By SHANNON O. WELLS

In a political era not brimming with positive research-funding news, data that Mike Holland shared at the Oct. 21 Senate Research meeting reveal some encouraging trends in proposals, funding awards, and the tenacity of University researchers.  

In his report, Holland, vice chancellor for science policy and research strategies, presented a partial year-over-year comparison of Pitt’s research metrics from the first quarter of the current fiscal year, which started July 1, and the previous fiscal year. 

In that period, the number of proposal submissions rose 14.2% to 1,334, while the amount requested went up 13.6% to $1.75 billion. New awards increased by 29.6% to 556, and the amount of awarded funds rose 10.2% to $248.3 million. 

Noting that in the context of “how bad things were predicted to be or could have been, Holland said, “it’s not as bad as it could have been.” Pitt faculty “are, in fact, doing the work necessary to go after sponsored funding as aggressively as possible.”

Although increases in research agency spending as the end of their fiscal year approaches are common, Holland said this was “amplified” by actions the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) took to delay agency spending earlier in the federal fiscal year.  

The effect of those delays is seen in Pitt’s research expenditures of $280.9 million in the July-September period. That represents a 7.3% decrease. 

From July through September compared to the same period in 2025, the number of awards coming in “has increased a bit,” he said, attributing some of that to a delay in National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Science Foundation (NSF) funding, especially the latter.

“We were seeing $248 million awarded in that year-over-year comparison (July through September) window, so that’s a 10% increase. That is good.”

Research expenditures, the measure of what’s coming in and what Pitt has on hand to spend, however, are slightly down in that same period, from $303 million to $281 million. Some of that is explained, Holland noted, by the University’s fiscal year being “one quarter out of sync” with the federal fiscal year. 

“That depression in the expenditure is part of that again. NIH was delaying moving money out the door. … So, a big asterisk there.”

In an Oct. 21 Town Hall update on the same data Holland discussed, Rob Rutenbar, senior vice chancellor of research, said the approximately 6% drop in research expenditures from fiscal 2025 is “pretty much what every major research-intensive R1 university is seeing. 

“And remember, at the start of the new administration, there were active efforts to radically reduce federal support for all research, and we had existential concerns about cuts of 20 percent or maybe even 50 percent. Those did not happen.”

In other funding data for the July-September window:

Federal award funding was down 6%.

Non-federal award dollars increased, including foundation awards at 210%. 

Industry awards increased 101%, and 

State and local funding jumped from $400,000 to $11 million during the July-September window.  

“Only funding from other nonprofits decreased, since many of those organizations are dependent upon federal grant funds,” Holland explained to the University Times. “They are being buffeted by many of the same forces at the federal level that universities are.”

Many actions the Trump administration is taking to disrupt higher education funding also affects other parts of the nonprofit sector, Holland noted, referencing a “depression” in subawards Pitt would normally receive from its nonprofit partners. 

“That tends to affect different schools in different ways, but that is an area where we’ve seen a small reduction,” he said. “With respect to terminations, that’s one where it’s sort of a ‘No news is good news.’”

The termination of 16 awards since the beginning of the year marks a reduction of four from the same period last year, all in the health sciences area, Rutenbar noted in his Town Hall update. 

“And we found ways to support all the staff on these awards, so we have not lost any of our research colleagues due to these cancelations,” he said, adding that multiple awards were subsequently reinstated through federal lawsuits. 

With individual investigators and the University pushing back on terminations through dispute and appeal processes, 18 terminated awards were reinstated, Holland noted, and the scope of 38 other awards modified to resolve agency objections.

“It doesn’t solve all problems, but that is progress in showing that taking action to contact program officers, inquire about dispute processes as well as formal appeal processes is important to do.”

In reaching out to program officers, many researchers are finding it’s possible, with modifications, to bring their proposals into alignment with administration priorities and executive orders. 

“We’re still in that process of back and forth with the program officers at the various agencies. We are successfully seeing modifications,” Holland said, adding that Rutenbar mentioned about 12 modifications per month at his Town Hall presentation. “If you have a termination or are having questions about their proposals, make sure you contact program officers and ask about potential modifications. 

“There is a lot more willingness … to work with people within the constraints that they face,” he added. “But it’s always a good idea to give the agency staff an opportunity to see if there are modifications that can make this work.”

In the area of unilateral, executive actions from the Trump administration — including capping indirect cost recovery rates at 15% — Holland said most of the actions were challenged, “and on many, many, many cases, the plaintiffs who were suing the government prevailed.”

This calendar year, the administration has pivoted largely from “just announcing things by fiat to actually following (OMB) rulemaking procedures.”

He also acknowledged a “significant increase” in notices of proposed rulemakings, requests for public comment on draft rules, and requests for information by research agencies on their internal processes and agency rules. 

“We’ve been seeing a lot more activity in that space, so we have been tracking those carefully. We always have conversations with the appropriate and relevant university associations,” he said, including the American Association of Universities, American Association of Public Land Grant Universities and American Council of Education. “All three sort of have different focal points that they operate in.”

Responding to a committee question about the scope of the 6% decrease in funding and its effect on industry funding, Holland explained the numbers reflect total federal funding in the June-September period and were “only part of the way into the current fiscal year.” 

“Total awarded funding from all sources for the period is up 10%. Within that rising total, direct federal funding where Pitt is the prime (recipient) is down 6%,” he said. 

The decrease in direct federal funding is almost completely offset by increases in federal subawards coming to Pitt from other institutions, while the increase in overall funding “is driven by increasing foundation and corporate funding.”

“Again, those are small components of our overall portfolio.”

Although a large percentage change on a small number doesn’t solve a lot of problems, “it is an important signal that our faculty are actively engaged in discussions with foundations in seeking out those different sources of funding: That foundations are stepping up to try to backfill some of the federal gap, and that faculty members’ outreach and collaboration with industry is, in effect, starting to show some positive returns.”

 

Shannon O. Wells is a writer for the University Times. Reach him at shannonw@pitt.edu.

 

Have a story idea or news to share? Share it with the University Times.

 

Follow the University Times on Facebook.