Science
The U.S. Is Funding Fewer Grants in Every Area of Science and Medicine
In the past decade, the National Institutes of Health awarded top scientists $9 billion in competitive grants each year, to find cures for diseases and improve public health.
This year, something unusual happened…
This year, something unusual happened… Starting in January, the Trump administration stalled that funding. By summer, funding lagged by over $2 billion, or 41 percent below average.
But in a surprising turn, the N.I.H. began to spend at a breakneck pace and narrow this gap.
There was a catch, however: That money went to fewer grants.
Which means less research was funded in areas such as aging, diabetes, strokes, cancer and mental health.
Which means less research was funded in areas such as aging, diabetes, strokes, cancer and mental health.
National Institutes of Health competitive grant funding
To spend its budget, the N.I.H. made an unusual number of large lump-sum payments for many years of research, instead of its usual policy of paying for research one year at a time.
As a result of this quiet policy shift, the average payment for competitive grants swelled from $472,000 in the first half of the fiscal year to over $830,000 in the last two months.
While this might sound like a boon for researchers, it’s actually a fundamental shift in how grants are funded — one that means more competition for funding, and less money and less time to do the research.
In the past, the N.I.H. typically awarded grants in five annual installments.
Researchers could request two more years to spend this money, at no cost.
Under the new system, the N.I.H. pays up front for four years of work.
And researchers can get one more year to spend this money.
Which means that they get less money on average, and less time to spend it.
And because these fully funded grants commit all of their money up front, it means the agency’s annual budget is divided into fewer projects, instead of being spread among a larger number of scientific bets.
The new policy directive came from the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, which in the summer instructed the N.I.H. to spend half of its remaining funds to fully fund research grants. In the past, the agency would do so only in special circumstances.
The White House has said this would “increase N.I.H. budget flexibility” by not encumbering its annual budget with payments to previously approved projects. It has said it plans to continue this policy in 2026, while proposing to shrink the agency’s budget by $18 billion, or nearly 40 percent. (The Senate and House rejected the White House’s proposed budget cuts, but have not yet agreed on the agency’s budget.)
“My sense of it was that the administration wanted to clear the decks,” said Sarah Kobrin, a branch chief at the N.I.H.’s National Cancer Institute, who said she was sharing her views, not those of the institute.
The new policy is being carried out as the Trump administration has tightened its hold over federal science funding. Earlier this year, it delayed reviewing grants in order to vet research by political appointees, culled projects that mentioned D.E.I. and fired thousands of employees or pressured them to retire early. (The N.I.H. lost nearly 3,000 employees this year, or about 14 percent of its work force, based on a New York Times review of the agency’s shutdown contingency plans.)
“They brought everything to a stop,” Dr. Kobrin said.
Nonetheless, the N.I.H. managed to spend most of its budget by the end of the fiscal year. “My colleagues did an outstanding job to work their butts off to approve things,” said Theresa Kim, a program officer at N.I.H.’s National Institute on Aging.
Something similar happened at the National Science Foundation, which is the second-largest federal funder of research at U.S. universities, after the N.I.H.
The N.S.F. started the year with funding delays caused by the Trump administration, and it lost about a third of its employees in layoffs or forced retirements. The agency ended the year awarding 25 percent fewer new grants.
New grants awarded by the National Science Foundation, 2015–25
Facing a proposed $5 billion cut to its $9 billion budget, the N.S.F. fully paid off many of the grants that were on its books, a strategy that employees called “paying down the mortgage.” It also paid for nearly all new awards upfront (though, unlike at the N.I.H., not necessarily for less time and money).
To draw these conclusions, The Times used public data to analyze nearly every competitive grant — over 300,000 in all — that the N.I.H. and the N.S.F. awarded since 2015, and interviewed many employees at these agencies.
Here’s what we found:
1. Fewer grants in every area of science and medicine
Together, the N.I.H. and the N.S.F. had a nearly $60 billion annual budget for funding future breakthroughs in science and medicine, about a quarter of which is typically spent on new grants or competitive renewals.
This year, both agencies made far fewer competitive awards:
Competitive grants at the …
National Institutes of Health
National Science Foundation
The White House has said it is streamlining scientific funding by eliminating wasteful spending and cutting “woke programs” that “poison the minds of Americans.”
But the more than 3,500 fewer competitive grants from the N.I.H. this year touched every area of biology and medicine:
Competitive grants awarded by the National Institutes of Health
In practice, this means thousands of very competitive projects in areas like cancer, diabetes, aging, neurological disorders and public health improvements probably went unfunded in 2025.
Similarly, at the National Science Foundation, the roughly 3,000 fewer new grants encompassed reductions to every area of science (and the social sciences):
New grants awarded by the National Science Foundation
| Directorate | 2015-24 avg. | 2025 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Social, behavioral and economic sciences | 935 | 501 | -46% |
| Biology | 1,143 | 735 | -36% |
| Geosciences | 1,483 | 964 | -35% |
| STEM education | 1,087 | 758 | -30% |
| Computer science | 2,017 | 1,459 | -28% |
| Engineering | 1,755 | 1,461 | -17% |
| Math and physics | 2,512 | 2,094 | -17% |
| Technology and innovation | 757 | 657 | -13% |
| Office of the director | 132 | 205 | +55% |
| Total | 11,821 | 8,834 | -25% |
There were fewer new grants awarded in biology, geosciences, STEM education, computer science and engineering, math, physics, technology and innovation.
Only the office of the director awarded more new grants this year; it funds projects that don’t neatly fall into other categories. That growth was fueled by a previously established N.S.F. goal to expand fellowships at universities in regions that have historically received less federal funding.
The Trump administration has also taken the unusual step of canceling thousands of active health and science grants, citing a lack of overlap with its priorities.
The website Grant Witness has estimated that the administration canceled or froze 5,415 N.I.H. grants this year, of which roughly half have been reinstated through court cases or negotiations where universities have agreed to some of the administration’s demands. And it canceled or froze 1,996 N.S.F. grants, of which nearly a third have been reinstated, according to Grant Witness estimates.
2. More competition
It’s simple math: Fewer grants implies more competition for federal funding.
Take the category of research grants known as R01, the oldest and most prestigious grant that the N.I.H. awards. An acceptance or rejection can make or break a scientist’s career.
These grants fund topics such as studying the impact of e-cigarettes on brain health, modeling the movements of mice, or devising new methods to kill mosquitoes.
Last year, only one in six were funded. But this year, the agency awarded 24 percent fewer R01 grants.
R01 grants awarded by the National Institutes of Health
This means fewer scientists had their research funded. Last year, the N.I.H.’s National Cancer Institute funded R01 applications from new investigators that fell in the top 10 percent based on scoring by the agency. But by the end of fiscal year 2025, it funded only the top 4 percent.
“Nobody believes that a fourth-percentile and a fifth-percentile grant are clearly of different quality,” Dr. Kobrin said. “It’s just not that precise a measurement.”
3. A drop in grants mentioning diversity
The Trump administration has prioritized eliminating research that involves diversity, equity and inclusion, and has eliminated hundreds of keywords related to diversity on federal websites.
A Times analysis found a steep reduction in the share of competitive N.I.H. grants whose titles or abstracts included flagged D.E.I.-related keywords (such as “equity,” “racial minority” or “underserved patient”) on a list shared by N.I.H. employees.
Share of competitive N.I.H. grants that included flagged D.E.I.-related keywords
The data shows a big surge in these keywords after 2020, during the Biden administration.
While some of the decline in 2025 could be attributed to a change in the language that researchers use to describe their work, it also probably reflects a drop in research related to minority health. For example, the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities awarded 61 percent fewer competitive grants this year, the steepest decline at any arm of the N.I.H.
N.I.H. employees said they did not receive clear guidance on how to determine if a project was D.E.I.-related. Instead, they were sent spreadsheets of grants that had been flagged for not complying with the Trump administration’s priorities.
“We’re constantly hearing that things have been flagged,” Dr. Kobrin said.
“Nobody wants to acknowledge what they were flagged for.”
4. Fewer fellowships for future scientists
The government provides critical funds for training new scientists through graduate student, postdoctoral and early-career fellowships and grants.
The N.S.F. has run a prestigious graduate research fellowship program since 1952. It funds three years of research for around 2,000 of the country’s top science graduate students.
Number of graduate research fellowships awarded by the National Science Foundation
This year, it awarded 536 fewer such fellowships. The government originally planned to eliminate 1,000 fellowships, but later added about 500 more after facing protests from scientists and academics.
The cut affected most fields, with fellowships in four areas — life sciences, psychology, STEM education and social sciences — being cut by more than half. Fellowships in computer science, an administration priority, grew by almost 50 percent.
National Science Foundation graduate research fellowships
| Field | 2015-24 avg. | 2025 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life sciences | 516 | 214 | -59% |
| Psychology | 117 | 56 | -52% |
| STEM education | 29 | 14 | -52% |
| Social sciences | 159 | 79 | -50% |
| Math | 90 | 56 | -38% |
| Geosciences | 122 | 84 | -31% |
| Engineering | 575 | 406 | -29% |
| Chemistry | 176 | 154 | -13% |
| Materials research | 58 | 63 | +9% |
| Physics | 139 | 166 | +19% |
| Computer science | 141 | 208 | +48% |
| Total | 2,121 | 1,500 | -29% |
There were also months of delays in publishing the fellowship application for next year, and new eligibility restrictions that exclude second-year Ph.D. students from applying, which may lower the numbers of fellowships in future years.
“This is an incredibly shortsighted and regressive change,” said Kevin Johnson, a former program director at N.S.F.’s geosciences directorate, because second-year graduate students are usually better prepared to conduct research.
“It sends a signal to future potential applicants that science is not supported and is not valued,” he said.
Early-career scientists are usually more reliant on federal funding because they have few alternatives to fund their research and training. Many go on to work in industry afterward, further fueling the economy.
In a 1945 report that led to the creation of the N.S.F., Vannevar Bush, who directed military research and development during World War II, argued that the government should invest in training the next generation of scientists to ensure American scientific progress.
But many experts worry that the recent funding cuts and budget reductions may threaten America’s role as a global scientific leader.
“I personally know many scientists in my field leaving the United States altogether,” Mr. Johnson said.
About the Data
For grants from the National Institutes of Health, we downloaded data from N.I.H. RePORTER from fiscal year 2015 onward, and filtered out intramural projects, R&D contracts, interagency agreements, subprojects and grants administered by other entities. We looked only at grants labeled as new (type 1) or competitive renewals (type 2, 4C and 9) that were awarded during the fiscal year. (We did not include noncompetitive renewal grants, which are ongoing annual payments to research awarded in past years.)
For grants from the National Science Foundation, we downloaded data from the N.S.F.’s award search website from fiscal year 2015 onward. We analyzed both standard grants, where all of the money is committed up front, and continuing grants, where the money is paid in annual increments. (We did not include annual payments made to grants that were awarded in prior years.) For grants that were awarded in past years, we used USASpending.gov to identify when each grant was awarded. Data for the graduate research fellowship program was retrieved from the program’s award listing.
All dollar figures are adjusted to August 2025 dollars, and the data is updated as of Nov. 25, 2025.
Science
Commentary: My toothache led to a painful discovery: The dental care system is full of cavities as you age
I had a nagging toothache recently, and it led to an even more painful revelation.
If you X-rayed the state of oral health care in the United States, particularly for people 65 and older, the picture would be full of cavities.
“It’s probably worse than you can even imagine,” said Elizabeth Mertz, a UC San Francisco professor and Healthforce Center researcher who studies barriers to dental care for seniors.
Mertz once referred to the snaggletoothed, gap-filled oral health care system — which isn’t really a system at all — as “a mess.”
But let me get back to my toothache, while I reach for some painkiller. It had been bothering me for a couple of weeks, so I went to see my dentist, hoping for the best and preparing for the worst, having had two extractions in less than two years.
Let’s make it a trifecta.
My dentist said a molar needed to be yanked because of a cellular breakdown called resorption, and a periodontist in his office recommended a bone graft and probably an implant. The whole process would take several months and cost roughly the price of a swell vacation.
I’m lucky to have a great dentist and dental coverage through my employer, but as anyone with a private plan knows, dental insurance can barely be called insurance. It’s fine for cleanings and basic preventive routines. But for more complicated and expensive procedures — which multiply as you age — you can be on the hook for half the cost, if you’re covered at all, with annual payout caps in the $1,500 range.
“The No. 1 reason for delayed dental care,” said Mertz, “is out-of-pocket costs.”
So I wondered if cost-wise, it would be better to dump my medical and dental coverage and switch to a Medicare plan that costs extra — Medicare Advantage — but includes dental care options. Almost in unison, my two dentists advised against that because Medicare supplemental plans can be so limited.
Sorting it all out can be confusing and time-consuming, and nobody warns you in advance that aging itself is a job, the benefits are lousy, and the specialty care you’ll need most — dental, vision, hearing and long-term care — are not covered in the basic package. It’s as if Medicare was designed by pranksters, and we’re paying the price now as the percentage of the 65-and-up population explodes.
So what are people supposed to do as they get older and their teeth get looser?
A retired friend told me that she and her husband don’t have dental insurance because it costs too much and covers too little, and it turns out they’re not alone. By some estimates, half of U.S. residents 65 and older have no dental insurance.
That’s actually not a bad option, said Mertz, given the cost of insurance premiums and co-pays, along with the caps. And even if you’ve got insurance, a lot of dentists don’t accept it because the reimbursements have stagnated as their costs have spiked.
But without insurance, a lot of people simply don’t go to the dentist until they have to, and that can be dangerous.
“Dental problems are very clearly associated with diabetes,” as well as heart problems and other health issues, said Paul Glassman, associate dean of the California Northstate University dentistry school.
There is one other option, and Mertz referred to it as dental tourism, saying that Mexico and Costa Rica are popular destinations for U.S. residents.
“You can get a week’s vacation and dental work and still come out ahead of what you’d be paying in the U.S.,” she said.
Tijuana dentist Dr. Oscar Ceballos told me that roughly 80% of his patients are from north of the border, and come from as far away as Florida, Wisconsin and Alaska. He has patients in their 80s and 90s who have been returning for years because in the U.S. their insurance was expensive, the coverage was limited and out-of-pocket expenses were unaffordable.
“For example, a dental implant in California is around $3,000-$5,000,” Ceballos said. At his office, depending on the specifics, the same service “is like $1,500 to $2,500.” The cost is lower because personnel, office rent and other overhead costs are cheaper than in the U.S., Ceballos said.
As we spoke by phone, Ceballos peeked into his waiting room and said three patients were from the U.S. He handed his cellphone to one of them, San Diegan John Lane, who said he’s been going south of the border for nine years.
“The primary reason is the quality of the care,” said Lane, who told me he refers to himself as 39, “with almost 40 years of additional” time on the clock.
Ceballos is “conscientious and he has facilities that are as clean and sterile and as medically up to date as anything you’d find in the U.S.,” said Lane, who had driven his wife down from San Diego for a new crown.
“The cost is 50% less than what it would be in the U.S.,” said Lane, and sometimes the savings is even greater than that.
Come this summer, Lane may be seeing even more Californians in Ceballos’ waiting room.
“Proposed funding cuts to the Medi-Cal Dental program would have devastating impacts on our state’s most vulnerable residents,” said dentist Robert Hanlon, president of the California Dental Assn.
Dental student Somkene Okwuego smiles after completing her work on patient Jimmy Stewart, 83, who receives affordable dental work at the Ostrow School of Dentistry of USC on the USC campus in Los Angeles on February 26, 2026.
(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)
Under Proposition 56’s tobacco tax in 2016, supplemental reimbursements to dentists have been in place, but those increases could be wiped out under a budget-cutting proposal. Only about 40% of the state’s dentists accept Medi-Cal payments as it is, and Hanlon told me a CDA survey indicates that half would stop accepting Medi-Cal patients and many others will accept fewer patients.
“It’s appalling that when the cost of providing healthcare is at an all-time high, the state is considering cutting program funding back to 1990s levels,” Hanlon said. “These cuts … will force patients to forgo or delay basic dental care, driving completely preventable emergencies into already overcrowded emergency departments.”
Somkene Okwuego, who as a child in South L.A. was occasionally a patient at USC’s Herman Ostrow School of Dentistry clinic, will graduate from the school in just a few months.
I first wrote about Okwuego three years ago, after she got an undergrad degree in gerontology, and she told me a few days ago that many of her dental patients are elderly and have Medi-Cal or no insurance at all. She has also worked at a Skid Row dental clinic, and plans after graduation to work at a clinic where dental care is free or discounted.
Okwuego said “fixing the smiles” of her patients is a privilege and boosts their self-image, which can help “when they’re trying to get jobs.” When I dropped by to see her Thursday, she was with 83-year-old patient Jimmy Stewart.
Stewart, an Army veteran, told me he had trouble getting dental care at the VA and had gone years without seeing a dentist before a friend recommended the Ostrow clinic. He said he’s had extractions and top-quality restorative care at USC, with the work covered by his Medi-Cal insurance.
I told Stewart there could be some Medi-Cal cuts in the works this summer.
“I’d be screwed,” he said.
Him and a lot of other people.
steve.lopez@latimes.com
Science
Diablo Canyon clears last California permit hurdle to keep running
Central Coast Water authorities approved waste discharge permits for Diablo Canyon nuclear plant Thursday, making it nearly certain it will remain running through 2030, and potentially through 2045.
The Pacific Gas & Electric-owned plant was originally supposed to shut down in 2025, but lawmakers extended that deadline by five years in 2022, fearing power shortages if a plant that provides about 9 percent the state’s electricity were to shut off.
In December, Diablo Canyon received a key permit from the California Coastal Commission through an agreement that involved PG&E giving up about 12,000 acres of nearby land for conservation in exchange for the loss of marine life caused by the plant’s operations.
Today’s 6-0 vote by the Central Coast Regional Water Board approved PG&E’s plans to limit discharges of pollutants into the water and continue to run its “once-through cooling system.” The cooling technology flushes ocean water through the plant to absorb heat and discharges it, killing what the Coastal Commission estimated to be two billion fish each year.
The board also granted the plant a certification under the Clean Water Act, the last state regulatory hurdle the facility needed to clear before the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is allowed to renew its permit through 2045.
The new regional water board permit made several changes since the last one was issued in 1990. One was a first-time limit on the chemical tributyltin-10, a toxic, internationally-banned compound added to paint to prevent organisms from growing on ship hulls.
Additional changes stemmed from a 2025 Supreme Court ruling that said if pollutant permits like this one impose specific water quality requirements, they must also specify how to meet them.
The plant’s biggest water quality impact is the heated water it discharges into the ocean, and that part of the permit remains unchanged. Radioactive waste from the plant is regulated not by the state but by the NRC.
California state law only allows the plant to remain open to 2030, but some lawmakers and regulators have already expressed interest in another extension given growing electricity demand and the plant’s role in providing carbon-free power to the grid.
Some board members raised concerns about granting a certification that would allow the NRC to reauthorize the plant’s permits through 2045.
“There’s every reason to think the California entities responsible for making the decision about continuing operation, namely the California [Independent System Operator] and the Energy Commission, all of them are sort of leaning toward continuing to operate this facility,” said boardmember Dominic Roques. “I’d like us to be consistent with state law at least, and imply that we are consistent with ending operation at five years.”
Other board members noted that regulators could revisit the permits in five years or sooner if state and federal laws changes, and the board ultimately approved the permit.
Science
Deadly bird flu found in California elephant seals for the first time
The H5N1 bird flu virus that devastated South American elephant seal populations has been confirmed in seals at California’s Año Nuevo State Park, researchers from UC Davis and UC Santa Cruz announced Wednesday.
The virus has ravaged wild, commercial and domestic animals across the globe and was found last week in seven weaned pups. The confirmation came from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Veterinary Services Laboratory in Ames, Iowa.
“This is exceptionally rapid detection of an outbreak in free-ranging marine mammals,” said Professor Christine Johnson, director of the Institute for Pandemic Insights at UC Davis’ Weill School of Veterinary Medicine. “We have most likely identified the very first cases here because of coordinated teams that have been on high alert with active surveillance for this disease for some time.”
Since last week, when researchers began noticing neurological and respoiratory signs of the disease in some animals, 30 seals have died, said Roxanne Beltran, a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at UC Santa Cruz. Twenty-nine were weaned pups and the other was an adult male. The team has so far confirmed the virus in only seven of the dead pups.
Infected animals often have tremors convulsions, seizures and muscle weakness, Johnson said.
Beltran said teams from UC Santa Cruz, UC Davis and California State Parks monitor the animals 260 days of the year, “including every day from December 15 to March 1” when the animals typically come ashore to breed, give birth and nurse.
The concerning behavior and deaths were first noticed Feb. 19.
“This is one of the most well-studied elephant seal colonies on the planet,” she said. “We know the seals so well that it’s very obvious to us when something is abnormal. And so my team was out that morning and we observed abnormal behaviors in seals and increased mortality that we had not seen the day before in those exact same locations. So we were very confident that we caught the beginning of this outbreak.”
In late 2022, the virus decimated southern elephant seal populations in South America and several sub-Antarctic Islands. At some colonies in Argentina, 97% of pups died, while on South Georgia Island, researchers reported a 47% decline in breeding females between 2022 and 2024. Researchers believe tens of thousands of animals died.
More than 30,000 sea lions in Peru and Chile died between 2022 and 2024. In Argentina, roughly 1,300 sea lions and fur seals perished.
At the time, researchers were not sure why northern Pacific populations were not infected, but suspected previous or milder strains of the virus conferred some immunity.
The virus is better known in the U.S. for sweeping through the nation’s dairy herds, where it infected dozens of dairy workers, millions of cows and thousands of wild, feral and domestic mammals. It’s also been found in wild birds and killed millions of commercial chickens, geese and ducks.
Two Americans have died from the virus since 2024, and 71 have been infected. The vast majority were dairy or commercial poultry workers. One death was that of a Louisiana man who had underlying conditions and was believed to have been exposed via backyard poultry or wild birds.
Scientists at UC Santa Cruz and UC Davis increased their surveillance of the elephant seals in Año Nuevo in recent years. The catastrophic effect of the disease prompted worry that it would spread to California elephant seals, said Beltran, whose lab leads UC Santa Cruz’s northern elephant seal research program at Año Nuevo.
Johnson, the UC Davis researcher, said the team has been working with stranding networks across the Pacific region for several years — sampling the tissue of birds, elephant seals and other marine mammals. They have not seen the virus in other California marine mammals. Two previous outbreaks of bird flu in U.S. marine mammals occurred in Maine in 2022 and Washington in 2023, affecting gray and harbor seals.
The virus in the animals has not yet been fully sequenced, so it’s unclear how the animals were exposed.
“We think the transmission is actually from dead and dying sea birds” living among the sea lions, Johnson said. “But we’ll certainly be investigating if there’s any mammal-to-mammal transmission.”
Genetic sequencing from southern elephant seal populations in Argentina suggested that version of the virus had acquired mutations that allowed it to pass between mammals.
The H5N1 virus was first detected in geese in China in 1996. Since then it has spread across the globe, reaching North America in 2021. The only continent where it has not been detected is Oceania.
Año Nuevo State Park, just north of Santa Cruz, is home to a colony of some 5,000 elephant seals during the winter breeding season. About 1,350 seals were on the beach when the outbreak began. Other large California colonies are located at Piedras Blancas and Point Reyes National Sea Shore. Most of those animals — roughly 900 — are weaned pups.
It’s “important to keep this in context. So far, avian influenza has affected only a small proportion of the weaned at this time, and there are still thousands of apparently healthy animals in the population,” Beltran said in a press conference.
Public access to the park has been closed and guided elephant seal tours canceled.
Health and wildlife officials urge beachgoers to keep a safe distance from wildlife and keep dogs leashed because the virus is contagious.
-
World4 days agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts5 days agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Denver, CO4 days ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Louisiana1 week agoWildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
-
Technology1 week agoYouTube TV billing scam emails are hitting inboxes
-
Politics1 week agoOpenAI didn’t contact police despite employees flagging mass shooter’s concerning chatbot interactions: REPORT
-
Technology1 week agoStellantis is in a crisis of its own making
-
News1 week agoWorld reacts as US top court limits Trump’s tariff powers