# data[].attributes.headline
The Latest in Higher Ed with Sarah Brown and Rick Seltzer - July Session

# data[].attributes.subject
The Latest in Higher Ed with Sarah Brown and Rick Seltzer - July Session

# data[].attributes.body
Federal policy updates: New financial aid and loan rules are causing confusion; changes affect graduate lending, Parent PLUS loans, and Workforce Pell rollout.

Public confidence: Trust in higher ed is dropping, especially among Democrats and college grads, due to concerns about cost and perceived political agendas.

Legal and policy battles: Increased scrutiny over admissions practices, scholarships, student visas, and tuition for undocumented students.

Michigan leadership turmoil: Michigan State’s president quit, criticized the board, then reversed his decision—highlighting governance problems.

Humanities debate: The Vanderbilt report’s claims of politicization in the humanities stirred controversy within sociology and anthropology groups.

Outlook: Despite challenges, there is optimism with the new academic year and active debate over higher ed’s direction.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Video Conferencing, Web Conferencing, Webinars, Screen Sharing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Zoom is the leader in modern enterprise video communications, with an easy, reliable cloud platform for video and audio conferencing, chat, and webinars across mobile, desktop, and room systems. Zoom Rooms is the original software-based conference room solution used around the world in board, conference, huddle, and training rooms, as well as executive offices and classrooms. Founded in 2011, Zoom helps businesses and organizations bring their teams together in a frictionless environment to get more done. Zoom is a publicly traded company headquartered in San Jose, CA.

# data[].attributes.headline
Predicting an Unpredictable Fall for Higher Ed

# data[].attributes.subject
Predicting an Unpredictable Fall for Higher Ed

# data[].attributes.body
International Student Visas:
DHS now limits F-1 and J-1 visas to four years, restricting flexibility and making the U.S. less appealing to international students.

Section 117 & Foreign Funding:
New rules may increase disclosure of foreign donors to universities, raising privacy and security concerns; recent investigations target international ties.

Interagency Agreements:
Administration shifting Department of Education functions to other agencies has generated confusion, high costs, and political opposition.

Appropriations & Student Aid:
Congress is divided over federal funding and Pell Grant shortfalls, with no clear budget agreement in sight.

Research Funding Changes:
The “New Golden Age” proposal would redirect research funding to individuals and new labs, risking the established research system.

Federal Grant Guidance:
Proposed changes face widespread criticism for possibly undermining research and public programs.

Viewpoint Discrimination Concerns:
Evidence suggests the administration targeted blue states by canceling grants for political reasons.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Predicting an Unpredictable Fall for Higher Ed

# data[].attributes.body
Google Earth Engine is a cloud-based geospatial analysis platform that combines a massive catalog of satellite imagery and environmental datasets with Google's computing infrastructure, allowing users to analyze Earth-scale data without needing their own high-performance computing resources. Researchers, educators, and organizations use it to monitor environmental change, map land use, assess natural disasters, study climate trends, and perform advanced remote sensing analyses using Python or JavaScript

Within higher education and research communities, Earth Engine is widely used for geospatial analysis and remote sensing because it provides access to large datasets, powerful processing capabilities, and APIs that support both local and global-scale studies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Google Earth Engine combines a multi-petabyte catalog of satellite imagery and geospatial datasets with planetary-scale analysis capabilities and makes it available for scientists, researchers, and developers to detect changes, map trends, and quantify differences on the Earth’s surface.

# data[].attributes.headline
ACE: The One Big Beautiful Bill Reaches Financial Aid Offices

# data[].attributes.subject
ACE: The One Big Beautiful Bill Reaches Financial Aid Offices

# data[].attributes.body
The presentation focused on major federal higher education policy developments, including congressional gridlock, proposed changes to federal grant administration, legal challenges affecting higher education, and recent court rulings impacting campus policies. The discussion then centered on the implementation of the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB), where financial aid leaders highlighted significant concerns about new student loan limits, program accountability requirements, regulatory uncertainty, and the operational challenges colleges face in supporting students through these changes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The One Big Beautiful Bill Reaches Financial Aid Offices

# data[].attributes.body
At ICML 2026, open AI models and infrastructure emerged as key drivers of research, with nearly 145 accepted papers citing NVIDIA Nemotron models and datasets as foundational tools for advances in areas such as robotics, life sciences, synthetic data, and AI agents. NVIDIA argues that open models, datasets, and training frameworks are increasingly serving as a complete research ecosystem, enabling universities, startups, and industry partners to accelerate innovation across AI and scientific discovery.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NVIDIA open models from Nemotron, Cosmos and BioNeMo are fueling the field’s biggest research questions at ICML 2026.

# data[].attributes.headline
Delays in federal research funding hit Texas universities

# data[].attributes.subject
Delays in federal research funding hit Texas universities

# data[].attributes.body
The dominant story across higher education research right now is the intersection of federal funding uncertainty, shrinking research budgets, and changes in federal grant oversight. These issues are influencing hiring, graduate education, institutional budgets, and long-term research planning nationwide.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Delays in federal research funding hit Texas universities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Institutions including MD Anderson, Texas A&M, Rice University and University of Houston are being impacted by delays at the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation.

# data[].attributes.headline
Hanover: Roundtable: Sustaining Research Growth in Today’s Funding Environment

# data[].attributes.subject
Hanover: Roundtable: Sustaining Research Growth in Today’s Funding Environment

# data[].attributes.body
Amid rapid changes in the federal funding landscape, institutions of higher education are confronting a host of new challenges as they strive to sustain and grow their grant portfolios.

In this roundtable discussion, we hear from grants experts and research leaders about the strategies they are deploying to keep their organizations on course.

Topics include efforts to diversify funding sources, respond to shifting priorities, strengthen institutional research capacity, and explore emerging opportunities in uncharted areas.​

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Roundtable: Sustaining Research Growth in Today’s Funding Environment ​

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Amid rapid changes in the federal funding landscape, institutions of higher education are confronting a host of new challenges as they strive to sustain

# data[].attributes.body
Across the sector, institutions are investing heavily in AI tools, AI literacy initiatives, and governance structures. Research universities are increasingly incorporating AI into research workflows while simultaneously addressing concerns around ethics, integrity, and policy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
US higher education sector is poised for reinvention amid enrollment decline, lower federal funding, AI advancement, and evolving regulations

# data[].attributes.headline
June Brings Deep Cuts at Several Universities

# data[].attributes.subject
June Brings Deep Cuts at Several Universities

# data[].attributes.body
Several universities are making deep cuts due in part to reduced federal research support. Johns Hopkins University is laying off approximately 110 employees as its federal research portfolio shrinks, while the University of Minnesota is eliminating about 230 positions as part of broader budget reductions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Inside Higher Ed | Higher Education News, Events and Jobs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
June Brings Deep Cuts at Several Universities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Two universities announced plans to cut more than 100 employees last month, while multiple others announced their own cost-cutting moves to shed jobs and programs.

# data[].attributes.headline
Education groups sue for access to nearly $2B in research funds

# data[].attributes.subject
Education groups sue for access to nearly $2B in research funds

# data[].attributes.body
Higher Ed Dive explores the changes to the list of professional degrees and highlights that some education degrees still were not included.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Education groups sue for access to nearly $2B in research funds

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A lawsuit alleges the U.S. Department of Education and the Office of Management and Budget are withholding the funds unlawfully.

# data[].attributes.body
Now available as free download: JASP 0.98 with optional AI support!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
JASP - Free and User-Friendly Statistical Software

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Introducing JASP 0.98: Fully Integrated AI Support - JASP - Free and User-Friendly Statistical Software

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We are proud to announce that JASP 0.98 has been released and is now available on our download page. The major innovation in JASP 0.98 is the (optional!) inclusion of fully integrated AI support. This support needs to be activated… Continue reading →

# data[].attributes.body
"Community resource for tracking, comparing, and understanding current U.S. federal funder research data sharing policies."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This is a community resource for tracking, comparing, and understanding U.S. federal funder data sharing policies. Click the icons below to select up to three agencies to view or compare. Click here to download the full data set. Email corrections and broken links to carly@sparcopen.org.

# data[].attributes.body
"OpenRefine is a powerful free, open source tool for working with messy data: cleaning it; transforming it from one format into another; and extending it with web services and external data."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
OpenRefine is a powerful free, open source tool for working with messy data: cleaning it; transforming it from one format into another; and extending it with web services and external data.
Download

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
OpenRefine is a powerful free, open source tool for working with messy data: cleaning it; transforming it from one format into another; and extending it with web services and external data. Download

# data[].attributes.body
Cornell Data Services provides exemplar website with data management reference materials on all aspects of research data management. (Also, check out their Storage Finder tool if your institution uses Drupal)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Do you have a potential digital mapping project but don’t know where to start? Are you interested in learning how to map data but can’t find time to do so? Please join this upcoming hybrid…

# data[].attributes.headline
2023 NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy

# data[].attributes.subject
2023 NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy

# data[].attributes.body
The NIH issued a Data Management and Sharing (DMS) policy, effective January 25, 2023, to promote the sharing of scientific data.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Data Management and Sharing (DMS) policy (external link)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
2023 NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy | NIH Office of Intramural Research

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The NIH has issued a Data Management and Sharing (DMS) policy (external link), effective January 25, 2023, to promote the sharing of scientific data. There are multiple benefits to sharing scientific data, and ultimately this will facilitate the development of treatments and products that improve human health.

# data[].attributes.body
"Handbook to reproducible, ethical and collaborative data science," created by the Turing Way project, which is open source, open collaboration, and community-driven.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Welcome to The Turing Way handbook to reproducible, ethical and collaborative data science.

# data[].attributes.body
Kristin Briney's online workbook "of exercises for researchers to improve their data management." Briney, K. (2023). The Research Data Management Workbook. Caltech Library. https://doi.org/10.7907/z6czh-7zx60

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Research Data Management Workbook is made up of a collection of exercises for researchers to improve their data management.

# data[].attributes.headline
New England Collaborative Data Management Curriculum

# data[].attributes.subject
New England Collaborative Data Management Curriculum

# data[].attributes.body
"NECDMC is an instructional tool for teaching data management best practices to undergraduates, graduate students, and researchers in the health sciences, sciences, and engineering disciplines." Includes seven online instructional modules.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
New England Collaborative Data Management Curriculum | Lamar Soutter Library - University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
New England Collaborative Data Management Curriculum About the New England Collaborative Data Management Curriculum The New England Collaborative Data Management Curriculum (NECDMC) project is led by the Lamar Soutter Library at the University of Massachusetts Medical School in partnership with several libraries in the New England region.

# data[].attributes.headline
ICPSR Guide to Social Science Data Preparation & Archiving

# data[].attributes.subject
ICPSR Guide to Social Science Data Preparation & Archiving

# data[].attributes.body
ICPSR's introductory guide to social science data "best practice throughout the data lifecycle".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Share & Manage Data: Introduction & Overview

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn the importance of data sharing, explore options for sharing your data, and discover the benefits of depositing with ICPSR. Find guidance on managing

# data[].attributes.body
The File Naming Formula Template is a worksheet that supports creating meaningful, consistent, and unique file names. File names can be made up of individual elements, separated by a spacing element (such as underscores or camelCase capitalization), to create a consistent file-naming format. The second page of the template is an example of a file-naming convention developed for a project. Once you fill out the template, print it out and put it in a prominent place in your workplace. If you work on collaborative files, appoint someone to hold your team accountable for their file-naming practices.

# data[].attributes.headline
New Course on Understanding and Communicating AI in Agriculture

# data[].attributes.subject
New Course on Understanding and Communicating AI in Agriculture

# data[].attributes.body
An Online Toolbox for Understanding and Communicating AI in Sustainable Agriculture

An 11-video lecture series designed for agricultural professionals

# data[].attributes.headline
NSF AI Virtual Organization Education Portal

# data[].attributes.subject
NSF AI Virtual Organization Education Portal

# data[].attributes.body
Your hub for AI learning—search, explore, and master the skills that matter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Access high-quality educational content and courses

# data[].attributes.headline
APA guide to navigating AI-generated advice thoughtfully and safely

# data[].attributes.subject
APA guide to navigating AI-generated advice thoughtfully and safely

# data[].attributes.body
People are increasingly turning to AI, including AI chatbots, for emotional support and answers to mental health questions. This guide offers evidence-based suggestions on appropriate or inappropriate uses of AI to address mental, emotional, and behavioral health issues.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
APA guide to navigating AI-generated advice thoughtfully and safely

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This guide offers evidence-based suggestions on appropriate or inappropriate uses of AI to address mental, emotional, and behavioral health issues.

# data[].attributes.body
*Must create free account to access

The findings highlight:
• How assessment strategies are evolving
• Where educators are adapting—or resisting—AI
• What this means for the future of teaching and learning
If you’re responsible for assessment, academic strategy, or teaching and learning innovation, this research offers practical insight into a rapidly shifting landscape.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Few areas of higher education have been as passionately debated as learning assessment in the age of AI. Since the debut and rapid adoption of readily

# data[].attributes.body
Nearly 86% of the 2.62 million students who entered college in fall 2024 returned for their second semester – and more than 77% returned the next fall – according to the latest Persistence and Retention report from the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center: https://lnkd.in/dWyw3Rc

The report also finds notable increases in the rate at which Black and Hispanic students who entered college in fall 2024 returned for the next fall, posting their highest rates in a decade for both remaining in college and returning to the same institution: https://lnkd.in/gbf6WVnT

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Persistence and Retention

Fall 2022 Beginning Postsecondary Student Cohort June 27, 2024

The Persistence and Retention report series examines first-year persistence and retention rates for beginning postsecondary students. The persistence rate is measured by the percentage of students who return to college at any institution for their second year, while the retention rate represents the percentage of students who return to the same institution. Students attaining a credential in their first year are accounted for in persistence and retention rates. The report is designed to help institutions understand trends and patterns in this important early success indicator, and identify disparities by institutional type, state, degree level, starting enrollment intensity, major field, and student demographic characteristics such as age, gender, and race and ethnicity. The report includes a data dashboard to enable viewers to analyze, visualize, and interact with the longitudinal data, which are also available for download.

Overview

The national persistence rate for students who started college in the fall of 2022 rose to 76.5 percent (+0.8 percentage points [pp] compared to the fall 2021 starting cohort), and the national retention rate was 68.2 percent (+1.0pp). This marks the second straight year of improved persistence and retention, with both rates higher than they have been at any point in the last decade.

All main institution sectors saw higher persistence and retention rates compared to the fall 2021 cohort except for private nonprofit 4-year institutions where rates slipped (-0.3pp for both persistence and retention).

Community colleges have seen the highest gains in retention rates over the last decade, with the retention rate for entering community college students rising 3.7pp from 51.3 percent for those who started in the fall 2013 term to 55.0 percent for fall 2022 starters.

Public 4-year institutions have also had large retention rate gains since 2013, with the retention rate for fall 2022 starters (78.0%) standing 3.1pp higher than the rate for fall 2013 starters (74.9%).

Both full-time and part-time starters in fall 2022 saw persistence rate gains of +0.9pp and retention rate gains of over 1pp compared to starters the previous fall. Full-time starters had a persistence rate of 82.9 percent and a retention rate of 74.5 percent. The comparable numbers for part-time starters were 52.3 percent and 45.7 percent, respectively.

Since 2018, public 4-year institutions have consistently surpassed their private nonprofit 4-year peers in retaining full-time students, with a 1.7 pp higher rate for the 2022 cohort (Public 4-year: 80.9%; Private non-profit 4-year: 79.2%). Prior to 2017, the pattern was reversed with private nonprofit 4-year institutions retaining more full-time starters.

States

Most states saw stable or positive growth in their persistence and retention rates. Students starting in North Carolina (78.8%, +3.4pp), Washington (72.9%, +3.0pp), and Multi-State/Primarily Online institutions (49.2%, +4.9pp) made particularly large gains in persistence.

Major Field

Persistence and retention rates increased for students pursuing bachelor's degrees in the top 10 most popular major fields, with Computer Science (persistence: 85.7%, +2.1pp; retention: 77.7%, +1.7pp) and Health (persistence: 87.9%, +1.1pp; retention: 77.1%, +1.4pp) reporting notable gains. Outside the top 10, bachelor's starters in Communications and Journalism saw more limited gains (persistence: 90.2%, +0.4pp; retention: 81.5%, +0.9pp), while both rates declined slightly for entering bachelor's students in Mathematics and Statistics (persistence: 91.9%, -0.4pp; retention: 84.6%, -0.3pp).

Starters in the top 10 most popular associate degree major fields also saw gains in persistence and retention except for those pursuing Psychology and Multi/Interdisciplinary studies, for whom both persistence and retention rates held steady compared to the fall 2021 cohort.

Among starters pursuing undergraduate certificate programs, trade-related programs in Mechanic and Repair Technologies (57.5%), Precision Production (60.0%), and Construction Trades (61.5%), along with Computer Science (57.7%) and Business (56.3%) certificates, have some of the highest persistence rates among the ten most popular fields of study.

Student Characteristics

Younger entering students continue to persist and be retained at much higher rates than older starters. The persistence rate among fall 2022 starters 20 years or younger was 80.9 percent and the retention rate was 71.9 percent. In comparison the retention and persistence rates for students 21 through 24 and 25 and older did not exceed 50 percent.

Institutions continue to retain Hispanic, Black and Native American students at rates significantly below the national rate (63.6%, 56.6%, and 52.8%, respectively, compared to 68.2% nationally). Moreover, there was more muted growth in retention rates for Hispanic and Native American entering students in fall 2022 compared to gains nationally. This represents a reversal of the pattern last year, when retention rate increases for these students outpaced growth in the national rate. Black college starters in fall 2022 saw the reverse with retention rate increases on par with national growth, compared to muted growth for the fall 2021 cohort.

Download the Data Appendix (xlsx) here. Scroll down to explore the data using the data dashboard.

Beginning Postsecondary Students Each Fall, 2013 to 2022

Navigate using the tabs at the top of the dashboard to see details for student characteristics, major fields, and states.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Persistence & Retention | National Student Clearinghouse Research Center

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Persistence and Retention Fall 2022 Beginning Postsecondary Student Cohort June 27, 2024 The Persistence and Retention report series examines first-year persistence and retention rates for beginning postsecondary students. The persistence rate is measured by the percentage of students who return to college at any institution for their second year, while the retention rate represents the percentage of students who return to the same institution.

# data[].attributes.headline
Survey of Federal Science and Engineering Support to Universities, Colleges, and Nonprofit Institutions

# data[].attributes.subject
Survey of Federal Science and Engineering Support to Universities, Colleges, and Nonprofit Institutions

# data[].attributes.body
Explore new NCSES data! Tables from the 2024 Survey of Federal Science and Engineering Support to Universities, Colleges, and Nonprofit Institutions are now available

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Survey of Federal Science and Engineering Support to Universities, Colleges, and Nonprofit Institutions 2024 | NCSES | NSF

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Survey of Federal Science and Engineering Support to Universities, Colleges, and Nonprofit Institutions

# data[].attributes.body
The Stanford HAI 2026 AI Index Report shows that AI capabilities are rapidly accelerating, with frontier models now matching or exceeding human performance in areas like advanced science, coding, and reasoning. At the same time, adoption has surged at an unprecedented pace, with generative AI reaching roughly half the population within just a few years and becoming widely embedded in organizations and education. However, the report highlights a growing gap between technological progress and society’s ability to manage it, including lagging governance, education, and evaluation systems. It also emphasizes emerging challenges such as environmental costs, shifting global competition (especially between the U.S. and China), and early signs of workforce disruption.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Your browser does not support the video tag.

# data[].attributes.headline
AI Forge: Critical AI Challenges for National Security Report

# data[].attributes.subject
AI Forge: Critical AI Challenges for National Security Report

# data[].attributes.body
The report outlines a DARPA‑led initiative to address critical gaps between commercial AI development and the unique demands of national security, where systems must be highly reliable, secure, and capable of operating in high‑stakes environments.
It establishes “AI Forge,” a collaborative program bringing together universities, industry, and government to pursue foundational research that is currently underexplored due to limited commercial incentives.
The report identifies key research priorities—especially AI interpretability, AI control, and adversarial robustness—as essential for safe, trustworthy deployment of advanced AI systems.
Overall, it serves as a roadmap to guide research investments and accelerate breakthroughs that make AI both more capable and more secure in mission‑critical contexts.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Future of the Education Department's Civil Rights Investigations

# data[].attributes.subject
The Future of the Education Department's Civil Rights Investigations

# data[].attributes.body
This presentation examines a proposed shift moving civil rights enforcement in education from the Department of Education to the Department of Justice, signaling a major structural change. It highlights a sharp decline in investigations and resolutions, with many complaints dismissed and key areas of discrimination largely unaddressed. The shift is expected to replace a collaborative resolution model with a more adversarial, litigation-driven approach while also reducing staffing capacity and increasing uncertainty. Overall, the changes may limit timely support for students and increase legal and operational challenges for institutions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Future of the Education Department's Civil Rights Investigations

# data[].attributes.headline
The surprising power of warmth in AI negotiations

# data[].attributes.subject
The surprising power of warmth in AI negotiations

# data[].attributes.body
Human traits like warmth are consistently associated with better outcomes for AI negotiators.

In an AI tournament, aggressive agents could sometimes secure strong terms when a deal was reached, but they were also more likely to drive the negotiation into an impasse.

AI-specific strategies like prompt injection and chain-of-thought reasoning can be highly effective in AI-AI negotiations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The surprising power of warmth in AI negotiations | MIT Sloan

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In MIT’s international AI Negotiation Competition, “warmer” agents achieved better outcomes in negotiations with other AI agents.

# data[].attributes.headline
Pathways to Enable Secure Open-Source Ecosystems (PESOSE) 

# data[].attributes.subject
Pathways to Enable Secure Open-Source Ecosystems (PESOSE) 

# data[].attributes.body
The Pathways to Enable Secure Open-Source Ecosystems (PESOSE) program supports the translation of open-source science and engineering-focused research products into safe and sustainable ecosystems that address national and societal challenges. These tools spark innovation in critical fields as varied as artificial intelligence (AI) and cloud computing, banking, healthcare, research, education, next-gen manufacturing, mobility, and National security (including cybersecurity).

This solicitation seeks three types of proposals, allowing teams to propose specific activities to: 1) scope and plan the establishment of an OSE, 2) establish and expand a sustainable OSE based on a robust, promising open-source product that meets an emergent societal or national need, and 3) improve the safety, security, and privacy of an existing OSE and its products.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pathways to Enable Secure Open-Source Ecosystems (PESOSE)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Supports planning, building and securing sustainable open-source ecosystems that translate research tools into widely used, resilient technologies. These efforts strengthen U.S. innovation, economic competitiveness and national security.

# data[].attributes.headline
OMB Proposes Major Changes to How the Federal Government Funds Scientific Research

# data[].attributes.subject
OMB Proposes Major Changes to How the Federal Government Funds Scientific Research

# data[].attributes.body
On May 29, the White House Office of Management and Budget published a proposal that would have far-reaching implications for how federal agencies administer research grants and how institutions, including colleges and universities, conduct federally funded research.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Association of American Universities (AAU)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
OMB Proposes Major Changes to How the Federal Government Funds Scientific Research | Association of American Universities (AAU)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The proposal, published on May 29, would have far-reaching implications for how federal agencies administer research grants and how institutions, including colleges and universities, conduct federally funded research.

# data[].attributes.body
Stanford's Digital Economy Lab launched AI Economic Indicators on June 10, 2026 — a free public platform tracking how AI is reshaping employment, productivity, and wages using ADP payroll data from millions of workers.

Early results from the Canaries Dashboard show the biggest employment impact falls on workers ages 22 to 25 in AI-exposed occupations: the two most-exposed job groups have seen measurable declines since ChatGPT launched in 2022, while the three least-exposed groups are growing.

The pattern largely disappears for workers over 30, suggesting AI is compressing entry-level opportunity more than displacing the broader workforce.

Early-career workers represent 7% of employment in the sample at baseline — a relatively small cohort whose declining prospects could hollow out the senior talent pipeline over time.

The platform's 12 macro indicators currently show no decisive evidence of AI-driven explosive economic growth, though researchers note this type of impact typically appears in lagging data

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An up-to-date monitor of AI's impact on our economy

Artificial intelligence is advancing faster than our ability to understand its economic consequences, and the pace of change is likely to accelerate as adoption spreads across sectors and new capabilities emerge. Yet we lack timely, trusted ways to measure how these changes are affecting work, productivity, and value creation in the economy. Decision-makers currently rely on limited evidence to plan for and react to AI's impacts-this expanding series is born out of an imperative to remedy that.

The AI Economic Indicators at the Stanford Digital Economy Lab is an expanding series of economic dashboards that connects policymakers, business executives, and individual workers to timely and reliable information on the economic impact of AI. We believe that a better understanding of the technology's effects will lead to better decisions.

Learn more about the project

Explore the dashboards

A collaboration between ADP Research and the Stanford Digital Economy Lab, we track employment across occupations and worker groups with different levels of AI exposure.

Macroeconomic signals associated with advances in AI capabilities and broader economic change.

Adoption trends for generative AI tools among individuals and firms across available surveys and datasets.

Cite the Indicators

Copy Citation Copied to clipboard

Stanford Digital Economy Lab. "AI Economic Indicators." Accessed [access date]. https://digitaleconomy.stanford.edu/project/indicators/

Copy BibTeX Copied to clipboard

@misc{stanford-indicators, author = {{Stanford Digital Economy Lab}}, title = {AI Economic Indicators}, year = {[access year]}, urldate = {[access-date]}, url = {https://digitaleconomy.stanford.edu/project/indicators/} }

The AI Economic Indicators is made possible through the generous support of Schmidt Sciences, the Siegel Family Endowment, and other individual donors.

For a complete list of DEL supporters, please visit our support page.

Cutting through noise and anecdote with up-to-date measurements of AI's impact

Contemporary discourse on the economic impact of AI often relies upon recent news and combining signals across disparate sources, many of which are not designed for this purpose. The Indicators gathers research by scholars from the Lab and other institutions in one location, providing a comprehensive picture of the economic impacts of AI. Additionally, the project regularly updates this work, presenting a collection of low-latency, rich indicators of labor market transition, growth effects, and more.

We combine and regularly update data from government statistical agencies, researchers, and private companies.

The Indicators is organized around five core questions:

1. Employment and wages: How does AI affect employment and wages across occupations and worker groups?

2. Aggregate economic outcomes: Are these effects reflected in broader measures like productivity and GDP?

3. Consumer surplus: Are the benefits of AI captured in traditional economic metrics, or are new measures needed?

4. Hiring and skills: How are worker skill requirements changing?

5. AI usage: How and to what extent is AI being used to complement or replace human labor?

Erik Brynjolfsson Jerry Yang and Akiko Yamazaki Professor

The AI Economic Indicators is designed to be an economic observatory for the AI era. Our aim is to turn scattered signals into a shared, evidence-based understanding of how AI is reshaping work, productivity, and prosperity.

Find the answers you're looking for

The Indicators Team

Dr. Nela Richardson is ADP's Chief Economist and ESG Officer. Nela is the head of the ADP Research Institute (ADPRI), where she leads economic research and provides reliable and timely analysis for the public, global and local businesses, and policymakers. Her background and expertise cross many industries, including finance, technology, housing and labor.

Andrew Wang is a research scientist at the Stanford Digital Economy Lab.

He is interested in technology, innovation, productivity, and the workforce. His prior work experience includes program evaluation and R&D project management in federal government at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and in public-private partnership programs for early-stage R&D, where he interacted with both start-ups and large corporate R&D centers.

Andrew received a BA in history and economics from the University of California, Berkeley, and a PhD in economics from Harvard University.

Read more

The AI Economic Indicators is shaped by our network of collaborators.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The AI Economic Indicators - Stanford Digital Economy Lab

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An up-to-date monitor of AI's impact on our economy Artificial intelligence is advancing faster than our ability to understand its economic consequences, and the pace of change is likely to accelerate as adoption spreads across sectors and new capabilities emerge.

# data[].attributes.headline
Americans and AI 2026: Chatbots, Smart Devices and Views on Impact

# data[].attributes.subject
Americans and AI 2026: Chatbots, Smart Devices and Views on Impact

# data[].attributes.body
About half of U.S. adults now use AI chatbots, up from roughly one-third in 2024, with a quarter using them daily, according to Pew's February 2026 survey of 5,119 adults.

Despite growing adoption, nearly 40% of respondents expect AI to make society worse over the next 20 years; only 16% believe it will make things better.

Adults under 30 are the heaviest AI users but among the most skeptical, with only 14% seeing a net positive societal payoff.

ChatGPT is used by 44% of U.S. adults — double its 2023 reach — with Gemini at 24% and Claude

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Jeffrey Gottfried and William Bishop and Monica Anderson and Michelle Faverio and Eugenie Park and Colleen McClain

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Americans and AI 2026: Chatbots, Smart Devices and Views on Impact

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
More Americans are using chatbots, and some are adopting AI summaries and smart speakers. But views about AI and how fast it’s advancing tilt negative – even for younger adults.

# data[].attributes.body
Join Hanover Experts on ‘The Grant Rant’ podcast, where they unveil the art and science of securing funding. Delve into captivating conversations with grants experts, uncovering strategies, stories, and insights that have powered over a billion dollars in achievements.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Hanover Podcasts Subscribe: Apple Podcasts Google Podcasts Spotify Stitcher The Grant Rant Join us on ‘The Grant Rant’ podcast, where we unveil the art

# data[].attributes.body
15 Research-Backed AI Prompts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
AI Prompts for Research Analysts - 15 Essential Prompts AI Prompts for Research Analysts 15 Essential Prompts Master Research Excellence with 15

# data[].attributes.body
Part 2: Advanced Prompts with the sophisticated techniques that create a competitive advantage

Strategic foresight and signal detection

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Advanced Research Collaboration, Academic Collaboration for research assistant

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Table of Contents | AI Prompts for Research Analysts - Part 2: Advanced Skills Table of Contents Introduction: Building On the Essentials Chapter 1: Collaboration &038; ResearchCollab

# data[].attributes.headline
An Analysis of Artificial Intelligence Adoption in NIH-Funded Research

# data[].attributes.subject
An Analysis of Artificial Intelligence Adoption in NIH-Funded Research

# data[].attributes.body
AI accounts for 15.9% of NIH-funded research, mainly in discovery, prediction, and data integration, with a 13.4% funding premium.Most projects remain in research stages, with only 14.7% in clinical deployment.Underrepresented areas include health disparities at 5.7%.Collaboration networks are uneven, centered on key institutions, and LLMs reveal hidden research domains, highlighting gaps in translation and infrastructure for health equity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
An Analysis of Artificial Intelligence Adoption in NIH-Funded Research

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Understanding the landscape of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) adoption across the National Institutes of Health (NIH) portfolio is critical for research funding strategy, institutional planning, and health policy. The advent of large language models (LLMs) has fundamentally transformed research landscape analysis, enabling researchers to perform large-scale semantic extraction from thousands of unstructured research documents. In this paper, we illustrate a human-in-the-loop research methodology for LLMs to automatically classify and summarize research descriptions at scale. Using our methodology, we present a comprehensive analysis of 58,746 NIH-funded biomedical research projects from 2025. We show that: (1) AI constitutes 15.9% of the NIH portfolio with a 13.4% funding premium, concentrated in discovery, prediction, and data integration across disease domains; (2) a critical research-to-deployment gap exists, with 79% of AI projects remaining in research/development stages while only 14.7% engage in clinical deployment or implementation; and (3) health disparities research is severely underrepresented at just 5.7% of AI-funded work despite its importance to NIH’s equity mission. These findings establish a framework for evidence-based policy interventions to align the NIH AI portfolio with health equity goals and strategic research priorities.

# data[].attributes.body
The AI Index offers one of the most comprehensive, data-driven views of artificial intelligence. Recognized as a trusted resource by global media, governments, and leading companies, the AI Index equips policymakers, business leaders, and the public with rigorous, objective insights into AI’s technical progress, economic influence, and societal impact.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Your browser does not support the video tag.

# data[].attributes.body
Hallucination Detector

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The World’s #1 AI Content Detector with over 8 Million Users

# data[].attributes.body
Grants.gov has published a Quick Start Guide for Applicants to help you register and apply for grants using Grants.gov. Our helpful guide covers registering with SAM, creating workspaces, submitting your application, and more!

Grantors can share this Quick Start Guide with prospective applicants through their NOFOs to help streamline the application process.

# data[].attributes.headline
The next innovation revolution—powered by AI

# data[].attributes.subject
The next innovation revolution—powered by AI

# data[].attributes.body
AI is poised to launch a new wave of innovation by reversing declining R&D productivity—accelerating idea generation, testing, and processes—potentially doubling innovation speed and unlocking significant economic value, but only if organizations rethink how they integrate AI with people, processes, and strategy.

# data[].attributes.headline
Are Liberal Arts Colleges Winning in the AI Era?

# data[].attributes.subject
Are Liberal Arts Colleges Winning in the AI Era?

# data[].attributes.body
The liberal arts are having a moment these days. As AI tools are automating knowledge work, there’s a growing sense that the best way to get a job now is to have skills that robots are still terrible at — like leading teams and communicating with other humans. Leaders of AI projects at Carleton College argue that liberal arts colleges are also ideally suited to adapt to AI. Jeff visited Carleton to test that theory, and found two faculty groups with very different views on AI.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Are Liberal Arts Colleges Winning in the AI Era? | Learning Curve

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The liberal arts are having a moment these days. As AI tools are automating knowledge work, there’s a growing sense that the best way to get a job now is to have skills that robots are still terrible at — like leading teams and communicating with other humans. Leaders of AI projects at Carleton College argue that liberal arts colleges are also ideally suited to adapt to AI. Jeff visited Carleton to test that theory, and found two faculty groups with very different views on AI.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Education Department Is Reportedly Going on a Hiring Spree

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Chronicle is tracking executive orders, statements from Trump, and agency actions that affect higher education, plus legal challenges directed at those measures. Here’s the latest.

# data[].attributes.headline
De-identification Guidelines for Structured Data

# data[].attributes.subject
De-identification Guidelines for Structured Data

# data[].attributes.body
The IPC has updated and expanded its de-identification guidelines for structured data. This update of the IPC’s globally recognized guidelines, originally released in 2016, provides practical steps to help organizations maximize the benefits of data while protecting privacy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
De-identification Guidelines for Structured Data

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The IPC has updated and expanded its de-identification guidelines for structured data. This update of the IPC’s globally recognized guidelines, originally released in 2016, provides practical steps to help organizations maximize the benefits of data while protecting privacy.

# data[].attributes.body
The National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) is the principal means within the Executive Branch to coordinate science and technology (S&T) policy across the diverse entities that make up the Federal research and development enterprise.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) is the principal means within the Executive Branch to coordinate science and technology (S&T) policy across the diverse entities that make up the Federal research and development enterprise. The NSTC convenes Federal S&T leaders and establishes clear national goals for science and technology policy and investment. The Council prepares research and development strategies that are coordinated across Federal agencies aimed at accomplishing multiple national goals.

The work of the NSTC is organized under six primary committees: S&T Enterprise, Environment, Homeland and National Security, Science, STEM Education, and Technology. It also includes two special committees: The Select Committee on AI and the Joint Committee on Research Environments. Each of these committees oversees subcommittees and working groups focused on different aspects of science and technology and working to coordinate across the federal government.

This Cabinet-level Council is chaired by the President, the membership of the NSTC is made up of the Vice President, Cabinet Secretaries and Agency Heads with significant science and technology responsibilities, and other White House officials. In practice, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) oversees the NSTC's ongoing activities. The NSTC was established by Executive Order on November 23, 1993.

To view NSTC documents and reports, click here.

For additional information concerning the work of the National Science and Technology Council please send an e-mail to: nstc@ostp.eop.gov.

NSTC Organization and Membership

The work of the NSTC is organized under six primary committees: S&T Enterprise, Environment, Homeland and National Security, Science, STEM Education, and Technology. It also includes two special committees: The Joint Committee on Research Environments and the Select Committee on AI. Each of these committees oversees subcommittees and working groups focused on different aspects of science and technology and working to coordinate across the federal government.

Committee on S&T Enterprise

Co-Chairs: Kelvin Droegemeier, Director of OSTP, Walt Copan, Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and Director of the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST), Director of the National Science Foundation (NSF), and Paul Dabbar, Under Secretary for Science at the Department of Energy (DOE). Subcommittees and Interagency Working Groups
The Committee on S&T Enterprise was formed in response to the charge of the OMB-OSTP FY 2019 R&D Budget Priorities memo to increase efficiency across Federal R&D efforts. Current focus areas include expanding technology transfer, strengthening contributions of Federal scientific collections to priority areas of national interest like infectious diseases, biosecurity, and food security, and coordinating policies and strategy around R&D infrastructure investments to support our national innovation base.

Lab-to-Market Subcommittee

R&D Infrastructure (RDI) Subcommittee

IWG on Scientific Collection (IWGSC)

Networking IT R&D (NITRD) Subcommittee*

International S&T* Coordination (ISTC) Subcommittee

Partnerships Fast Track Action Committee

Co-Chairs: Deerin Babb-Brott, OSTP, Neil Jacobs, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Environmental Observation and Prediction at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Assistant Administrator for Water, David Ross (EPA), and Tim Petty, Assistant Secretary for Water and Science at the Department of Interior (DOI).
Committee on Environment

Subcommittees and Interagency Working Groups
The Committee on Environment coordinates interagency work related to polar research, earth observations, ocean sciences, and other areas. Current focus areas include improving ocean mapping, coordinating R&D on harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, developing a national aquaculture strategy, and coordinating research operations and activities for civil earth observations.

Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee* (IARPC)

Aquaculture Subcommittee*

U.S. Group on Earth Observations (USGEO ) Subcommittee

Subcommittee on Global Change Research (SGCR)

Earth System Predictability Fast Track Action Committee

Subcommittee on Ocean Science S&T (SOST)

Harmful Algal Blooms & Hypoxia IWG*

Ocean Acidification IWG*

Ocean Observations IWG*

Ocean and Coastal Mapping IWG*

Co-Chairs: Aaron Miles, OSTP, Jih-Fen Lei, Director of Defense Research and Engineering for Research and Technology at the Department of Defense, and Bill Bryan, Undersecretary for Science and Technology at the Department of Homeland Security.
Committee on Homeland and National Security

Subcommittees and Interagency Working Groups
The Committee on Homeland and National Security coordinates interagency work related to biological and nuclear R&D defense, critical infrastructure security and resilience, cybersecurity, and other areas. Current focus areas include supporting implementation of the Critical Minerals strategy in response to EO 13817 on critical mineral supply chains, coordinating priorities/processes related to Earth-impacting NEOs, divestment and utilization of astronomical sensors/systems, and safety of space operations, and R&D to support U.S. resilience against natural and technology hazards.

Biodefense R&D (BDRD) Subcommittee

Nuclear Defense R&D Subcommittee (NDRD)

Special Cybersecurity Operations Research and Engineering (SCORE) Subcommittee

Subcommittee on Resilience S&T (SRST)

Critical Minerals Subcommittee

Economic Security Implications on Quantum (ESIX) Subcommittee

Space Weather, Security, and Hazards Subcommittee (SWSH)

Space Weather, Operations, Research, and Mitigation (SWORM) IWG

Co-Chairs: Kelvin Droegemeier, OSTP, Director, NSF, and Francis Collins, Director of the National Institutes of Health. Subcommittees and Interagency Working Groups
Committee on Science

The Committee on Science coordinates interagency work related to biological sciences, quantum information science, and physical sciences. Current focus areas include; coordinating high energy physics and fusion energy science research; cultivating a better understanding of low-dose radiation biology; ensuring that the results of federally funded research are accessible to the public, industry, and scientific community in a useful form; and advancing quantum information science.
Co-Chairs: Kelvin Droegemeier, OSTP, Director, NSF, and Jim Bridenstine, Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Subcommittees and Interagency Working Groups

Subcommittee on Open Science (SOS)

Physical Sciences Subcommittee* (PSSC)

Biological Sciences Subcommittee (BSSC)

Quantum Information Science (QIS) Subcommittee*

Committee on STEM Education

Co-Chairs: Michael Kratsios, U.S. Chief Technology Officer, Walt Copan, NIST, and Paul Dabbar, DOE.
The Committee on STEM Education (CoSTEM) coordinates interagency investments in STEM education and develops the strategic plan that sets national goals for STEM education efforts across the Federal Government. Current focus areas include expanding public-private partnerships, work-based learning, and the skilled technical workforce, and increase equity in STEM for underrepresented and underserved groups.
Subcommittees and Interagency Working Groups

Federal Coordination in STEM Education (FC-STEM) Subcommittee*

Strategic Partnerships IWG

Computational Literacy IWG

Convergence IWG

Inclusion in STEM IWG*

Transparency and Accountability IWG

Committee on Technology

The Committee on Technology coordinates interagency work related to advanced manufacturing and materials, artificial intelligence (AI), and nanotechnology. Current focus areas include, managing Federal AI research, advancing U.S. leadership in nanotechnology, and expanding the advanced manufacturing domestic supply chain.
Co-Chairs: Michael Kratsios, U.S. CTO, Director, NSF, and Peter Highnam, Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

Subcommittee on Advanced Manufacturing*(SAM)

Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee*

Machine Learning and AI (MLAI) Subcommittee

Materials Genome Initiative (MGI) Subcommittee

Special Committees
Co-Chairs: Kelvin Droegemeier, OSTP, Director, NSF, Paul Dabbar, DOE, Walt Copan, NIST, and Francis Collins, NIH.
Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence
Subcommittees
The Select Committee on AI, created in June 2018, advises The White House on interagency AI R&D priorities and improving the coordination of Federal AI efforts to ensure continued U.S. leadership in this field. Members focus on policies to prioritize and promote AI R&D, leverage Federal data and computing resources for the AI community, and train the AI-ready workforce.

Joint Committee on Research Environment

As designated by the President, the Director of The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy serves as chair of the NSTC and provides leadership across the council and the interagency. NSTC Cabinet and Agency membership includes:
Launched in May 2019, the Joint Committee on Research Environments (JCORE) brings together the NSTC Committee on Science and the Committee on S&T Enterprise to coordinate interagency work related to improving the safety, integrity, and productivity of research settings.
*asterisk indicates congressional mandate.

Coordinating Administrative Requirements for Research (CARR) Subcommittee

Rigor and Integrity in Research Subcommittee

Research Security Subcommittee

Safe and Inclusive Research Environments Subcommittee

NSTC Membership

Department of Agriculture

DARPA

Department of Commerce, NIST

Department of Commerce, NOAA

Department of Commerce, U.S. Patent and Trade Office

Department of Defense

Department of Education

Department of Health and Human Services, NIH

Department of Homeland Security

Department of the Interior

Department of Labor

Department of State

Department of Transportation

Environmental Protection Agency

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

National Security Agency

National Science Foundation

NASA

Director of National Intelligence, Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity

Office of Management and Budget

Smithsonian Institute

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) is the principal means within the Executive Branch to coordinate science and technology (S&T) policy across the diverse entities that make up the Federal research and development enterprise. The NSTC convenes Federal S&T leaders and establishes clear national goals for science and technology policy and investment.

# data[].attributes.headline
National Institute of Food and Agriculture USDA

# data[].attributes.subject
National Institute of Food and Agriculture USDA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
National Institute of Food and Agriculture

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The AI activities supported through a variety of NIFA programs advance the ability of computer systems to perform tasks that have traditionally required human intelligence, including machine learning, and data visualization.

# data[].attributes.body
America is in a race to achieve global dominance in artificial intelligence (AI). Winning this race will usher in a new era of human flourishing, economic competitiveness, and national security for the American people. Recognizing this, President Trump directed the creation of an AI Action Plan in the early days of his second term in office. Based on the three pillars of accelerating innovation, building AI infrastructure, and leading in international diplomacy and security, this Action Plan is America’s roadmap to win the race.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explore President Trump's AI Action Plan, America's roadmap to win the AI race focused on Three Pillars: Accelerating Innovation, Building AI Infrastructure, and Leading in International diplomacy and Security.

# data[].attributes.body
NASA’s Management of Its Artificial Intelligence Capabilities

# data[].attributes.body
Artificial Intelligence Compliance Plan

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
AI brings enormous potential for the nation’s economic prosperity and national security.

# data[].attributes.body
Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Teaching and Learning Insights and Recommendations

# data[].attributes.body
NSF Publication 25-517

The Life and Environments Through Time (LET) program supports research that advances knowledge about the patterns and processes relating to the origin and evolution of Earth’s climate, environments, life, and sedimentary record. This research takes place at the molecular, local, regional, and global scales from the Archean Eon through the Holocene epoch

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Life and Environments Through Time (LET)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
U.S. National Science Foundation Directorate for Geosciences Division of Earth Sciences

# data[].attributes.headline
NSF Computational and Data-Enabled Science and Engineering

# data[].attributes.subject
NSF Computational and Data-Enabled Science and Engineering

# data[].attributes.body
Funding Opportunity Number:  PD-24-8084

Full Proposal Deadline:  Proposals accepted anytime

Summary:  The goal of the NSF Computational and Data-enabled Science and Engineering (CDS&E) meta-program is to identify and capitalize on opportunities for major scientific and engineering breakthroughs through new computational and data-analysis approaches and best practices. The CDS&E meta-program supports projects that harness computation and data to advance knowledge and accelerate discovery above and beyond the goals of the participating individual programs. The intellectual drivers may be in an individual discipline or cut across more than one discipline in various Divisions and Directorates. A CDS&E proposal should enable and/or utilize the development and adaptation of advances in research and infrastructure in computational and data science.

# data[].attributes.body
Funding Opportunity Number:  PD-19-058Y

Full Proposal Deadline:  Proposals accepted anytime

Summary:  The Mind, Machine and Motor Nexus (M3X) Program supports fundamental research that explores embodied reasoning as mediated by bidirectional sensorimotor interaction between human and synthetic actors. For the purposes of this program, embodiment is defined as the capacity to interact with physics-based environments. Interaction between human and synthetic actors is expanding in scale and scope across numerous fields and endeavors. Among these are areas where safety and performance are paramount, but also where ingenuity and risk-taking are essential to success. The M3X Program seeks to spur innovative and path-breaking work that can improve understanding of interaction between human and synthetic actors in a broad range of settings, while also exploring implications for the advancement of fundamental theory, foundational technologies, and meaningful applications. Successful submissions to the M3X program will therefore advance knowledge by exploring the convergence of human and synthetic actors’ capabilities and actions during the performance of tasks situated within physics-based environments.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explore federal grant opportunities with our enhanced, user-friendly search.

# data[].attributes.headline
NSF Research Infrastructure in the Social and Behavioral Sciences

# data[].attributes.subject
NSF Research Infrastructure in the Social and Behavioral Sciences

# data[].attributes.body
Funding Opportunity Number:  PD 23-277Y

Full Proposal Deadline:  Accepted anytime

Summary:  The Research Infrastructure in the Social and Behavioral Sciences Program (RISBS) supports projects that create computational tools and data to facilitate basic research in the social and behavioral sciences that can lead to improved health, prosperity and security. Projects should be aimed at creating computational tools and data to enable research by social scientists. Examples include, but are not limited to, data collection or assembly efforts that result in new resources for a community of researchers or software platforms that facilitate data collection efforts by others. RISBS does not support research by PIs except in service of creation of the infrastructure. Innovation is especially encouraged.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Research Infrastructure in the Social and Behavioral Sciences (RISBS)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NSF Financial Assistance awards (grants and cooperative agreements) made on or after October 1, 2024, will be subject to the applicable set of award conditions, dated October 1, 2024, available on the NSF website. These terms and conditions are consistent with the revised guidance specified in the OMB Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance published in the Federal Register on April 22, 2024.

# data[].attributes.headline
NSF Mathematical and Physical Sciences Ascending Faculty Catalyst Awards

# data[].attributes.subject
NSF Mathematical and Physical Sciences Ascending Faculty Catalyst Awards

# data[].attributes.body
Funding Opportunity Number:  23-628

Full Proposal Deadline:  Proposals accepted anytime

Summary:  The purpose of the Mathematical and Physical Sciences Ascending Faculty Catalyst Awards (MPS-Ascend Faculty Catalyst Awards, MPS-AFCA) is to support successful MPS-Ascending Postdoctoral Research Fellows (MPS- Ascend Fellows) as they transition into tenure track (or equivalent) faculty positions at Institutions of Higher Education (IHE) in any scientific area within the purview of the five MPS Divisions. The program is intended to support these investigators of significant potential by providing them with resources for research and broadening participation activities that are in addition to initial resources typically provided through institutional start-up packages. This support is strategically designed to enable their continued scientific contributions and their exemplary leadership in the area of broadening participation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mathematical and Physical Sciences Ascending Faculty Catalyst Awards (MPS-AFCA)

# data[].attributes.headline
NSF Research in the Formation of Engineers

# data[].attributes.subject
NSF Research in the Formation of Engineers

# data[].attributes.body
Funding Opportunity Number:  PD-24-1340

Full Proposal Deadline:  Full proposal accepted anytime

Summary:  The goal of the Research in the Formation of Engineers (RFE) program is to advance our understanding of professional formation. It seeks both to deepen our fundamental understanding of the underlying processes and mechanisms that support professional formation and to demonstrate how professional formation is or can be accomplished. Ultimately RFE aims to transform the engineer-formation system, and thus the impact of proposed projects on this system must be described. Principal Investigators (PIs) should provide a roadmap detailing how they envision the proposed research will eventually broadly impact practice within the engineer-formation system, even if these activities are not within the scope of the submitted proposal. In order to accomplish its goals, RFE welcomes proposals in two categories: • Research Projects that address fundamental questions of professional formation , and • Design and Development Projects that provide new approaches to achieving professional formation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The NSF Engineering Directorate (ENG) has launched a multi-year initiative, the Professional Formation of Engineers, to create and support an innovative and inclusive engineering profession for the 21 st century. Professional Formation of Engineers (PFE) refers to the formal and informal processes and value systems by which people become engineers. It also includes the ethical responsibility of practicing engineers to sustain and grow the profession in order to improve quality of life for all peoples. The engineering profession must be responsive to national priorities, grand challenges, and dynamic workforce needs; it must be equally open and accessible to all.

Professional Formation of Engineers includes, but is not limited, to:

Introductions to the profession at any age;

Development of deep technical and professional skills, knowledge, and abilities in both formal and informal settings/domains;

Development of outlooks, perspectives, ways of thinking, knowing, and doing;

Development of identity as an engineer and its intersection with other identities; and

Acculturation to the profession, its standards, and norms.

The goal of the Research in the Formation of Engineers (RFE) program is to advance our understanding of professional formation. It seeks both to deepen our fundamental understanding of the underlying processes and mechanisms that support professional formation and to demonstrate how professional formation is or can be accomplished. Ultimately RFE aims to transform the engineer-formation system, and thus the impact of proposed projects on this system must be described. Principal Investigators (PIs) should provide a roadmap detailing how they envision the proposed research will eventually broadly impact practice within the engineer-formation system, even if these activities are not within the scope of the submitted proposal.

In order to accomplish its goals, RFE welcomes proposals in two categories: Research Projects, and Design and Development Projects. Research Projects address fundamental questions of professional formation, while Design and Development Projects provide new approaches to achieving professional formation. Additional details are provided below. Projects in both categories should address the iterative cycle in which research questions that advance understanding are informed by practice and the results of research are, in turn, translated into practice. In other words, proposals should explain how the research results will travel, translate, transfer, or scale. Successful projects identify specific target audiences, effective communication channels, and novel partnerships to ensure effective propagation and scaling. Proposal titles should begin with either "Research:" or "Design and Development:" as appropriate.
Research Projects
Research proposals are particularly welcome in the following areas:

Research that addresses lifelong learning by the engineering workforce.

Research on the impact of engineering education research. Proposals addressing this topic could investigate questions such as: How can we measure the impacts of engineering education research? What are effective strategies for scaling reforms? How can we translate knowledge from research to practice? What are the roles of technologies, networks and communities in achieving impact? RFE does not support efficacy, effectiveness, or scale-up studies for specific interventions.

Research that addresses culture change in engineering education. Included in this topic are investigations of normative cultures of engineering at any level in the engineering education ecosystem and how these cultures may disadvantage certain groups.

Research that addresses engineering formation at the two-year college level in both formal and informal settings.

Research that addresses engineering formation at the graduate education level in both formal and informal settings.

Research that investigates engineering in P-12 settings. Research in this area could include understanding of approaches to engineering in P-12, how to develop engineering ways of thinking, or the relationship between practices within the sciences and mathematics and engineering thinking.

Research on the transitions between education levels, e.g., from high school to two-year college, high school to four-year college/university, two-year college to four-year college/university, undergraduate to graduate school, education settings to the workforce or professoriate, etc.

Research that addresses the relationship between engineering and the public. Proposals addressing this topic could consider the social impact of engineering solutions, citizen engineering, education of an informed public, etc.

Research that develops or adapts novel methodologies and frameworks appropriate for studying the professional formation of engineers, and especially minoritized, marginalized, or underserved populations.

Research that addresses ways in which new technologies (such as artificial intelligence and machine learning) are changing engineering education.

Research to transform engineering education so that all students encounter environmental and social sustainability principles as an integrated part of their education and are equipped with the tools needed to incorporate these principles into their future research, careers, and innovations.

Proposals submitted to the Research Projects category should have clear research questions informed by an appropriate theoretical framework and a research design that includes sampling, data collection, and data analysis methods. This category will not support proposals that seek funding primarily to develop tools, curriculum, or laboratories, or that seek to implement classroom innovations that have already been shown to be effective in engineering. The program will evaluate the value of proposals by considering the impact and the cost. Research track projects that are small, exploratory, or speculative are especially encouraged. Larger Research track projects should have a correspondingly larger impact.
Design and Development Projects
RFE supports Design and Development projects (see https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf13126) that seek to develop and test new approaches in the following areas related to engineering education:

Graduate education.

Undergraduate education in new engineering technologies and environmental sustainability.

Transitions between education levels, for example high school to two-year college, high school to four-year college/university, two-year college to four-year college/university, undergraduate to graduate school, education settings to the workforce or professoriate, etc.

P-12, especially approaches to develop engineering thinking, or providing links between engineering, science, and mathematics.

Proposals in this category should propose the design and development of new approaches that are informed by existing literature and theory. There should be clear objectives and the evaluation plan should be designed to determine if those objectives have been met. Projects cannot be solely demonstration projects but must add to the engineering education literature to inform future work.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Research in the Formation of Engineers (RFE)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The NSF Engineering Directorate (ENG) has launched a multi-year initiative, the Professional Formation of Engineers, to create and support an innovative and inclusive engineering profession for the 21 st century. Professional Formation of Engineers (PFE) refers to the formal and informal processes and value systems by which people become engineers.

# data[].attributes.headline
NSF Division of Materials Research: Topical Materials Research Programs

# data[].attributes.subject
NSF Division of Materials Research: Topical Materials Research Programs

# data[].attributes.body
Funding Opportunity Number:  23-612

Full Proposal Deadline:  Proposals accepted anytime

Summary:  This solicitation applies to the following DMR Topical Materials Research Programs: Biomaterials (BMAT),

Ceramics (CER), Condensed Matter Physics (CMP), Electronic and Photonic Materials (EPM), Metals and Metallic

Nanostructures (MMN), Polymers (POL), and Solid State and Materials Chemistry (SSMC). Research supported by the Division of Materials Research (DMR) focuses on advancing the fundamental understanding of materials, materials discovery, design, synthesis, characterization, properties, and materials-related phenomena. DMR awards enable understanding of the electronic, atomic, and molecular structures, mechanisms, and processes that govern nanoscale to macroscale morphology and properties; manipulation and control of these properties; discovery of emerging phenomena of matter and materials; and creation of novel design, synthesis, and processing strategies that lead to new materials with unique characteristics. These discoveries and advancements transcend traditional scientific and engineering disciplines. Projects supported by DMR are not only essential for the development of future technologies and industries that address societal needs, but also for the preparation of the next generation of materials researchers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Division of Materials Research: Topical Materials Research Programs (DMR:TMRP)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
National Science Foundation Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences Division of Materials Research

# data[].attributes.headline
NSF Condensed Matter and Materials Theory

# data[].attributes.subject
NSF Condensed Matter and Materials Theory

# data[].attributes.body
Funding Opportunity Number:  23-611

Full Proposal Deadline:  Proposals accepted anytime

Summary:  This solicitation applies only to the Condensed Matter and Materials Theory DMR Topical Materials Research Program (TMRP). The CMMT program supports fundamental research that advances conceptual understanding of hard and soft materials, and materials-related phenomena; the development of associated analytical, computational, and data-centric techniques; and predictive materials-specific theory, simulation, and modeling for materials research. Firstprinciples electronic structure, quantum many-body and field theories, statistical mechanics, classical and quantum Monte Carlo, and molecular dynamics, are among the methods used in the broad spectrum of research supported in CMMT. Research may encompass the advance of new paradigms in materials research, including emerging data-centric approaches utilizing data-analytics or machine learning. Computational efforts span from the level of workstations to advanced and high-performance scientific computing. Emphasis is on approaches that begin at the smallest appropriate length scale, such as electronic, atomic, molecular, nano-, micro-, and mesoscale, required to yield fundamental insight into material properties, processes, and behavior, to predict new materials and states of matter, and to reveal new materials phenomena.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Division of Materials Research: Condensed Matter and Materials Theory (DMR:CMMT)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
National Science Foundation Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences Division of Materials Research

# data[].attributes.body
Funding Opportunity Number:  PD-23-5345

Full Proposal Deadline:  Proposals accepted anytime

Summary:  The goal of the Engineering of Biomedical Systems program is to provide opportunities for fundamental and transformative research projects that integrate engineering and life sciences to solve biomedical problems and serve humanity in the long term.  Projects are expected to use an engineering framework (for example, design or modeling) that supports increased understanding of physiological or pathophysiological processes. Projects must include objectives that advance both engineering and biomedical sciences.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Engineering of Biomedical Systems program is part of the Engineering Biology and Health cluster, which also includes: 1) the Biophotonics program; 2) the Biosensing program; 3) the Cellular and Biochemical Engineering program; and 4) the Disability and Rehabilitation Engineering program.

The goal of the Engineering of Biomedical Systems (EBMS) program is to provide opportunities for fundamental and transformative research projects that integrate engineering and life sciences to solve biomedical problems and serve humanity in the long term. Projects are expected to use an engineering framework (for example, design or modeling) that supports increased understanding of physiological or pathophysiological processes. Projects must include objectives that advance both engineering and biomedical sciences.

Projects may include: methods, models, and enabling tools applied to understand or control living systems; fundamental improvements in deriving information from cells, tissues, organs, and organ systems; or new approaches to the design of systems that include both living and non-living components for eventual medical use in the long term.

The EBMS program supports fundamental and transformative research in the following areas of biomedical engineering:

Development of validated models (living or computational) of healthy and pathological tissues and organ systems that can support improved fundamental understanding of these systems or that could be applied in the future for development and testing of medical interventions;

Design and validation of systems that integrate living and non-living components for improved understanding of physiology that could be applied in the future for diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment of disease or injury;

Design and subsequent application of technologies and tools to investigate fundamental physiological and pathophysiological processes;

Advanced biomanufacturing of three-dimensional tissues and organs; and

Application of engineering tools and principles, including mathematical modeling, to quantitatively study the immune system in health and disease and to develop techniques for controlling and modulating a host's immune response to challenges such as infectious diseases, cancer, implants, autoimmune disorders, wounds, etc.

The long-term impact of the projects can be related to effective disease diagnosis and/or treatment, or improved health care delivery. However, immediate goals should focus on improved fundamental understanding of cell and tissue function in normal or pathological conditions and advancing biomedical engineering.

Innovative proposals outside of these specific areas of biomedical engineering may be considered. However, prior to submission, it is strongly recommended that the PIs contact the program director to avoid the possibility of the proposal being returned without review. Related programs also fund biomedical engineering research, and PIs are encouraged to examine these to find the appropriate program for submission.

The EBMS program does not support proposals having as their central theme drug design and delivery, the development of biomedical devices that do not include a living biological component, or the development of animal models of disease. For consideration by the EBMS program, proposals that advance the design of tools or technologies should also apply those technologies to advance knowledge in biomedical science. NSF does not support clinical trials; however, feasibility studies involving human volunteers may be supported if appropriate to the project objectives.

Projects with a central focus on design or optimization of a device, material, algorithm, or process alone without exploring new fundamental biomedical science are not appropriate for the EBMS program. Furthermore, although research on biomaterials, cellular biomechanics, manufacturing systems, or algorithm/device design may constitute a part of the proposed studies, such research can be more appropriately targeted to other NSF programs:

Projects that aim to improve protein engineering or cellular biomanufacturing - either manufacturing cells or cell-derived products - should consider the Cellular and Biochemical Engineering (CBE) program.

Projects that focus on the development and application of microphysiological systems that model functional recovery related to a specific human disability or injury mechanism should consider the Disability and Rehabilitation Engineering (DARE) program.

Biomaterials-focused projects should consider the Biomaterials (BMAT) program in the Division of Materials Research (DMR).

Cellular and tissue biomechanics projects should consider the Biomechanics and Mechanobiology (BMMB) program in the Division of Civil, Mechanical, and Manufacturing Innovation (CMMI).

Manufacturing systems proposals should consider the Advanced Manufacturing (AM) program in the Division of Civil, Mechanical, and Manufacturing Innovation (CMMI).

Innovative research on signal processing techniques or dynamic biosensing systems should consider the Communications, Circuits, and Sensing-Systems (CCSS) program in the Division of Electrical, Communications and Cyber Systems (ECCS).

Innovative research on novel devices based on the principles of electronics, optics and photonics, optoelectronics, magnetics, opto- and electromechanics, electromagnetics, and related physical phenomena, also including material-device interaction, should consider the Electronics, Photonics and Magnetic Devices (EPMD) Program in the Division of Electrical, Communications and Cyber Systems (ECCS).

INFORMATION COMMON TO MOST CBET PROGRAMS
Proposals should address the novelty and/or potentially transformative nature of the proposed work compared to previous work in the field. Also, it is important to address why the proposed work is important in terms of engineering science, as well as to also project the potential impact of success in the research on society and/or industry. The novelty or potentially transformative nature of the research should be included, as a minimum, in the Project Summary of each proposal.

The duration of unsolicited proposal awards in CBET is generally up to three years. Single-investigator award budgets typically include support for one graduate student (or equivalent) and up to one month of PI time per year (awards for multiple investigator projects are typically larger). Proposal budgets that are much larger than typical should be discussed with the program director prior to submission. Proposers can view budget amounts and other information from recent awards made by this program via the "What Has Been Funded (Recent Awards Made Through This Program, with Abstracts)" link towards the bottom of this page.

Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) program proposals are strongly encouraged. Award duration is five years. The submission deadline for Engineering CAREER proposals is in July every year. Learn more in the CAREER program description.

Proposals for Conferences, Workshops, and Supplements: PIs are strongly encouraged to discuss their requests with the program director before submission of the proposal.

Grants for Rapid Response Research (RAPID) and EArly-concept Grants for Exploratory Research (EAGER) are also considered when appropriate. Please note that proposals of these types must be discussed with the program director before submission. Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry (GOALI) proposals that integrate fundamental research with translational results and are consistent with the application areas of interest to each program are also encouraged. Please note that RAPID, EAGER, and GOALI proposals can be submitted anytime during the year. Details about RAPID, EAGER, and GOALI are available in the Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG), Part 1, Chapter II, Section E: Types of Proposals.

Compliance: Proposals that are not compliant with the Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) will be returned without review.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Engineering of Biomedical Systems program is part of the Engineering Biology and Health cluster, which also includes: 1) the Biophotonics program; 2) the Biosensing program; 3) the Cellular and Biochemical Engineering program; and 4) the Disability and Rehabilitation Engineering program.

# data[].attributes.headline
NSF Disability and Rehabilitation Engineering

# data[].attributes.subject
NSF Disability and Rehabilitation Engineering

# data[].attributes.body
Funding Opportunity Number:  PD-23-5342

Full Proposal Deadline:  Proposals accepted anytime

Summary:  The Disability and Rehabilitation Engineering program supports fundamental engineering research that will improve the quality of life of persons with disabilities through the development of new theories, methodologies, technologies, or devices. Disabilities could be developmental, cognitive, hearing, mobility, visual, selfcare, independent living, or other. Proposed projects must advance knowledge regarding a specific human disability or pathological motion or understanding of injury mechanisms.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Disability and Rehabilitation Engineering (DARE)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Supports fundamental engineering research that improves the quality of life of persons with disabilities. Projects advance knowledge regarding a specific disability, pathological motion, or injury mechanism.

# data[].attributes.headline
NSF Cellular and Biochemical Engineering

# data[].attributes.subject
NSF Cellular and Biochemical Engineering

# data[].attributes.body
Funding Opportunity Number:  PD-23-1491

Full Proposal Deadline:  Proposals accepted anytime

Summary:  The Cellular and Biochemical Engineering program supports fundamental engineering research that advances understanding of cellular and biomolecular processes. CBE-funded research may lead to the development of enabling technology for advanced biomanufacturing of therapeutic cells, biochemicals, and biopharmaceuticals, and for other biotechnology industries. Fundamental to many CBE research projects is the understanding of how biomolecules, subcellular systems, cells, and cell populations interact, and how those interactions lead to changes in structure, function, and behavior. A quantitative treatment of problems related to biological processes is considered vital to successful research projects in the CBE program.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Supports fundamental engineering research leading to novel bioprocessing and therapeutic cells, biochemicals, biopharmaceuticals and for other biotechnology industries.

# data[].attributes.headline
NSF Process Systems, Reaction Engineering, and Molecular Thermodynamics

# data[].attributes.subject
NSF Process Systems, Reaction Engineering, and Molecular Thermodynamics

# data[].attributes.body
Funding Opportunity Number:  PD-23-1403

Full Proposal Deadline:  Proposals accepted anytime

Summary:  The Process Systems, Reaction Engineering, and Molecular Thermodynamics program is part of the Chemical Process Systems cluster, which also includes: 1) the Catalysis program; 2) the Electrochemical Systems program; and 3) the Interfacial Engineering program. The goal of the Process Systems, Reaction Engineering, and Molecular

Thermodynamics program is to advance fundamental engineering research on the rates and mechanisms of chemical reactions, systems engineering, and molecular thermodynamics as they relate to the design and optimization of chemical reactors and the production of specialized materials that have important impacts on society.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Process Systems, Reaction Engineering, and Molecular Thermodynamics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Supports fundamental engineering research on the rates and mechanisms of chemical reactions, systems engineering, and molecular thermodynamics as they relate to the design and optimization of chemical reactors and the production of specialized materials.

# data[].attributes.headline
NSF Dear Colleague Letter:  Stimulating Diversification in Language
Science Research (LangDiv)

# data[].attributes.subject
NSF Dear Colleague Letter:  Stimulating Diversification in Language
Science Research (LangDiv)

# data[].attributes.body
Notice Number:  NSF 23-103

Summary:  NSF encourages submission of proposals that diversify and further deepen the study of language and communication. This is a collaborative initiative across several programs in the Division of Behavioral and Cognitive with shared interests in the study of language. This is an effort to catalyze new collaborations that integrate knowledge across disciplines and/or levels of analysis. The goal is to advance more generalizable and replicable theories in the language and communication sciences via diversified sampling practices, language(s) of study, methodologies and theoretical perspectives.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Stimulating Diversification in Language Science Research (LangDiv)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dear Colleagues: The National Science Foundation (NSF) encourages submission of proposals that diversify and further deepen the study of language and communication. This is a collaborative initiative across several programs in the Division of Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences (Linguistics, Developmental Science, Perception, Action and Cognition, Cognitive Neuroscience, Dynamic Language Infrastructure-Documenting Endangered Languages and Science of Learning and Augmented Intelligence) with shared interests in the study of language.

# data[].attributes.headline
NSF Energy, Power, Control, and Networks

# data[].attributes.subject
NSF Energy, Power, Control, and Networks

# data[].attributes.body
Funding Opportunity Number:  PD-18-7607

Full Proposal Deadline:  Accepted anytime

Summary:  The Energy, Power, Control, and Networks (EPCN) Program supports innovative research in modeling, optimization, learning, adaptation, and control of networked multi-agent systems, higher-level decision making, and dynamic resource allocation, as well as risk management in the presence of uncertainty, sub-system failures, and stochastic disturbances. EPCN also invests in novel machine learning algorithms and analysis, adaptive dynamic programming, brain-like networked architectures performing real-time learning, and neuromorphic engineering. EPCN’s goal is to encourage research on emerging technologies and applications including energy, transportation, robotics, and biomedical devices & systems.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Energy, Power, Control, and Networks (EPCN)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Supports research in modeling, optimization, learning, adaptation and control of networked multi-agent systems; higher-level decision making; and dynamic resource allocation and risk management.

# data[].attributes.body
Funding Opportunity Number:  PD-23-1407

Full Proposal Deadline:  Full proposal accepted anytime

Summary:  The Combustion and Fire Systems program is part of the Transport Phenomena cluster, which also includes 1) the Fluid Dynamics program; 2) the Particulate and Multiphase Processes program; and 3) the Thermal Transport Processes program. The goal of the Combustion and Fire Systems program is to create new knowledge to support advances in clean energy, climate change mitigation, a cleaner environment and public safety. The program endeavors to create fundamental scientific knowledge that is needed for safe, clean and useful combustion applications and for mitigating the effects of fire. The program aims to identify and understand the controlling basic principles and to use that knowledge to create predictive capabilities for designing and optimizing practical combustion devices and understanding fire.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Supports research on combustion and fire prediction and mitigation. Priority areas include basic combustion science, combustion science related to clean energy, wildland fire prediction and prevention, and turbulence-chemistry interactions.

# data[].attributes.headline
NSF Electronics, Photonics and Magnetic Devices

# data[].attributes.subject
NSF Electronics, Photonics and Magnetic Devices

# data[].attributes.body
Funding Opportunity Number:  PD-18-1517

Full Proposal Deadline:  Accepted anytime

Summary: The Electronics, Photonics and Magnetic Devices (EPMD) Program supports innovative research on novel devices based on the principles of electronics, optics and photonics, optoelectronics, magnetics, opto- and electromechanics, electromagnetics, and related physical phenomena. EPMD’s goal is to advance the frontiers of micro-, nano- and quantum-based devices operating within the electromagnetic spectrum and contributing to a broad range of application domains. The program encourages research based on emerging technologies for miniaturization, integration, and energy efficiency as well as novel material-based devices with new functionalities, improved efficiency, flexibility, tunability, wearability, and enhanced reliability.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Electronics, Photonics and Magnetic Devices (EPMD) Program supports innovative research on novel devices based on the principles of electronics, optics and photonics, optoelectronics, magnetics, opto- and electromechanics, electromagnetics, and related physical phenomena. EPMD's goal is to advance the frontiers of micro-, nano- and quantum-based devices operating within the electromagnetic spectrum and contributing to a broad range of application domains including information and communications, imaging and sensing, healthcare, Internet of Things, energy, infrastructure, and manufacturing. The program encourages research based on emerging technologies for miniaturization, integration, and energy efficiency as well as novel material-based devices with new functionalities, improved efficiency, flexibility, tunability, wearability, and enhanced reliability.

Areas managed by Program Directors (please contact Program Directors listed in the EPMD staff directory for areas of interest):
Electronic Devices

Nanoelectronics

Wide/Extreme- and Narrow-Bandgap, Semiconductor Devices

Devices with New Functionalities based on Material-Device Interactions and Reliability

Device-Related Electromagnetic Effects, Propagation and Scattering

Microwave/mm-Wave/THz Devices

Flexible, Printed Electronics

Carbon-based Electronics

Thermoelectric and Ferroelectric Devices

Photonic Devices

Advanced Optical Emitters and Photodetectors, from Extreme UV to THz

Single-Photon Quantum Devices

Nonlinear and Ultrafast Photonics

Nanophotonics and Photonic Integration

Optical Imaging and Sensing Techniques

Opto-Mechanical Nanodevices

Optical Communication Components

Magnetic Devices

Biomagnetic Devices

Nanomagnetic and Quantum Devices

Spin Electronics for Next Generation of Logic and Memories

Cross-Cutting

2D Material Devices and Circuits

Devices based on Paper Electronics

Bioelectronic Devices

Photovoltaic and Energy Harvesting Devices

Metamaterial and Plasmonic-Based Devices

Sensor Device Technologies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Electronics, Photonics and Magnetic Devices (EPMD)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Electronics, Photonics and Magnetic Devices (EPMD) Program supports innovative research on novel devices based on the principles of electronics, optics and photonics, optoelectronics, magnetics, opto- and electromechanics, electromagnetics, and related physical phenomena.

# data[].attributes.headline
Hanover: Revamping Your Grantseeking Strategy in a Changing Landscape​

# data[].attributes.subject
Hanover: Revamping Your Grantseeking Strategy in a Changing Landscape​

# data[].attributes.body
This Hanover Research webinar focused on how to revamp grant-seeking strategies in a more constrained and accountability-driven funding environment. Presenters emphasized that successful proposals now depend less on polish and more on structural clarity, including clear objectives, measurable outcomes, and explicit pathways to real-world adoption. Three core drivers of competitiveness were highlighted: interpretability (easy to understand and summarize), pathway clarity (credible links from activities to measurable impact), and sequencing (aligning scope and ambition with the maturity of evidence and the funding mechanism). Participants were advised to align proposals tightly with sponsor priorities, demonstrate deployability and sustained use, and frame projects around sponsor objectives and public value, not just academic questions. Overall, the key message was that proposals advance when they reduce uncertainty and give reviewers a defensible rationale for funding within a risk-constrained decision environment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Revamping Your Grantseeking Strategy in a Changing Landscape​

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This webinar will offer insights into updating your approach in seeking external funding, including strategies for tracking trends, revising proposal narratives, and exploring new opportunities. Participants will learn how to respond to shifts in the funding environment and position their projects for success.

# data[].attributes.body
Searchable Table of Opportunities

Their online database offers a searchable table of opportunities that you can narrow using the filters in the left navigation. Other sources of funding include using a search engine or seeking opportunities through your discipline’s professional organizations.

# data[].attributes.headline
Year in Review: Your Roundup of Updates to Grants.gov in 2025

# data[].attributes.subject
Year in Review: Your Roundup of Updates to Grants.gov in 2025

# data[].attributes.body
This Year in Review highlights several key updates that strengthened system security, supported federal compliance requirements, and improved the overall user experience for grant applicants and agencies alike. Together, these enhancements reinforce Grants.gov’s role as critical infrastructure for the federal funding ecosystem and a platform that continues to evolve in response to user needs.

# data[].attributes.headline
Notice to research community: Use of generative artificial intelligence technology in the NSF merit review process

# data[].attributes.subject
Notice to research community: Use of generative artificial intelligence technology in the NSF merit review process

# data[].attributes.body
NSF reviewers are prohibited from uploading any content from proposals, review information and related records to non-approved generative AI tools.

Proposers are encouraged to indicate in the project description the extent to which, if any, generative AI technology was used and how it was used to develop their proposal.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Notice to research community: Use of generative artificial intelligence technology in the NSF merit review process

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Generative artificial intelligence 1 (GAI) systems have great potential to support the U.S. National Science Foundation’s mission to promote the progress of science. They could facilitate creativity…

# data[].attributes.headline
The Chronicle of Higher Ed: Trump and Higher Ed: The Latest - January Session

# data[].attributes.subject
The Chronicle of Higher Ed: Trump and Higher Ed: The Latest - January Session

# data[].attributes.body
This webinar, hosted by The Chronicle of Higher Education, reviewed major developments in U.S. higher education policy during the first year of the Trump administration and discussed what colleges should expect next. The session covered new federal funding trends, regulatory changes, and legal developments affecting campuses.

Key topics included shifts in federal grant priorities—highlighting increased funding for select humanities and AI-related initiatives—alongside continued uncertainty and legal challenges around research funding, indirect cost reimbursements, and DEI-related grants. Speakers emphasized that while Congress and the courts have blocked some proposed funding cuts, institutions continue to face instability and planning challenges.

A major portion of the discussion focused on new higher education accountability rules (“do no harm” metrics) tied to federal financial aid. Guest expert Preston Cooper (American Enterprise Institute) explained upcoming regulations that would penalize academic programs whose graduates earn less than comparable peers, potentially resulting in loss of federal student loan or Pell Grant eligibility. The panel explored implications for different sectors, disciplines, and workforce-aligned programs.

The session also addressed international student issues, including visa revocations, expanded travel restrictions, and court rulings affirming First Amendment protections for non-citizen students. Other updates covered TRIO program funding, Title IX investigations, and proposed changes to graduate student loan caps.

Overall, presenters stressed that higher education leaders should prepare for ongoing regulatory scrutiny, shifting federal priorities, and continued uncertainty—while closely monitoring how new accountability rules and funding decisions may affect specific programs and students.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Join us for a series of webinars to examine challenges colleges face as the Trump administration transforms higher education.

# data[].attributes.headline
NIH’s Implementation of Common Forms for Biographical Sketch and Current and Pending (Other) Support for Due Dates on or after January 25, 2026

# data[].attributes.subject
NIH’s Implementation of Common Forms for Biographical Sketch and Current and Pending (Other) Support for Due Dates on or after January 25, 2026

# data[].attributes.body
Important NIH Update for Researchers & Research Administrators 🚨

NIH has released Notice NOT-OD-26-018, outlining major changes to Biographical Sketch and Current & Pending (Other) Support requirements for all NIH applications, JIT, RPPRs, and prior approvals with due dates on or after January 25, 2026.

🔑 What’s changing?
✅ NIH will adopt federally standardized “Common Forms” for Biosketch and Current & Pending Support
✅ SciENcv is mandatory for generating and personally certifying these forms
✅ ORCID iDs are required and must be linked to eRA Commons
✅ A new NIH Biosketch Supplement will capture NIH‑specific information
✅ Malign Foreign Talent Recruitment Program (MFTRP) participation is prohibited for senior/key personnel, with new individual and institutional certifications required

⏳ Timeline to watch:
• Before Jan 25, 2026 → current NIH formats still accepted
• On/after Jan 25, 2026 → Common Forms are required
• Feb 6, 2026 → incorrect or uncertified forms will block submission

These changes align NIH with NSPM‑33 and OSTP research security guidance, reinforcing transparency and consistency across federal agencies.

📌 Action items for institutions:
✔ Assess internal disclosure policies and controls
✔ Prepare faculty and staff for SciENcv + ORCID requirements
✔ Update training and proposal workflows now—January will come quickly!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks. The action you just performed triggered the security solution. There are several actions that could trigger this block including submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed data.

# data[].attributes.headline
EDUCAUSE: The Impact of AI on Work in Higher Education

# data[].attributes.subject
EDUCAUSE: The Impact of AI on Work in Higher Education

# data[].attributes.body
Key Themes:

Institutional strategies, policies, and governance frameworks around AI adoption.

Faculty/staff usage of AI tools to enhance productivity and streamline administrative and scholarly tasks.

Evolving needs in faculty development, policy creation, risk management, and workforce planning.

Usage & Adoption: Over 70% of higher‑education professionals report using AI tools on a daily or weekly basis.

Concerns & Challenges: More than half of those surveyed express worries about potential risks, including ethical issues, data privacy, bias, and policy gaps.

Examples & Insights: The report includes real-world use cases illustrating both the benefits and limitations of AI integration, along with guidance on how institutions can better support staff in leveraging these tools effectively.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Impact of AI on Work in Higher Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this research, we summarize work-related institutional AI strategies, policies, and guidelines; the risks, opportunities, and challenges associated

# data[].attributes.body
What’s possible, what’s problematic—and how to stay on the right side of NIH policy while using AI tools to streamline your process.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Share your videos with friends, family, and the world

# data[].attributes.body
This playlist covers the core skills and frameworks you need to master to secure grant funding at virtually any biomedical research funding agency.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This playlist covers the core skills and frameworks you need to master to secure grant funding at virtually any biomedical research funding agency.

# data[].attributes.headline
Candid: Introduction to Proposal Writing

# data[].attributes.subject
Candid: Introduction to Proposal Writing

# data[].attributes.body
This indispensable class will give you a step-by-step guide to creating a grant proposal to a foundation, including:

The basic elements of a grant proposal, including the need statement, project description, and evaluation plan

A model outline of the essential components of any grant proposal

The "do's" and "don'ts" of writing, planning and submitting a proposal

The methods for building a relationship with a potential funder, from initial outreach to follow-up and reporting

# data[].attributes.headline
How to Use AI Ethically in Grant Writing: 5 Critical Considerations for Researchers

# data[].attributes.subject
How to Use AI Ethically in Grant Writing: 5 Critical Considerations for Researchers

# data[].attributes.body
"Curious about using ChatGPT or other AI tools in your NIH grant writing? Before you dive in, let’s talk ethics. In this video, I cover five key considerations every researcher must understand to use AI responsibly when drafting grant proposals. From safeguarding your data to staying within NIH guidelines, this is a must-watch for anyone looking to write faster—without compromising integrity."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to Use AI Ethically in Grant Writing: 5 Critical Considerations for Researchers

# data[].attributes.headline
NIH: Supporting Fairness and Originality in NIH Research Applications

# data[].attributes.subject
NIH: Supporting Fairness and Originality in NIH Research Applications

# data[].attributes.body
NIH Notice NOT-OD-25-132 introduces new policies to uphold fairness and originality in research applications by limiting each Principal Investigator to six submissions per calendar year and prohibiting applications substantially developed using AI tools. The notice emphasizes that AI-generated content may lead to research misconduct investigations and enforcement actions if detected.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NOT-OD-25-132: Supporting Fairness and Originality in NIH Research Applications

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NIH Funding Opportunities and Notices in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts: Supporting Fairness and Originality in NIH Research Applications NOT-OD-25-132. NIH

# data[].attributes.headline
ACE: Can They Do That? The White House’s Higher Ed Compact and Shutdown Fallout

# data[].attributes.subject
ACE: Can They Do That? The White House’s Higher Ed Compact and Shutdown Fallout

# data[].attributes.body
10/07/25

The presentation discussed the new higher education compact proposed by the Department of Education, its potential impacts on institutions, and the ongoing government shutdown’s effects on federal funding and operations. Key topics included the compact’s requirements for select universities, concerns about its broader application, and updates on negotiated rulemaking and grant processes. Attendees were encouraged to stay informed and advocate for their institutions as these developments unfold.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Can They Do That? The White House’s Higher Ed Compact and Shutdown Fallout

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The hosts break down the Trump administration’s “Compact for Academic Excellence”—what’s in it, why it matters, and how it connects to the shutdown—along with other developments shaping higher education this week.

# data[].attributes.headline
How to be a Resilient Leader in a Changing (AI) World

# data[].attributes.subject
How to be a Resilient Leader in a Changing (AI) World

# data[].attributes.body
Dr. Casey’s presentation explored how rapid changes in AI are impacting workplace anxiety and mental health, and offered seven practical strategies for leaders to build team resilience through communication, upskilling, involvement, and psychological safety. The session also introduced a personal resilience technique (CAB-CAR) to help individuals reframe worries and regain control. Attendees will receive a follow-up email with the recording and additional resources.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to be a Resilient Leader in a Changing (AI) World • Educate 360

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Webinars Date Register Now Watch Now Webinar Essentials: A Detailed Breakdown The pace of change has been increasing steadily, and the advent of AI has sent a shock through businesses worldwide. While AI can be an opportunity, leaders and employees are feeling overwhelmed and emotionally stressed by the insecurity that this new technology represents. This […]

# data[].attributes.headline
Hanover Research: Cultivating Relationships with Foundations

# data[].attributes.subject
Hanover Research: Cultivating Relationships with Foundations

# data[].attributes.body
The session highlighted that building strong, personal relationships with foundation funders is more effective than transactional approaches, emphasizing the importance of strategy, communication, and ongoing stewardship. Attendees learned practical steps for engaging foundations, including research, outreach, concept papers, and maintaining connections for future funding opportunities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Unlike most federal grantmakers, foundations can be mysterious and opaque - from the guidelines they publish to the decision making process. For these

# data[].attributes.headline
Grants.gov: Two Pathways to Applying for Grants with Grants.gov Workspace

# data[].attributes.subject
Grants.gov: Two Pathways to Applying for Grants with Grants.gov Workspace

# data[].attributes.body
Navigating federal grant applications just got easier.

Grants.gov now offers two distinct pathways for submitting applications through Workspace: the PDF upload method and the online webform method. Whether you're part of a research team or managing institutional submissions, understanding these options can streamline your workflow and reduce submission errors.

This article breaks down the pros and cons of each approach, helping applicants choose the best fit for their needs.

# data[].attributes.headline
Assessing Research Security Efforts in Higher Education

# data[].attributes.subject
Assessing Research Security Efforts in Higher Education

# data[].attributes.body
The May 2025 National Academies workshop on Assessing Research Security Efforts in Higher Education explored how to safeguard U.S. academic research from foreign interference while preserving its openness and collaborative nature. Experts emphasized the importance of balancing national security concerns—especially regarding countries like China—with the foundational values of transparency and innovation in science. The event also highlighted the need for effective metrics, training, and institutional policies to assess and strengthen research security across higher education institutions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In recent years, concerns have grown about foreign actors exploiting the openness of the U.S. research ecosystem to misappropriate scientific and technological information to enhance their nations' scientific, economic, and military capabilities. Research security requirements for academic institutions currently include research security training, disclosure of funding sources in applications for federal research and development awards, and the development of comprehensive research security plans focused on cybersecurity, foreign travel security, insider threat awareness training, and export control training and compliance. These requirements are being implemented, and additional requirements are being contemplated.

To consider the impacts of current and potential research security requirements, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine convened a workshop on May 22-23, 2025, in Washington, DC. The event focused on potential measures of effectiveness and performance and the data needed to assess research security and protection efforts in higher education by a range of federal agencies. This proceedings describes the presentations and discussions at the workshop.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Assessing Research Security Efforts in Higher Education: Proceedings of a Workshop

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Read online, download a free PDF, or order a copy in print.

# data[].attributes.headline
ACE: Demands for Data on Race and the Future of College Admissions

# data[].attributes.subject
ACE: Demands for Data on Race and the Future of College Admissions

# data[].attributes.body
9/9/25

American Council on Education, focusing on recent changes and challenges in higher education policy, especially around college admissions, data transparency, and the impact of executive orders. The hosts and guests discuss the complexities and concerns of new federal data collection requirements, the politicization of admissions criteria, and the implications for institutions and students, including international student issues and ongoing legal cases. The conversation emphasizes the importance of public comments, institutional advocacy, and keeping student welfare at the center of higher education policy debates.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Mushtaq Gunja: Hello and welcome to dotEDU, the public policy podcast from the American Council on Education. My name is Mushtaq Gunja. I'm joined, as always, by my co-hosts, Jon Fansmith and Sarah Spreitzer. Jon and Sarah, how are you?

Sarah Spreitzer: Great.

Jon Fansmith: I'm just jealous of our other guest, who apparently has ACE apparel. Nobody's offered me ACE apparel.

Mushtaq Gunja: Well, we are also joined by very special guest, Hiro Okahana, ACE's, Managing Researcher and chief of Planning and Impact, and he's always decked out in the best gear. Hiro, thank you for joining and thank you for helping me manage Jon and Sarah today because it's not an easy task, just me doing it on my own.

Hiro Okahana: I don't think that was in the ask.

Mushtaq Gunja: Yeah, I didn't put that in the planning document, but Hiro, you're definitely doing that. Everybody, we are here today to talk about one big topic, the future of college admissions. And then just a signpost, we're going to tackle three additional topics a little bit later in the conversation. We want to talk a little bit about international students, give everybody an update on what's happening, especially vis-a-vis Harvard. There was a decision that came out last week, and then maybe start a conversation about appropriations and a possible shutdown that, I say start one because I think we're probably going to spend a lot of time in a couple of weeks talking about all of that too as we come to the end of a CR.

And you may have noticed that there is a poll question up, if you're watching this on YouTube or on this live session. And we wanted to ask the audience what topics you thought we might want to cover in some future episodes. So if you wouldn't mind taking 20 seconds, just look at that question and fill it out and submit, if you don't mind. Actually, I'm going to do the same. Legal cases to watch in higher ed. I'm interested in that topic. Submit.

Jon Fansmith: [inaudible 00:02:03].

Sarah Spreitzer: You didn't pick international? I can't believe that.

Mushtaq Gunja: I do want to [inaudible 00:02:07]-

Jon Fansmith: Are we all supposed to just vote for the things that we care about? Is that what we're doing right here?

Mushtaq Gunja: We did not put Section 117 on the [inaudible 00:02:14].

Sarah Spreitzer: Don't just work on Section 117. I have a whole plethora of topics I can talk about.

Mushtaq Gunja: We are going to ask you about all of those topics, Sarah, but thank you for filling that out and okay, why don't we dive into the main topic, this new data request, future of college admissions. Jon, there was an executive order that the president issued on August 7th. I think it was titled Ensuring Transparency in Higher Education Admissions. What was that EO?

Jon Fansmith: Yeah, so the EO, in many ways, should be thought about as a follow-up to earlier executive orders this administration has offered that people probably remember. Day one of the administration, there was an executive order around DEI and barring federal agencies and their contractors from utilizing DEI. And that was followed not long after by some additional guidance from the Department of Education about what that would look like on college campuses. And basically what those earlier executive orders and the subsequent guidance was saying was the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and UNC Chapel Hill cases, which were about admissions, this administration has taken as, interpreted them as meaning essentially a very expansive view, that any consideration of efforts to promote diversity are inherently discriminatory. And I think when those came out, we had a very obviously critical of what was being asserted. Still to this day, and I think pretty widely, most people don't believe is supported by the law, but at least in Students for Fair Admissions, the heart of the case was the consideration of race in admissions.

And so somewhat of a surprise that it took until August for this administration to focus more directly on that aspect of the process. And really, because the law has been clear, the Supreme Court ruled, we know that you cannot consider race as part of a holistic admissions decision anymore. What they're doing is they're going further forward. We can talk about why they're doing this, but basically what they have done is there's a new executive order that says we need to have greater transparency into the, essentially not the consideration of race, but what are the outcomes by race for different students in the applications process to colleges, universities, the admissions process, enrollment and particularly at selective institutions. That executive order was followed up by a letter from the Secretary of Education, Linda McMahon, saying we're going to implement this.

And the way they chose to implement it was a week later, a notice that they would be amending the IPEDS survey, and I think a lot of our viewers are familiar with the IPEDS survey, but I know here we'll talk a little bit more about that too. Huge, it's the data set survey that institutions fill out, report to the federal government annually across huge range of categories of information on campuses. What their request, the department's new request was that that survey, for this coming academic year, would be amended to include an enormous amount of data we are not currently reporting to the federal government around applications, admissions and enrollment by race and ethnicity disaggregated across a range of categories, but especially things that would be seen as indicators of academic performance. So GPAs, test scores, class ranks, things like that, with the idea that essentially they could determine whether race is perhaps being improperly considered in the admissions process.

What's also really unique about this, and I know here we'll talk a little bit more about the current and what's different here, but they also ask for the previous five years of data in this regard, which is, again, it's highly unusual for an annual reporting survey. It's also particularly difficult in this circumstance because SFFA was a couple of years ago. Schools had not tracked and reported this information to the Department of Education previously. The idea that retroactively, that information will be easily available, you can understand all the problems that would cause, but that's where we stand. There is a request for comment on this notice that is due, essentially allowing the public to weigh in on what they think. That's due back to the Department of Education on October 17th. Is that right, Hiro? The 17th, the 18th. One of those two days. We will figure it out by the end of-

Sarah Spreitzer: It's an October problem.

Jon Fansmith: That's an October problem, right. And ACE will be filing comments on behalf of the higher ed community, but that's the situation we're in right now, Mushtaq.

Mushtaq Gunja: Okay. So Jon, I want to dig back into the comments, but just one question before we bring Hiro in, and I'll preview Hiro's vast expertise and all things IPEDS in just a second. But Jon, there's a question in the Q&A and we certainly received a lot of questions in advance. Thank you, by the way, audience for sending all those questions in. They're extremely helpful in us putting together the plan for what we're going to talk about. Jon, does this EO and the letter, the directive, does it apply to all institutions or only selective institutions? Who does this apply to?

Jon Fansmith: It's a little bit tricky. It applies to selective institutions. The proposed rule doesn't necessarily define what a selective institution is, and then they also specifically ask for public feedback on whether the data reporting should be expanded beyond selective institutions to open enrollment institutions, because they are concerned that perhaps institutions that are not considered selective might be considering race improperly in terms of awarding scholarships or other forms of aid to students. So they haven't specifically said they want that data from, say, a community college or other types of open access institutions, but they do ask the public to weigh in on whether they should be requiring that. So the possibility still exists. Non-selective schools may be asked to report the data. That's not what they're focused on, though.

Mushtaq Gunja: We don't quite know yet. Hopefully we will get more clarity. We'll have to have more clarity.

Jon Fansmith: Well, I wouldn't assume anything here, Mushtaq. We should get more clarity.

Sarah Spreitzer: How about our comments will ask for clarity on that topic.

Jon Fansmith: That's a good way to put it, yeah.

Mushtaq Gunja: Hiro, so for those of you don't know Hiro Okahana, our head of research here at the American Council on Education, an IPEDS expert among other things. He served on the technical review panel recently at IPEDS? I can't remember exactly when, Hiro, you served, but we asked you on because we have a whole set of questions that came in from the audience about the fees, about how this is supposed to work, what IPEDS typically collects, how they collect it and whether this is possible. So let me break that down into an actually askable question, Hiro. What is the sort of data that our institutions have been reporting to IPEDS vis-a-vis race and vis-a-vis admissions over the course of the last few years?

Hiro Okahana: Thanks, Mushtaq. IPEDS have been collecting data by race and ethnicity and also by gender for some parts of data points. Student enrollment is something that institutions are already required to collect the information and to report into IPEDS, disaggregated by race and ethnicity and gender. And the ironic part of this timing is that this year or this year is a data collection cycle for IPEDS. The Department of Education was and is already starting to collect the data on the admissions by race and ethnicity. So they were going to collect the applicant data by race and ethnicity, as well as [inaudible 00:10:36] students, then into the enrolled students' data around it. Now the process of that data points being including have been years in the making.

There were the white paper also to explore the feasibility and what data points should go in. And then there were technical review panel meetings, where data collection experts, the folks who were on the ground at the institutions and being part of the institutional research office in others, and in some cases the researchers or the policymakers who might use data points, they were part of this technical review panel conversation and see the feasibility of collection and also utility of data points. Then the community and institutions were given year in advance notice to look through what this new data collection on application data by race and ethnicity looks like. And we had opportunities to chime in and we got to this implementation phase around it. So there have been some data points collected and that's been updated to include additional data points. But this request is a little bit different, as Jon pointed out. And I think that's the part that we want to talk a little bit more about.

Mushtaq Gunja: Hiro, let me go a little bit big picture first. Will this collection be ready for the winter-spring collection, which opens on December 3rd? Or will it be for next year's IPEDS collection? I mean it feels like it's too late for this fall. And as you say, we typically give institutions much more time to be able to collect data, to be able to organize it. I mean, what's the deal there, Hiro?

Hiro Okahana: I think that's a we don't know. And Jon, please chime in, but what the White House outlined had very aggressive timeline. And looking at their timeline and looking at already established IPEDS data collection cycle, in order to meet that timeline, they need to be part of the winter data collection cycle, around it. Now, is it feasible? It seemed highly unlikely. Unfeasible and impractical goals, and I might be jumping [inaudible 00:13:01], but one of the parts that the request to collect additional data strikes me and others different from the typical cases that what's out there in federal registry [inaudible 00:13:16] or request it lacks specificity. It is a concept to note about what sort of data points they're looking to collect. But typically, before the Department of Education asks, will put together new data collection, we would see actual data collection instruments.

We would see further operationalized version of these texts and relatively short the request for comments paper, to say these are the precise data points, these are the precise breakdown and these are the categories that we are going to use and we want you to fill these out. Please comment. And we haven't seen those. So that makes it difficult to say that can these data potentially be collected or can these concepts be further operationalized? I didn't say impossible, but given the timeline that we know and given that way we work, it just seem highly unfeasible, impractical to see something for this winter timeline let alone this academic year in general. But yeah, [inaudible 00:14:34].

Sarah Spreitzer: Yeah, and Hiro, I mean NCES, the National Center for Education Statistics, that was one of the places that was really hit with the reduction in force, the RIFs. So is that having some impact or do you think it will be harder if they make IPEDS even more complicated for fewer staff to do it?

Hiro Okahana: I would imagine so. Without having, this is a huge undertaking for both institutions and also the federal government too. One, institutions will need to figure out their way to update their data collection system to capture the information they need to report. So that's the process, then put a report into it. Then the federal government, NCS, at least in the past, spend considerable time, resources to do quality control data. And this data, let's just say it's implemented as is or whatever the version that might be. Because of the reason Jon mentioned, they are asking information that goes back five years and not all institutions might have those information collected to begin with.

So we are likely to see a lot of incomplete data forms. And then we also need to, the way, at least, the federal registry notice is outlining it's going to be very granularly disaggregated data points, which means that we need to ensure the privacy protections. IPEDS is not an individual student level data. It's institutional level aggregated data and if the cell size is too small, that if we can identify, based on a few combination of race, ethnicity, program type and the GPA, if we can pinpoint to somebody or if we think that we can pinpoint to somebody, they need to suppress those data points. So those quality control do take time, efforts and with shorter staff, that is a concern about quality of data and usability of data that comes out from it.

Mushtaq Gunja: One of the reasons that we don't rush these data collections is so that we try to ensure that the data that's coming in is going to be of quality, that there won't be mistakes in it, and that we also know what we're going to be able to do with it. I'm just thinking about how complicated this would be, not just because the privacy suppression issues. So those are really real. We certainly dealt with it on the Carnegie classification side, when we were putting together this big database. There are only so many Native American or Pacific Islanders in Delaware. And so we had to suppress a whole lot of data. We just weren't able to consider it. But I mean the way that we have so many high schools in this country where our students are graduating.

My son goes to a school where he doesn't have a, he's not on a 4.0 GPA scale. He's on a number scale. So he has, whatever, let's make up a number. He has a 99.3% GPA. I don't know how that maps onto the 0 to 4.0 plus all these honors courses, plus some people are taking the SAT, some people are taking the ACT, some people aren't taking standardized tests at all. The grain size of this stuff is going to get really small, Jon. So I mean theoretically, we know that. So what's behind this? Why is the administration doing this? What are they going to do with this data? I mean, I know we don't know yet, but what's your prediction here?

Jon Fansmith: We can say we don't know, but I think we pretty clearly know, right? I mean this is following an executive order from the president. It's building upon previous statements and guidance and executive orders from this administration that has been very explicit in their public statements that they believe any consideration of race, broadly, and efforts to be more inclusive on college campuses are inherently discriminatory. And they've made that point across a range of activities on a college campus and have launched investigations off that premise of institutions.

Look at Secretary McMahon's remarks around this. They believe that especially selective institutions are ignoring the decision in SFFA and are keeping their thumb on the scale for students of color in the admissions process. And will they find that in this data? I think Hiro's made it pretty clear that, even in the ideal circumstance where they followed proper procedure and these were the appropriate questions, the privacy protections were clear and identified and you were getting at valid and reliable and comparable data, you still wouldn't find that in most cases because the data won't, you'll get a lot of noise. You'll get probably a lot of misleading information.

But again, I'm not sure that this administration particularly cares about getting an accurate survey sample out. What they're looking for are flags they can use to highlight what they believe. They're looking, it's a fishing expedition to justify a belief they hold to be true in the absence of evidence that it's actually true. And so now they're trying to build the case by casting the net as wide as possible and seeing what examples can come up that might look to indicate some form of discrimination that, frankly, really I don't think is there.

Sarah Spreitzer: So can I play devil's advocate to that answer, Jon, and ask, wasn't the Biden administration trying to find some data around race and ethnicity before they left office?

Jon Fansmith: There's a certain irony in this, right? I mean, if you told the Trump administration they're expanding a Biden administration policy, most of the other Biden administration policies, they eliminated day one of taking office. The Biden administration did, back in beginning of last year, spring of last year, finalized. And in their defense, they followed the appropriate process that Hiro outlined. They implemented it with time for institutions to make changes to systems. It was certainly, if you're going to do these things, the right way to do it. That said, we were really concerned about. The Biden administration asked for expanded reporting on race and ethnicity, broadly, of applicants admitted and enrolled students. And coming at it from a very different perspective, their belief was, in fact, that there might be discrimination in the college admissions process, but that that discrimination was actually suppressing the ability of students of color to attend, especially at selective institutions.

Again, we had a lot of concerns about that, in part for the exact same reasons. It will lead to, even if done appropriately, it will lead to year-to-year ideas that are misleading about what's actually going on on a college campus, trying to impact the complexity of what are fundamentally individual-level decisions by looking at them boldly, 30,000 feet up in the aggregate is a really bad way to do this. It's also, I just want to take this point to say we have well-established, effective processes for going after discrimination, whether that's in admissions or student services or academic opportunities in higher education. This doesn't support those efforts. This is, I keep using the term, but a fishing expedition that's trying to evidence to support an allegation. And it is unfortunate. We, at AC, had opposed the Biden administration's policies just for those reasons. It leads to these kind of weaponization of the data for partisan purposes. But yeah, there we go. I mean the Trump administration has picked that up and turbocharged it in a way that I think we're all very uncomfortable with.

Sarah Spreitzer: So politicizing IPEDS ... being used as a tool for either side.

Mushtaq Gunja: I worry a little bit about the boiling down of admissions to SAT and GPA. It's a redefinition, I think, of what is merit, to just a couple of easily numerical factors, even notwithstanding the complications of trying to compare one high school's GPA to another high school's. But what about our oboe players and what about our football players and what about our debaters and our acapella singers and all the other things that make our campuses rich? I mean Jon, Sarah especially, and then, Hiro, I've got a question for you too, but Jon and Sarah, I mean, do we think those arguments are going to fall on deaf ears? It seems obvious to me that college admissions is more than just a pure numbers game on GPA and SAT.

Jon Fansmith: It's one of the things that bothers me most about this. It's a complete mischaracterization of what admissions is and how institutions approach it and this idea of merit as some objective, easily identifiable, easily accessible and quantifiable quality, what that means to an individual institution and what their mission is and who they seek to serve and the communities they're engaged with. And this idea that, well, if your GPA is marginally higher than somebody else's, you deserve a slot and they don't, it goes really against the entire strength and history of a diverse higher education system that looks at various pathways for students to find the best opportunities for them.

And another point that was made that I think is worth highlighting, if you are just representing, based on demographics in this country, the percentage of students of color in your student population should be going up. This would look at this and say, "If you're a selective institution, the percentage of students of color enrolled in your campus is going up, you are doing something wrong." No, in many ways, what you would be doing is reflecting demographic trends. So it's completely skewing things that we know to be true and that drive this process in ways that are contrary to basic logic.

Sarah Spreitzer: Yeah, and I think that it is part of one of the many things that's being politicized by this government. Any place like the federal government is touching on higher education, where previously it was for the academic institutions to decide it for the institutional mission, which Jon's right, is a huge win for the United States, that we have so much diversity of institutional mission in the United States that this is, whether it's accreditation, whether it's admissions, whether it's a curriculum. Again, this is looking at the federalization of higher education.

Mushtaq Gunja: These are all points I assume that we will make in the ACE comment letter. And I'd like to hear a little bit about what, Jon and Sarah, our plan is from the government relations side and commenting here. Hiro, in the normal course, how would the folks over at IES get feedback, NCES get feedback on changes to IPEDS and what is the right way to be able to give comments on this new proposal?

Hiro Okahana: So the typical way of going about some of these large change happens in NCES, the IPEDS team might commission a paper or two to explore the topic like, "Hey, we want to add these data points. What would it look like? What the feasibility is, what should be the important data points that we should include?" And those papers then inform some decisions by the department and the NCES and the IPEDS team. And then when they have some ideas of what the data collection might look like, then they'll convene us for technical review panel.

As I mentioned, there's a mix of data collectors, like IR professionals and some cases there's some researchers. So if what we are concerned about is admissions practice, for example, we want to invite researchers and policy researchers, policymakers who work with these data and who do studies that inform decisions around institutional practice or public policy around it and make sure that the data IPEDS is going to collect are something meaningful and add value to the decision-making process around. And to Jon's point and the points being made, yeah, the test scores and the GPA, we now know that it only is a part of what describes the academic potential of students and that we don't want to over-index it, but the proposal like this is over indexing those two data points.

And we would have discussion around is this going to add a value? Standard conversation around it. And once the department come up with a data collection instrument, typically, I believe that goes through at least the two rounds of comment process associated by OMB. And that's where institutions get to comment on feasibility burden on institutions. That's one part the federal government, at least in the past, cared a lot about and what the reporting burden looks like, and that's what is going to be reported around.

I know in this process for the current one, I don't know, and I guess we don't know how this process is going to unfold, but I know that our colleagues at the Association for Institutional Research have surveyed the IR professionals and asked them to have educated guess around what this reporting burden looks like questions. And they're going to have some informed comments to the department and say that this is what it's going to take. And I think all of us are in for the data transparency, but there's a reason that we have these process to really help the department operationalize the questions they might have so that we can gather the usable information that add value to the public and the community.

Jon Fansmith: I'll just say Hiro's told me times about the technical review panels and sometimes hour-long fights over the placement of a specific word or whatnot. And it's funny, in some ways, to talk about, but it matters because how you phrase these things, how you frame them, what the definitions mean are critically important in making this useful, at a minimum, but certainly something schools can really comply with. And we're not getting that in this process. And so set aside even the ill intention behind it, it's a flawed and damaged process where it's going to have a flawed and damaged outcome.

Mushtaq Gunja: But Jon, Sarah, what's the next step? How do our listeners, how do our institutions, how can they be helpful? Sounds like we're preparing a comment letter. Is that something that institutions, what's next?

Sarah Spreitzer: Well, I think Jon's drafting the comments, but I was just going to say, people need to realize we have to go through this process of [inaudible 00:30:10] comments. Then they respond to the comments, then they will have a final rule or updates to the IPEDS system. So this is not something that we're talking about will happen in the next month. It likely won't be until the end of the year.

Jon Fansmith: In terms of our steps, we will be doing a comment letter. It won't be open to individual institutions. We very, very rarely open individual letters to institutions, but it is a public comment period. I would say given the participation in this session we're doing right now, the concerns we've heard, not just from the institutional research community, not just from campus leadership, but people across campuses about both what the process is and why it's being done.

We're realistic. We know what the impetus behind these changes are. We know what the receptivity to efforts to stop or peel this back will be. It's still worth putting on the public record the concerns they have, identifying those. It matters. May not feel that way at times, but this is part of the process. If you are going to take an active voice, this is one way to do it and highlight the problems with it. We're going to focus a lot on our comments, on all of the procedural and process and technical problems with what they're proposing. We're going to address some of the rhetorical and philosophical concerns we have as well, but even on its own, like I said before, strip all that out, this is the wrong way to govern. This is the wrong way to do this. Even if the intent was good, this is not how you do these things and that's worth bringing forward.

Sorry, one other thing, because you've mentioned a little bit, and I have seen it in the chats, people are asking about lawsuits. You can't really sue at this stage because, as Sarah pointed out, there is no final rule that's been promulgated. There has been no impact on institutions yet. Correct me if I'm wrong, Mushtaq, but you need some actual harm to bring a lawsuit in the first place. Would something materialize around that to prevent this collection? I legitimately do not know, but certainly given how they've entered into this process and what the implications will be, I wouldn't be shocked to see some effort to say, "Not only is this not something we can reasonably comply with, but the timeframe's wrong. It didn't involve the Administrative Procedures Act. It was just done in the wrong way and should, for that reason, be held up."

Mushtaq Gunja: I think that's probably right. I think we probably need to see the final rule. I hesitate to call it a rule, but the final information request before we can do anything from a lawsuit perspective, I think, but I'm a little hesitant to say that just because it's so clear that the normal rules under the Administrative Procedure Act have not been followed as of yet and do not appear that they're going to be followed. So there might be some ability for us to move, but in the meantime, in the short-term, it sounds like AC will be filing a comments letter and our institution should do the same, Jon?

Jon Fansmith: Absolutely. Our institution should do the same. And I think it is really important to get on the record what this means. To take this administration at their word, they are very concerned about innovation. They're concerned about the burden on institutions, they're concerned about the cost and quality of higher education. Doing something like this that is a massive unfunded mandate, incredibly burdensome, incredibly expensive, in a rushed and hectic timeframe is going to have negative implications, not just for schools. This is not just about school administration. That will have an impact on students.

It will create significant problems in the perception of institutions and how they're approaching admissions. It has real consequences, and I get the cynicism about this administration, the receptivity to those comments, it doesn't really matter. Take the opportunity to publicly speak your concerns, build to the evidence against what the problem is with this approach. I can assure you it does actually matter, and we're talking about something not just for the next month, but in the long-term, if there's legal action, strong public opposition is the sort of thing that gets weighed into that as well. It is important to be heard.

Mushtaq Gunja: Our institutions might not be collecting some of this race and ethnicity data. I know that on many applications themselves, we're not asking for them. We'll have to see how data requests play out, but it'll all be in the comments letter, the difficulties that our institutions are going to be able to have complying with this. Hiro, thank you so much for coming. I'm going to move us to a couple of other topics, but Hiro the background on how this is supposed to work and then some of the challenges that I guess we'll have in releasing this data, I think, are really, really helpful and I'm so glad that you were able to join.

Can I turn us to some international student issues? So back to school, Sarah, and I mean, we've been talking now for months about the difficulties that some of our international students might have, being able to come on campus. We've had a whole set of visa policy changes, we've had delays, we've got some duration of status stuff that's happening. Sarah, what are you seeing on campus?

Sarah Spreitzer: Yeah, so we're not going to get really hard data, I think, until the beginning of November when we see the open doors reports. But from all indications, it does seem that our international enrollment has dropped across the board at our US institutions. Now, for some institutions, especially name-brand institutions on the East or West Coast, they may not have seen a drop. But I do worry very much about smaller institutions or schools that are, say, in the middle of the country, that may have a harder time attracting international students. And you're right, Mushtaq, we saw in the height of the summer when we knew that our international students were going to be applying for visas, the Department of State paused student visa processing for three weeks so that they could put in, they could implement a new policy around social media vetting.

We don't know whether that led to more denials. We'll need to get that info from the State Department. I'm a bit worried because we didn't hear a lot about a slowdown or students not getting their visas processed in time. And to me, I'm worried that that means that those students didn't even apply for visas. That they had just decided not to come to the United States. But we now have a proposed rule from the Trump administration on something called duration of status, and they are proposing to put a time limit on student visas on both F-1 and J-1 Visas. F-1s are used usually for undergraduate, J-1s are usually for scholars, researchers. You also may be familiar with them like from au pairs or camp counselors. That's a J-1 visa. Trump administration had proposed a duration of status in their first term. It would've put a two-year or four-year limit on student visas. This time, they're only proposing a four-year limit.

Currently, a student visa is valid as long as an international student is enrolled and making satisfactory academic progress. This says that you have to finish within four years whatever degree you're working on, or a shorter timeframe if you're doing an English learner class. Otherwise, you'll have to apply for something called an extension of status or an EOS. This extension of status process does not currently exist. And so in this proposed rule, USCIS, which would be the agency within the Department of Homeland Security that would be processing an EOS, it would actually establish this new process. An international student would have to get a new I-20 from their institution of higher education, demonstrating a new end date. The examples that are provided in the proposed rule are all about a medical emergency or perhaps a natural that would close an institution down for a time. It does not share any academic reasons.

The proposed rule would also limit the ability of a student to change their major or to transfer and limits the ability of a graduate student to change their major or for any of the international students to pursue degrees below their current level of studies. So somebody getting a master's would not be able to go back and, say, get a BS or somebody pursuing a PhD would not be able to get another master's. So it's a lot. It's very complicated. The rule is about 140 pages. There's only a 30-day comment period. ACE will be submitting comments. I know that there are many organizations, and ACE too is encouraging individual institutions to submit comments. Last time, I believe that there were tens of thousands of comments that were submitted. They obviously were withdrawn by the Biden administration, but we're hoping that institutions will note why this is likely unworkable for those students coming to the United States who may take longer than four years to get their degree.

Mushtaq Gunja: What are we seeing in terms of institutions trying to support their international students during these uncertain times? I mean visas and status and coming in, how long these programs are taking, all of the threats of just deportation-

Sarah Spreitzer: I mean, I think our institutions are working with individual students and trying to provide support where possible. So if you were accepted at an institution and for some reason your visa was delayed, perhaps working with the student to start their studies somewhere else with the understanding that they could transfer into the US institution once the visa is granted. But for all of this, look, our institutions can figure out a way to graduate students within four years. But what you're doing is you're limiting the attractiveness of a US degree or the experience of studying into the United States. Because you may not be able to do a study abroad program. You may not be able to do a co-op program.

And for an international student considering the United States, I mean, that's a huge financial decision because they have to demonstrate that they can pay for the full education. They're not going to work while they're here, that they intend to return to their home country. And so if it was me trying to make that huge financial and time-wise decision, I might start looking at Canada or the UK. I think our institutions are trying to demonstrate to our prospective students why it's still worth it to come to the United States, why we are still welcoming international students, even though there may be these unwelcoming messages coming or confusing messages coming from the administration.

Mushtaq Gunja: There are a couple of questions about the interaction between this new proposed rule and CPT OPT. Actually first define CPT and OPT for [inaudible 00:41:58]-

Sarah Spreitzer: Yeah. So OPT is optional practical training. A student is allowed to apply for OPT or work authorization after they complete their academic program. Currently, it's for a year, or it can be for up to three years if you're in a STEM field. USCIS has not had the best track record in processing work authorizations for our international students. When we were coming out of COVID and they were processing the work authorizations that you have to have, there was a 90-day period when a student could apply and then start their position. USCIS was taking 120 days. One of the things I should have mentioned was the proposed rule would also change when an international student has to leave the US, at the end of their academic program. Currently, it's 60 days. This would shorten it to 30 days.

So we had international students coming out of COVID that were applying for their OPT, their work authorization at the 90-day mark before their position was starting, but then they were having to count on those 60 days because it was taking that much longer for USCIS to process their paperwork. So this is going to be a much tighter timeline. Again, this doesn't touch OPT, but I worry about those students that are going to be applying for an extension to do OPT, may not get it in time, and then the fees and the paperwork that's going to go into this process when previously, you apply for a 529, you get a work authorization and you're able to stay, well still on your student visa.

Mushtaq Gunja: Sure. Sarah, when are comments due?

Sarah Spreitzer: September 29th, so plenty of time. I've got two more weeks to draft them.

Mushtaq Gunja: Well, and our institutions have a couple more weeks to be able to put their comments in as well.

Sarah Spreitzer: Yes. And I'm sure our producers included a link to the Federal Register notice. I would also put a plug-in for our colleagues at NAFSA, the Association of International Educators. They have a really great summary that they're continually updating of the proposed rule, and I would encourage you to go take a look at that if you have any questions.

Mushtaq Gunja: Thanks, Sarah. Jon can I ask you about the updates on the Harvard lawsuit? So the district court ruled last week in favor of Harvard. What happened and where are we?

Jon Fansmith: Yeah, so this is the initial legal stage of Harvard's lawsuit against the federal government, essentially saying that the government illegally is freezing the funds to Harvard, currently about $2 billion, over the length of the time the administration has talked about freezing funds, up to around $9 billion. The court was unequivocally on Harvard's side. They were very clear that what the administration was doing was not tied in any way to civil rights enforcement or issues of discrimination.

It's really interesting that it's worth taking a look. It's not a long opinion, but it's worth looking at in part because the judge said, and this is a judge very familiar to us at this point, this was the original judge in the SFFA v. Harvard case, has also ruled in some of the F&A cases AC has brought forward. And what they said was essentially, "It's very clear that the administration is doing this as a punitive attack on Harvard, not in compliance with any federal, both First Amendment, Title VI, other areas of law that they purported to be. So unequivocal finding in favor of Harvard.

Next steps, though, the administration has already said they will appeal. Unfortunately, the president, as he's done in other cases where judges have ruled against him, has taken to talking about the judge, in this case very publicly, as being biased and other accusations not really supported by the facts. And so we will see. The administration clearly has no interest in backing down. What this will mean, you keep seeing reports about negotiations between Harvard and the administration. There are about a million think piece articles about does this strengthen Harvard? Does this strengthen the administration? Does this change the narrative? There's still a lot to be determined, and certainly the legal process is just moving forward. We are a long way from resolution.

Mushtaq Gunja: What implications, I don't know, Jon, I don't know that this is a fair question, but what implications are there for these institutions that are currently in, let me just call them settlement negotiations with the administration? I mean, in the normal course, a ruling that's in favor of an institution would strengthen their hand in later negotiations. Maybe that'll happen here. I mean, what's your take on that?

Jon Fansmith: Yeah, so I don't know that any of these institutions that are under negotiations are under any misconception that the administration's actions are legal. That's one of the things that's most frustrating about this. The administration is clearly operating outside what the law requires of them. The problem is it's really hard to be the institution and fight that out on court. I mean, we're in the stage, it's September and Harvard has reached the first stage of the legal process. It is incredibly expensive and time-consuming and distracting to mount a major legal defense against the federal government. This administration knows that. In many cases, negotiation may not be, idealistically, what we want, but it's also represents, from an individual institution's perspective, probably the best path forward depending on what that deal looks like. And so I think you look at a lot of institutions who are weighing these options, the calculus hasn't really changed.

Certainly they were in the right to begin with. Harvard was in the right to begin with. The administration is clearly in the wrong. But sadly, reality is not that the right side always wins. And the resources the administration has available to push this fight make it really hard to keep pushing back. So I don't know that things have changed. I will say, and you see this again and again, surveys of the American public, they do not like what the administration's doing. Interestingly, Gallup had a poll out last week of confidence in higher education institutions. Confidence in higher ed is rebounding, and it's rebounding among Republicans and independents even more than it is among Democrats. I think there's, if anything this administration has done in our favor, they have begun to bring home to people what it is colleges and universities actually do, and what they think about the value of those institutions in a way that's probably more reflective of reality than the narrative was two or three years ago.

Sarah Spreitzer: But Jon, at the same time, I saw that President Trump mentioned Columbia yesterday in his comments at the Museum of the Bible, where I was talking about religious freedom, and he brought up Columbia and said they'd paid a fine, but it wasn't enough. And I think for many of these institutions, as they're negotiating a settlement or whatever to free up their federal funding again, it's just the start of what the administration is asking, in some cases. And so it seems like the administration sees that as the initial opening salvo, whereas the institution may think, okay, well that's the settlement. Everything will go back to normal. And I mean, none of this is normal, but I think institutions are watching that very closely, that just because you settle doesn't mean that things will automatically go back to how they were.

Jon Fansmith: Yeah. And I will say what was interesting about the, and actually what he said was that he keeps being told by Leo Terrell and Pam Bondi, Leo Terrell's, the head of the anti-Semitism task force, Pam Bondi, the Attorney General, that they aren't settling for large enough sums of money. And in fact, there was a tweet earlier, end of last week, I think from Christopher Rufo making essentially the same point, that these deals haven't been punitive enough. So Sarah, to your point, there may be a undercurrent with this administration that looks at saying, "We're not dropping the hammer hard enough and we need to negotiate harder." I think the other thing I took away from the president's comments in his speech yesterday, the only thing he talked about was the dollar signs.

He didn't talk about any of the provisions of the settlements. He didn't talk, he basically said, "Look, we're addressing anti-religious discrimination and we got over 200 million from Colombia, got about 50 million from," it all came down to the dollar signs. And so I think I take your point, but to my mind, this administration isn't really looking to enact policy change. They're looking to win a media cycle and say, "We beat an institution." And the way the president certainly, at least publicly, is quantifying that as, what's the dollar amount we got? So yeah, I mean there's a funding aspect for it. Maybe they're going to push for bigger cash settlements as part of this process, but ultimately, it gives the lie to what the effort is. It's not to actually address discrimination or anything else.

Mushtaq Gunja: Yeah, I mean the idea of the punitive damages here is a little bit foreign to what would typically happen in the Title V, Title VII, Title IX context. I mean the remedy for some past problem is the amelioration of that problem. Dollars going to the United States Treasury, I mean I think, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the Columbia dollars are just a check made out to the United States Treasury. Settlement with Brown has $50 million going to workforce development partners in Providence. Pretty different, actually. And the timeframes will look different. And the other thing about the large dollar signs, Jon, I mean, there's only a limited number of institutions that can be settling for tens of millions of dollars.

I mean, most of our institutions don't have those dollars, and those dollars are coming from tuition. I mean, most institutions don't have endowments that they could draw from or loans that they could take out. So I mean, there are only so many of these wins that the administration can have. It seems to me, though maybe I'm wrong about that. I mean, on the amelioration injunctive relief side, there are more institutions. But if that's not what he cares about, if that's not what they care about, then I don't know if they're going to get so many more of these. I guess I'll take the last word on that. Let me do, in the last couple of minutes that we have, can we tee up what's going on appropriations-wise? Because if I remember correctly, five months ago there was a six-month continuing resolution that is set to expire at the end of this coming month. Is that this month? September [inaudible 00:53:01]-

Sarah Spreitzer: Yeah, October. Yes.

Jon Fansmith: So technically they did a year-long continuing resolution-

Mushtaq Gunja: Oh, okay.

Jon Fansmith: That is funded out. Yeah, functionally was because they passed it halfway through the year or six month, but sorry-

Mushtaq Gunja: Jon, I'm asking the wrong question. Tell us where we are, my friend.

Jon Fansmith: So right now we are in fiscal year '25. That is, with some minor changes, is being funded at fiscal year '24 levels.

Sarah Spreitzer: Is it?

Jon Fansmith: Well, it's not. According to Congress, it is. According to the administration, we'll do what we want. This current fiscal year '25 ends on the end of September. October 1st is the start of the new fiscal year. The basic calculus is that Congress has to have something in place as of October 1st that says how the government is being funded or else the government goes into a shutdown. That can look like a lot of different things. What we have done basically every year over the last 10 or 15 years is that Congress buys themselves extra time to figure out a deal by doing what's called a short-term continuing resolution, or CR. Basically move the deadline back and fund the government at current levels. I don't know, I think Sarah would agree with me that we think that's probably what we will see in the next, well now Sarah's looking-

Sarah Spreitzer: No, you're right. I don't think there will be a shutdown.

Jon Fansmith: Yeah, I don't think, as of midnight on September 30th, that there will be a shutdown. I think we might see a shutdown during this cycle because of two key things. One is that Chuck Schumer in particular, and Democrats generally, got hammered for agreeing to the continuing resolution with Republicans and then seeing this administration not actually fund, put the money that Congress appropriated where they were directed to do it. And barring some really strong safeguards that their administration will actually do what the law requires them to do, Democrats don't have a lot of incentive to approve anything because if it's not going to be spent out anyway, why would you participate?

The other thing, of course, is that what we might see is, from this administration, proposals for massive cuts. And those, so far, have been reflected in the few places, mostly in the House. Senate, not so much, but you need Democratic votes to pass a funding bill. You'll need at least Senate Democrats to vote for this. And they are just not going to go along with big cuts to programs that matter to them. Not after all the cuts in reconciliation, not after the unwillingness administration to fund the programs they care about and because their constituency is looking for them to fight. So I think we might buy some time, but I do think we're going to get to a point where probably the process will break down because there's very little incentive, unlike in previous cycles, to bring Democrats to the table here.

Sarah Spreitzer: Well, and I think I'm more worried about what the administration has learned this year, that they can successfully pass a rescissions package. They can do a pocket rescission, they can change priorities and change congressional priorities in the funding cycle. And so what does the appropriations process even mean? We have both the House and the Senate rejected. The President's proposed 40% cut to the National Institutes of Health, but if NIH isn't funding grants, what does it matter how much money they give? So it'll be interesting to see how the end of this month plays out because it's not just what is going to happen with FY '26, but is there going to be anything said to the administration about not spending out all of the FY '25 funds?

Mushtaq Gunja: To me, this is why I'm much less, I don't know if the word optimistic is the right word. I'm just much less sure that we're going to have a continuing resolution. I don't know what it means for the Democrats to agree to a short-term continuing resolution, which requires 60 votes in the Senate. So it will require some Democrats. I don't know how they can agree when, they can agree to a dollar amount in a budget if those dollars just might not get spent by the administration, if the Trump folks can just do whatever they want with the dollars.

I don't understand what incentive there is for the Democrats to go along with the funding package. On the other hand, I mean, of course the politics might request that Democrats [inaudible 00:57:35] get blamed for shutdown, et cetera. We'll talk a lot more about this next time. In 45 seconds, 60 seconds, guys, I saw some house language, I think, earlier today, related to some potential cuts to SEOG. What do we know so far? What implications are there for higher ed? Is it too early for us to know? What do we know so far?

Jon Fansmith: So it really is playing out the way that it normally does. The House, where the majority party has pretty unilateral authority to move things forward. In this case, they're aligned to the president. They have put forward a budget that honestly was better than we expected, which is not to say that it's good. They preserved Pell funding. The administration would cut Pell by $1,700 approximately, but they didn't. The House budget still makes pretty massive cuts. They cut work study by 451 million. They thoroughly eliminate the SEOG, the Supplemental Educational Opportunity grants. There's cuts across the board in the House bill. It's really these two gaps. The Senate, for the most part, flat-funded and spent about $13 billion more at the Department of Education.

They had more money to spend because they gave themselves more money in that pool and they spent it so most programs are protected. The House gave themselves a much lower pool, so they had to implement cuts. The question isn't really what did the House do or what did the Senate do? It's ultimately where you started, Mushtaq. What are the political considerations? What gets you to the top line number? And then once you know a top line number that has bipartisan support, who wins the battle of priorities about how that's allocated out among those programs? And we're still pretty early in that process. Also, just make a pitch to folks that this is a place where your voices can be very important.

Your members of Congress are going to weigh dozens, hundreds, thousands of programs in terms of what their priorities are for funding and hearing from their constituents that a Pell Grant's helping them go to college, that SEOG is the program that made the difference between affording the school they wanted to go to and maybe another option, weigh in. It literally can be a simple phone call, email, social media post about the value of these programs. They will stack those up and count them. And when the considerations come in, that really does matter on how they'll vote. So I saw somebody asking for a positive. I don't know if that's a positive, but it is a call to action. This is a time when members of Congress are especially attuned to what their constituents want. If they don't hear from you, you drop down the priority list.

Sarah Spreitzer: Yep. And Jon and I were just up on Capitol Hill today, and there were a lot of fly-in days. There were a lot of people up there talking about their priorities and the appropriations process. So it's not too late in the game to engage with your member and talk about those funding priorities.

Mushtaq Gunja: I'll just do one little bit of hopefulness too. School has started. I love fall. I love being back in school. I love seeing the students in the classroom. I was in the classroom yesterday, great discussion about prosecutorial charging decisions in my advanced criminal procedure class. I mean, if nothing else, the students are amazing. That's why we're here. That's why we do what we do. We're changing lives, and they're changing our lives too. So I mean, I'm sorry we were so gloomy, but we're here for our students. And just keeping that in the center, I think, is so important for all of us. So, Jon, Sarah, anything else? Last call.

Sarah Spreitzer: It's great to be back.

Mushtaq Gunja: It's great to be back.

Jon Fansmith: It's great to be back. And thanks everybody for joining too.

Mushtaq Gunja: We'll see you in a couple of weeks. Bye all. Thank you for joining us on dotEDU. If you enjoyed the show, please consider subscribing, rating and leaving a review on your favorite podcast platform. Your feedback is important to us and it helps other policy [inaudible 01:01:29] discover our show. Don't forget to follow ACE on social media to stay updated on upcoming episodes and other higher education content. You can find us on X, LinkedIn and Instagram. And of course, if you have any questions, comments, or suggestions for future episodes, please feel free to reach out to us at podcast @acenetdotEDU. Love hearing from our listeners and who knows, your input might inspire a future episode.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Demands for Data on Race and the Future of College Admissions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
dotEDU is back for Season 7 with an examination of President Trump's demand for admissions data by race and sex and what that means for campuses.

# data[].attributes.headline
TAMUS: Artificial Intelligence in Research

# data[].attributes.subject
TAMUS: Artificial Intelligence in Research

# data[].attributes.body
Faculty conducting research involving human subjects within the Texas A&M University System must comply with Policy 15.99.08, which mandates Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval before initiating any such research. Researchers are required to complete human subjects protection training, obtain informed consent from participants (unless waived by the IRB), and adhere strictly to approved protocols. Any noncompliance or unexpected issues must be promptly reported to the IRB. This policy ensures ethical standards and federal compliance across all TAMUS institutions, regardless of funding source.

# data[].attributes.headline
Rutgers: Writing Evidence-Based Opinion Essays 

# data[].attributes.subject
Rutgers: Writing Evidence-Based Opinion Essays 

# data[].attributes.body
Notes from session

9/4/2025

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Notes Writing Evidence-Based Opinion Essays

# data[].attributes.headline
Hanover: Advanced Strategies for Enhancing Your Proposal Narrative

# data[].attributes.subject
Hanover: Advanced Strategies for Enhancing Your Proposal Narrative

# data[].attributes.body
The session focused on best practices and advanced strategies for successful grant writing, emphasizing the importance of clear organization, effective communication, and collaboration among team members. Key topics included tailoring proposals for reviewers, using graphics and highlighted text to convey critical information, and seeking feedback to strengthen grant applications.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Advanced Strategies for Enhancing Your Proposal Narrative

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this webinar, we will explore advanced strategies for developing a strong grant narrative, including how to imagine the reviewer while writing a proposal, how to identify the early elements of the proposal that are most important, and how to create a meta narrative to help reviewers identify key points in the proposal.

# data[].attributes.headline
Hanover: Creative Grant Seeking in a Challenging Landscape

# data[].attributes.subject
Hanover: Creative Grant Seeking in a Challenging Landscape

# data[].attributes.body
Christina Weaver, a managing grants consultant at Hanover, and her colleague presented strategies for successful grant seeking in a changing funding landscape. They emphasized the importance of building fundable concepts rather than chasing money, and shared a case study of a successful project that expanded over 8 years to reach 18 rural counties. The presenters highlighted four key tools: mapping out a constitution, flexibility in scaling up or down, focusing on impact, and being resourceful and scrappy. They also discussed the value of networking, exploring internal funding programs, and utilizing online platforms for finding new funding sources.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Creative Grant Seeking in a Challenging Landscape

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Using examples based in real experience, this webinar will illustrate how a combination of creative design and resourceful grant seeking - such as exploring foundations or clearly articulating impact - can give PIs promising pathways to pursue even amidst a changing landscape

# data[].attributes.headline
Hanover: 5 Ways Higher Education Is Changing in 2025-26

# data[].attributes.subject
Hanover: 5 Ways Higher Education Is Changing in 2025-26

# data[].attributes.body
The report outlines five major shifts in U.S. higher education for 2025–26: a stronger emphasis on workforce-aligned, flexible academic programs; growing financial and political pressures affecting access and planning; a pivot from prestige-based branding to value-driven messaging; and a renewed focus on student success metrics and mental health support. Institutions are responding with accelerated planning, diversified funding strategies, and data-informed service improvements to remain resilient and relevant.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 Ways Higher Education Is Changing in 2025-26

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Prepare your institution for rapid higher education changes while making decisions grounded in evidence and best practices. As new political, legal, and

# data[].attributes.headline
Hanover: Storytelling in Grantwriting, Part II: The Plot Thickens

# data[].attributes.subject
Hanover: Storytelling in Grantwriting, Part II: The Plot Thickens

# data[].attributes.body
The webinar emphasizes that storytelling is a powerful tool in grant writing because it creates emotional connections, makes data meaningful, and inspires funders to act. Strong narratives help humanize complex issues and make proposals more memorable. Several storytelling frameworks were discussed, including the classic arc, hero’s journey, problem-solution-impact, and braided narrative—all of which can be used to structure compelling grant narratives. Stories are especially effective in sections like the needs statement, program description, outcomes, and sustainability. Techniques such as anchoring to one person, zooming in and out, balancing emotion with evidence, and using visual language help sharpen storytelling. The presentation also highlights common pitfalls like being too vague or overly data-driven, and encourages using specific, empowering language. Ultimately, storytelling is not fluff—it’s strategic framing that helps funders see the impact and feel the urgency.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Storytelling in Grantwriting, Part II: The Plot Thickens

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Back by popular demand, this sequel dives deeper into the art of storytelling as it relates to the grant writing process, providing targeted strategies

# data[].attributes.body
Google AI Essentials Glossary

# data[].attributes.headline
EDUCAUSE: Cultivating Confidence: Unleash Your Full Potential at Work

# data[].attributes.subject
EDUCAUSE: Cultivating Confidence: Unleash Your Full Potential at Work

# data[].attributes.body
This engaging session explored how confidence and self-efficacy impact professional success, emphasizing that confidence is not a fixed trait but a skill that can be cultivated. Tierra Kirts outlined four key strategies, mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological feedback, to build lasting confidence. She encouraged participants to reflect on their fears, take small intentional risks, and lean into their authentic strengths. The presentation highlighted how authenticity, preparation, and mindset shifts can transform workplace performance and personal growth.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Webinar | Cultivating Confidence: Unleash Your Full Potential at Work

# data[].attributes.headline
Supporting Fairness and Originality in NIH Research Applications

# data[].attributes.subject
Supporting Fairness and Originality in NIH Research Applications

# data[].attributes.body
NIH is providing guidance to researchers on the appropriate usage of artificial intelligence (AI) to maintain the fairness and originality of NIH’s research application process. NIH is also instituting a new policy limiting the number of applications that NIH will consider per Principal Investigator per calendar year.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NOT-OD-25-132: Supporting Fairness and Originality in NIH Research Applications

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NIH Funding Opportunities and Notices in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts: Supporting Fairness and Originality in NIH Research Applications NOT-OD-25-132. NIH

# data[].attributes.headline
InsideHigherEd: Understanding Value of Learning Fuels ChatGPT’s Study Mode

# data[].attributes.subject
InsideHigherEd: Understanding Value of Learning Fuels ChatGPT’s Study Mode

# data[].attributes.body
Two teaching and learning experts experimented with ChatGPT’s new Study Mode, which promises to support “deeper learning” among college students. Google and Anthropic have also unveiled similar tools, but their effectiveness will likely depend on the student.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Inside Higher Ed | Higher Education News, Events and Jobs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Understanding Value of Learning Fuels ChatGPT’s Study Mode

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Two teaching and learning experts experimented with ChatGPT’s new Study Mode, which promises to support “deeper learning” among college students. Google and Anthropic have also unveiled similar tools, but their effectiveness will likely depend on the student.

# data[].attributes.body
The CommonGrants Protocol aims to reduce administrative burden and improve access to funding for our research community. By standardizing how grant data is shared, it can help researchers spend less time navigating systems and more time advancing their work.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Documentation for the CommonGrants protocol

# data[].attributes.body
Data curation at Dryad – Ensures metadata quality; verifies data are accessible, usable, and licensed for sharing, and supports authors.

Data publishing at Dryad – Increases discoverability of data, connects data with other research outputs, promotes data citation, and makes data count.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

# data[].attributes.headline
Data Sharing for Demographic Research (DSDR

# data[].attributes.subject
Data Sharing for Demographic Research (DSDR

# data[].attributes.body
DSDR advances research on maternal and child health and the life course by making data discoverable and accessible for secondary analysis. DSDR is a research data and information repository that adheres to the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) principals. DSDR focuses on data with external validity that can be generalized to populations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On March 31, 2025, as a sponsor of this project, NIH requested that the following language be added to this website: This repository is under review for potential modification in compliance with Administration directives.

# data[].attributes.headline
NIH: Writing a Data Management & Sharing Plan

# data[].attributes.subject
NIH: Writing a Data Management & Sharing Plan

# data[].attributes.body
Learn what NIH expects Data Management & Sharing Plans to address, as well as how to submit your Plan.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Learn what NIH expects Data Management & Sharing Plans to address, as well as how to submit your Plan.

Writing a Data Sharing Plan

Under its 2003 data sharing policy, NIH expects investigators to submit a data sharing plan with requests for funding or grants, cooperative agreements, intramural research, contracts, or other funding agreements of $500,000 or more per year.

Data sharing plans should describe how an applicant will share their final research data. The specifics of the plan will vary on a case-by-case basis, depending on the type of data to be shared and how the investigator plans to share the data.
Examples of information to cover in a data sharing plan include:

The expected schedule for data sharing

The format of the dataset

The documentation to be provided with the dataset

Whether any analytic tools also will be provided

Whether a data-sharing agreement will be required. If so, consider including:

A brief description of such an agreement

Criteria for deciding who can receive the data

Whether or not any conditions will be placed on their use

The mode of data sharing (e.g., the PI could handle data sharing by mailing a disk or posting data on their institutional or personal website, or the data sharing could be handled through a data archive or enclave).
Investigators choosing to handle their own data sharing may wish to enter into a data-sharing agreement.

Generating large-scale genomic data? NIH's Genomic Data Sharing (GDS) policy may also apply to your research. See our GDS Policy Overview to learn more.

Examples of Data Sharing Plans

The exact content and level of detail to be included in a data sharing plan depends on the specifics of the project, such as how the investigator is planning to share data, or the size and complexity of the dataset. The examples below give a sense of what a data sharing plan can look like.

Example 1
This application requests support to collect public-use data from a survey of more than 22,000 Americans over the age of 50 every 2 years. Data products from this study will be made available without cost to researchers and analysts. User registration is required in order to access or download files. As part of the registration process, users must agree to the conditions of use governing access to the public release data, including restrictions against attempting to identify study participants, destruction of the data after analyses are completed, reporting responsibilities, restrictions on redistribution of the data to third parties, and proper acknowledgment of the data resource. Registered users will receive user support, as well as information related to errors in the data, future releases, workshops, and publication lists. The information provided to users will not be used for commercial purposes, and will not be redistributed to third parties.

Example 2
The proposed research will include data from approximately 500 subjects being screened for three bacterial sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) at an inner city STD clinic. The final dataset will include self-reported demographic and behavioral data from interviews with the subjects and laboratory data from urine specimens provided. Because the STDs being studied are reportable diseases, we will be collecting identifying information. Even though the final dataset will be stripped of identifiers prior to release for sharing, we believe that there remains the possibility of deductive disclosure of subjects with unusual characteristics. Thus, we will make the data and associated documentation available to users only under a data-sharing agreement that provides for: (1) a commitment to using the data only for research purposes and not to identify any individual participant; (2) a commitment to securing the data using appropriate computer technology; and (3) a commitment to destroying or returning the data after analyses are completed.

Example 3
The proposed research will involve a small sample (less than 20 participants) recruited from clinical facilities in the New York City area with Williams syndrome. This rare craniofacial disorder is associated with distinguishing facial features. Even with the removal of all identifiers, we believe that it would be difficult if not impossible to protect the identities of subjects given the physical characteristics of subjects, the type of clinical data (including imaging) that we will be collecting, and the relatively restricted area from which we are recruiting subjects. Therefore, we are not planning to share the data.
Example 4 What data that will be shared:
I will share phenotypic data associated with the collected samples by depositing these data at ________________ which is an NIH-funded repository. Genotype data will be shared by depositing these data at ________________. Additional data documentation and de-identified data will be deposited for sharing along with phenotypic data, which includes demographics, family history of XXXXXX disease, and diagnosis, consistent with applicable laws and regulations. I will comply with the NIH GWAS Policy and the funding IC's existing policies on sharing data on XXXXXX disease genetics to include secondary analysis of data resulting from a genome wide association study through the repository. Meta-analysis data and associated phenotypic data, along with data content, format, and organization, will be available at ____________. Submitted data will confirm with relevant data and terminology standards.
Who will have access to the data:
I agree that data will be deposited and made available through ________________ which is an NIH-funded repository, and that these data will be shared with investigators working under an institution with a Federal Wide Assurance (FWA) and could be used for secondary study purposes such as finding genes that contribute to process of XXXXXX. I agree that the names and Institutions of persons either given or denied access to the data, and the bases for such decisions, will be summarized in the annual progress report. Meta-analysis data and associated phenotypic data, along with data content, format, and organization, will be made available to investigators through ____________.
Where will the data be available:
I agree to deposit and maintain the phenotypic data, and secondary analysis of data (if any) at ________________, which is an NIH-funded repository and that the repository has data access policies and procedures consistent with NIH data sharing policies.
When will the data be shared:
I agree to deposit genetic outcome data into ________________ repository as soon as possible but no later than within one year of the completion of the funded project period for the parent award or upon acceptance of the data for publication, or public disclosure of a submitted patent application, whichever is earlier.
How will researchers locate and access the data:
I agree that I will identify where the data will be available and how to access the data in any publications and presentations that I author or co-author about these data, as well as acknowledge the repository and funding source in any publications and presentations. As I will be using ________________, which is an NIH-funded repository, this repository has policies and procedures in place that will provide data access to qualified researchers, fully consistent with NIH data sharing policies and applicable laws and regulations.

Writing a Data Management and Sharing Plan

Under the 2023 Data Management and Sharing (DMS) Policy, NIH expects researchers to maximize the appropriate sharing of scientific data, taking into account factors such as legal, ethical, or technical issues that may limit the extent of data sharing and preservation.

NIH requires all applicants planning to generate scientific data to prepare a DMS Plan that describes how the scientific data will be managed and shared. For more on what constitutes scientific data, see Research Covered Under the Data Management & Sharing Policy.

Applications subject to NIH's Genomic Data Sharing (GDS) Policy should also address GDS-specific considerations within the elements of a DMS Plan (see NOT-OD-22-189 and details below).

Submitting Data Management and Sharing Plans

The DMS Plan should be submitted as follows:

Extramural (grants):

DMS Plans should be included within the "Other Plan(s)" field on the PHS 398 Research Plan or PHS 398 Career Development Award Supplemental Form as indicated in the Application Instructions. See below for details on developing and formatting Plans.

A brief summary and associated costs should be submitted as part of the budget and budget justification (see Budgeting for Data Management and Sharing and the Application Instructions for details).

Extramural (contracts): as part of the technical evaluation

Intramural: determined by the Intramural Research Program

Other funding agreements: prior to the release of funds

Data Management and Sharing Plan Format

DMS Plans are recommended to be two pages or less in length.

NIH has developed an optional DMS Plan format page that aligns with the recommended elements of a DMS Plan.
Important: Do not include hypertext (e.g., hyperlinks and URLs) in the DMS Plan attachment.

Elements to Include in a Data Management and Sharing Plan

As outlined in NIH Guide Notice Supplemental Policy Information: Elements of an NIH Data Management and Sharing Plan, DMS Plans should address the following recommended elements and are recommended to be two pages or less in length. As described in the Application Guide, the DMS Plan should be attached to the application as a PDF file. See NIH's Format Attachments page.

1. Data Type

Briefly describe the scientific data to be managed and shared:

Summarize the types (for example, 256-channel EEG data and fMRI images) and amount (for example, from 50 research participants) of scientific data to be generated and/or used in the research. Descriptions may include the data modality (e.g., imaging, genomic, mobile, survey), level of aggregation (e.g., individual, aggregated, summarized), and/or the degree of data processing.

Describe which scientific data from the project will be preserved and shared. NIH does not anticipate that researchers will preserve and share all scientific data generated in a study. Researchers should decide which scientific data to preserve and share based on ethical, legal, and technical factors. The plan should provide the reasoning for these decisions.

A brief listing of the metadata, other relevant data, and any associated documentation (e.g., study protocols and data collection instruments) that will be made accessible to facilitate interpretation of the scientific data

For data subject to the GDS Policy:
Data types expected to be shared under the GDS Policy should be described in this element. Note that the GDS Policy expects certain types of data to be shared that may not be covered by the DMS Policy's definition of "scientific data". For more information on the data types to be shared under the GDS Policy, consult Data Submission and Release Expectations.

2. Related Tools, Software and/or Code

Indicate whether specialized tools are needed to access or manipulate shared scientific data to support replication or reuse, and name(s) of the needed tool(s) and software. If applicable, specify how needed tools can be accessed.

3. Standards

Describe what standards, if any, will be applied to the scientific data and associated metadata (i.e., data formats, data dictionaries, data identifiers, definitions, unique identifiers, and other data documentation).

4. Data Preservation, Access, and Associated Timelines

Give plans and timelines for data preservation and access, including:

5. Access, Distribution, or Reuse Considerations

Describe any applicable factors affecting subsequent access, distribution, or reuse of scientific data related to:

Informed consent

Privacy and confidentiality protections consistent with applicable federal, Tribal, state, and local laws, regulations, and policies

Whether access to scientific data derived from humans will be controlled

Any restrictions imposed by federal, Tribal, or state laws, regulations, or policies, or existing or anticipated agreements

Any other considerations that may limit the extent of data sharing. Any potential limitations on subsequent data use should be communicated to the individuals or entities (for example, data repository managers) that will preserve and share the scientific data. The NIH ICO will assess whether an applicant's DMS plan appropriately considers and describes these factors. For more examples, see Frequently Asked Questions for examples of justifiable reasons for limiting sharing of data.

Expectations for human genomic data subject to the GDS Policy:

Informed Consent Expectations:

For research involving the generation of large-scale human genomic data from cell lines or clinical specimens that were created or collected AFTER the effective date of the GDS Policy (January 25, 2015):
NIH expects that informed consent for future research use and broad data sharing will have been obtained. This expectation applies to de-identified cell lines or clinical specimens regardless of whether the data meet technical and/or legal definitions of de-identified (i.e. the research does not meet the definition of "human subjects research" under the Common Rule).

For research involving the generation of large-scale human genomic data from cell lines or clinical specimens that were created or collected BEFORE the effective date of the GDS Policy:
There may or may not have been consent for research use and broad data sharing. NIH will accept data derived from de-identified cell lines or clinical specimens lacking consent for research use that were created or collected before the effective date of this Policy.

Institutional Certifications and Data Sharing Limitation Expectations:

DMS Plans should address limitations on sharing by anticipating sharing according to the criteria of the Institutional Certification.

In cases where it is anticipated that Institutional Certification criteria cannot be met (i.e., data cannot be shared as expected by the GDS Policy), investigators should state the institutional Certification criteria in their DMS Plan, explaining why the element cannot be met, and indicating what data, if any, can be shared and how to enable sharing to the maximal extent possible (for example, sharing data in a summary format). In some instances, the funding NIH ICO may need to determine whether to grant an exception to the data submission expectation under the GDS Policy.

Genomic Summary Results:
Investigators conducting research subject to the GDS Policy should indicate in their DMS Plan if a study should be designated as "sensitive" for the purposes of access to Genomic Summary Results (GSR), as described in NOT-OD-19-023.

6. Oversight of Data Management and Sharing

Indicate how compliance with the DMS Plan will be monitored and managed, the frequency of oversight, and by whom (e.g., title, roles). This element refers to oversight by the funded institution, rather than by NIH. The DMS Policy does not create any expectations about who will be responsible for Plan oversight at the institution.

Sample Plans

NIH has provided sample DMS Plans as examples of how a DMS Plan could be completed in different contexts, conforming to the elements described above. These sample DMS Plans are provided for educational purposes to assist applicants with developing Plans but are not intended to be used as templates and their use does not guarantee approval by NIH.

Note that the sample DMS Plans provided below may reflect additional expectations established by NIH or specific NIH Institutes, Centers, or Offices that go beyond the DMS Policy. Applicants will need to ensure that their Plan reflects any additional, applicable expectations (including from NIH policies and any ICO- or program-specific expectations as stated in the funding opportunity).

Assessment of Data Management and Sharing Plans

Program staff at the proposed NIH Institute or Center (IC) will assess DMS Plans to ensure the elements of a DMS Plan have been adequately addressed and to assess the reasonableness of those responses. Applications selected for funding will only be funded if the DMS Plan is complete and acceptable.

During peer review, reviewers will not be asked to comment on the DMS Plan nor will they factor the DMS Plan into the Overall Impact score, unless sharing data is integral to the project design and specified in the funding opportunity (see NOT-OD-22-189).

If data sharing is integral to the project and tied to a scored review criterion in the funding opportunity, program staff will assess the adequacy of the DMS Plan per standard procedure, but peer reviewers will also be able to view the DMS Plan attachment and may factor that information into scores as outlined in the evaluation criteria.

For information about budget assessment by peer reviewers, see Budgeting for Data Management and Sharing.

Revising Data Management and Sharing Plans

Pre-Award Plan Revisions: If the DMS Plan provided in the application cannot be approved based on the information provided, applicants will be notified that additional information is needed. This will occur through the Just-in-Time (JIT) process. Applicants will be expected to communicate with their Program Officer and/or Grants Management Specialist to resolve any issues that prevent the funding IC from approving the DMS Plan. If needed, applicants should submit a revised DMS Plan. Refer to NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 2.5.1 Just-in-Time Procedures for additional guidance.

Post-Award Plan Revisions: Although investigators submit plans before research begins, plans may need to be updated or revised over the course of a project for a variety of reasons for example, if the type(s) of data generated change(s), a more appropriate data repository becomes available, or if the sharing timeline shifts. If any changes occur during the award or support period that affects how data is managed or shared, investigators should update the Plan to reflect the changes. It may be helpful to discuss potential changes with the Program Officer. In addition, the funding NIH ICO will need to approve the updated Plan. NIH staff will monitor compliance with approved DMS Plans during the annual RPPR process as well. For more details, please refer to NOT-OD-24-176: Updated Processes for Requesting Revisions to an Approved Data Management and Sharing (DMS) Plan .

Additional Considerations

Note that funding opportunities or ICs may have specific expectations (for example: scientific data to share, relevant standards, repository selection). View a list of NIH Institute or Center data sharing policies. Investigators are encouraged to reach out to program officers with questions about specific ICO requirements.

Please note that a Plan is part of an application, and, as such, an institution takes responsibility for the Plan and the rest of the application's contents when submitting an application. Although part of the official submission, when not considered during peer review the attachment is maintained as a separate "Data Management and Sharing (DMS) Plan" document in the grant folder viewable via the Status Information screen in eRA Commons. This document is viewable by authorized users and is not part of the assembled e-Application.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Writing a Data Management & Sharing Plan

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Writing a Data Management & Sharing Plan | Data Sharing - Learn about NIH data sharing policies and how to share and access scientific data