In its first 100 days, the Trump administration has terminated more than US$2 billion in federal grants, according to a public-source database compiled by the scientific community, and it is proposing additional cuts that would reduce the $47 billion budget of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, also known as the NIH, by nearly half.
The effects of these cuts are being felt at top-tier public research institutions such as the University of Michigan. In fiscal year 2024, of the $2 billion in total research expenditures at the university, $1.2 billion came in through federal research grants, with $762 million from NIH alone.
Brady West is a research professor at the University of Michigan who has been writing federal grant proposals for more than two decades. The Conversation U.S. spoke with him about what these cuts could mean for the university and scientific research in the U.S. going forward.
This article is adapted from an interview Brady gave for the May 1 episode of The Conversation Weekly podcast.
The University of Michigan’s research arm includes ‘soft money’ institutes. What does that mean?
A soft money institute is one where the salaries are entirely funded by the research grants and contracts that they’re able to obtain. This is the case for most of the research arm of the University of Michigan, which includes the Institute for Social Research where I work. The university sets the salary amounts for these positions, and the people filling them − whether faculty, staff or graduate students − have to raise the money to fund their salary.
Teaching faculty, on the other hand, usually are paid from general university funds, which might come in from sources such as tuition, rather than grant funding.
What is involved in applying for a grant from a federal institution like NIH?
In my experience, it’s an extremely competitive and stressful process.
On average, I would estimate that it takes about a year to craft a research proposal from scratch. Applicants do background research, look at all the relevant work that has already been done in the field, summarize the articles that they’ve written, and sometimes do initial preliminary studies. They have to sell their research as connected to past work but still innovative, something that will move the science forward.
Meanwhile, they’re working with a team of research administrators, whose jobs at the university are funded by soft money, on things like creating a budget and determining what sort of supplies, equipment and additional personnel will be required for the research project. These administrators also help the applicant format and submit the proposal.
How does NIH determine what proposals receive funding?
Every proposal submitted to NIH gets reviewed by a panel of experts in that particular field, so your peers are the ones reviewing your proposal and deciding whether it should be considered for funding.
Each panel is tasked with reviewing and scoring multiple proposals. About half of the proposals receive scores that do not warrant additional discussion for funding. The rest are scrutinized line by line.
Those with the best scores, based on their merits as well as agency budgets and priorities, are ultimately awarded grants. All applicants are sent the reviewers’ comments, and those not receiving funding may revise their proposal and resubmit. In my experience, few applications get funded the first time they are submitted, and most go through at least one round of revisions.
I’ve found it generally takes about two years from the time you start writing a proposal to the time that you get funded.
When did you learn that NIH and other federal grants were being rescinded at the University of Michigan?
The first notice I received was in mid-February of 2025. I was wrapping up a federally funded study where we were looking at different ways of measuring sexual identity in surveys. That study was funded by a $160,000 grant from NIH.
I received a notice from administrators for the National Center for Health Statistics—part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention—that maintains the data I was working with. The email said my work was being reviewed for compliance with the president’s executive orders and would be paused.
I was lucky, because that particular grant was set to end at the end of February, so the project was nearly finished, and the paper was already written.
And then over the following weeks, it was like a waterfall. I started hearing from colleagues who were working on grants related to climate change, vaccination, vaccine hesitancy, sexual identity, gender identity, DEI—all of the work related to that, I just heard story after story of these grants being ended on the spot.
What does this mean for the researchers who lost their funding? What will they do now?
These terminations put jobs at risk—not only the research faculty, but also the teams who were working on these projects and the administrators who helped format and submit the grants.
One of my Ph.D. students received an email from NIH that simply said his grant has been terminated. So his source of support as a graduate student at the University of Michigan was gone in an instant.
The University of Michigan has developed a new research funding program where you can apply for support if you’ve had your grant terminated, and your local department can help share the costs. My student is waiting to hear if he will receive some of that funding. This is a welcome development, but only a short-term solution to this problem.
So right now, everybody’s pivoting. Your first thought is, how can I write a proposal that’s not going to have certain keywords in it? And that’s just not a good way to do science.
The University of Michigan is committed to doing the best possible science, but it’s going to require some adaptation in terms of how to think about the proposal process. And, honestly, for the immediate future, part of being a scientist in the U.S. is getting a firm understanding of what the current administration wants to fund.
Are you or your colleagues considering leaving the university?
That’s the million-dollar question. Do you decide to pack up your family and move to a different country? Do you shift to private industry? Do you wait it out for the next administration and hope that things swing back in a direction that’s going to support the kind of work that you’re doing? Those are the kinds of career decisions that people have to think about.
Is the U.S. going to lose a lot of top-tier faculty at top-tier universities like the University of Michigan because of what’s going on? That’s a significant concern.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Citation:
A Michigan research professor explains how NIH funding works—and what it means to suddenly lose a grant (2025, May 5)
retrieved 5 May 2025
from https://medicalxpress.com/news/2025-05-michigan-professor-nih-funding-suddenly.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no
part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
In its first 100 days, the Trump administration has terminated more than US$2 billion in federal grants, according to a public-source database compiled by the scientific community, and it is proposing additional cuts that would reduce the $47 billion budget of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, also known as the NIH, by nearly half. The effects of these cuts are being felt at top-tier public research institutions such as the University of Michigan. In fiscal year 2024, of the $2 billion in total research expenditures at the university, $1.2 billion came in through federal research grants, with $762 million from NIH alone. Brady West is a research professor at the University of Michigan who has been writing federal grant proposals for more than two decades. The Conversation U.S. spoke with him about what these cuts could mean for the university and scientific research in the U.S. going forward. This article is adapted from an interview Brady gave for the May 1 episode of The Conversation Weekly podcast. A soft money institute is one where the salaries are entirely funded by the research grants and contracts that they’re able to obtain. This is the case for most of the research arm of the University of Michigan, which includes the Institute for Social Research where I work. The university sets the salary amounts for these positions, and the people filling them − whether faculty, staff or graduate students − have to raise the money to fund their salary. Teaching faculty, on the other hand, usually are paid from general university funds, which might come in from sources such as tuition, rather than grant funding. In my experience, it’s an extremely competitive and stressful process. On average, I would estimate that it takes about a year to craft a research proposal from scratch. Applicants do background research, look at all the relevant work that has already been done in the field, summarize the articles that they’ve written, and sometimes do initial preliminary studies. They have to sell their research as connected to past work but still innovative, something that will move the science forward. Meanwhile, they’re working with a team of research administrators, whose jobs at the university are funded by soft money, on things like creating a budget and determining what sort of supplies, equipment and additional personnel will be required for the research project. These administrators also help the applicant format and submit the proposal. Every proposal submitted to NIH gets reviewed by a panel of experts in that particular field, so your peers are the ones reviewing your proposal and deciding whether it should be considered for funding. Each panel is tasked with reviewing and scoring multiple proposals. About half of the proposals receive scores that do not warrant additional discussion for funding. The rest are scrutinized line by line. Those with the best scores, based on their merits as well as agency budgets and priorities, are ultimately awarded grants. All applicants are sent the reviewers’ comments, and those not receiving funding may revise their proposal and resubmit. In my experience, few applications get funded the first time they are submitted, and most go through at least one round of revisions. I’ve found it generally takes about two years from the time you start writing a proposal to the time that you get funded. The first notice I received was in mid-February of 2025. I was wrapping up a federally funded study where we were looking at different ways of measuring sexual identity in surveys. That study was funded by a $160,000 grant from NIH. I received a notice from administrators for the National Center for Health Statistics—part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention—that maintains the data I was working with. The email said my work was being reviewed for compliance with the president’s executive orders and would be paused. I was lucky, because that particular grant was set to end at the end of February, so the project was nearly finished, and the paper was already written. And then over the following weeks, it was like a waterfall. I started hearing from colleagues who were working on grants related to climate change, vaccination, vaccine hesitancy, sexual identity, gender identity, DEI—all of the work related to that, I just heard story after story of these grants being ended on the spot. These terminations put jobs at risk—not only the research faculty, but also the teams who were working on these projects and the administrators who helped format and submit the grants. One of my Ph.D. students received an email from NIH that simply said his grant has been terminated. So his source of support as a graduate student at the University of Michigan was gone in an instant. The University of Michigan has developed a new research funding program where you can apply for support if you’ve had your grant terminated, and your local department can help share the costs. My student is waiting to hear if he will receive some of that funding. This is a welcome development, but only a short-term solution to this problem. So right now, everybody’s pivoting. Your first thought is, how can I write a proposal that’s not going to have certain keywords in it? And that’s just not a good way to do science. The University of Michigan is committed to doing the best possible science, but it’s going to require some adaptation in terms of how to think about the proposal process. And, honestly, for the immediate future, part of being a scientist in the U.S. is getting a firm understanding of what the current administration wants to fund. That’s the million-dollar question. Do you decide to pack up your family and move to a different country? Do you shift to private industry? Do you wait it out for the next administration and hope that things swing back in a direction that’s going to support the kind of work that you’re doing? Those are the kinds of career decisions that people have to think about. Is the U.S. going to lose a lot of top-tier faculty at top-tier universities like the University of Michigan because of what’s going on? That’s a significant concern. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Citation: This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no
The University of Michigan’s research arm includes ‘soft money’ institutes. What does that mean?
What is involved in applying for a grant from a federal institution like NIH?
How does NIH determine what proposals receive funding?
When did you learn that NIH and other federal grants were being rescinded at the University of Michigan?
What does this mean for the researchers who lost their funding? What will they do now?
Are you or your colleagues considering leaving the university?
A Michigan research professor explains how NIH funding works—and what it means to suddenly lose a grant (2025, May 5)
retrieved 5 May 2025
from https://medicalxpress.com/news/2025-05-michigan-professor-nih-funding-suddenly.html
part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
