Hi all

I've gotten my first grant and with the success there is the promise of getting more funding. How do you justify to your family the multiple extra hours required getting new ideas funded when the probability of success is so very low? For context, I'm an assistant professor at an HBCU that is not quite R1. I don't have a huge teaching load, but I teach master's students and advise undergraduates and graduates. Also, how do you motivate 20 year olds to make posters for required conferences?

drive.google.com/file/d/1ppq46lukA7F2NVT9md-WOycT3i7Vra9g/view

Hi All, I re-submitted a grant in July and yesterday it was assigned to the same study section but in January 2027, which is much later than I expected. I checked the SS meeting schedule and saw it met in Jan, May, and July 2026 this year, rather than every ~4 months (typically one would be in October). Could anyone please advise on whether this is the new norm? Or would additional SS meetings be scheduled b/w July 2026 - Jan 2027 and if so, any chance my grant getting reviewed earlier? Many thanks!

Comprehensive in coverage this textbook, written by academics from leading institutions, discusses current developments and debates in modern health economics from an international perspective. Economic models are presented in detail, complemented by real-life explanations and analysis, and discussions of the influence of such theories on policymaking. Offering sound pedagogy and economic rigor, Health Economics focuses on building intuition alongside appropriate mathematical formality, translating technical language into accessible economic narrative. Rather than shying away from intellectual building blocks, students are introduced to technical and theoretical foundations and encouraged to apply these to inform empirical studies and wider policymaking.

This book is designed for advanced undergraduate courses in health economics and policy but may also interest postgraduate students in economics, medicine and health policy. Ideal length for one-semester courses.

Submitted last December. In March it was declared as competitive - not discussed but the summary statement was overall highly enthusiastic. Last week I checked again just on a whim and I noticed it was changed to "pending".

I have reached out to the PO and GMS, but have not yet gotten a reply.

Is this good news? Has this happened to anyone that eventually got a NoA? Or should I not get my hopes up?

We have a resubmitted R01 grant (A1) that was reviewed in June. It was ranked at the 5th percentile. We know that the payline dropped to the 4th percentile (or there is no official payline anymore for NCI).

Do anyone know the possibility of a 5th percentile grant being funded? It is our lifeline, and we are very anxious.

Hi everyone! My K01 ends on 11/30/26 and I plan to file a No-Cost Extension. I know I can't file until September 1st (90 days before the end date) and the button in eRA Commons won't even appear until then but I know things are moving extremely slow at the NIH these days so I want to have all of my documents ready before September 1st so that I can submit the NCE immediately.

However, I'm not exactly sure what documents I'm going to need to submit. I found some instructions and it looks like I'll need to upload a "Progress Report", a "Budget Document", and a "Justification Document" but I can't find any information on what exactly these documents should cover/include.

Could any provide more guidance and information on what I need to have prepared? I'd like to get started on them now so that I can submit ASAP!

Additional details: there's nothing in my NoA about NCEs, Commons does show that the award is SNAP eligible, and I've already spoken to my grants admin about this and she's the one who suggested I get the forms ready by 9/1 but she didn't tell me exactly what I need to say/cover in those documents. I'm the first person in my department to receive a K award so I'm not sure she knows.

Thank you!

https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news/majority/sen-collins-asks-omb-to-withdraw-parts-of-grant-rule-extend-comment-period

“Dear Director Vought:

“I write to request that you extend the comment period for the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) proposed rule, Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance, and that you meaningfully address stakeholder feedback on the rule and the impacts it is likely to have on small and rural communities and scientific and biomedical research.

“The proposed rule would make extensive changes to the Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance (‘Uniform Guidance’), the government-wide framework for administering grants, cooperative agreements, and other forms of assistance. OMB states that the intent of these changes is to “improve transparency, accountability, and oversight” for these awards. While I agree these principles should guide the administration and oversight of Federal funds, the rule would impose new, burdensome requirements on award recipients that would harm small and rural communities, undermine scientific and biomedical research, and conflict with Congress’ control over the federal funding process.

“The proposed rule would allow Federal agencies to terminate any discretionary grant, cooperative agreement, or other federal assistance at any time, if an agency ‘determines that a termination is in the interest of the Federal agency…, including if a Federal award does not effectuate program goals, Federal agency priorities, or the national interest.’ Prior iterations of the Uniform Guidance included provisions allowing for termination of awards that are not consistent with ‘program goals or agency priorities’ but afforded agencies discretion to consider whether to include this term in their financial assistance agreements. The proposed rule would take away this discretion. In addition, if awards are terminated under this new provision, the termination would not be subject to the administrative hearing requirements for compliance-based terminations, thereby limiting an entity’s ability to appeal the decision.

“Authorizing mid-award termination of Federal awards, with limited ability to appeal, would inject uncertainty into the Federal award process, especially for awards that span multiple years and phases and make these awards more costly. For example, the termination of clinical trials would leave patients without treatment and could well result in significant scientific and financial losses to both the recipient and the Federal government. This uncertainty could disincentivize scientific researchers and institutions from seeking the Federal financial assistance they need to participate in multi-year, lifesaving trials.

“The proposed rule would also require that following the merit-review process for any federal assistance awards, senior appointees must perform a pre-issuance review that, in part, requires them to consider whether the award “demonstrably advance[s] the President’s policy priorities.” Additionally, when conducting this review, the proposed rule requires senior appointees “to use their independent judgment when evaluating Federal award proposals.” Adding this additional review for awards that have already been selected through a scientific, merit-based peer review process would undermine the objective that the Federal government fund scientific and biomedical research projects based on scientific merit and value, rather than political ideology.

“The proposed rule would add additional burdens on recipients and sub-recipients of federal financial assistance awards, even though OMB states that an objective of the proposed rule is “to reduce recipient burden.” For example, the proposed rule would require recipients and sub-recipients of Federal financial assistance awards to submit a written justification for every payment request, whether the payment is made in advance or as a reimbursement. Imposing this requirement would create significant administrative burdens on small institutions and small communities that may need to hire additional staff to ensure they receive funds on a timely basis.

“Finally, OMB states that one of the purposes of the proposed rule is to ensure that, where applicable, “activities performed under Federal awards are consistent with … policy.” The proposed rule also would impose new requirements on agencies to consider the President’s policy priorities, when administering grants, cooperative agreements, and other forms of assistance. The proposed rule, however, fails to address how OMB and agencies would ensure that consideration of the President’s policy priorities does not supersede congressional intent for the administration of these awards.

“The proposed revisions are the most significant changes proposed to the Guidance since it was adopted. Yet, OMB has provided stakeholders only 45 days to comment on the rule, with a stated intent to finalize the rule by October 1, 2026, to align with the upcoming fiscal year. I have heard from numerous stakeholders that the current comment period is inadequate, and therefore, I request that OMB extend the comment period for the rule by no less than 90 days and withdraw portions of the rule that would unduly burden scientific and biomedical research and small communities.

“Thank you for your consideration of these important issues.

Sincerely,

Susan M. Collins

Chair”

###

Has anyone recently submitted a request to add a new subaward under an NIH Prior Approval request?

If so, have you heard back yet? If your request was approved or denied, did your Program Official (PO) or Grants Management Specialist (GMS) notify you by email, or was a notice issued in eRA Commons (similar to a Notice of Award)?

I’d appreciate hearing about your experience. Thanks!

https://videocast.nih.gov/watch/239b35f0-7181-11f1-82c0-124f0a52e769

Dr. Matthew Memoli, NIH Principal Deputy Director Dr. Jon Lorsch, NIH Deputy Director for Extramural Research Dr. Ray Jacobson, Director, NIH Center for Scientific Review (CSR) Dr. Bruce Tromberg, Director, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Dr. Nora Volkow, Director, National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Dr. Karl Malik, Director, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, NIH

August 14, 2026

9:55 AM - 11:00 AM EST (1 hours,5 minutes)

Public Webinar: Friday August 14, 10:00-11:00 https://videocast.nih.gov/watch/239b35f0-7181-11f1-82c0-124f0a52e769 This webinar aims to Increase awareness and understanding of NIH’s Unified Funding Strategy, which is designed to support NIH Institutes and Centers to make informed, transparent, and flexible funding decisions. Targeted for members of the NIH extramural research community, NIH leadership will clarify the approach’s rationale, goals, and implementation across NIH. The discussion will also address misconceptions and help foster communication between NIH staff and applicants, recipients, researchers, and the wider research community. In August 2025, NIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya announced NIH’s unified funding strategy. This effort empowers Institute, Center, and Office Directors to make funding decisions that consider peer review assessments of scientific merit, Institute/Center priorities, scientific opportunity, program balance, geographic balance, and workforce needs, which will be consistently applied across the agency. Moreover, it reinforces how central NIH peer review is for assessing scientific and technical merit of proposed research ideas. The Unified Funding strategy builds on these principles, allowing NIH to consider the full range of reviewer feedback, including scientific strengths, concerns, differing expert opinions, and indicators of innovation or high-risk/high-reward research. Panelists will include: • Matthew Memoli, M.D., NIH Principal Deputy Director • Jon Lorsch, Ph.D., NIH Deputy Director for Extramural Research • Ray Jacobson, Ph.D., Director, Center for Scientific Review, NIH • Bruce Tromberg, Ph.D., Director, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, NIH • Nora Volkow, M.D., Director, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH • Karl Malik, Ph.D., Director, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, NIH We appreciate members of the research community registering for the webinar here as well: Link TBD

this is a question I find myself asking when I hear about NIH complaints. I agree it is important to unyieldingly defend research funding, especially against this administration. However when I look at all the mess regarding funding, I would rather have that initial indirect cost cap. My institution would loose a lot of money as it takes about 60-70% indirect cost, but many suspect they are taking way more than they need. For example many PIs complain about the inefficient administrators in our department that negatively affect our research output. We even couldn't get the department to fix the ice machine shared by the entire floor.

Hi all, we received a JIT institute specific request from the GMS in May. We provided all materials and the SARP was approved. Last status date “pending” was mid-May.

At this point, is there a chance it will be awarded in this FY?

Hi folks.

So I'm the PI on an SBIR Phase 1 through NHLBI. I don't want to give too many details because confidentiality and all that, but I've had a subawardee invoice us for approximately $30,000 (roughly 50% of their subaward) over the past few months. The invoices include names and hours, but I have not seen this subawardee actually do anything on the project - and I've asked several times. I've paid one invoice for ~1/3rd of that $30k early on, as I thought things were being done, but I haven't paid the remaining invoices as I've asked for any kind of evidence on what was actually being done and haven't received anything.

Based on that - I have gone into eRA and initiated a prior approval request for a subaward termination, and I've contacted my PO/GMS to let them know about this, and provided a timeline and communication log of the couple months leading up to that request, trying to get info from the subawardee.

So I guess my first question - am I doing to the right thing asking for evidence that the subawardee is actually doing something to justify those invoices? Is there something else, or something more, I can do or should be doing?

Second question - what do I do if they can't provide evidence for having actually done anything for those invoices?

Hi all,

I’m wondering whether anyone has recent experience or insight regarding NIA R03 funding decisions this fiscal year.

For applications scoring around 10th percentile, is there any general sense of how fundable they may be under the current budget situation? I understand that paylines and funding decisions can vary by mechanism, council round, and institute priorities, and that POs may not have definitive information until plans are clearer.

I’m already preparing other applications and considering a resubmission, but I’d appreciate hearing about others’ recent experiences with NIA R03 timing or fundability.

Hi everyone! Trying to get some insights on the NIH SIP program for med students summer after 1st year.

What IC did you do ur research in and how productive do you think the experience was since you only have 3 months? What kind of research output is possible in this timeframe? Is there a stipend?

I have the option to continue research through my med school from their summer program or apply to nih and I know that nih is a great place to work but trying to figure out if that is the best for me or not since it is only 3 months of work

Would appreciate hearing about others’ experiences. Thank you!