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.

AI technologies, including natural language processing models like GPT-3, are capable of generating text content and assisting with various writing tasks. However, writing a grant proposal involves more than just generating text; it requires a deep understanding of the specific goals, objectives, and requirements of the proposal, as well as knowledge of the subject matter and the context in which the proposal will be submitted.

While AI can help with certain aspects of the writing process, such as generating introductory or background sections, it may not be able to fully replace human expertise in crafting a persuasive and well-structured grant proposal. Human input is crucial for understanding the unique aspects of a project, tailoring the proposal to the needs of the funding organization, and incorporating a compelling narrative. This involves a level of domain-specific knowledge and creativity that AI does not fully possess.

If you’re considering using AI to help with your grant request, it’s advisable to stay updated on the latest developments, particularly in the field of natural language processing. Additionally, always review and refine any AI-generated content to ensure it meets the specific requirements of your proposal and effectively communicates your project’s goals and significance.

That said, the field of AI is dynamic and advancements are made regularly. It’s possible that, in the future, more sophisticated AI models or dedicated tools could offer substantial assistance in writing grant requests.

The post Can AI Write your Grant Proposal? appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

The following is how grant writing know-how can help you stand out and secure a job:

Strong Communication Skills:

Grant writing requires clear and persuasive writing, which is a highly sought-after skill in many job roles. Your ability to communicate effectively can set you apart from other candidates during the application process and in the workplace.

Attention to Detail:

Grant writing involves meticulous attention to detail to ensure that proposals are accurate and well-organized. This skill is valued in many positions, especially those that involve data analysis, quality control, or project management.

Project Management Abilities:

Grant writing often entails creating project plans, budgets, and timelines. These skills are transferable to roles that require effective project management, whether you’re leading a team, coordinating tasks, or ensuring deadlines are met.

Research Proficiency:

Successful grant writing involves thorough research to understand funding opportunities and tailor proposals to specific requirements. This research skill is applicable to various jobs that involve data gathering, analysis, and strategic planning.

Strategic Thinking:

Crafting grant proposals requires strategic thinking to align your organization’s goals with potential funders’ priorities. This ability can be valuable in roles that involve business development, marketing, or sales.

Financial Literacy:

Grant writers often work on budget development and financial projections. This financial literacy is relevant to jobs in finance, accounting, and budget management.

Collaboration and Networking:

Grant writers often collaborate with colleagues, partners, and funders. This experience can be advantageous in roles that require teamwork, relationship-building, and networking.

Innovation and Creativity:

Developing unique and innovative proposals to secure funding highlights your creativity and problem-solving abilities. These traits are attractive to employers looking for candidates who can bring fresh ideas to their teams.

Results-Oriented Approach:

Successfully securing grants demonstrates your ability to achieve tangible results. Employers appreciate candidates who can showcase their track record of achieving goals and driving positive outcomes.

Industry Relevance:

If you’re applying for a job in a nonprofit, research, or academic setting, having grant writing expertise can demonstrate your understanding of funding processes and your ability to contribute to securing resources for the organization.

Higher Education Advancement:

Faculty promotion, advancement, and tenure are often directly tied to your success in grant procurement.  This in turn relates to your reputation as a researcher and the prestige of your institution.

When applying for jobs, be certain to highlight your grant writing experience on your resume, cover letter, and during interviews. Emphasize the transferable skills and qualities you’ve developed through grant writing that make you a well-rounded and capable candidate. Even if the job doesn’t involve grant writing directly, your expertise can make you a more attractive candidate by showcasing your ability to bring valuable skills to the table.

The post How Does Grant Writing Experience Help Me Get a Job? 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.

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.

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.

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.

Some of the most dramatic cuts by category are:

Arts and Humanities:

The budget plan proposes to eliminate entirely the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and severely cut the existing $148 million budget of the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). This will mean that 40% of the NEA funds that are channeled to states and matched will no longer offer real participation to those who otherwise have no avenue to music and the arts in their communities. “The hope that comes from creativity in these low-income communities will be obliterated.” (Washington Post, 3/23/2017).

“One common comparison we’ve seen says that Melania Trump’s security detail at Trump Tower costs more than the annual budget for the National Endowment for the Arts.” (Linda Qiu on Wednesday, February 8th, 2017, PUNDITFACT).

Sciences and Higher Education:

• The Agriculture Department budget eliminates the $500 million Water and Wastewater loan and grant program.
• The Commerce Department budget eliminates the $73 million Sea Grant program, which operates in conjunction with universities in 33 states.
• The Department of Energy is to eliminate $900 million in Office of Science funding.
• The Environmental Protection Agency is to cut the Office of Research and Development funding in half.

A drastic cut of 18% or $5.8 billion is looming over the National Institutes of Health (NIH). This would severely reduce the funding NIH gives out to researchers around the globe, and reductions are slated for intramural and extramural research, and complete elimination the Fogarty International Center, which builds partnerships between the US and international institutions.

Although NASA will take a small cut of 1%, the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), which supports science and technology research and development at colleges and universities in areas such as remote sensing, nanotechnology, astrophysics and aeronautics, will be eliminated.

These cuts range from higher education, to research and innovation, to incentives for younger researchers who are beginning their careers. It is the young investigators who will be most affected. As competition increases they will be pitted against their older and more experienced colleagues. Most importantly, the research that makes the US competitive on the world stage will not take place, eventually affecting national security.

The thinking behind these cuts is that industry will pick up the slack. This will have broad implications for our colleges and universities that teach and train new generations of scientists and educators. Plainly, their potential will be impaired and creativity and exploration will be limited.

Education and Nonprofit groups:

The Education Department is targeted for a 14% reduction, which will downsize or eliminate grants for teacher training, afterschool programs, and aid to low-income and minority college students, currently amounting to $3.7 billion in funding.

Cuts to nonprofit groups and public agencies are epitomized by the 21% or 2.5 billion cut to the Department of Labor, which will eliminate grants that help nonprofit groups and public agencies that fund safety and health training.

Cultural Exchange Programs:

The Department of State is slated for $10.9 billion cut or 29% of its budget. That will reduce most cultural exchange programs. Many bilateral educational programs and agreements under the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) will either be severely cut or completely eliminated.

Hopefully these changes will not pass Congress since some agencies, such as NIH and NSF, have strong bipartisan support. However, according to Barry Toiv, a spokesman for the Association of American Universities, which represents major research institutions, “If Congress goes along with deep overall cuts in non-defense discretionary funding, significant cuts to research spending are almost inevitable.”

Solutions are difficult to anticipate. What is certain, however, is that competition will increase and those submitting proposals will have to be equipped with all the tools that will make their proposals competitive, such as training, mentors, partnerships, collaboration and interdisciplinarity.

The post What the Trump Budget Means for Grant Funding appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.