentences are short and meaningful, and ensure the overall professional appearance of your grant. This person may not need to share your area of expertise, but should be a professional editor/writer who does editing on an ongoing basis. Editors can be found at your institution, through professional associations of editors, or through organizations such as ours.

You may wonder if money spent on review services could be better utilized in other ways. The reality is that the pre-review process dramatically improves your chances of being funded the first time. Thus, the time and resources that you will save more than justify the cost.

Even if you chose to hire an external organization, the amount of money you will spend on a grant review should be a small fraction of the grant budget. Hence, my strong recommendation is that you include this pre-review step in your timeline for preparing your proposal.

The post The Final Step to Avoid Grant Rejection appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

Preparation

Superior grants are well-prepared and demonstrate strong attention to detail. Inferior ones are often written last-minute “in hopes” of being funded and will almost always be rejected. It takes time to complete an excellent literature review, develop preliminary data, assemble a credible team, speak with program officers, and write clearly and logically.

In my own grant writing experience, I made every word count. I had my colleagues criticize my grant, asked naïve readers to tell me what they did not understand, and brought in editors and graphic designers for the final touches. I have always viewed proposals as business plans that should be at the same time works of art. I look at things this way because when it comes to the donor’s evaluation, there’s the good, the excellent, and the outstanding. Only the outstanding get funded.

Perseverance

I believe that perseverance is a key component of success. Your focus should not be on the difficulty, but on the achievement. Not knowing how to write a proposal is a common problem for all beginners. Initially, as a “young investigator” you may have trouble being funded simply because you do not know how to go about it. Training on how to put a good proposal together can be a first and very helpful step. Preparing a proposal as part of an experienced team can be a second helpful strategy. Ultimately, submitting the proposal to the best of your ability will be a third. Failing at that first submission should then lead to a better understanding of how to repair your mistakes. It might take several tries, but perseverance will ultimately pay off.

Credibility

Grants require competence, strength of the ideas, and proven track records. One of the key evaluation components for all grant submissions is the credibility of the requester. If you don’t have a good track record, it’s highly unlikely you’ll be funded. You might have to demonstrate previous success in less competitive grants such as those offered internally by your institution or through foundation support. A strong publication record in top journals and superior recommendations from deans and department chairs are also extremely important.

Passion

You need to write your proposal with passion and communicate that excitement. Excellent grant writers know how to tell a great story that is both passionate and pragmatic. Your story should convey the overall impact of resolving difficult problems for your constituents, or the importance of the science for which you are filling a research gap. You must make it obvious that your proposal matters by addressing the impact, the “so what question”, and the paradigm shift you will make in the field. It is this passion that you want to convey to the reviewers.

At the end of the day, superior grants are a product of preparation, preparation, and more preparation. Once you are prepared, credibility, attention to detail, passion, and conviction will enthuse, and ultimately convince your donors. Finally, learning from your mistakes and persevering in spite of difficulties will eventually pay dividends and set you on a path to become a successful independent investigator.

The post The Most Important Advice for New Grant Writers appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

What you say and how you say it will determine how effectively you keep pace with or surpass your competition. Demonstrating the extent of the problem through examples, statistics, and expert opinion, and following these up with effects, causes, and solutions will be your first step. Your second – and just as important – task will be to write in eloquent prose and clear language. Preparation for the competition will include three important tasks: your research, your vision, and your writing. To accomplish these, you will need to begin with the following:

Study

Having more knowledge, data, background, and creativity will always give you the upper hand over other proposal writers. To find out who will be competing, you should examine all the awards of the previous competition and see how you compare to them. Then, contact previous awardees and speak with them about their projects and to what they would attribute their success. Ask the program officer what the reviewers get enthusiastic about in the review process. Finally, you should know about your reviewers and their backgrounds (e.g. publications, experience, etc.). Studying your competition and the judges will give you the edge on how you approach your proposal, both in content and language.

Develop

Build up the skills necessary to achieve excellence in your grant writing. This can include taking a grant training course, reading superior sample proposals, speaking with your peers who have been successful, and seeking professional reviews and editing of your project. Once you have gained this experience and developed the skills needed to write a successful grant for the donor, chances are that you will be ready to effectively swim with the sharks.

Practice

Many superior athletes contribute their success to practice. For example, Tiger Woods was interviewed on the Golf Channel and was asked what he thought was the key to his success. His answer: practice. For proposal writers, practice does not mean applying and reapplying to various donors. Instead, it means analyzing how you will meet the goal of your research or project. Rigorously combing through your process will allow you to remove bad patterns in every step.

Play the Game in Your Head First

Having studied, developed, and practiced, you are now ready to play the game. Just like preparing for a debate, an important phone call, or an important meeting, running through the event in your own head is critical to success. As a proposal writer, you are trying to persuade others. To achieve this goal, you must reach your audience through logic and when necessary, emotion. You will need to convince them that you have a solution to a specific problem, and then you must maintain their attention so they score in your favor. To be effective, you first need to play the scenario in your head over and over again, ensuring that each objective or aim is doable, focused, and achievable. What will the scenario look like when you are funded? How will you begin? How will you execute each step? What obstacles will you need to solve? The more of these questions you can answer, the closer you will come to success.

Increase your odds in the competition first and foremost with the understanding that you are playing to win. You will be swimming with the sharks knowing that your life may depend on victory. This is the case for many grant writers who need their grants for tenure and promotion, as well as for others who need to sustain their jobs and salaries. You should not enter the competition merely hoping to win, but doing everything you can to prepare yourself for success. You are now in it to win it.

The post The Grant Competition: Swim with the Sharks appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

1. Failure to follow submission guidelines

Many Federal agencies, including the NSF, will return proposals without review. The simple reason given is that the guidelines were not followed. Few events are as frustrating as losing a grant competition because the margins on your proposal were a quarter-inch too wide or a mandatory section was missing. This is perhaps the easiest flaw to address in a rejected proposal. Researchers must become students of the Request for Application (RFA) to ensure their applications do not stop at this stage.

2. Poorly written proposals

Proposals that make the reviewers question the author’s credibility as a researcher are fatal. Poorly written proposals, including mistakes such as poor grammar and misspellings, can detract from your idea. If you have a good idea, you must present it in the best possible light to beat the competition. Ideally you can have your proposal professionally reviewed and edited. Alternatively, you should send it to a naïve reader and a grammarian. Each will provide necessary information that pertains to the readability and communication of your ideas to the reviewers.

3. Failure to immediately address the purpose of the proposal

The first sentence of the first paragraph should be what the proposal is about. Unfortunately, it is not unusual to not see the purpose of the research until several sentences into the first paragraph. Since the ratings of your proposal often depend on the ease of finding the information about your request, you must be obvious and direct. It is imperative that you begin the first paragraph with: “The research objective of this proposal is…”

4. The scientific investigation is not methodical, repeatable and verifiable

The probability of reaching your objectives depends on your methodology. You must be able to clearly state how your project will unfold, and describe how you will conduct your research. Success also depends on your project being repeatable by other researchers. With the wave of rescinded grants and questionable research results making their way into mainstream news, accountability and complete objectivity are absolute necessities. Your research must be verifiable. In other words, can you show that the results you claim are true?

5. Not stating the research objectives appropriately

The statement of your research objective should lead you directly to your methodology. If it does not, you don’t have a clear statement of your research objective. To quote the NSF, the acceptable ways to state a research objective are:

1. The research objective of this proposal is to test the hypothesis H.
2. The research objective of this proposal is to measure parameter P with accuracy A.
3. The research objective of this proposal is to prove the conjecture C.
4. The research objective of this proposal is to apply method M from disciplinary area D to solve problem P in disciplinary area E.

At the end of the day, it is important to understand that a research proposal submitted for funding is not a manuscript, a paper for publication, nor a novel. It is a request with clear objectives and methodology. Also, adhering to the RFA guidelines may require sections that are not directly related to your research, such as Broader Impacts and the inclusion of underrepresented groups. Selling your idea depends on remembering that you have to convince the reviewers of the need for your research in the clearest, most understandable, and logical manner. As the NIH asks us to remember: “Think of yourself as a used car salesman, selling a used car to a group of seasoned used car salesmen.”

The post Why Did My Research Proposal Fail? appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

The Voice of the Beneficiary

If you want funding to build an exercise facility, your request should focus on what this facility will do for your target population. If you want to develop a cure for cardiovascular disease, speak about the outcomes for the patients and the broader impact your research will have on the population.

Accurate, Extensive, and Timely Research

You must conduct a thorough literature review before you write. Your research should be accurate, extensive, and timely. Statistics and data from the most authoritative sources in your area will demonstrate that your proposed project or research is needed. Once you know the field, you can discuss how your idea will contribute to what is already being done, and could lead to a much-needed model that has been lacking.

Sentences that Stick

Your first sentence should address the “so what” question in a memorable and impactful way. This sentence should grab the attention of your readers in the first few seconds to entice them to read more. Some examples that speak to the importance of a problem are:

• Research has demonstrated that the chances of dying from a heart attack even before the age of 42 increase exponentially, if people do not exercise at least 3 times per week.
• Proteins in food and the environment are responsible for allergies, which are overreactions of the immune system.
• The argument is not about changing approaches to medicine, but saving 100,000 lives.

These sentences speak to the importance of the issue and at the same time, address the changes that will make the difference.

Shaping the Path

Your request should focus on what you need to solve the problem. How you work out a solution for the issue and effectively achieve change depends on how you shape the path. Making the switch from what exists to what you propose will address innovation, give your proposal a clear direction, and deliver an understanding of how to deal with obstacles along the way.

Mixing Logic and Emotion

A healthy balance must be reached between a clear, well-researched argument grounded in rational thinking, and a compelling story that engages the emotions of the reader. In Switch, Chip and Dan Heath effectively reason that when presenting ideas related to change, both the emotional and rational arguments need to be made. Many times the emotional side governs, leaving behind the intellectual justification. According to the Heaths, the emotional facet of your argument needs to parallel and support the intellectual facet for maximum persuasive effect on the reader.

Your need statement sets the stage for a successful proposal. Using precise, measured, and colorful strokes of the beneficiary’s voice, you can captivate the reviewer. Researching the needs of your population, and illustrating a clear and direct path to success will ensure you fulfill the donor’s need for an organized and rational approach to the problem.

The post Writing a Compelling Need Statement appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

The Change

The NIH policy on resubmissions previously required substantial changes to the Specific Aims, scope, and design of the project after an unsuccessful A1 application. As of April 2014, a twice unfunded resubmission (A1) can be presented in a new grant application (A0) without substantial changes to the content and scope of the proposal. The new application will not include an introduction or response to prior reviews, although using feedback to strengthen your new application is highly recommended. For more information see NIH Notice Number NOT-OD-14-074.

The Bottom Line

Your proposal has been through two rounds of review, but hasn’t received funding. Reworking your approach should be your first priority. For those of you whose proposal writing skills are not as sharp as your research ability, this is an opportunity to tap resources that you may not have had time to utilize. Have an experienced colleague look at your proposal to identify potential trouble areas, and heed the advice from the two panels – look for common points from both sources. With this change in policy, your good research idea will have another chance at getting funded when you improve the quality of your proposal.

The Change

A change to the NIH biosketch is being piloted now and will be fully implemented in early 2015. The new format focuses on your accomplishments and includes these major differences:

• five pages total (compared to four)
• descriptions of your five most significant contributions to science
• list up to four supporting peer-reviewed publications for each description
• influence of your contributions on your scientific area
• effects of your contributions on health or technology
• discussion of your role in these discoveries, when part of a team
• include a link to your full body of published works via SciENcv or My Bibliography

For more information see NIH Notice NOT-OD-14-091.

The Bottom Line

You have an opportunity to paint a more robust picture of your body of research, with a focus on your role and contributions. The additional page allows more room to discuss the significance of your contributions, along with any context or background information. You should include both team efforts and individual research when describing your role, including specific titles and positions held. The link to your body of published works will eliminate the need to provide citations in the biosketch. This change means you can provide more details than before about your research contributions and roles.

As the NIH and other federal agencies and organizations shift their policies and practices to fit budget, personnel, and time constraints, we will keep you updated. From time to time, we will also review changes to ensure you remember the important differences prior to submission of your proposal.

The post NIH Updates: The Bottom Line appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.