research grants 2022

Research Grants on Education: Small

Application deadlines:.

Applications Open June 21, 2024

Full Proposal Deadline September 11, 2024 (12 noon Central Time)

Program contact: Cynthia Soto [email protected]

The Small Research Grants on Education Program supports education research projects that will contribute to the improvement of education, broadly conceived, with budgets up to $50,000 for projects ranging from one to five years. We accept applications three times per year.

This program is “field-initiated” in that proposal submissions are not in response to a specific request for a particular research topic, discipline, design, method, or location. Our goal for this program is to support rigorous, intellectually ambitious and technically sound research that is relevant to the most pressing questions and compelling opportunities in education.

Program Statement

The Small Research Grants on Education Program supports education research projects that will contribute to the improvement of education, broadly conceived, with budgets up to $50,000 for projects ranging from one to five years. Eligible investigators may also request additional supplemental funds for a course release. We accept applications three times per year. This program is “field-initiated” in that proposal submissions are not in response to a specific request for a particular research topic, discipline, design, or method. Our goal for this program is to support rigorous, intellectually ambitious and technically sound research that is relevant to the most pressing questions and compelling opportunities in education. We seek to support scholarship that develops new foundational knowledge that may have a lasting impact on educational discourse. 

We recognize that learning occurs across the life course as well as across settings—from the classroom to the workplace, to family and community contexts and even onto the playing field—any of which may, in the right circumstance, provide the basis for rewarding study that makes significant contributions to the field. We value work that fosters creative and open-minded scholarship, engages in deep inquiry, and examines robust questions related to education. To this end, this program supports proposals from multiple disciplinary and methodological perspectives, both domestically and internationally, from scholars at various stages in their career. We anticipate that proposals will span a wide range of topics and disciplines that innovatively investigate questions central to education, including for example education, anthropology, philosophy, psychology, sociology, law, economics, history, or neuroscience, amongst others.

Moreover, we expect and welcome methodological diversity in answering pressing questions; thus, we are open to projects that utilize a wide array of research methods including quantitative, qualitative, mixed-methods, ethnographies, computational modeling, design-based research, participatory methods, and historical research, to name a few. We are open to projects that might incorporate data from multiple and varied sources, span a sufficient length of time as to achieve a depth of understanding, or work closely with practitioners or community members over the life of the project.

April 2024 deadline

Eligibility and restrictions.

Eligibility

Proposals to the Small Research Grants on Education program must be for research projects that aim to study education. Proposals for activities other than research are not eligible (e.g., program evaluations, professional development, curriculum development, scholarships, capital projects, software development). Additionally, proposals for research studies focused on areas other than education are not eligible.

Principal Investigators (PIs) and Co-PIs applying for a Small Research Grant on Education must have an earned doctorate in an academic discipline or professional field, or appropriate experience in an education research-related profession. While graduate students may be part of the research team, they may not be named the PI or Co-PI on the proposal.

The PI must be affiliated with a non-profit organization or public/governmental institution that is willing to serve as the administering organization if the grant is awarded. The Spencer Foundation does not award grants directly to individuals. Examples include non-profit or public colleges, universities, school districts, and research facilities, as well as other non-profit organizations with a 501(c)(3) determination from the IRS (or equivalent non-profit status if the organization is outside of the United States).

Proposals are accepted from the U.S. and internationally, however, all proposals must be submitted in English and budgets must be proposed in U.S. Dollars.

Restrictions

Proposed budgets for this program are limited to $50,000 total and may not include indirect cost charges per Spencer’s policy . Eligible investigators may also request additional supplemental funds for a course release. See the Optional Supplemental Course Release section for details.

Projects proposed may not be longer than 5 years in duration.

PIs and Co-PIs may only hold one active research grant from the Spencer Foundation at a time. (This restriction does not apply to the administering organization; organizations may submit as many proposals as they like as long as they are for different projects and have different research teams.)

PIs and Co-PIs may not submit more than one research proposal to the Spencer Foundation at a time. This restriction applies to the Small Grants Program, Large Grants Program, Racial Equity Research Grants Program, and Research-Practice Partnership Program. If the PI or any of the Co-PIs currently have a research proposal under consideration in any of these programs, they are required to wait until a final decision has been made on the pending proposal before they can submit a new proposal.

How to Apply

The application process begins with a full proposal; there is no requirement to submit an intent to apply form. Full proposals for a Small Research Grant on Education are due by 12:00pm Noon central time on the deadline date.

Full Proposal Guidelines

Small Grant proposals must be submitted through an online application form following the guidelines below.

Step 1 – Registration

Note: This application is configured for the Principal Investigator (PI) on the project to register and submit the form. If someone other than the PI will be completing the online application (e.g., an administrative assistant), the PI should register as described in Step 1 below, then provide their username and password to the person assisting them with the application.

If you (the PI) have never accessed the Spencer Foundation online portal, you must register and create a profile by going to https://spencer.smartsimple.us and clicking the “Register Here” button. Follow the guidelines on the registration page to create your profile.

If you already have an account, log on to update your profile and access the application.

Step 2 - My Profile

After logging in, follow the directions to complete the information requested on the My Profile page and upload your current CV (10-page limit). The My Profile page is your online account with the Spencer Foundation whether you are applying for a grant, reviewing a proposal, or submitting a grantee report.

Note: If you will have Co-PIs on your project, they must also register and complete their profile information if they wish to be included on the application.

Step 3 – Start a Proposal

To fill out the application, go to your Workbench and click the Apply button for the Small Research Grants on Education. Your draft application can be saved so that you can return to it at a later time and continue working on it. Once you save a draft application, you can find it again on your Draft Proposals list on your Workbench.

Small Grant Proposal Elements

Within the online application, there are detailed guidelines for each section. Below is an overview of the elements you’ll be expected to complete.

Project Personnel - As the person creating the draft application, you will automatically be assigned to the proposal as the Principal Investigator. If there are Co-PIs on the proposal, they can be added to the application in this section.  They must first follow Steps 1 and 2 above before being added to the application.

In this section you are also asked to confirm that neither the PI nor the Co-PIs currently have another research proposal under review at Spencer (see Restrictions).

Proposal Summary – Information about the project is requested, such as the project title, start and end dates, the central research question(s), and a 200-word project summary.

Budget and Budget Justification - The budget form is divided into the following categories and each category has a pulldown menu of the line-item choices listed in parentheses below:

• Salaries (PI, Co-PI, Postdoctoral Research Assistant, Graduate Student, Researcher, Undergraduate Researcher, Other Research Staff, Other Staff, Supplemental PI Course Release, Supplemental Co-PI Course Release)
• Benefits (PI Benefits, Co-PI Benefits, Researcher Benefits, Other Staff Benefits, Tuition/Fees, Supplemental Course Release Benefits)
• Other Collaborator (Independent Consultant, Advisor)
• Travel (Project Travel, Conference or Dissemination Travel)
• Equipment and Software (Equipment, Software)
• Project Expenses (Supplies, Participant Stipends/Costs, Communication, Transcription)
• Other (This should only be used for expenses not covered in the choices above)
• Subcontracts (Information is pulled from the subcontract budget forms – see below)

Each expense for your project should be added and the budget narrative field should be completed, providing a description of that specific expense.  Detailed guidelines are available within the application form.

Subcontracts: If your project will have subcontracts, a separate subcontract budget form will need to be completed for each. The subcontract form has the same categories and line-item choices listed above.

Proposal Narrative - You are expected to upload a proposal narrative pdf that includes the following:

A description of the project, the central research question(s), and the project’s significance.

A rationale for the project. This includes (a) summary of the relevant literature, the relationship of the proposed research to that literature, and the new knowledge or contribution to the improvement of education expected to result from the proposed research; and (b) a summary of the conceptual framework or theory guiding the project and how the project utilizes or builds on this framework of theory.

A description of the proposed research methods, description of participants, data collection instruments, and modes of analysis the project will employ. If applicable to the proposed methods, please include (a) information about the proposed sample/case definition and selection procedures; (b) research design, including when appropriate a description of the context of the study; (c) description of key constructs, measures and data sources; (d) procedures for data collection; and (e) procedures for data analysis.

This narrative may not exceed 1800 words and at the conclusion should include the word count in parentheses. Your reference list should follow your narrative in the same pdf file and will not count toward the 1800-word limit.

The text should be double–spaced and in 12-point font. APA style is preferred.

Note: Tables and other figures can be included in the text of your proposal, where appropriate, provided they are used sparingly. The text contained in any tables and figures will not count towards the word limit. However, it is important that you describe or explain any tables or figures in the narrative portion of your proposal, which will contribute to your word count. Do not assume that tables and other figures are self-explanatory.

Project Timeline - A project timeline should be uploaded as a PDF file and should indicate the proposed start and end dates of the project as well as key project events and milestones. The major activities listed in the project timeline should be reflected in the proposal narrative. The project timeline may not exceed 1 page and the text should be in 12-point font. The proposed project duration can be up to 5 years.

Project Team – A document describing the project team should be uploaded in pdf format and should identify the roles, responsibility and knowledge base of the PI, Co-PI(s), and any supporting researcher(s). In the case where your project includes Co-PIs and other supporting researchers, this document should articulate how the team will work together to complete the research project, highlighting what each team member will contribute to the project. Further, a short description of the relationship between the project team and the research site may be included, if appropriate. This document should not exceed 250 words and should be double–spaced in 12-point font. Note: this document will be reviewed along with the CV of the PI and any Co-PIs included on the application.

Optional Supplemental Course Release – The Spencer Foundation recognizes that scholars' course loads vary significantly across the field creating differential contexts and capacities for research projects. To help mitigate these uneven demands on time, the PI or Co-PI may request supplemental course release funds of up to $10,000 over and above the $50,000 Small Grant budget limit, for a total of up to $60,000.

To be eligible, the scholar (PI or Co-PI) must have a course load of 6 or above per academic year. The supplemental funds cannot be used for anything besides a course release for the scholar and should be the standard rate for a course release at their institution. You may only request 1 additional course release per grant. Two things of note: 1) requesting the Supplemental Course Release funds does not guarantee they will be awarded, and 2) if you have a course load that is less than 6, you may still include a course release in your proposal budget, but your budget may not exceed the $50,000 Small Grants limit and you are not required to supply the documents requested below.

To apply for these the Optional Supplemental Course Release Funds, there are 3 additional application pieces needed:

• The amount requested and a brief budget narrative for the Supplemental Course Release should be included in the Proposal Budget section (detailed above). It should be clearly indicated in the Salary section of the budget form by choosing the appropriate Supplemental Course Release line item from the drop-down menu, as well as in the Benefits section as needed.
• A 250-word Course Release Rationale Statement describing how the additional course release will impact the proposed project should be uploaded as a PDF file.
• A Supporting Letter from the scholar's Dean or Chair should be uploaded below as a PDF file. The supporting letter must include the following: (a) confirmation that the scholar's course load is 6 courses or more per academic year, (b) confirmation that the scholar will be released from teaching a course, if awarded the supplemental funds, and (c) confirmation the budgeted amount for the course release is appropriate for their institution.

Optional Appendices A – If you have additional documents focused on scientific instrumentation relevant to the study, for example interview protocols or survey instruments, they can be uploaded in this section of the application as supplemental information.

Optional Appendices B – If you have other supporting documents, such as letters of agreement or collaboration, they can be uploaded in this section of the application. Please see the guidelines in the online application for more information about these types of appendices.

Optional Appendices C - Innovative Approaches to Equity in Research: We recognize that scholars and scholarship have continued to develop innovative approaches to conducting research in ethical and just ways. Scholars have raised that proposals attending to these issues in sophisticated ways often face choices in providing detail in their proposals. Thus, if you so choose , you are invited to upload a one-page appendix in your grant proposal to elaborate on the theoretical, methodological, and partnership structures, or other dimensions you deem as relevant to conducting ethical and just research. For example, if your work engages youth, families, or community-based organizations, you may want to elaborate on how traditional power dynamics will be addressed. Or, if your work engages with Indigenous communities, you may want to elaborate on the project leadership’s histories and engagement with Indigenous communities, any formal agreements (e.g. Tribal IRB or approvals), or the use of Indigenous methodologies in the project. Or, perhaps you are working on new quantitative measures or modeling approaches that would benefit from further explanation. We anticipate and welcome a wide range of other possibilities.

A note about IRB Approval: Proof of Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval is not required at the time of proposal submission.  In the event that IRB approval is needed for this project and it is chosen for funding, the Administering Organization will be responsible for obtaining IRB review and approval in accordance with its institutional policies and applicable law.

Resubmission – If this is a resubmission of a proposal previously submitted to the Spencer Foundation, you are asked to indicate this within the application and upload a 1-page explanation of how the proposal was revised.

Project Data – Within the online application, we ask you to choose the appropriate options with regard to your research project in the following categories: disciplinary perspective, methodologies, topics, geographical scope, contexts, and participants. This information is helpful in determining the appropriate reviewers for your proposal and for internal evaluations of our grant programs.

Signature from Authorized Representative of the Administering Organization – This section of the application details the steps necessary to obtain the authorized signature for your proposal through the Adobe E-sign process.  You are required to provide the Signatory’s name, title, and email address; this is normally an administrative or financial person that has the authority to sign the proposal on behalf of your organization. Note: The signature process must be completed by noon on the deadline date. You, as the applicant, are responsible for making sure your proposal is signed by the deadline.  Please account for the time it takes your organization’s authorized signer to review and sign proposal submissions.  We recommend filling in the online application at least a week ahead of the deadline date. The Spencer Foundation is unable to accept late submissions.

Once you’ve completed all of the elements listed above, click the Submit button at the bottom of the application page and it will be routed to your Signatory for signature and final submission.

Review Process

The Small Research Grants on Education program uses a peer review process for all eligible submissions.  Each proposal will be reviewed by both external panel reviewers and internal staff. The review process for this program takes approximately 6-7 months from the deadline date.

The review panel for this program is made up of scholars in the field of education research with expertise across many disciplines and methodological areas.  Panelist are asked to rate and comment on the following aspects of your proposal:

Significance of the Project: Reviewers will evaluate the centrality of education in the research, the importance of the topic to its field, and the quality of the research question(s) and/or direction of inquiry.

Connection to Research and Theory: Reviewers will evaluate the adequacy of the description of how other researchers have treated the same topic and how well the proposal responds to prior work and theory.

Research Design: Reviewers will evaluate the overall quality, sophistication, and appropriateness of the research design as well as its alignment with the research question(s) and/or conceptual framing.

Budget and Timeline: Reviewers will evaluate the adequacy of the budget and timeline.

Project Team: Reviewers will comment on the potential of the investigator(s) to complete the study as described and share the results or other findings.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q : Does this program support research in settings other than K-12 and higher education institutions?

A : Yes, Spencer funds research projects that span the life course (i.e., from early childhood to adult learning) as well as those that focus on contexts outside of school.

Q : Do you have a preference for certain research methodologies?

A : No, we are open to whatever methods make sense for answering the questions at hand. Historically, Spencer has supported research across a range of methods and academic disciplines, and we expect this to continue in this program.

Q : Do you have a preference for research teams vs. individual researchers?

A : No, we do not have a preference. The important thing is to plan the staffing around the aims of the project.

Q : Can a graduate student serve as a Co-PI on a proposal submission?

A : No, the PI and any Co-PIs named on the proposal are expected to have earned doctorate degrees prior to proposal submission.  While graduate students may be included in the budget as research assistants, this program is not meant to support student research projects.

Q : Do you accept proposals from outside the United States?

A : Yes, we accept proposals from outside the U.S. Application materials must be submitted in English and project budgets must be in U.S. dollars.

Q : Do you have a preference for regional, national, or international projects?

A : No, we do not have a preference.

Q : What is the expected duration of projects in this program?

A : We leave the duration of the project up to the PI/research team to determine, but limit it to no more than 5 years.

Q: Can my organization submit more than one proposal at a time?

A: Yes, as long as the proposals are for different projects and the research teams are different, it is fine for an organization to submit multiple applications at one time.

Q : If I (the PI or Co-PI) have a current grant through Spencer, can I apply for a new grant?

A : You may not hold more than one active research grant at a time from the Spencer Foundation. You may apply for a new grant while you have an active grant at Spencer if the active grant will end before the anticipated start date of the new project.

Q : If I am turned down, is it possible to revise my proposal and reapply in a later cycle?

A : Yes, Spencer welcomes proposal resubmissions. However, many factors go into the final decision on each proposal, including our limited budget. Even if you receive feedback on your proposal and are able to address all of the reviewer concerns in the submission, we can offer no guarantees as to the likelihood of funding due to the fact that we currently fund less than 10% of the submissions we receive. Please note, resubmissions are considered among all of the other newly submitted proposals and are not given special status or consideration in the review process.

Q : I have an idea for a project and would like feedback. Is it possible to contact someone?

A : If you have reviewed our program statement and application guidelines and still have questions about whether your idea for a research project falls within this program, feel free to email us at [email protected] for guidance. While we are not able to provide feedback on proposal drafts, we are happy to answer questions by email. Additionally, if helpful please consult the Spencer writing guides .

Q: How do I determine my start date and when should I expect payment if my proposal is selected for funding?

A: We recommend proposing a start date that is at least 8 months after the proposal deadline. The review process for this program takes approximately 6-7 months and once notified of the funding decision, it can take an additional 2 months for the official approval process, which entails reviewing the budget, processing award letters, and issuing the grant payment. NOTE: Grant payments are issued on the third week of each month. If Spencer has not received your signed award letters by your start date, your payment will not be issued.

Q: Are budgets expected to include in-kind giving or cost sharing? If not expected, is it allowed?

A: In-kind giving or cost sharing is not expected or required as part of your proposal budget. However, if you plan to include in-kind giving or cost sharing as part of your project budget, you should indicate this in the online budget form in the narrative section. If your proposal is chosen for funding, the grant award may be contingent upon receiving documentation confirming the additional support.

Recent Awardees

The Effects of Special Education on Crime Briana Ballis, Katelyn Heath University of California, Merced

Picturing Resilience: The Visual Narratives of Safety and Joy among Black Collegians Ashley Carpenter Appalachian State University

Precarity and Education: Examining the Experiences of Central American Unaccompanied Youth in California Public Schools Stephany Cuevas, Martha C. Franco Chapman University

Living in Tension: How Faculty and Staff at Evangelical Christian Colleges and Universities Support LGBTQ+ Students Kaitlin Gabriele-Black Salve Regina University

A Critical Race Content Analysis of Diversity in Children’s Books, from 2020-2021 Lorena Camargo Gonzalez Sacramento State Sponsored Research

Resource Inequality Across U.S. Colleges and Universities: New Evidence from Old Data Christopher M. Herrington Virginia Commonwealth University

Focusing on Multiplicative Foundations to Enhance Access to Calculus Andrew Izsak Tufts University

Echoes of Racialization in Danish High Schools:  Teachers’ Creative Negotiations of Policy in Work with Muslim Youth Reva G. Jaffe-Walter, Iram Majeed Khawaja Montclair State University

Understanding the Lives and Teaching of Migrant Teachers with Undocumented Backgrounds through the Lens of Community Cultural Wealth Yeji Kim University of Missouri – Columbia

Reimagining Spaces of Learning and Border Crossing through Narratives and Inquiries on Migration Wan Shun Eva Lam Northwestern University

Interrogating the Alignment of Current Statistical Methods with the Theory of Systemic Racism Michael K. Russell Boston College  

A Mixed Methods Examination of the Impacts of Climate Change Education on Students Sarah Schwartz, McKenna F. Parnes Suffolk University

Affordances of Makerspaces Influencing Biomedical Undergraduate Engineering Students' Design Learning and Curriculum Localization in Uganda and the USA Robert Ssekitoleko, Ann Saterbak Makerere University

The Influence of Anti-Critical Race Theory Legislation on Teacher Candidate’s Job Search Danielle Sutherland Towson University

Youth Writing for Peace in Colombia: A Collaborative Analysis of Teachers’ and Students’ Perspectives Kate Vieira University of Wisconsin-Madison  

• U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

• Virtual Tour
• Staff Directory
• En Español

You are here

News releases.

News Release

Tuesday, October 4, 2022

NIH to award over $200 million to support potentially transformative biomedical research projects

The 2022 NIH Director’s Awards enable exceptionally creative scientists to push the boundaries of biomedical science.

The High-Risk, High-Reward Research program , supported by the Common Fund at the National Institutes of Health has awarded 103 new research grants to support highly innovative scientists who propose visionary and broadly impactful meritorious behavioral and biomedical research projects. Awards include the impact exposure to fracking might have on pregnancy and conception; how brain mechanisms influence memory performance; the neural basis of social bias and association using the female songbird as a model; tissue regeneration using the uterus as a model; a mixed methods examination of skin tone and health among African Americans across the United States; and a new model organism to lead in the development of an HIV vaccine. The 103 awards total approximately $285 million in support from the institutes, centers, and offices across NIH over five years beginning in 2022, pending the availability of funds.

“The science advanced by these researchers is poised to blaze new paths of discovery in human health,” said Lawrence A. Tabak, D.D.S., Ph.D., who is performing the duties of the Director of NIH. “This unique cohort of scientists will transform what is known in the biological and behavioral world. We are privileged to support this innovative science.”

The High-Risk, High-Reward Research program supports investigators at each career stage who propose innovative research that, due to their inherent risk, may struggle in the traditional NIH peer-review process despite their transformative potential. Investigators seeking program support are encouraged to think beyond traditional bounds and to pursue trailblazing ideas in any area of research relevant to the NIH’s mission to advance knowledge and enhance health.

The Common Fund oversees programs that pursue major scientific opportunities and gaps throughout the research enterprise, are of significant importance to NIH, and require collaborations across the agency to succeed. The High-Risk, High-Reward Research program manages four awards, including two awards specifically for researchers in the early stages of their careers. These four awards include:

• The NIH Director’s Pioneer Award , established in 2004, challenges investigators at all career levels to pursue new research directions and develop groundbreaking, high-impact approaches to a broad area of biomedical, behavioral, or social science.
• The NIH Director’s New Innovator Award , established in 2007, supports unusually innovative research from early career investigators who are within 10 years of their final degree or clinical residency and have not yet received an NIH R01 or equivalent grant.
• The NIH Director’s Transformative Research Award , established in 2009, promotes cross-cutting, interdisciplinary approaches and is open to individuals and teams of investigators who propose research that could potentially create or challenge existing paradigms.
• The NIH Director’s Early Independence Award , established in 2011, provides an opportunity to support exceptional junior scientists who have recently received their doctoral degree or completed their medical residency to skip traditional post-doctoral training and move immediately into independent research positions.

NIH issued eight Pioneer awards , 72 New Innovator awards , nine Transformative Research awards , and 14 Early Independence awards for 2022 . Funding for the awards comes from the NIH Common Fund, the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, the National Institute of Mental Health, and the National Cancer Institute.

About the NIH Common Fund : The NIH Common Fund encourages collaboration and supports a series of exceptionally high-impact, trans-NIH programs. Common Fund programs are managed by the Office of Strategic Coordination in the Division of Program Coordination, Planning, and Strategic Initiatives in the NIH Office of the Director in partnership with the NIH Institutes, Centers, and Offices. More information is available at the Common Fund website: https://commonfund.nih.gov .

About the National Institutes of Health (NIH): NIH, the nation's medical research agency, includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. NIH is the primary federal agency conducting and supporting basic, clinical, and translational medical research, and is investigating the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases. For more information about NIH and its programs, visit www.nih.gov .

NIH…Turning Discovery Into Health ®

Connect with Us

• More Social Media from NIH

Unsupported browser detected

Your browser appears to be unsupported. Because of this, portions of the site may not function as intended.

Please install a current version of Chrome , Firefox , Edge , or Safari for a better experience.

• Grant opportunities

The foundation awards the majority of its grants to U.S. 501(c)(3) organizations and other tax-exempt organizations identified by our staff. (Tax status definitions) (Glossary of terms)

Request for proposals (RFP):

• Grand Challenges grant opportunities

• NIH Grants & Funding
• Blog Policies

NIH Extramural Nexus

FY 2022 By the Numbers: Extramural Grant Investments in Research

Today we present our annual snapshot of NIH grant funding and success rate data for fiscal year (FY) 2022 enacted appropriations. These data are available in the NIH Data Book , which is also being regularly updated with other FY 2022 grants information. Similar to our FY 2021 and FY 2020 posts, spending related to special appropriations for coronavirus are excluded here, but may be found using RePORTER’s advanced search capabilities .

In FY2022, NIH spent $33.3 billion of its total $45.2 billion appropriation for competing and noncompeting grant awards. This is a 3.1% increase (or $1.02 billion) in spending over the previous year. Monies for grants and Other Transaction awards are included while research and development contracts are excluded.

NIH supported 1,576 additional new and renewed extramural grants in FY 2022, for a total of 58,368 competing and non-competing awards (2.8% more than FY 2021). NIH issued grants to 2,707 academic universities, hospitals, small businesses, and other organizations throughout the U.S. and internationally.

Table 1 – All Extramural Research (competing and non-competing, excluding contracts)

The success rate for new research project grants (RPGs) increased 1.6 percentage points from 19.1% in FY 2021 to 20.7% in FY 2022. This is because we received 4,301 fewer RPG competing applications in FY 2022 compared to the previous year (54,571 compared to 58,872), while making 82 more awards (11,311 compared to 11,229). The average nominal cost per RPG rose by 1.9% in 2022 to $592,617 from $581,293 in FY 2021.

Table 2 – Research Project Grants (RPG)

* Success rates are calculated by dividing the number of awards made in a FY by the number of applications received. Applications having one or more amendments in the same fiscal year are only counted once.

Most RPGs are R01-equivalent grants , and they showed similar trends. We spent $19.1 billion on average on R01-equivalent grants in FY 2022 compared to $18.1 billion spent in FY 2021, a 5.4% increase. Like RPGs, the R01-equivalent grant success rate also increased (1.5 percentage points), going from 20.1% in FY 2021 to 21.6% in FY 2022. We spent 2.4% more in average nominal costs on R01-equivalents in FY 2022 ($585,307) compared to $571,561 spent in FY 2021.

Table 3 – R01-equivalent Grants**

**R01-equivalent grants are defined as activity codes DP1, DP2, DP5, R01, R37, R56, RF1, RL1, U01 and R35 from select National Institute of General Medical Sciences and National Human Genome Research Institute program announcements. Not all these activities may be in use by NIH every year.

Please note that NIH does not report the number of applications received in specific research areas, and thus does not report success rates for those areas either.

I would like to thank my colleagues within the NIH Office of Extramural Research’s Division of Statistical Analysis and Reporting for their work on this analysis.

Correction: Previously, we accidently misreported the FY 2021 success rate for R01-equivalent grants. We have corrected the data table to reflect this change, which now makes the percent change calculation correct.

RELATED NEWS

Please check “2022 % Change from 2021” for “Success rates for R01-equivalent applications:”. How did you calculate a 7.5% increase?

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We accidently misreported the FY 2021 success rate for R01-equivalent grants. We have corrected the data table to reflect this change, which now makes the percent change calculation correct.

Thank you so much for this reporting. I would be interested to learn about data on 1) the average cut in budget made by the NIH before award is made (% of budget) and 2) the incidence in which the duration of the project has been reduced. This latter issue occurs both to align the year-end reporting with NIH workload (resulting in a short first year), but also occurs with an entire year is taken off the project to save money (e.g., a five-year grant is cut to 4 years).

Thank you so much. Could you also report on the numbers and percentages for women and underrepresented researchers?

These success rates seem higher than posted paylines for many institutes and how many colleagues are getting funded. Is this success % of all grants submitted, or those discussed?

You show that there are 7,816 new or renewal R01-equivalent grants. What is the total number of active R01-equivalent grants?

What are the non-R01-equivalent research project grants?

Before submitting your comment, please review our blog comment policies.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Nursing Research Grants

Since 1955, more than 1,100 beginning and experienced nurse researchers have received over $6 million for research addressing important issues of practice of care and the profession. In keeping with both the terms of the fund endowments that we steward with great care, and the spirit of innovation, the American Nurses Foundation is taking the Nursing Research Grants program in a new direction.

Rather than a singular annual RFP, the Foundation will issue separate targeted calls for proposals over the course of the year, and make some commissioned research grants. These grants, though fewer in number than previous years, will be larger in size, and more strategically targeted to address topics that are essentially pertinent at this time, and consistent with the ANAE Enterprise strategic plan , Foundation core interests, and the purposes of endowed funds. 

• Open grant opportunities and recent awards are listed below. As additional research grant opportunities open, notice will be posted to this webpage. 

Nursing Research Grant Opportunities: If you would like to receive direct notice of new grant opportunities, please fill out this form and you will be added to the email distribution list to receive updates when new grant opportunities are posted

Open Funding Opportunities

Collaborative Care Grant - RFP now open, applications due December 10 This interprofessional collaboration between nurses and pharmacists, offered in partnership with the American Society of Health-Systems Pharmacists (ASHP) Foundation, awards $75,000 over 18 months. This joint endeavor supports innovative projects co-led by nurses and pharmacists to stimulate and demonstrate how team-based care enhances safe and effective use of medications. 

• Innovating or evaluating new services or technologies to minimize barriers to care for populations such as at-risk or complex patients from underserved communities, or individuals who are elderly, have comorbidities or require chronic care.
• Focusing on complex systems and processes (e.g. emergency departments), transitions of care, continuums of care, preventative care. 
• Priority to be given to research that measures teamwork and meaningful outcomes, such as decreased patient harm, increased patient involvement in care, reduced hospital admissions/readmissions, and improved quality of life.

How to Apply webinar: Aug. 9, 2023 at noon ET , and the recording will be posted shortly thereafter.

Nursing Leadership Research Grant - RFP opens October 11, applications due December 15

American Nurses Foundation and Association for Leadership Science in Nursing are partnering to offer a 2-year, $20,000 research grant from the  Joyce J. Fitzpatrick Leadership Research Endowment . This will provide funding for one research study that advances the science supporting and reframing the role of frontline nurse leaders (e.g., nurse managers, assistant nurse managers, administrative supervisors, nursing directors). Of particular interest are studies that examine specific system-level strategies that address frontline nurse leader span of control, work-life balance, and career advancement. This call is for research proposals on frontline nurse leaders and supports the following research priority areas:

• Nurses' health, well-being, resiliency, and safety in the workplace
• Healthy work and practice environments for nurse leaders
• Nurse leaders' development and essential competencies

Grants Awarded

Collaborative Care Grants for Nurse-Pharmacist Research Teams Optimizing patient-centered, team-based care is essential to ensuring equitable, effective, and efficient health care. The American Nurses Foundation and the ASHP Foundation have joined in partnership to offer the second competitive grant to support innovative projects, co-led by nursing and pharmacy, to stimulate and demonstrate the impact of team-based care that enhances the safe and effective use of medications. 

The award provides $75,000 for an 18-month research project, led by Co-Investigators Christine Marie Hallman, DNP, APRN, ACHPN, NP-C, primary nurse practitioner for the community-based telehealth PATCH program at MedStar Health Washington Hospital Center, and Kathryn A. Walker, PharmD, BCPS, FAAHPM, assistant vice president at MedStar Health and an associate professor at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy. Their feasibility study seeks to implement a standardized, patient-centered, team-based deprescribing process in a diverse community-based palliative care PATCH (Palliative Telehealth Connecting to Home) Program. This effort aims to ensure all patients can benefit from careful alignment of their medications and goals of care. The study will help establish a new model of team-based deprescribing in an underserved population by incorporating a structured approach within the standard clinical workflow. In the future, the findings can serve as a resource to other teams caring for patients with serious illness, providing insight into patient/family experiences and thereby filing a gap within the existing body of literature. Read more about the award here .

The grant was supported in part by generous contributions from  Stryker Medical  to American Nurses Foundation for research purposes. 

Study results were published in the American Journal of Cardiology - DOI .

Awarded Ambulatory Research Grant With support from the Collaborative Alliance for Nursing Outcomes (CALNOC) Research Endowment Fund , the Foundation has bestowed its first ambulatory care research grant. This $200,000 award to co-principal investigators Kortney F. James, PhD, RN, PNP, Associate Health Policy Researcher at RAND Corporation, and Kristen Choi, PhD, MS, RN, Assistant Professor of Nursing and Public Health at UCLA and co-investigators Misty Richards, MD, MS, and Joann Elmore, MD, MPH, supports a 2-year study, Nurses Address Perinatal Mental Health Inequities among Black Women and Birthing People: A Feasibility Study.

Registered nurses are the largest segment of the healthcare workforce in the United States, and as such, nurses are in an ideal position to identify pregnany/postpartum people who may have depression and/or anxiety. This study will leverage the skills and expertise of registered nurses to achieve health equity for Black women and birthing people by implementing Black Maternal Health 360, a training grounded in principles of Reproductive Justice to combat implicit racial bias among registered nurses. The training also uses a nurse-led depression and anxiety screening protocol to refer Black women to local, culturally appropriate, and holistic mental health resources. Utilizing nurses to address mood and anxiety disorders from a Reproductive Justice framework may contribute to reduced racial disparities and greater health equity in mental health outcomes for Black pregnant and postpartum women/birthing people. 

The Foundation identified the Fund's inaugural grant with counsel from the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC).

Nursing Research Grants Policies

Click below to learn more about the Nursing Research Grants Policies.

Past Nursing Research Grant Scholars

Support the Nursing Research Grants Program

Item(s) added to cart

• Find Grant Funding

This page last updated on: September 13, 2022

• Bookmark & Share
• E-mail Updates
• Privacy Notice
• Accessibility
• National Institutes of Health (NIH), 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, Maryland 20892
• NIH... Turning Discovery Into Health

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS. A lock ( Lock Locked padlock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU)

• REU Program Overview
• Program Solicitation

For Students

• Search for an REU Site
• For Faculty
• REU Contacts
• Research Areas

NSF funds a large number of research opportunities for undergraduate students through its REU Sites program. An REU Site consists of a group of ten or so undergraduates who work in the research programs of the host institution. Each student is associated with a specific research project, where he/she works closely with the faculty and other researchers. Students are granted stipends and, in many cases, assistance with housing and travel. Undergraduate students supported with NSF funds must be citizens or permanent residents of the United States or its possessions. An REU Site may be at either a US or foreign location.

By using the web page, Search for an REU Site , you may examine opportunities in the subject areas supported by various NSF units. Also, you may search by keywords to identify sites in particular research areas or with certain features, such as a particular location.

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

JavaScript appears to be disabled on this computer. Please click here to see any active alerts .

Research Grants

Are you interested in research that focuses on defacto water reuse.

Our new funding opportunity National Priorities: Occurrence and Implications of De Facto Water Reuse on Drinking Water Supplies Funding Opportunity is now open. 

Apply now through August 21

Register for the webinar on July 11, 1:00 p.m.

EPA funds extramural research  through its Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program; the People, Prosperity, and the Planet (P3) Program and the Small Business Innovation Research Program. These research programs help to engage top research scientists and students that results in a strong scientific foundation to support the Agency’s mission of protecting human health and the environment.

Funding Opportunities

Find open and coming funding opportunities grant forms, subscribe to listservs and learn how to apply for grants. 

Research Grant Areas

EPA research areas include topics such as air and water quality, climate change, safer chemicals, health, sustainability, and ecosystems. 

Tools and Resources

Search the EPA grant archive, view grant recipients and past funding opportunities as well as grantee research project results.

Grants in the News

Read the latest news about EPA grants. 

About Research Grants

Learn about EPA's research grant programs, including P3, SBIR and other extramural programs. 

Calendar of Events

All upcoming events.

National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics

• Report PDF (582 KB)
• Report - All Formats .ZIP (1012 KB)
• Share on X/Twitter
• Share on Facebook
• Share on LinkedIn
• Send as Email

Federal Obligations for R&D Contracts Increase 1.8% in FY 2022; Obligations for R&D Grants Increase 2.7%

July 1, 2024

In FY 2022, federal obligations for research and experimental development (R&D) totaled $190.4 billion, an increase of 0.4% from $189.6 billion in FY 2021 ( table 1 ). ​ Obligations represent the amount for orders placed, contracts awarded, services received, and similar transactions during a given period, regardless of when the funds were appropriated or when future payment of money is required. Federal agencies fund R&D through both intramural performers (the agencies themselves and their federally funded research and development centers) and extramural performers (businesses, higher education institutions, nonprofit institutions, state and local governments, and non-U.S. performers). In FY 2022, federal obligations for extramural performance of R&D totaled $104.3 billion, an increase of 2.2% from $102.0 billion in FY 2021. All data in this InfoBrief are presented in current dollars.

Federal obligations for research and experimental development and for R&D plant, by type of performer and type of agreement: FYs 2021–22

a Intramural includes federal agencies' activities and costs associated with the administration of federal R&D performance and R&D procurements from nonfederal performers by federal personnel, transfers of funds to other federal agencies for purposes related to R&D, and actual federal performance and obligations to federally funded research and development centers. b Extramural includes business, higher education institutions, nonprofit institutions, state and local governments, and non-U.S. performers.

Because of rounding, detail may not add to total. Percentages are computed using actual dollars reported. FYs 2021 and 2022 data include obligations from supplemental COVID-19 pandemic-related appropriations (e.g., Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security [CARES] Act).

National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, Survey of Federal Funds for Research and Development.

The Survey of Federal Funds for Research and Development (Federal Funds for R&D) presents federal obligations for extramural R&D and R&D plant by type of agreement, namely contracts and other transactions (contracts) and grants and cooperative agreements (grants). ​ Contracts are legal commitments in which a good or service is provided by the external performer that benefits the agency. The agency specifies the deliverables and gains the rights to results. These transactions are consistent with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Object Class code 25.5, research and development contracts. See OMB Circular A-11, Section 83.6, Schedule O. Grants are legal agreements to provide funding by an agency to support a specific purpose, but not to acquire property and services for the agency. Cooperative agreements (e.g., CRADAs [Cooperative Research and Development Agreements]) are also reported as part of the grants category. In FY 2022, federal funding for extramural R&D totaled $51.9 billion from contracts and totaled $52.4 billion from grants. At the same time, federal obligations for extramural R&D plant totaled $1.6 billion in FY 2022, with $1.0 billion in the form of contracts and $625.7 million in the form of grants. https://ncses.nsf.gov/surveys/federal-funds-research-development/2022-2023#technical-notes_definitions ." data-bs-content="R&D plant is defined as spending on both R&D facilities and major equipment as defined in OMB Circular A-11 Section 84 (Schedule C) and includes physical assets, such as land, structures, equipment, and intellectual property (e.g., software or applications) that have an estimated useful life of 2 years or more. Reporting for R&D plant includes the purchase, construction, manufacture, rehabilitation, or major improvement of physical assets regardless of whether the assets are owned or operated by the federal government, states, municipalities, or private individuals. The cost of the asset includes both its purchase price and all other costs incurred to bring it to a form and location suitable for use. For more details see the survey Technical Notes at https://ncses.nsf.gov/surveys/federal-funds-research-development/2022-2023#technical-notes_definitions ." data-endnote-uuid="b0ed95c3-674c-4682-9549-5e76e64de578">​ R&D plant is defined as spending on both R&D facilities and major equipment as defined in OMB Circular A-11 Section 84 (Schedule C) and includes physical assets, such as land, structures, equipment, and intellectual property (e.g., software or applications) that have an estimated useful life of 2 years or more. Reporting for R&D plant includes the purchase, construction, manufacture, rehabilitation, or major improvement of physical assets regardless of whether the assets are owned or operated by the federal government, states, municipalities, or private individuals. The cost of the asset includes both its purchase price and all other costs incurred to bring it to a form and location suitable for use. For more details see the survey Technical Notes at https://ncses.nsf.gov/surveys/federal-funds-research-development/2022-2023#technical-notes_definitions .

Federal agency funding of R&D and R&D plant by contract or grant are often based on agencies’ missions, goals, and needs. Although federal R&D contracts result in government ownership of the R&D or results from the procurement, federal R&D grants are a form of economic aid for science and engineering to provide a public good and serve as an economic stimulus. This InfoBrief presents data on federal agency obligations for extramural R&D and R&D plant by both contracts and grants from the most recent Federal Funds for R&D Survey, sponsored by the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics within the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF).

Federal Agency Funding of R&D Contracts and Grants

In FY 2022, federal obligations for R&D contracts totaled $51.9 billion, an increase of 1.8% from $51.0 billion in FY 2021. The Department of Defense (DOD) accounted for the majority of R&D contracts with $36.2 billion, or 70% of all R&D contracts in FY 2022 ( figure 1 ). The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was the second-largest funder of R&D contracts with $6.5 billion (12%), followed by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) with $5.6 billion (11%). Federal obligations for R&D grants outpaced R&D contracts by $0.5 billion, totaling $52.4 billion in FY 2022.

• For grouped bar charts, Tab to the first data element (bar/line data point) which will bring up a pop-up with the data details
• To read the data in all groups Arrow-Down will go back and forth
• For bar/line chart data points are linear and not grouped, Arrow-Down will read each bar/line data points in order
• For line charts, Arrow-Left and Arrow-Right will move to the next set of data points after Tabbing to the first data point
• For stacked bars use the Arrow-Down key again after Tabbing to the first data bar
• Then use Arrow-Right and Arrow-Left to navigate the stacked bars within that stack
• Arrow-Down to advance to the next stack. Arrow-Up reverses

Federal obligations for extramural R&D, by agency and type of agreement: FY 2022

Because of rounding, detail may not add to total.

National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, Survey of Federal Funds for Research and Development, FYs 2022–23.

In FY 2022, federal obligations for R&D grants totaled $52.4 billion, an increase of 2.7% from $51.0 billion in FY 2021. Although DOD was the largest funder of R&D contracts in FY 2022, HHS accounted for the majority of grants with $33.2 billion, or 63% of all R&D grants. DOD was the second largest funder of R&D grants with $6.5 billion, or 12% of the total. NSF closely followed with $6.3 billion, or 12%. table 9 ." data-bs-content="Details available in the full set of data tables: table 9 ." data-endnote-uuid="059fe59a-137d-49c8-ab4b-8a84079dec76">​ Details available in the full set of data tables: table 9 .

Federal Agency Funding of R&D Plant Contracts and Grants

In FY 2022, federal obligations for R&D plant contracts totaled $1.0 billion, an increase of 23.2% from $824.5 million in FY 2021. The Department of Energy (DOE) accounted for the majority of R&D plant contracts with $820.9 million, or 81% of all R&D plant contracts in FY 2022 ( figure 2 ). NASA was the second-largest funder of R&D plant contracts totaling $119.0 million (12%), DOD accounted for $26.2 million, and all other agencies combined totaled $48.5 million.

Federal obligations for extramural R&D plant, by agency and type of agreement: FY 2022

In FY 2022, federal grant obligations for R&D plant totaled $625.7 million, an increase of 12.5% from $556.0 million in FY 2021. NSF was the largest funder of grants with $446.0 million, or 71% of all grants for R&D plant in FY 2022. HHS was the second-largest funder of grants for R&D plant with $163.8 million (26%), followed by DOE with $15.6 million (2%) in grants.

Data Sources, Limitations, and Availability

The Federal Funds for R&D Survey is a census of all federal agencies that fund R&D programs, as identified from information in the president’s budget submission to Congress, excluding the Central Intelligence Agency. Federal agencies that fund R&D are identified in the Analytical Perspectives volume of the president's FY 2023 budget to Congress. Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2023 . Analytical Perspectives volume, chapter 6, “Research and Development.” Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/spec_fy2023.pdf ." data-bs-content="Executive Office of the President, OMB, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2023 . Analytical Perspectives volume, chapter 6, “Research and Development.” Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/spec_fy2023.pdf ." data-endnote-uuid="ca42b62f-a8b7-4858-bcad-513fecec209a">​ Executive Office of the President, OMB, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2023 . Analytical Perspectives volume, chapter 6, “Research and Development.” Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/spec_fy2023.pdf . Data were obtained from 32 federal agencies (14 federal departments and 18 independent agencies) that had obligations for R&D during FY 2022 or FY 2023. Because multiple subdivisions of some federal departments completed the survey, there were agency-level responses from 6 federal departments, 48 agencies (within another 8 federal departments), and 18 independent agencies. However, lower offices could also be authorized to enter data. In Federal Funds for R&D Survey nomenclature, agency-level offices could authorize program offices, program offices could authorize field offices, and field offices could authorize branch offices. When these suboffices are included, there were 725 total respondents: 72 agencies, 95 program offices, 178 field offices, and 380 branch offices.

Although this survey is a census of federal agencies that fund R&D and there is no sampling error, survey data are still subject to some degree of unmeasured nonsampling error, which may include errors in classification or measurement of certain aspects of an agency’s R&D. For additional information see the section “Survey Quality Measures” within the Technical Notes of the survey.

Effective with volume 71 (FYs 2021 and 2022), the Federal Funds for R&D Survey has collected federal agency obligation for extramural R&D and R&D plant by type of agreement. The full set of data tables for FY 2022 are available at https://ncses.nsf.gov/surveys/federal-funds-research-development/2022-2023#data .

1 Obligations represent the amount for orders placed, contracts awarded, services received, and similar transactions during a given period, regardless of when the funds were appropriated or when future payment of money is required.

2 Contracts are legal commitments in which a good or service is provided by the external performer that benefits the agency. The agency specifies the deliverables and gains the rights to results. These transactions are consistent with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Object Class code 25.5, research and development contracts. See OMB Circular A-11, Section 83.6, Schedule O. Grants are legal agreements to provide funding by an agency to support a specific purpose, but not to acquire property and services for the agency. Cooperative agreements (e.g., CRADAs [Cooperative Research and Development Agreements]) are also reported as part of the grants category.

3 R&D plant is defined as spending on both R&D facilities and major equipment as defined in OMB Circular A-11 Section 84 (Schedule C) and includes physical assets, such as land, structures, equipment, and intellectual property (e.g., software or applications) that have an estimated useful life of 2 years or more. Reporting for R&D plant includes the purchase, construction, manufacture, rehabilitation, or major improvement of physical assets regardless of whether the assets are owned or operated by the federal government, states, municipalities, or private individuals. The cost of the asset includes both its purchase price and all other costs incurred to bring it to a form and location suitable for use. For more details see the survey Technical Notes at https://ncses.nsf.gov/surveys/federal-funds-research-development/2022-2023#technical-notes_definitions .

4 Details available in the full set of data tables: table 9 .

5 Executive Office of the President, OMB, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2023 . Analytical Perspectives volume, chapter 6, “Research and Development.” Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/spec_fy2023.pdf .

Suggested Citation

Pece CV; National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES). 2024. Federal Obligations for R&D Contracts Increase 1.8 % in FY 2022; Obligations for R&D Grants Increase 2.7 % . NSF 24-327. Alexandria, VA: U.S. National Science Foundation. Available at https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf24327 .

Report Author

Christopher V. Pece Survey Manager NCSES Tel: 703-292-7788 E-mail: [email protected]

National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences U.S. National Science Foundation 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite W14200 Alexandria, VA 22314 Tel: (703) 292-8780 FIRS: (800) 877-8339 TDD: (800) 281-8749 E-mail: [email protected]

Source Data & Analysis

Get e-mail updates from ncses.

NCSES is an official statistical agency. Subscribe below to receive our latest news and announcements.

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS. A lock ( Lock Locked padlock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

NSF awards $35M for networks to transform research capacity and competitiveness

The U.S. National Science Foundation has awarded $35 million through the Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) Research Incubators for STEM Excellence Research Infrastructure Improvement (E-RISE RII) to boost research competitiveness, build partnerships across academic institutions and non-academic sectors and create workforce development opportunities. 

E-RISE RII is a new program that aims to further EPSCoR's programmatic goals by developing and implementing sustainable networks of diverse research teams to collaborate on critical jurisdictional research priorities. The program is a response to the 2022 Study of the Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research , the Envisioning the Future of NSF EPSCoR report and the "CHIPS and Science Act of 2022."

"This investment from NSF's E-RISE RII program powers scientific progress through broad networks of researchers, institutions and organizations that will significantly enhance STEM research capacity in our EPSCoR jurisdictions,” said NSF Director Sethuraman Panchanathan. "We are investing in a future where EPSCoR jurisdictions are even more competitive in the scientific enterprise, both nationally and internationally."

The networks will leverage their partnerships by developing innovative educational plans that address their jurisdictional priorities and help prepare a skilled technical workforce. They will broaden participation in science, technology, engineering and mathematics by requiring the inclusion of members of traditionally underrepresented groups. The teams aim to make sustainable improvements in science for the betterment and economic impact of their jurisdictions’ research and development enterprise.

The awardees and a summary of each project are listed below: 

Enhancing maine forest economy, sustainability, and technology (maine-forest) ecosystem to accelerate innovation.

Led by the University of Maine, this project will build strategic R&D capacity to fuel the dramatic growth of Maine’s forest-based economy and the rural communities it supports. The project will employ innovative and inclusive approaches to participatory system dynamics modeling to leverage stakeholder networks, while yielding new information regarding convergent science. The project’s framework will nurture adaptive community resilience and strengthen the capacity of rural and Indigenous communities to respond to current and future socio-ecological threats and opportunities. 

Collaborating institutions: Bates College, Colby College, University of Maine Fort Kent, University of Maine at Presque Isle, University of Southern Maine, Maine Development Foundation and Maine Mathematics and Science Alliance.

Establishment of the Mississippi Nano-bio and ImmunoEngineering Consortium (NIEC)

This project, spearheaded by the University of Mississippi, will build capacity in Mississippi for use-inspired R&D of advanced polymer materials and for addressing the scientific, engineering and educational training needs of the nano- and biotechnology industries at a time when these industries are experiencing unprecedented growth. The project proposes to create a robust pipeline for next-generation materials by fostering multidisciplinary research teams to iteratively design, synthesize and characterize new materials, while evaluating their impact on delivery efficacy in relevant disease models. In addition to advancing scientific knowledge in biomaterials research — with a focus on pioneering innovations applicable to healthcare, bioengineering and materials science — this project will establish a comprehensive biomaterials research network across Mississippi.

Collaborating institutions: Mississippi State University, Jackson State University, Tougaloo College, Alcorn State University, University of Southern Mississippi and University of Mississippi Medical Center. 

BioNitrogen Economy Research Center (BNERC)

South Dakota State University is leading this project to build sustainable capacity to leverage abundant atmospheric nitrogen gas and solar energy to create a commercially viable, solar-powered "bionitrogen economy" in South Dakota, relying in part on the knowledge and resources of Native communities about agricultural and medicinal indigenous plants. While alleviating environmental issues of nitrogen pollution in a largely agricultural state, the project will also provide alternatives for the commercial production of nitrogen- and carbon-rich biological products, including fertilizers, nutritional proteins and bioplastics. The project will promote workforce development by integrating K-12 outreach, undergraduate and graduate research programs and partnering with tribal communities. 

Collaborating institutions and organizations: Oglala Lakota College, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, University of South Dakota and Houdek.

Research Center for Distributed Resilient and Emergent-Intelligence-Based Additive Manufacturing (DREAM)

This project, led by New Mexico State University, will enhance New Mexico’s competitive edge in the global manufacturing sector by establishing the groundwork for an advanced distributed intelligent additive manufacturing infrastructure. The project will contribute to fundamental knowledge in advance manufacturing, cybersecurity and machine learning while spurring economic growth in New Mexico and contributing to national efforts to onshore manufacturing. The project will provide an integrated pathway for workforce development in additive manufacturing from middle school to doctoral and postdoctoral levels by intertwining classroom activities with research experience and pedagogical models that promote diversity, inclusion and belonging.

Collaborating institutions: Navajo Technical University, University of New Mexico and New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.

Driving AgTech Research and Education in Kentucky (DARE-KY) through Inclusive Network Building, Impactful Research, and Workforce Development for Soilless Food Systems

Led by Kentucky State University, this project will establish an unprecedented, cross-sector research incubator to improve nutrient management, food safety, and sustainability of soilless agriculture in Kentucky, which will lead more diverse and inclusive STEM research and several approaches to understand how nutrient flow through aquaponic systems influences microbial communities and its potential impact on biofilm formation and food safety. The project will enhance workforce development in Kentucky by creating new curricula, integrating research into student learning and developing new work-and-learn opportunities. 

Collaborating institutions: Bluegrass Community and Technical College, University of Pikeville, Kentucky Science and Technology Corporation and FoodChain Inc.

• Learn more about the E-RISE RII program.

Research areas

Federal funding for major science agencies is at a 25-year  low

University Distinguished Professor of Astronomy, University of Arizona

Disclosure statement

Chris Impey receives funding from the National Science Foundation and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.

University of Arizona provides funding as a member of The Conversation US.

View all partners

Government funding for science is usually immune from political gridlock and polarization in Congress. But, federal funding for science is slated to drop for 2025.

Science research dollars are considered to be discretionary, which means the funding has to be approved by Congress every year. But it’s in a budget category with larger entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security that are generally considered untouchable by politicians of both parties.

Federal investment in scientific research encompasses everything from large telescopes supported by the National Science Foundation to NASA satellites studying climate change , programs studying the use and governance of artificial intelligence at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and research on Alzheimer’s disease funded by the National Institutes of Health.

Studies show that increasing federal research spending benefits productivity and economic competitiveness .

I’m an astronomer and also a senior university administrator. As an administrator, I’ve been involved in lobbying for research funding as associate dean of the College of Science at the University of Arizona, and in encouraging government investment in astronomy as a vice president of the American Astronomical Society. I’ve seen the importance of this kind of funding as a researcher who has had federal grants for 30 years, and as a senior academic who helps my colleagues write grants to support their valuable work.

Bipartisan support

Federal funding for many programs is characterized by political polarization , meaning that partisanship and ideological divisions between the two main political parties can lead to gridlock . Science is usually a rare exception to this problem.

The public shows strong bipartisan support for federal investment in scientific research, and Congress has generally followed suit, passing bills in 2024 with bipartisan backing in April and June .

The House passed these bills, and after reconciliation with language from the Senate, they resulted in final bills to direct US$460 billion in government spending .

However, policy documents produced by Congress reveal a partisan split in how Democratic and Republican lawmakers reference scientific research.

Congressional committees for both sides are citing more scientific papers, but there is only a 5% overlap in the papers they cite. That means that the two parties are using different evidence to make their funding decisions, rather than working from a scientific consensus. Committees under Democratic control were almost twice as likely to cite technical papers as panels led by Republicans, and they were more likely to cite papers that other scientists considered important.

Ideally, all the best ideas for scientific research would receive federal funds. But limited support for scientific research in the United States means that for individual scientists, getting funding is a highly competitive process.

At the National Science Foundation , only 1 in 4 proposals are accepted. Success rates for funding through the National Institutes of Health are even lower, with 1 in 5 proposals getting accepted. This low success rate means that the agencies have to reject many proposals that are rated excellent by the merit review process .

Scientists are often reluctant to publicly advocate for their programs, in part because they feel disconnected from the policymaking and appropriations process . Their academic training doesn’t equip them to communicate effectively to legislators and policy experts.

Budgets are down

Research received steady funding for the past few decades, but this year Congress reduced appropriations for science at many top government agencies.

The National Science Foundation budget is down 8%, which led agency leaders to warn Congress that the country may lose its ability to attract and train a scientific workforce .

The cut to the NSF is particularly disappointing since Congress promised it an extra $81 billion over five years when the CHIPS and Science Act passed in 2022. A deal to limit government spending in exchange for suspending the debt ceiling made the law’s goals hard to achieve.

NASA’s science budget is down 6%, and the budget for the National Institutes of Health, whose research aims to prevent disease and improve public health, is down 1%. Only the Department of Energy’s Office of Science got a bump, a modest 2%.

As a result, the major science agencies are nearing a 25-year low for their funding levels, as a share of U.S. gross domestic product.

Feeling the squeeze

Investment in research and development by the business sector is strongly increasing . In 1990, it was slightly higher than federal investment, but by 2020 it was nearly four times higher.

The distinction is important because business investment tends to focus on later stage and applied research, while federal funding goes to pure and exploratory research that can have enormous downstream benefits, such as for quantum computing and fusion power .

There are several causes of the science funding squeeze. Congressional intentions to increase funding levels, as with the CHIPS and Science Act, and the earlier COMPETES Act in 2007, have been derailed by fights over the debt limit and threats of government shutdowns.

The CHIPS act aimed to spur investment and job creation in semiconductor manufacturing, while the COMPETES Act aimed to increase U.S competitiveness in a wide range of high-tech industries such as space exploration.

The budget caps for fiscal years 2024 and 2025 remove any possibility for growth. The budget caps were designed to rein in federal spending, but they are a very blunt tool. Also, nondefense discretionary spending is only 15% of all federal spending. Discretionary spending is up for a vote every year, while mandatory spending is dictated by prior laws.

Entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are mandatory forms of spending. Taken together, they are three times larger than the amount available for discretionary spending, so science has to fight over a small fraction of the overall budget pie.

Within that 15% slice , scientific research competes with K-12 education, veterans’ health care, public health, initiatives for small businesses, and more.

Global competition

While government science funding in the U.S. is stagnant, America’s main scientific rivals are rising fast.

Federal R&D funding as a percentage of GDP has dropped from 1.2% in 1987 to 1% in 2010 to under 0.8% currently. The United States is still the world’s biggest spender on research and development, but in terms of government R&D as a fraction of GDP , the United States ranked 12th in 2021, behind South Korea and a set of European countries. In terms of science researchers as a portion of the labor force , the United States ranks 10th.

Meanwhile, America’s main geopolitical rival is rising fast. China has eclipsed the United States in high-impact papers published , and China now spends more than the United States on university and government research .

If the U.S. wants to keep its status as the world leader in scientific research, it’ll need to redouble its commitment to science by appropriately funding research.

• Research funding
• Science funding
• US Congress
• Scientific research
• National Science Foundation
• National Institutes of Health

Management Information Systems & Analytics – Limited Term Contract

Publications Manager

Audience Insight Officer

Academic Programs Officer, Scheduling

Director, Student Administration

• Skip to main content
• Skip to FDA Search
• Skip to in this section menu
• Skip to footer links

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

•   Search
•   Menu
• For Industry
• Medical products for rare diseases and conditions

FDA Rare Neurodegenerative Disease Grant Program

FDA launched the FDA Rare Neurodegenerative Disease Grant Program when the Accelerating Access to Critical Therapies for ALS was enacted. The agency awards grants and contracts to public and private entities to cover costs of research and development of medical products intended to prevent, diagnose, mitigate, treat or cure ALS and other rare neurodegenerative diseases in adults and children.   This program supports research in ALS as well as other rare neurodegenerative diseases. 

Neurodegenerative diseases occur when nerve cells in the brain or peripheral nervous system lose function over time and ultimately die. In general, they are incurable and debilitating conditions and are progressive.  The term “rare disease or condition” is defined in 21 U.S.C. 360ee and generally they are considered by FDA as diseases with a prevalence of fewer than 200,000 people in the United States or in the case of an acute disease (e.g., less than one year duration), an annual incidence of fewer than 200,000 per year.  Some examples of what FDA currently considers rare neurodegenerative diseases include ALS, Cockayne syndrome, ataxia telangiectasia, mucopolysaccharidosis (MPS) type III, familial dysautonomia, and Niemann-Pick Type C.

FY 2023 awards

FDA announced two funding opportunities based on feedback from patients, researchers, nonprofit organizations, companies and other stakeholders on regulatory science research gaps that could advance medical product development.

• RFA-FD-23-008: Natural History and Biomarker Studies of Rare Neurodegenerative Diseases  
• RFA-FD-23-030: Systematic Review of Clinical Outcome Assessments (COAs) for Communication Brain-Computer Interface Devices (cBCIs) in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS)  

Applications submitted to these funding opportunities were reviewed for scientific and technical merit by rare disease, natural history and regulatory experts, including representatives from academia, patient groups, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the FDA. 

The following awards were funded in FY 2023:

• Blackrock Microsystems (Salt Lake City, Utah); Shana Rae Melby; Metrics for brain-controlled communication: A comprehensive review of clinical outcome assessments for communication brain computer interfaces in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis ($500,000 over two years)
• Johns Hopkins University (Baltimore, Maryland); Philip C Wong; Biomarker study in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) to develop a diagnostic test for prodromal phase of ALS ($1.6 million over four years)
• Massachusetts General Hospital (Boston, Massachusetts); Alexander V Sherman; Prospective natural history study and biomarker study in familial amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and ultra-rare motor neuron diseases to create a disease-agnostic scalable platform for decentralized observational and validation of digital biomarkers( approximately $1.6 million over four years)
• Massachusetts General Hospital (Boston, Massachusetts); Thurman M Wheeler; Biomarker study in myotonic dystrophy to determine extracellular RNA biomarkers (approximately $1.6 million over four years)
• University Of Illinois at Chicago (Chicago, Illinois); Stephanie M Cologna; Biomarker study in Niemann-Pick type C to determine clinically relevant biomarkers($1.6 million over four years)
• University Of Minnesota (Minneapolis, Minnesota); Pramod Kumar Pisharady; Biomarker study in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) to optimize and validate multimodal longitudinal imaging of brain and cervical cord as an ALS disease biomarker using microstructure statistics and morphometry ($1.6 million over four years) 

FY 2022 awards

In fiscal year 2022, FDA’s Office of Orphan Products Development (OOPD) funded three natural history studies under the Orphan Products Grants program which serve to meet the intent of the ACT for ALS including for ALS, Myotonic Dystrophy Type 1 and Ataxia-Telangiectasia. The study for ALS, partially funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, has the potential to advance existing knowledge of the natural history of ALS, inform drug development and possibly support future regulatory decisions. The natural history studies include:

• University of Minnesota (Minneapolis, Minnesota); David Walk; Retrospective and prospective study in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis of clinic-based multicenter data collection; $1.6 million over four years
• Johns Hopkins University (Baltimore, Maryland); Howard Lederman; Prospective study in ataxia-telangiectasia; $1.6 million over four years  
• Virginia Commonwealth University (Richmond, Virginia); Nicholas Johnson; Prospective study in myotonic dystrophy type-1 to establish biomarkers and clinical endpoints; $1.6 million over four years

FDA also awarded two contracts:

• RTI International, ALS Functional Ratings Scale-Revised Clinical Outcome Assessment Remote-Use Equivalency Study, ~$1.91 million with a completion date in FY 2025

The ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised Clinical Outcome Assessment Remote-Use Equivalency Study will adapt a trial endpoint, called the ALSFRS, for remote use. Typically, the ALSFRS is an assessment done by a health care professional in the office. This study will determine whether this assessment could be done at home, decreasing the amount of travel for patients and their families to participate in clinical trials. Additionally, the contract will include a Patient Committee for advice, transparency and oversight. This contract is partially funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

• RTI International, Landscape Analysis of Brain-Computer Interface Focused Patient Preference Studies in ALS Patients, ~$330,000 over one year

The goal of this contract is to perform a landscape analysis of patient preference information (PPI) studies focused on brain-computer interface (BCI) devices. FDA is specifically interested BCI devices that communicate with the brain providing patients with the ability to interact with their families and health care professionals. The contract will review the literature to determine what is already known about BCI devices and PPI studies in ALS. This perspective will help inform FDA’s assessment of the benefit-risk profile for these devices and may lay the foundation for future PPI studies for BCIs in ALS patients. 

Future opportunities 

The FDA remains committed to supporting medical product development for all rare neurodegenerative diseases. The agency is continuing to develop additional grant and contract opportunities to meet the intent of Section 5 of the ACT for ALS. See funding opportunities for FDA’s current grant opportunities for rare disease research.

• Questions (including program, scientific/research, and budget):  [email protected]
• Technical application submission questions: eRA Service Desk  
• FDA’s Office of Orphan Products Development main number: 301-796-8660

Additional resources

• Accelerating Access to Critical Therapies for ALS
• Orphan Products Grants program

Explore prestigious scientific journals and award and funding opportunities to advance your research.

Access practice-improvement tools, including guidelines, measures, and practice management resources.

Learn to effectively advocate on behalf of neurologists and their patients, and access AAN position and policy statements.

Loading... please wait

We’re experiencing unusually high levels of traffic. Thank you for your patience.

Applications Open for 2025 AAN Research Program Grant Opportunities

July 8, 2024

The AAN has always exemplified a strong commitment to promoting and supporting innovative neurology and neuroscience research by the best and brightest researchers across a wide range of career levels and discover stages. We know that by making a profound difference in the lives of researchers do we in turn make a profound difference in the lives of patients with brain disease. Additionally, funding research across a broad spectrum of brain diseases serves as our best hope for eventually finding better treatments, prevention, and cures for all brain disorders, as one treatment or cure could lead to many. Enter the AAN Research Program .

Applications are now open for grants ranging from $150,000 to $450,000 in a wide variety of subspecialties, including ALS and related disorders, cognitive aging and age-related memory loss, stroke, Parkinson’s disease, peripheral neuropathy, mal de debarquement syndrome, frontotemporal degeneration, epilepsy, neuromuscular disease, and more. Awards are available in the following five categories and applicants may apply in only one category to be considered for all applicable awards within that category. During the application process, applicants will have the opportunity to select their first and second award preferences within the single category.

• Career Development Award
• Clinical Research Training Scholarship
• Neuroscience Research Training Scholarship
• Practice Research Training Scholarship
• Clinician Scientist Development Award

Propelling Careers, One Award at A Time

No one knows the substantial impact the AAN Research Program can have on a promising early career better than Margy McCullough-Hicks, MD, the 2023 recipient of the Lawrence M. Brass, MD, Stroke Research Award .

“Being awarded the 2023 award has been an instrumental step in building my early academic career,” she said. “It has provided me with extremely valuable mentorship and protected research time. As a result, I have been able to perform labor-intensive neuroimaging processing and gained new skills using various machine learning techniques for imaging analysis.”

Added McCullough-Hicks, “I am so grateful for this opportunity that has both accelerated my growth as a researcher and enhanced my capacity to make meaningful contributions to the field of stroke neurology.”

Application Deadline: September 10

If you need research funding—or know someone who does—apply, or encourage them to apply, by September 10. View the full listing of awards within each category along with detailed applications requirements, and apply today .

Need Help with Your Application? Join Office Hours!

The Research Program Subcommittee will hold the following office hours where you can get all your questions answered.

• Thursday, July 11, 3:00 p.m. CT | Add to Calendar
• Thursday, July 25, 11:00 a.m. CT |   Add to Calendar
• Thursday, August 8, 3:00 p.m. CT |   Add to Calendar
• Thursday, August 22, 11:00 p.m. CT |   Add to Calendar

New Award! Clinical Research Training Scholarship in ALD (Adrenoleukodystrophy)

Learn more about this exciting new grant opportunity and apply by September 10!

CHIPS for America Act & FABS Act

Congress Passes Investments in Domestic Semiconductor Manufacturing, Research & Design

In July 2022, Congress passed the CHIPS Act of 2022 to strengthen domestic semiconductor manufacturing, design and research, fortify the economy and national security, and reinforce America’s chip supply chains.

The share of modern semiconductor manufacturing capacity located in the U.S. has eroded from 37% in 1990 to 12% today, mostly because other countries’ governments have invested ambitiously in chip manufacturing incentives and the U.S. government has not. Meanwhile, federal investments in chip research have held flat as a share of GDP, while other countries have significantly ramped up research investments.

To address these challenges, Congress passed  the CHIPS Act of 2022, which includes semiconductor manufacturing grants, research investments, and an investment tax credit for chip manufacturing. SIA also supports enactment of an investment tax credit for semiconductor design. 

By passing the CHIPS Act, Congress has risen to a defining challenge of our time, seized an historic opportunity to fortify American semiconductor manufacturing, design, and research, and delivered a big win for our country. 

CHIPS Award Announcements>

STATEMENT: SIA Applauds Passage of CHIPS Act of 2022>

FACT SHEET: CHIPS Act of 2022>

SIA News>

What They’re Saying>

Global Incentives>

Featured News

Letters to policymakers, policy reports, other resources, semiconductors in america coalition (siac).

American Jobs are Built on Semiconductors

The semiconductor industry directly employs nearly 338,000 people in America and supports more than 1.9 million additional jobs throughout the U.S. economy. With bold greater federal investment in domestic chip manufacturing and research, our economic impact would be even greater.

Learn More >

1101 K Street NW Suite 450, Washington, DC 20005 E-mail

• Sign up for SIA News
• Privacy Policy