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 Current State of Federal Grants

The recent changes have led to increased scrutiny of federal grants, potential termination of existing contracts, and a temporary freeze on new grants and contracts. This situation has understandably caused concern among grant recipients and applicants. However, it’s important to note that while challenges exist, federal funding has not disappeared entirely. Agencies are working to interpret and implement new guidance, and some funding streams are beginning to resume.

Diversifying Your Funding Portfolio

In these uncertain times, diversification is essential. Following are some alternative funding sources to consider:

1. Private Foundations: Many foundations offer grants for research and educational programs. Research organizations like the Gates Foundation, Ford Foundation, or field-specific foundations relevant to your work.
2. Corporate Sponsorships: Businesses often have corporate social responsibility programs that include funding for research and education. Look for companies aligned with your field of study.
3. Crowdfunding: Platforms like Experiment.com or GoFundMe can be effective for smaller, targeted projects.
4. State and Local Grants: Don’t overlook funding opportunities from your state or local government agencies.
5. International Funding Sources: For some research areas, international organizations or foreign government agencies may offer grants.
6. Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs): These organizations focus on community-based projects and may offer attractive terms for certain types of research.
7. Partnerships with Industry: Collaborative projects with private sector companies can provide funding and real-world applications for your research.

Strategies for Securing Alternative Funding

1. Refine Your Proposal: Competition for alternative funding sources may be fierce. Ensure your proposals are well-crafted and clearly demonstrate the value and potential impact of your work.
2. Network Actively: Attend conferences, join professional associations, and engage with potential funders to build relationships and learn about opportunities.
3. Collaborate: Consider forming partnerships with other institutions or researchers to strengthen your applications and share resources.
4. Stay Informed: Regularly check funding databases and sign up for newsletters from potential funding sources to stay aware of new opportunities.
5. Adapt Your Approach: Be prepared to adjust your research focus or methodology to align with the priorities of different funding sources without compromising your core objectives.

While the current federal funding landscape presents its challenges, it also opens up opportunities to explore new avenues and diversify your funding sources. Instead of viewing this as a setback, now is the time to take a proactive, creative, and persistent approach to navigate these changes.

The post Navigating the Shifting Landscape of Federal Grants appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

• Increasing emphasis on grants that address pressing societal issues, such as climate change, public health, and social inequality. For example, there has been a surge in grants for renewable energy research, community health initiatives and programs aimed at promoting diversity and inclusion in various fields.
• Growing popularity of collaborative grant programs that encourage partnerships between multiple stakeholders. These initiatives recognize the importance of interdisciplinary approaches and collaboration across sectors to tackle complex challenges.
• Rising interest in supporting sustainability of projects that not only deliver immediate results but also have the potential for lasting positive effects on communities, ecosystems, and economies.
• Advances in data analytics and artificial intelligence that enable funding agencies to better assess the potential impact and feasibility of grant proposals, leading to more informed decision-making.
• Intense competition for funding, with many worthy projects vying for limited resources. Donors are placing an emphasis on funding projects that are innovative, have wide impact, address significant issues of relevance to them, and are well written.

In response to these challenges and opportunities, there is a growing emphasis on capacity building and support services to help applicants strengthen their grant-writing skills, develop robust project proposals, and navigate the intricacies of grant procurement. Organizations such as universities, non-profits, and government agencies are offering training programs, workshops, and mentorship opportunities to empower aspiring grant seekers and increase their chances of success. For example, we at the Grant Training Center have seen a threefold increase in the number of professionals we train in our Grant Development workshops, as well as in the requests we receive for the grant reviews and editing of grant proposals.

The post Key Trends in Grant Funding 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.

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.

The Winners

The two agencies that appear to be favored are NASA and the NSF, both of which received modest funding increases. NASA will get approximately $18 billion, an increase of $364 million. The big winner is the agency’s science mission, which will be $94 million dollars more than the 2014 level of $5.151 billion. The NSF, which had a rocky 2014, did receive an increase to $7.344 billion. In 2014, the Republican Representative Lamar Smith (R–TX), and chair of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, campaigned to demonstrate how the NSF’s $7 billion research agency is “wasting” taxpayer dollars on frivolous or low-priority projects, particularly in the social sciences. Nevertheless, the six NSF directorates will increase by $125 million to $5.93 billion and the education directorates will grow by $20 million to $866 million.

The Stagnant

The NIH will receive $30 billion, which is $150 million above the 2014 budget. Disappointed in the appropriation results, Carrie Wolinetz, president of United for Medical Research stated: “Sustained increases to the NIH budget are necessary to close our nation’s innovation deficit – the widening gap between the current medical research funding levels and the investment required to ensure the U.S. remains the world’s innovation leader.”

The Losers

On the other hand, the areas that seem to be in continued peril are the social sciences and humanities. The social sciences have increasingly been questioned by congress, and support for their research is waning across all agencies. Funding for the arts and humanities remains flat, often reflecting the sentiments of colleges and universities.

The Department of Energy’s Office of Science did not do well, since the budget remained flat. Further, the bill’s language makes the funding contingent upon management reforms.

The EPA fared the worst. The agency’s budget has been slashed by $2.2 billion – or 21 percent – since 2010, and is $60 million less than the $8.1 billion budget in 2014. The cuts mean that the EPA will need to reduce its staffing to the lowest levels since 1989.

To Be Determined

The 2015 Budget for the Department of Education focuses on six priorities: (1)increasing equity and opportunity for all students; (2) strengthening support for teachers and school leaders; (3)expanding high-quality preschool programs; (4) affordability and quality in post secondary education; (5) promoting educational innovation and improvement; and (6) improving school safety and climate. The Obama Administration is requesting $68.6 billion in discretionary appropriations for the Department of Education in 2015, an increase of $1.3 billion – or 1.9 percent – more than the 2014 budget.

Community colleges will do well in adult education, workforce development, and affordability of education, because these are the priorities of the President. Very recently, President Obama announced a plan for free community college education.

Moving Forward

Institutions and organizations seeking funding in 2015 will have to diversify their requests. The Federal Government will continue to be a major source for research, but foundation and corporate giving will increase their weight in the formula. Equally, partnerships between government and the private sector will be favored, due to cost-sharing for major research. In all cases, accountability and performance measurements will continue to increase in significance in the decision-making process.

The post 2015 Federal Budget: What it Means to You appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

CoSTEM

The multi-agency Committee on STEM Education (CoSTEM) has generated four new grants for 2015 that shift the focus to the teachers. These four funding opportunities will facilitate and encourage teachers and education administrators to develop additional high-quality STEM programs and lessons by sponsoring the following:

• STEM Innovation Proposal – This $170 million grant program will be divided among those who can demonstrate fresh ideas and new techniques to teach the next generation of innovators.
• STEM Innovation Networks – School district and college partnerships are the target of this $110 million program. The goal is to increase the number of students in STEM field career tracks.
• STEM Teacher Pathways – Recruitment and training of STEM teachers is the primary directive of this $40 million program.
• National STEM Master Teacher Corps – $20 million has been dedicated to recognition and assistance for outstanding STEM teachers who are having a real impact in their communities.

NSF

The National Science Foundation (NSF) offers ten STEM-focused grant programs, each with numerous possible directions for proposals. Primarily, the NSF focuses on undergraduate and higher levels of education; however, the agency does partner with organizations and other agencies to augment secondary STEM education. Also, the Broader Impacts section of each NSF proposal must include an outreach component in order to strengthen STEM education. Typical NSF STEM grant programs are:

• Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Talent Expansion Program (STEP) – The goal of STEP is to increase the number of students earning undergraduate degrees in STEM disciplines, with awards between $50,000 and $1.5 million.
• Improving Undergraduate STEM Education (IUSE: EHR) – This program seeks to make STEM undergraduate education a better-supported set of disciplines, whether by improving student learning experiences or institutional program reform. Awards range from $94,000 to $2 million.

Department of Education

More than thirty-four programs at the U.S. Department of Education focus on or give priority to STEM education. With the recent movement toward STEM-oriented disciplines, even more programs will be developed. The Department of Education supports all levels of education, and many K-12 school systems depend on this funding. Two examples of STEM grant programs are:

• Mathematics and Science Partnerships – The goal of this program is to improve math and science education via partnerships between K-12 school systems or education programs and STEM professionals, and between teachers and institutions of higher education for training purposes.
• Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program – This initiative solicits long-term projects to increase the number of people from underrepresented groups, especially women.

Private Foundations

An increasing number of private foundations are taking the initiative to solve the STEM education problem in America. Support for teacher training, innovation in the classroom, or undergraduate research is available from many organizations, from local community nonprofits to globally recognized foundations. Some examples are:

• Gates Foundation – A technology component and teacher support are required for the CollegeReady program, which seeks to improve personalized learning in the classroom.
• Alfred P. Sloan Foundation – The Leadership Diversity program seeks to sponsor faculty positions and professional development for underrepresented groups.
• Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers Foundation – The Noche de Ciencias program sponsors a series of informative and interactive student activities throughout the community to generate an interest of the STEM disciplines in Hispanic students.
• Burroughs Wellcome Fund – Promoting Innovation in Science and Mathematics (PrISM) awards are granted to exceptional K-12 teachers for classroom support in STEM education.

The call to action from these organizations has broadened the horizons for those who have been seeking to make a difference in their classrooms or institutions. Innovative, creative, and outcome- and student-centered approaches are what will drive the changes toward correcting America’s STEM education problem.

The post Fixing America`s STEM Problem: Funding Opportunities 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.