NIH FUNDING SLOWDOWN RAISES QUESTIONS ON RESEARCH TRAJECTORY
NIH grant awards have slowed by 24%, impacting medical research and fellowships. Find out how this affects scientists and future healthcare innovation.
#NIHGrants, #MedicalResearch, #ScienceFunding, #ResearchImpact, #GrantSlowdown
https://newsletter.tf/nih-grant-awards-slowdown-medical-research-impact/
NIH has seen a 24% drop in major grant types like R01s, meaning fewer fellowships are awarded. This is a significant decrease compared to previous periods.
#NIHGrants, #MedicalResearch, #ScienceFunding, #ResearchImpact, #GrantSlowdown
https://newsletter.tf/nih-grant-awards-slowdown-medical-research-impact/
China is set to become the world’s largest public funder of research within two years, as US investment stalls.
This shift could reshape the global scientific landscape.
🔗 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-00618-5
#ScienceFunding #ChinaResearch #GlobalScience #researchpolicy #sciencetrends
How NOT to do a NASA Budget Proposal - OR This Will Not Fly (pun intended!)
- cut and paste last year's rejected proposal
- include errors like ending programs that had already been cancelled
- including the wrong fiscal year for existing on-going program funding
- limited program cost breakdowns
- no comparisons to previous years' funding levels
- cancelling joint missions with other countries
This crap is an attempt at obfuscation. https://www.space.com/astronomy/nasa-science-faces-very-serious-threat-from-new-white-house-budget-scientists-say #NASA #Space #Funding #ScienceFunding #Budget #NASABudget #SpaceScience #Artemis
Reforms of science funding in the UK aim to “do fewer things better”.
Clearer priorities could strengthen impact, but uncertain timelines and budget shifts may slow research momentum, especially for early-career scientists.
🔗 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-00447-6
#ScienceFunding #ResearchPolicy #UK #EarlyCareer #ResearchEcosystem
That Letter from UKRI
I only have time for a quick post today but I think it’s important to comment on the very feeble open letter circulated (yesterday) to “the research and innovation community” by the Chief Executioner Executive of UKRI. I think it’s feeble because it seems to have been intended to clarify what is going on, but does nothing of the sort. In fact, to me, it reads like it was written by someone who doesn’t know what he is doing.
The letter basically tells researchers working in areas outside the STFC remit (i.e. in anything except particle physics, astronomy and nuclear physics) not to worry because it’s only STFC that will suffer. This is the “explanation”:
In order to remain sustainable, STFC must make significant cumulative savings: a decrease of £162 million relative to our forecasts for their operational costs. The £162 million is the total net reduction in STFC’s annual costs that they must achieve by the end of the 2029 and 2030 financial year. It is not a £162 million saving in each year of the current SR period. Instead, STFC needs to reshape its cost base over the whole SR period so that their budget is balanced by 2029 and 2030 and key facilities are funded properly and sustainably.
That is not the situation at other councils and we do not anticipate equivalent measures will be necessary outside of STFC.
One of the problems with this logic is that a huge slice of STFC’s budget is spent on facilities that support science outside STFC’s scientific remit. The Diamond Light Source, for example, which has annual running costs of almost £70 million caters largely to the EPSRC and BBSRC communities. It makes no sense to me to require particle physics, astronomy and nuclear physics reseachers to bear the entire consequences of cost overruns at this facility when other communities benefit from it.
I’m sure the UKRI Chief Executive knows this, so it must have been a deliberate decision to wield the axe in this way. In other words it’s a conscious downgrade of particle physics, astronomy and nuclear physics. In the new regime, these are less important than any other branch of scientific research.
I’m out of it now, but I always felt that STFC should never have been set up as a research council. It should have been a service organisation, as its title – the Science and Technology Facilities Council – suggests. When STFC was created, back in 2007, funding for particle physics, astronomy and nuclear physics research as opposed to facilities should have been administered by EPSRC. Whether intentionally or not, the current arrangements make these areas of fundamental physics exceptionally vulnerable. We saw the consequences of that back in 2007/8 and it is happening again.
📢𝗣𝗜𝘀 & 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗮 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗼𝗰𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵!
Apply to the #BelmontForum for funding to advance ocean biodiversity & ecosystems
📅05 Mar 2026
🏷️Know someone that should apply? Like or share
🔗 https://rxn.mbp-rnc.com/25adm?utm_source=Mastodon&custom_day=Thursday
#ResearchFunding
#FundingOpportunity
#ScienceFunding
#ResearchSupport
US congress reverses Trump’s budget cuts for science.
The U.S. Is Funding Fewer Grants in Every Area of Science and Medicine
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/12/02/upshot/trump-science-funding-cuts.html
NewsletterTF
LeidenForce
BGDon 🇨🇦 🇺🇸 👨💻
In the Dark
Matthew B. Plutschack
WYM Mod
Georg Weissenbacher
Hacker News