#nih-grants — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #nih-grants, aggregated by home.social.
-
NIH FUNDING SLOWDOWN RAISES QUESTIONS ON RESEARCH TRAJECTORY
NIH grant awards have slowed by 24%, impacting medical research and fellowships. Find out how this affects scientists and future healthcare innovation.
#NIHGrants, #MedicalResearch, #ScienceFunding, #ResearchImpact, #GrantSlowdown
https://newsletter.tf/nih-grant-awards-slowdown-medical-research-impact/
-
NIH has seen a 24% drop in major grant types like R01s, meaning fewer fellowships are awarded. This is a significant decrease compared to previous periods.
#NIHGrants, #MedicalResearch, #ScienceFunding, #ResearchImpact, #GrantSlowdown
https://newsletter.tf/nih-grant-awards-slowdown-medical-research-impact/ -
At NIH, a power struggle over institute directorships deepens The research agency has 27 institute and center directors. Will those roles become politicized? https://s.faithcollapsing.com/rdi8a#national-institutes-of-health #nih #nih-funding #nih-grants #science #syndication
-
At NIH, a power struggle over institute directorships deepens The research agency has 27 institute and center directors. Will those roles become politicized? https://s.faithcollapsing.com/rdi8a#national-institutes-of-health #nih #nih-funding #nih-grants #science #syndication
-
New NIH Announcement Just Made It Easier To Terminate Grant Funding – Forbes.com
New NIH Announcement Just Made It Easier To Terminate Grant Funding
ByBruce Y. Lee, Senior Contributor. Bruce Y. Lee, M.D., MBA, covers health, medicine, wellness and science.
Nov 23, 2025, 07:31am EST, Nov 23, 2025, 09:56pm EST
Editor’s Note: Featured image at top is from WP AI.
So, you’ve put your blood, sweat and tears into a proposal to do some kind of prevent-or-treat-disease and find-ways-to-help-humans project. And somehow against worsening now well-below-10% odds you’ve managed to get your project funded by the National Institutes of Health. What would you most like to hear? How about news that the NIH under the Trump administration has just made it even easier to terminate your research grant at any time?
NIH Issued Updated Terms And Conditions Of Awards
Yep, on November 18, 2025, the NIH issued an “Updated Terms and Conditions of Awards.” These updated terms did include fairly standard language like “By accepting an NIH award, the recipient agrees that continued funding for the award is contingent upon the availability of appropriated funds, recipient satisfactory performance, compliance with the Terms and Conditions of the award.” It’s always been the case that grant funding can be withdrawn if fraud or abuse occur or the recipient isn’t really doing any acceptable scientific work with the funding.
However, there also were two kickers, as in things that could end up kicking you in the behind if you don’t notice it. It’s the combination of two sentences. One reads, “All new NIH Notices of Award will include the following terms.” The second reads, “[The award] may also otherwise be terminated, to the extent authorized by law, if the agency determines that the award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities, in line with 2 CFR 200.340(a)(4).” These may seem like small changes. But sometimes small things can end up causing big issues.
You may have noticed the word “effectuate” at the center of that second statement and be wondering what the eff that means. Well, Dictionary.com does define “effectuate” as “to bring about,” which doesn’t quite effectuate clarity. Effectuate isn’t a word that you necessarily see or use everyday. Like you probably don’t typically tell someone taking your order at a restaurant, “Could you please effectuate for me a hamburger, fries and a fruitcake?” And if you were to tell your significant other, “You are no longer effectuating my priorities,” that might effectuate a middle finger to you.
The other vague thing in the statement is the whole “program goals or agency priorities” thing. How exactly will these goals and priorities be defined? Will they be clearly listed somewhere? How might they change after you get the award? Does this feel a bit like, “We’ll keep funding you as long as we feel like doing so?” I’m reaching out to my contacts at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the NIH to bring about—or, er, effectuate—more clarity on the situation.
Now the combination of the two statements is notable in that based on the 2 C.F.R. § 200.340, in the words on the Holland and Knight law firm website “the government is unable to unilaterally terminate an award for this purpose for grants awarded after Oct. 1, 2024, unless the parties specifically included this as an express termination provision in the grant award itself.” So, now this new NIH announcement is indicating that the whole ”effectuating” thing is going to be baked directly into each actual grant award’s Terms and Conditions.
The New Terms And Conditions May Make Make It Easier For The NIH To Terminate Grants
One big concern is that such vagueness right in the award’s Terms and Conditions might give NIH administrators and whatever Presidential administration happens to be overseeing NIH at the time even more leeway to justify yanking your federal funding at any time. The Trump administration has been doing a lot of the premature termination thing since January 2025, as I’ve described in Forbes. This has included terminating or partially terminating grants that have been producing what the investigators had originally indicated they would produce. The justification often used for such terminations has been that the funded projects no longer matched the priorities of the NIH as guided by the Executive Orders signed by President Donald Trump earlier this year.
Continue/Read Original Article Here: New NIH Announcement Just Made It Easier To Terminate Grant Funding
#BruceYLee #Effectuate #Forbes #ForbesCom #Heathcare #HelpHumans #NationalInstitutesOfHealth #NIH #NIHGrants #November182025 #TerminateGrants #TrumpAdministration
-
The government has slashed lifesaving cancer research. I try to channel my anger in to positive things, so I donated $50 to Winship Discovery Fund for cancer research. #EmoryDayOfGiving dayofgiving.emory.edu/amb/andisheh #cancer #research #NIH #NIHgrants #CDC #publichealth
-
The government has slashed lifesaving cancer research. I try to channel my anger in to positive things, so I donated $50 to Winship Discovery Fund for cancer research. #EmoryDayOfGiving dayofgiving.emory.edu/amb/andisheh #cancer #research #NIH #NIHgrants #CDC #publichealth
-
Reminder that if you have a progress report due, make sure to start it early, because there will be some part of it you forgot about, or that got added since last year, and it will take longer than you think.
-Brought to you by someone who procrastinated working on their progress report
-
Reminder that if you have a progress report due, make sure to start it early, because there will be some part of it you forgot about, or that got added since last year, and it will take longer than you think.
-Brought to you by someone who procrastinated working on their progress report
-
Today I'm facilitating the first in a series of grantwriting sessions for junior faculty in my department. The goal is for each of them to submit an NIH grant on a new topic in February 2025—so lots of time for planning, writing, feedback, preliminary data, etc. Sessions are designed to give us all time to write and also get feedback from guest speakers. Wish us luck! #NIHgrants
-
Today I'm facilitating the first in a series of grantwriting sessions for junior faculty in my department. The goal is for each of them to submit an NIH grant on a new topic in February 2025—so lots of time for planning, writing, feedback, preliminary data, etc. Sessions are designed to give us all time to write and also get feedback from guest speakers. Wish us luck! #NIHgrants
-
Euler diagram of the day 😬 #grantwriting #NIHgrants
-
Euler diagram of the day 😬 #grantwriting #NIHgrants
-
Grantwriting complaints and advice
It's always frustrating when reviewers miss an important thing, especially if it's about an investigator (i.e., ME) that seems obvious.
One time I had a comment that the research team should have someone with experience doing language (which I think I've been doing since 2000).
I recently had a comment that the PI (me) did not have experience with fNIRS (I've been doing optical brain imaging since 2012).
BUT, as frustrating as these are, it's also a good reminder that quite often the things we think are obvious to reviewers based on our biosketch or whatever are often not. And it's on us to try to fix that in our grant application, because reviewers will always be over-worked and over-tired etc.
(Also sometimes a reviewer is just an idiot but that's hard to defend against so I try to assume the best and figure out what I can do on my end.)
-
Grantwriting complaints and advice
It's always frustrating when reviewers miss an important thing, especially if it's about an investigator (i.e., ME) that seems obvious.
One time I had a comment that the research team should have someone with experience doing language (which I think I've been doing since 2000).
I recently had a comment that the PI (me) did not have experience with fNIRS (I've been doing optical brain imaging since 2012).
BUT, as frustrating as these are, it's also a good reminder that quite often the things we think are obvious to reviewers based on our biosketch or whatever are often not. And it's on us to try to fix that in our grant application, because reviewers will always be over-worked and over-tired etc.
(Also sometimes a reviewer is just an idiot but that's hard to defend against so I try to assume the best and figure out what I can do on my end.)
-
If your grant has 5 point font in the figure captions, you're doing it wrong 😬 #NIHgrants
-
If your grant has 5 point font in the figure captions, you're doing it wrong 😬 #NIHgrants
-
When you remember study section is meeting today #NIHgrants
-
When you remember study section is meeting today #NIHgrants
-
If you are the PI of a grant proposal and your draft budget is over the limit and someone’s first advice is “drastically decrease your effort” please get a second opinion.
Also here is your second opinion: don’t
-
If you are the PI of a grant proposal and your draft budget is over the limit and someone’s first advice is “drastically decrease your effort” please get a second opinion.
Also here is your second opinion: don’t
-
Researchers, please give your input re the NIH request for information on a proposed revision of the framework for evaluating and scoring NIH research grants.
Deadline for providing input is March 10, 2023. Link below:
-
Researchers, please give your input re the NIH request for information on a proposed revision of the framework for evaluating and scoring NIH research grants.
Deadline for providing input is March 10, 2023. Link below:
-
One thing I love about mastodon is how easy it is to follow tags, especially in @icecubesapp ❤️
One thing that makes me sad is how few posts are tagged #NIHgrants
i’m going to work on changing that—help me if you’re able! 👍
-
One thing I love about mastodon is how easy it is to follow tags, especially in @icecubesapp ❤️
One thing that makes me sad is how few posts are tagged #NIHgrants
i’m going to work on changing that—help me if you’re able! 👍
-
KEEP YOUR GRANT ADMINISTRATOR HAPPY
(that’s the person who helps you put together your application and navigate both NIH and institutional requirements and preferences)
If they want you to update your biosketch to a "new" form that is literally identical to the old one, do it.
If they want PMCIDs added to your references, do it.
If they want everything a week earlier than you think they need it, do it.
Being on their good side is worth it.
(This is all assuming they aren't a disaster...which hopefully they aren't. I've been lucky to have excellent ones.)
-
KEEP YOUR GRANT ADMINISTRATOR HAPPY
(that’s the person who helps you put together your application and navigate both NIH and institutional requirements and preferences)
If they want you to update your biosketch to a "new" form that is literally identical to the old one, do it.
If they want PMCIDs added to your references, do it.
If they want everything a week earlier than you think they need it, do it.
Being on their good side is worth it.
(This is all assuming they aren't a disaster...which hopefully they aren't. I've been lucky to have excellent ones.)
-
The evolution of grant length
1 week before deadline: my grant is too short but that’s OK I'm writing
2 days before deadline: still a little short…😬
1 day before deadline: omg too long! too long! cut cut cut
2 hours before deadline: wait how do I have half a page left to fill
deadline: it just so happens that everything I have to say fits in exactly 12 pages and if you even think about resizing a figure I will end your life -
The evolution of grant length
1 week before deadline: my grant is too short but that’s OK I'm writing
2 days before deadline: still a little short…😬
1 day before deadline: omg too long! too long! cut cut cut
2 hours before deadline: wait how do I have half a page left to fill
deadline: it just so happens that everything I have to say fits in exactly 12 pages and if you even think about resizing a figure I will end your life -
Use styles. For example, headings.
All you LaTeX people are used to this (\sec, \subsec, etc.) but I am always shocked at how many users of Word (etc.) style everything by hand.
Is it a top level heading? Heading 1.
Next level? Heading 2.
And so on. My grants usually go down 5 levels.
The beauty is not only consistency (although that's nice, too) but that if you need to change something, you just change it one place (the style) and it magically changes everywhere in your document.
I first became aware of the content vs. presentation thinking when working with HTML and CSS in the olden days, followed by LaTeX - so styles in word processors seemed only natural. But I realize that's not true for everyone!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_content_and_presentation
-
Use styles. For example, headings.
All you LaTeX people are used to this (\sec, \subsec, etc.) but I am always shocked at how many users of Word (etc.) style everything by hand.
Is it a top level heading? Heading 1.
Next level? Heading 2.
And so on. My grants usually go down 5 levels.
The beauty is not only consistency (although that's nice, too) but that if you need to change something, you just change it one place (the style) and it magically changes everywhere in your document.
I first became aware of the content vs. presentation thinking when working with HTML and CSS in the olden days, followed by LaTeX - so styles in word processors seemed only natural. But I realize that's not true for everyone!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_content_and_presentation
-
When possible, before and during writing look at 5-10 examples of grants written for the same mechanism (funded or not). This will help inspre you both positively and negatively. The specific topic may not be as important as overall style.
-
When possible, before and during writing look at 5-10 examples of grants written for the same mechanism (funded or not). This will help inspre you both positively and negatively. The specific topic may not be as important as overall style.
-
I was today years old when I learned that
NIH grant instructions say all public access articles need a NIHMS or PMCID in your Bibliography and References Cited section and
Some grant administrators enforce this rule 😱
-
I was today years old when I learned that
NIH grant instructions say all public access articles need a NIHMS or PMCID in your Bibliography and References Cited section and
Some grant administrators enforce this rule 😱
-
Sometimes, when I’m writing a grant, I have a huge sense of accomplishment once I’m happy with the specific aims, and the budget is finalized. After I get to that point, I almost feel like the whole grant is written.
This is not necessarily a good thing, because I still have to, you know, write the grant.
and no, there is no particular reason I mention this now with a February 5 deadline coming up why would you even think that
-
Sometimes, when I’m writing a grant, I have a huge sense of accomplishment once I’m happy with the specific aims, and the budget is finalized. After I get to that point, I almost feel like the whole grant is written.
This is not necessarily a good thing, because I still have to, you know, write the grant.
and no, there is no particular reason I mention this now with a February 5 deadline coming up why would you even think that
-
NIH funding is not a meritocracy. Luck — both good and bad — plays a huge role, as does bias. This truth can be depressing to acknowledge but can also set you free (e.g., from being too hard on yourself).
Corollary: until we fix the system, submit a lot of (respectable, if not perfect) grants if you want to get funded.
-
NIH funding is not a meritocracy. Luck — both good and bad — plays a huge role, as does bias. This truth can be depressing to acknowledge but can also set you free (e.g., from being too hard on yourself).
Corollary: until we fix the system, submit a lot of (respectable, if not perfect) grants if you want to get funded.
-
Make the reviewer's job easy. You want them to know what the goal of the grant is? Include a sentence that says "The goal of this grant is to...".
Reviewers judging innovation? Include a heading called "Innovation" and have a bulleted list of innovative aspects.
This isn't a Jedi mind trick and can backfire if what you make clear isn't convincing. But in general I like this strategy.
-
Make the reviewer's job easy. You want them to know what the goal of the grant is? Include a sentence that says "The goal of this grant is to...".
Reviewers judging innovation? Include a heading called "Innovation" and have a bulleted list of innovative aspects.
This isn't a Jedi mind trick and can backfire if what you make clear isn't convincing. But in general I like this strategy.
-
The difference between study sections and institutes/centers was also confusing for me at first. Understanding the different kinds of science reviewed by different study sections, and the fact that my study section request would not always be honored, were critical points in my development.
-
The difference between study sections and institutes/centers was also confusing for me at first. Understanding the different kinds of science reviewed by different study sections, and the fact that my study section request would not always be honored, were critical points in my development.
-
What are the most important pieces of advice for early career researchers thinking about writing an NIH grant? What was most useful to you, or what do you wish you had known but didn’t?
Happy to hear the worst advice also… 😬
#GrantWriting #NIHgrants #science #neuroscience #ecrchat #ECRgrantAdvice @academicchatter
-
What are the most important pieces of advice for early career researchers thinking about writing an NIH grant? What was most useful to you, or what do you wish you had known but didn’t?
Happy to hear the worst advice also… 😬
#GrantWriting #NIHgrants #science #neuroscience #ecrchat #ECRgrantAdvice @academicchatter
-
One thing I try to keep in mind when writing grants: Only propose things I actually want to spend 5 years doing. It’s so tempting to think: “Well, if I just change this task, and add this special population, this grant seems stronger and is more likely to be funded”—but these compromises may not be worth it in the end.
(Having told myself all of this, the next grant cycle I think: “Well, if I just change this task, and add this special population…🙄)