Pausing the NIH

Started by SurfingDoctor
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

Browse articles Compare schools My application plan Read Interview Feedback
Practice for interviews Ask an Advisor

White House to propose massive NIH budget cut​

The Washington Post is reporting that Trump’s near-final 2026 budget proposal will seek a roughly 40% cut to the current $47.4 billion budget of the National Institutes of Health. The proposal would also merge NIH’s 27 institutes and centers into eight and eliminate the nursing and minority health institutes, according to the newspaper. (The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would be slashed 44% to $5.2 billion as part of an overall $40 billion, or one-third, cut to the budget of the Department of Health and Human Services.) Congress, which will have the final say, rejected requests Trump made during his first term to slash NIH’s budget.
Click to expand...

I feel like these "proposed cuts" were in line with what Trump proposed last time. However, this time, he's got more sycophants around him and appears more unstable than prior (which is a feat!), so who knows.
 
I don't know if anyone pays attention to the NIH weekly Opportunities and Notices. It for notices of interest, program announcements and new funding opportunities. Historically, I found it very informative.

Most recently, its just been announcing canceled grant opportunities or expiring them early. There have not been any new funding announcements for months.

Until TODAY!

Expired RFA-FD-25-024: A Research Study of Contaminants in School Meals (U18)

NIH Funding Opportunities and Notices in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts: A Research Study of Contaminants in School Meals (U18) RFA-FD-25-024. FDA
grants.nih.gov

We must get to the bottom of why we are poisoning poor children with school lunches!

This was the best part of the "Review Criteria"
How well does the applicant demonstrate administrative and operational readiness to implement the proposed food service intervention during the 2025 – 2026 school year?
Click to expand...
Ah yes, find all the poisons in the entire US food system and have them out and operationalized in 2 months. It's an RFA so they are throwing tens of millions of dollars at this ($20 million according to the FOA).

MAHA!
 
SurfingDoctor said:
I don't know if anyone pays attention to the NIH weekly Opportunities and Notices. It for notices of interest, program announcements and new funding opportunities. Historically, I found it very informative.

Most recently, its just been announcing canceled grant opportunities or expiring them early. There have not been any new funding announcements for months.
Click to expand...

Oh but did you miss this one?

Announcing the NIH Autism Data Science Initiative Research Opportunity | Grants & Funding

grants.nih.gov grants.nih.gov

Autism Data Science Initiative Funding Opportunities | DPCPSI

This Research Opportunity Announcement is Now ClosedThere are currently no open funding announcements for the Autism Data Science Initiative.
dpcpsi.nih.gov dpcpsi.nih.gov

"Innovative new approaches that reflect an exposomics framework and that apply new analytic and statistical methods to data derived from human epidemiology and clinical settings are needed to advance the study of GxE interactions in autism"

IT'S THE MERCURIEZ IN THE VAXES
Move aside slowpokes, wE aRE gOIng to sOLVE aUtisM noW!!@!#!

SurfingDoctor said:
Until TODAY!

Expired RFA-FD-25-024: A Research Study of Contaminants in School Meals (U18)

NIH Funding Opportunities and Notices in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts: A Research Study of Contaminants in School Meals (U18) RFA-FD-25-024. FDA
grants.nih.gov

We must get to the bottom of why we are poisoning poor children with school lunches!

This was the best part of the "Review Criteria"

Ah yes, find all the poisons in the entire US food system and have them out and operationalized in 2 months. It's an RFA so they are throwing tens of millions of dollars at this ($20 million according to the FOA).

MAHA!
Click to expand...

Hold me back, boys:

"The goals of this funding opportunity are to:
  1. Identify contaminants (e.g., heavy metals) present in school meals.
  2. Promote whole food offerings and minimize the use of foods commonly considered ultra-processed,
  3. Measure potential changes in contaminant levels and nutritional content pre- and post-intervention."

Better get after the Tater Tot pipeline in Flint, MI! That'll solve 'em!
 
tr said:
Oh but did you miss this one?

Announcing the NIH Autism Data Science Initiative Research Opportunity | Grants & Funding

grants.nih.gov grants.nih.gov

Autism Data Science Initiative Funding Opportunities | DPCPSI

This Research Opportunity Announcement is Now ClosedThere are currently no open funding announcements for the Autism Data Science Initiative.
dpcpsi.nih.gov dpcpsi.nih.gov

"Innovative new approaches that reflect an exposomics framework and that apply new analytic and statistical methods to data derived from human epidemiology and clinical settings are needed to advance the study of GxE interactions in autism"

IT'S THE MERCURIEZ IN THE VAXES
Move aside slowpokes, wE aRE gOIng to sOLVE aUtisM noW!!@!#!



Hold me back, boys:

"The goals of this funding opportunity are to:
  1. Identify contaminants (e.g., heavy metals) present in school meals.
  2. Promote whole food offerings and minimize the use of foods commonly considered ultra-processed,
  3. Measure potential changes in contaminant levels and nutritional content pre- and post-intervention."

Better get after the Tater Tot pipeline in Flint, MI! That'll solve 'em!
Click to expand...
I need to write a grant on how school lunches cause autism and hit pay dirt.
 
I feel bad for the science community as a whole that these knuckleheads are in charge…

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

“I don’t know anything about disease or pathophysiology so let me tell you why only testing humans is the way forward”
 
Last edited:
Curious about what was going on with MSTP grants, I searched the NIH Reporter to see what the 2025 awards were. First of all, only about 75% of those institutions who had an award in FY24 have an award listed for FY25. The Department of Government Efficiency obviously has some work to do to get these grant awards posted. Much more concerning, however, was my discovery that they NIH has taken a machete to programs whose 5-year grants were renewed in FY25. By my reckoning, there are 15 schools that were renewing their grants this year. Four of these schools do not show an award for FY25, but this is probably because the NIH is way behind in updating its website. Two programs show an increase over FY24 funding; this is due to significant increases in program size over the past 5 years. Of the remaning 9 programs, all had significant cuts in funding: 33%, 29%, 28%, 24% (3), 21%, 16%, and 11%. Of the programs that did not renew in FY25 (i.e., they are in the midst of a 5 year award), nearly all had a negligible cut of >3%. My assumption is that the programs "spared" this year will be cut when their grants are renewed in future years. I do not know what MD-PhD program leadership is thinking, but my guess is thatMST programs that suffered significant cuts in NIH funding this year will reduce the size of their entering class beginning in 2026. Furthermore, programs whose grants are due to be renewed in FY26, FY27, etc., will likely also be thinking about cutting the size of their entering classs, let they find themselves in the same situation of having to scramble for money to make up for decreased NIH funding. (Those programs may be able to ameliorate some of the NIH antipathy by being able to scrub any sign of DEI from their programs before they have to submit their grant applications.) Bottom line: my guess is that the number of MSTP slots in the 2026 entering class will decline by 15% or more. Applicants should probably take that into consideration when deciding which and how many programs to apply to.
 
Dear Maebea, I am glad that you are doing well and still checking up on us. We hope that you are enjoying retirement.

There has been a delay on issuing T32 funds, not truly a cut as of yet. Several programs are still waiting for their NOAs (even Y3, Y4 or Y5). I received mine late for Y3 about 5-6 weeks after than usually expected date (i.e.: Y2 NOA in 2024, Y1 in 2023). I do not think it is as bleak as you suggest. However, the overall environment is not optimistic and nationally, we have about 8% less MD/PhD applications at this point this year as compared to 2024 cycle. Most training programs continue offering the same number of positions. NIH websites (Reporter and eCommons) are actually ahead of PDs or institutions receiving emails with NOAs. There is also a delay in NIH Grants Management in moving the funds. I do see your reasoning for T32 cuts, which undoubtedly will happen, but I still hope that the budget cuts will end up in the 15-20% range rather than 43% as requested by the current administration.

We have our national meeting in a few weeks, and we will learn from frank discussions if that is the case or how severe the training environment is. Overall, PhD admissions took a harder crash with many programs decreasing their class sizes between 25-50% their first year entry positions in 2024. This is partly because Graduate Schools got hit with losing many of the diversity training program and also having their international training appeal (and harder to get visas) taking a big hit. In contrast, MD/PhD training programs only contracted about 3% in 2024 vs 2023 cycle. In a few weeks, the PDs will be having 3 meetings in a hard-working week: 1) the Institute of Medicine finally is paying attention to training issues of Physicians Scientists, 2) the AAMC GREAT annual meeting, and 3) the annual meeting of the National Association of Clinical Scientists Training Programs (formerly National Association of MD/PhD Programs). I have been in leadership of the last 2 groups and have been EAB member for over 15 other programs, so I will be able to report my perspective soon.
 
Fencer said:
Dear Maebea, I am glad that you are doing well and still checking up on us. We hope that you are enjoying retirement.

There has been a delay on issuing T32 funds, not truly a cut as of yet. Several programs are still waiting for their NOAs (even Y3, Y4 or Y5). I received mine late for Y3 about 5-6 weeks after than usually expected date (i.e.: Y2 NOA in 2024, Y1 in 2023). I do not think it is as bleak as you suggest. However, the overall environment is not optimistic and nationally, we have about 8% less MD/PhD applications at this point this year as compared to 2024 cycle. Most training programs continue offering the same number of positions. NIH websites (Reporter and eCommons) are actually ahead of PDs or institutions receiving emails with NOAs. There is also a delay in NIH Grants Management in moving the funds. I do see your reasoning for T32 cuts, which undoubtedly will happen, but I still hope that the budget cuts will end up in the 15-20% range rather than 43% as requested by the current administration.

We have our national meeting in a few weeks, and we will learn from frank discussions if that is the case or how severe the training environment is. Overall, PhD admissions took a harder crash with many programs decreasing their class sizes between 25-50% their first year entry positions in 2024. This is partly because Graduate Schools got hit with losing many of the diversity training program and also having their international training appeal (and harder to get visas) taking a big hit. In contrast, MD/PhD training programs only contracted about 3% in 2024 vs 2023 cycle. In a few weeks, the PDs will be having 3 meetings in a hard-working week: 1) the Institute of Medicine finally is paying attention to training issues of Physicians Scientists, 2) the AAMC GREAT annual meeting, and 3) the annual meeting of the National Association of Clinical Scientists Training Programs (formerly National Association of MD/PhD Programs). I have been in leadership of the last 2 groups and have been EAB member for over 15 other programs, so I will be able to report my perspective soon.
Click to expand...

It seems that I timed my retirement well.

I do hope that the collective efforts of the physician-scientist training community, the AAMC, NAS, etc., will bring some sanity to the funding situation. Having worked with MD-PhD program leadership for three decades to see the population of trainees more than double and the number of NIH-funded programs grow by 70%, it is disheartening to me to see the shift in priorities at the NIH. I know that MD-PhD programs will not shy away from the fight (just as in the past we took on the NIH, AAMC, NAS, NBME, state medical boards, and individual universities to promote the interests of MD-PhD students), and wish you and all my former colleagues success in this challenge.
 
1753837750084.gif
 
www.whitehouse.gov

Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to improve the process of Federal
www.whitehouse.gov www.whitehouse.gov

(iii) All else being equal, preference for discretionary awards should be given to institutions with lower indirect cost rates.
Click to expand...

Semi-related to this, I got a NOA for a new R21. The entirely of the budget was dispersed in Year 1 (as per mine and Fencers posts above) AND the indirects (that were submitted prior to the current administration) were cut by 20% BUT that 20% was shifted into the directs into some nebulous slush fund (that I guess I will get to see in the budget at some point). Also, even this R21 (and all R21s) are two years, the lump sum as has to spent in 4 years... ie, there is a built in no-cost extension. Anyway... interesting.

Semi-unrelated, to think that the POTUS has constitutional authority over grant funding is hilariously stupid... but here we are.
 
Last edited:
SurfingDoctor said:
www.whitehouse.gov

Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to improve the process of Federal
www.whitehouse.gov www.whitehouse.gov



Semi-related to this, I got a NOA for a new R21. The entirely of the budget was dispersed in Year 1 (as per mine and Fencers posts above) AND the indirects (that were submitted prior to the current administration) were cut by 20% BUT that 20% was shifted into the directs into some nebulous slush fund (that I guess I will get to see in the budget at some point). Also, even this R21 (and all R21s) are two years, the lump sum as has to spent in 4 years... ie, there is a built in no-cost extension. Anyway... interesting.

Semi-unrelated, to think that the POTUS has constitutional authority over grant funding is hilariously stupid... but here we are.
Click to expand...
Congratulations on getting funded within a harsh environment.
 
SurfingDoctor said:
Thanks. Its like the lottery... you can't ever win if you don't play.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, one of my trainees is sitting with 13% in an F30 and another got a 1%. In prior years, both would have been funded. But now, the 13% will need to hope that the new study section agrees with the response to critiques and doesn't find new -- moving target -- criticisms.
 
Last edited:
Recently heard some good news. A program whose MSTP T32 slots had been cut by 27% has received a revised award notice that has restored the lost slots. I'll be checking NIH Reporter to see if the other programs that were cut have received similar revised award notices. I am hoping that this revision is not the result of the thundering incompetence, but instead marks a return to sanity.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.


To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.


Um… yeah. The Director’s mom probably took too much Tylenol during pregnancy. The proof is that apparently… hes an idiot.
 
Last edited:
tr said:
Yes and I notice they published the information in tabular form so it's difficult to see the difference from previous years. Vs the posts from Mike Lauer that always used to have graphs so you could easily see the difference from year to year and between cohorts.
Click to expand...
Not only that, but they generally give comments on how the trends are.

Now it’s like “here’s a table… deuces”
 
SurfingDoctor said:
Not only that, but they generally give comments on how the trends are.

Now it’s like “here’s a table… deuces”
Click to expand...


No comments box either, no surprise there.

Here, I plugged the numbers provided into a chart format. Looks pretty dismal.
Of note, I actually had to retype the numbers into my Excel file because cutting and pasting resulted in some weird non-numerical format that would not plot. I can't imagine that's an accident.

1771796573469.png


Also I really wonder how 'success rate' is defined. I had a new R01 application that was competitively scored in April and (per report of PO) was selected for funding at Council in June. However I never received an NoA, for reasons of forward funding eating all the money and plunging the paylines. I imagine there are plenty of others out there like that and I really wonder whether these numbers reflect NoA/paid out or just nominally selected for funding but money never actually received.
 
Last edited:
tr said:
No comments box either, no surprise there.

Here, I plugged the numbers provided into a chart format. Looks pretty dismal.
Of note, I actually had to retype the numbers into my Excel file because cutting and pasting resulted in some weird non-numerical format that would not plot. I can't imagine that's an accident.

View attachment 415556

Also I really wonder how 'success rate' is defined. I had a new R01 application that was competitively scored in April and (per report of PO) was selected for funding at Council in June. However I never received an NoA, for reasons of forward funding eating all the money and plunging the paylines. I imagine there are plenty of others out there like that and I really wonder whether these numbers reflect NoA/paid out or just nominally selected for funding but money never actually received.
Click to expand...
I have a 1%-tile grant scored in June with a projected start date of 12/2025. It was a A1 where the A0 submission a year prior was below the historic payline, but the PO said resubmit, so we did.

I emailed the PO last week to see what the deal was. They told me more or less “who knows”
 
... and the report is creating the impression that a similar approach works for every corner of disease (i.e.: NIH institute). There is a reason for different approaches, and one of them is to try to innovate with different ideas and grant mechanisms. Let's hope that people vote in November 2026, and that Congress start asserting its power just as the current budget funding for rest of FY26 did.

At the NIGMS Council (Feb. 2026), Dr. Brown, Acting NIGMS Director, discussed the recent funding appropriation and implications for FY2026. The webcast link was removed from NIH webinars, but I took a screenshot of the slide at minute 14 of the public session.
 

Attachments

  • NIGMS Council Feb 5 2026.jpg
    NIGMS Council Feb 5 2026.jpg
    104.3 KB · Views: 151
Fencer said:
... and the report is creating the impression that a similar approach works for every corner of disease (i.e.: NIH institute). There is a reason for different approaches, and one of them is to try to innovate with different ideas and grant mechanisms. Let's hope that people vote in November 2026, and that Congress start asserting its power just as the current budget funding for rest of FY26 did.

At the NIGMS Council (Feb. 2026), Dr. Brown, Acting NIGMS Director, discussed the recent funding appropriation and implications for FY2026. The webcast link was removed from NIH webinars, but I took a screenshot of the slide at minute 14 of the public session.
Click to expand...
kxhNtc.gif

You know the people actually voted for this in 2024 right? Literally all of it. I'm not for a second going to delude myself into thinking this was unexpected. I took care, as many of us did, of the delusion that COVID had on people. 5G, and horse dewormer. This is what the US populace wants. I always felt that the cynicism of @dl2dp2 was off base, maybe I just hoped that people would be better... but I so far have been so wrong.

Not to get all political in here as there is a forum for that (for those who want, join the SPF), but this is definitely the will of the people who chose to become anti-science, and in particular, anti-US science.

There is very much a feeling amongst the US populace and the US government that represents them... that science is a waste of time and money and is better left to the Chinese and European governments, particularly the former.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tr
You know, we have an MSTP student in our lab. We weren’t allowed to take them, but we told the department we had a 1% grant that was sure to be funded. Here we are months afterwards with nothing. I tried to gauge what leadership told them. It was all “you are fine”.

I actually don’t doubt that.

It’s what is after that that feels like a dishonest message.

We are living in the time of charlatans.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.


Such a weird mechanism. Word on the street is that the OMB will withhold large portions of NIH dedicated to new grants (ie not non-competitive renewals) till the end of the fiscal year (eg. September 30th) and then dump them as MYF with the sole goal of attrition.
 
Fencer said:
On Monday, March 16 - NIH is putting together a webinar on their RFI for their 2027-31 Strategic Plan.
This is one of the websites: Developing the NIH-Wide Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2027-2031 Webinars

On Tuesday, March 17 - The House appropriations committee is having a hearing on the oversight spending of NIH with Dr. Bhattacharya as a witness.
appropriations.house.gov

Oversight Hearing – National Institutes of Health

appropriations.house.gov appropriations.house.gov
Click to expand...

I wish I could consider Congressional hearings to be serious matters… alas, they are no longer that.
 
Fencer said:
I read her column and watched the Q&A of the Strategic Plan and the Hearings at the House. The OMB finally approved last night the apportionment for NIH for disbursement.... amazing! It took a scheduling of Congressional Hearings for this $ to move.
Click to expand...
Ha. The hearing currently ongoing is nonsense.

Jay was like "There are no current holdups to grants being funded"... Ha... wut? I guess its technically true if fund were released 12 hours ago, but get real.

The Strategic Plan was also a waste of time. The NIH was basically like "I dunno. You tell us and we'll see if it fits our political pressures".
 
SurfingDoctor said:
I have a 1%-tile grant scored in June with a projected start date of 12/2025. It was a A1 where the A0 submission a year prior was below the historic payline, but the PO said resubmit, so we did.

I emailed the PO last week to see what the deal was. They told me more or less “who knows”
Click to expand...
Finally got the NOA. Better late than never…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.