A Michigan research professor explains how NIH funding works − and what it means to suddenly lose a grant
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?
Brady West: 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?
West: 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?
West: 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?
West: 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?
West: 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?
West: 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.
Read more of our stories about Michigan.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Brady Thomas West, University of Michigan
Read more:
US colleges and universities have billions stashed away in endowments − a higher ed finance expert explains what they are
Endowments aren't blank checks – but universities can rely on them more heavily in turbulent times
Reducing diversity, equity and inclusion to a catchphrase undermines its true purpose
Brady Thomas West has received funding from the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and National Science Foundation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why the ivory tower wants a deal with Trump
First Columbia, Brown and UPenn folded. Harvard is reportedly looking for a way out after President Donald Trump cut its health and science research funding by billions. Now academia writ large is trying to persuade him to back off his plan to slash universities' budgets. At Trump's urging, the National Institutes of Health in February said it was cutting by more than $4 billion the amount it pays to universities to help them cover administrative and facilities costs tied to research grants. The overture from university lobbyists comes even as the universities have succeeded in blocking Trump's plan in court — and have won the backing of key Republican lawmakers. The universities' eagerness to cut a deal shows that they don't think they can hold off Trump indefinitely. A cut of the magnitude the NIH sought would put a major dent in their budgets, slow the search for breakthroughs in health and science, and enable foreign rivals to catch up, they say. The federal government has long provided funding for university administration and facilities. These indirect-cost reimbursements are an add-on to scientific and health research grants. Trump allies accuse the schools of using the payments as slush funds to pursue progressive causes like diversity, equity and inclusion. The universities deny that they are using the money that way but they are hoping to placate Trump by proposing to standardize how the government pays for their indirect costs. Currently, those fees are negotiated separately with each institution and they can vary widely. Trump says they're way too high, pointing to the lower rates private foundations pay when they provide research grants. "It's been made extremely clear to us from day one by members of Congress that if we don't do something, somebody else will," Kelvin Droegemeier, a professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign who's spearheading the effort on behalf of a coalition of universities and research institutes, told POLITICO. "They said continuing forward with the current model is not in the cards. We took it to mean we could help be a part of that change or wait for it to happen." Some leading Democrats on Capitol Hill and party activists across the country are leaning on universities to stand firm against Trump. But the coalition is moving forward with talks anyway. "That's really important for everybody to understand. You can't fight something with nothing," Toby Smith, a top lobbyist at the Association of American Universities, said at a recent town hall on paying for indirect research costs. Among those with the most at stake, either if Trump succeeds in capping the fees or in a compromise, are the titans of the ivory tower: major research universities such as Harvard, Johns Hopkins and Yale that have long won indirect cost reimbursements in excess of 60 percent of the value of the underlying research grant. Major research institutions command some of the highest rates in part because they have expensive and state-of-the-art research equipment and are located in areas with high utilities costs. A federal district court judge in Boston blocked Trump's plan to cap the fees at 15 percent in March. The national average now is almost 30 percent. The case is now on appeal. In the meantime, GOP senators such as Appropriations Chair Susan Collins of Maine and Alabama's Katie Britt have protested the administration's plan because it would hurt the public universities in their states. Collins noted that Congress has explicitly barred the administration from tinkering with the indirect cost system in spending legislation. But even as schools were seeking relief in court and in Congress, a cadre of groups that lobby for them, including the Association of American Universities, the Association of American Medical Colleges, the Association of Independent Research Institutes and the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, was working out a compromise plan to offer Trump. Others in the crosshairs of Trump's bid to cut costs, such as hospitals and research institutes, are working with them. "Those who say, 'Well, let's just wait and see, maybe the lawsuits will be fine.' No, there is change happening," said Droegemeier, who has some cache in Trump's orbit because he led the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy during the president's first term. "I can tell you for sure that [the White House Office of Management and Budget] is working on things. We're working on things. We're working together. But change is coming, and if people simply deny that they're fooling themselves — they'd better prepare for change one way or another." This week, Trump tried a new tactic to wrest indirect funding from top-tier universities by issuing an executive order calling for agencies to give preference to universities with lower indirect costs when issuing awards. The university-led group announced this spring that it was working on a new model, one that was "simple and easily explained," and in a nod to the administration's priorities: "efficient and transparent." The Financial Accountability in Research, or FAIR plan, would consist of two options for research organizations to recoup facilities and administrative expenses from the government. The first, a detailed accounting of indirect project costs, and the second, a shorter, simpler fixed percentage of a project's budget. (Think itemized deductions vs. the standard deduction on federal taxes.) "The biggest difference is rather than having an indirect cost rate, which is negotiated across the entire university, this model calls for indirect costs to be estimated for every project," Jeremy Berg, former director of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, an arm of the $48 billion grant-giving National Institutes of Health, told POLITICO. Debate over how much the government should pay for indirect costs has raged for decades. Both former Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama suggested capping facilities and administrative costs, to no avail. In Trump's first term, he proposed a 10 percent cap on indirect costs — meaning a $100 grant would come with a maximum of an additional $10 for administration and facilities. Lawmakers stopped him by adding language to appropriations bills barring the change. After the Trump administration announced the 15 percent cap in February, Droegemeier reached out to House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) to see if universities and Congress could work together on a compromise. Soon, Droegemeier had helped assemble a team of seasoned subject matter experts beyond the traditional academic echo chamber, including representatives from hospitals and medical centers, foundations, private companies, and former government officials from NIH and OMB. Droegemeier's team then worked to engage Senate appropriators, including Collins and Britt. They briefed Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), the chair of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. More recently, they've talked with the offices of Sens. John Kennedy (R-La.), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.), Shelley Moore Capito ( and Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.), as well as Democrats. Since February, the team held two weekend fly-ins and a virtual retreat to work on the model together and multiple town halls to explain the FAIR plan and get feedback from universities. Beyond Congress, the group has sought buy-in from the Office of Management and Budget, the White House arm that is leading Trump's cost-cutting initiatives. Droegemeier worked with OMB Director Russ Vought during Trump's first term. The administration has appealed Judge Angel Kelley's March decision, which she made permanent in April, to the federal appeals court in Boston. In the meantime, senators on the Appropriations Committee approved language in their version of the spending bill for the National Institutes of Health that restricts changes to the current methods of setting indirect costs. Even so, Collins floated the new model to NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya at an NIH budget hearing in June and signaled her support for a compromise. She called Droegemeier's plan 'far fairer' than Trump's flat rate and said she believed it would 'increase accountability.' Bhattacharya said he had talked with Droegemeier during the early planning stages of the model. "I think they're quite promising," he said. Talks are expected to resume when Congress returns from recess next month. The bigger challenge may be getting OMB to sign off. So far, the university groups and OMB have not been able to reach an agreement to present to lawmakers, according to a person familiar with the negotiations on the congressional side granted anonymity to avoid influencing the ongoing discussions. One sticking point for OMB: The White House wants assurances the plan will cut spending on facilities and administrative expenses, the person said. From Droegemeier's vantage point, they're working together on finer points of the model, and talks with OMB are ongoing. The university team isn't promising cost reductions. That's not their role, according to Droegemeier. Instead, the model is designed to show what it really costs to do research. Then the government and lawmakers can decide what they want to pay for. Berg, the former NIH official, thinks it has the potential to be cumbersome to implement, but more transparent. Like Droegemeier, he doesn't think schools have a choice. "There's been so much of a fuss made at this point," Berg said, adding, "If the universities dug in their heels and said, 'We like the old model.' That's not going to happen. Instead, there'll be some fixed cap, the way the administration proposed out of the blue." "From that point of view, it's a thoroughly sensible thing to do, and I'm supportive of the effort, because I think it's the best path to ending up somewhere that's actually rational."
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
A Furious MAGA Voter's Post Breaking Down The "Ridiculous" Cost Of Their Diabetes Medicine Due To Donald Trump's Tariffs Is Going Viral
A Facebook post written by a self-proclaimed MAGA voter who says she and her partner can no longer afford their imported medications due to Donald Trump's tariffs is going viral. At the start of the post, the MAGA voter expressed her anger with President Trump and his ongoing tariff war that has increased the prices of imported goods in the US. She said, "He should take his tariffs and shove them up his ass!" She then broke down the cost of her and her partner's medications in the US, which amounts to over $500 for each of them with Medicare. She said they'd been buying their medications from Canada or the UK to save money.... But that changed when the Canadian company purportedly increased its prices by $80-100 per month to offset Trump's tariffs. "I voted for Trump, I truly wish I had not making America Great Again, but he sure is making it more expensive," she wrote. In response to the posts, people had a range of opinions, with some defending President Trump... "You can't blame the president for the high drug pricing," one person commented on the original post. "It is not Trumps fault you cannot figure this out," another wrote. While others blamed the original poster for her voting decisions... "If you cannot afford your medications, why would you vote for any Republican ever??? The Democratic platform has been lowered costs for healthcare FOR DECADES," one user questioned. "I wish I had more sympathy. That went away in Nov. They are getting exactly what they voted told them this time was different," another person wrote. What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments below.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
A Russian Hacking Group Is Using Fake Versions of MetaMask to Steal $1M in Crypto
The Russian hacking group GreedyBear has scaled up its operations in recent months, using 150 'weaponized Firefox extensions' to target international and English-speaking victims, according to research from Koi Security. Publishing the results of its research in a blog, U.S. and Israel-based Koi reported that the group has 'redefined industrial-scale crypto theft,' using 150 weaponized Firefox extensions, close to 500 malicious executables and 'dozens' of phishing websites to steal over $1 million within the past five weeks. Speaking to Decrypt, Koi CTO Idan Dardikman said that the Firefox campaign is 'by far' its most lucrative attack vector, having 'gained them most of the $1 million reported by itself.' This particular ploy involves creating fake versions of widely downloaded crypto wallets such as MetaMask, Exodus, Rabby Wallet, and TronLink. GreedyBear operatives use Extension Hollowing to bypass marketplace security measures, initially uploading non-malicious versions of the extensions, before updating the apps with malicious code. They also post fake reviews of the extensions, giving the false impression of trust and reliability. But once downloaded, the malicious extensions steal wallet credentials, which in turn are used to steal crypto Not only has GreedyBear been able to steal $1 million in just over a month using this method, but they have greatly ramped up the scale of their operations, with a previous campaign–active between April and July of this year–involving only 40 extensions. The group's other primary attack method involves almost 500 malicious Windows executables, which it has added to Russian websites that distribute pirated or repacked software. Such executables include credential stealers, ransomware software and trojans, which Koi Security suggests indicates'a broad malware distribution pipeline, capable of shifting tactics as needed.' Coinbase Rolls Out DEX Trading on Its App Starting With Base—And Solana 'Coming Soon' The group has also created dozens of phishing websites, which pretend to offer legitimate crypto-related services, such as digital wallets, hardware devices or wallet repair services. GreedyBear uses these websites to coax potential victims into entering personal data and wallet credentials, which it then uses to steal funds. 'It is worth mentioning that the Firefox campaign targeted more global/English-speaking victims, while the malicious executables targeted more Russian-speaking victims,' explains Idan Dardikman, speaking to Decrypt. Despite the variety of attack methods and of targets, Koi also reports that 'almost all' GreedyBear attack domains link back to a single IP address: 185.208.156.66. According to the report, this address functions as a central hub for coordination and collection, enabling GreedyBear hackers 'to streamline operations.' Ethereum Foundation Pledges to Match $500K for Roman Storm's Legal Defense Dardikman saidthat a single IP address 'means tight centralized control' rather than a distributed network. 'This suggests organized cybercrime rather than state sponsorship–government operations typically use distributed infrastructure to avoid single points of failure,' he added. 'Likely Russian criminal groups operating for profit, not state direction.' Dardikman said that GreedyBear is likely to continue its operations and offered several tips for avoiding their expanding reach. 'Only install extensions from verified developers with long histories,' he said, adding that users should always avoid pirated software sites. He also recommended using only official wallet software, and not browser extensions, although he advised moving away from software wallets if you're a serious long-term investor. He said, 'Use hardware wallets for significant crypto holdings, but only buy from official manufacturer websites–GreedyBear creates fake hardware wallet sites to steal payment info and credentials.' Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
