Find NIH grants for a research idea

What you get

An editable Word document scoping the NIH funding landscape for one research idea: draft Significance and Innovation language built from real gap quotes, a ranked list of institutes actually funding this work, the study sections that would review it, any active Notices of Special Interest, and mechanism recommendations matched to career stage and project scope. Consensus ships this as a packaged skill. It covers NIH only — not PCORI, DOD CDMRP, VA Merit, or foundations — and says so up front rather than implying broader coverage.

Who it’s for

Clinical and translational researchers scoping funding for an idea, from trainees through established investigators. Also mentors and research-development offices advising them.

Phase 1 — Intake

Set expectations first, then ask three questions:

Career stage — trainee (F31/F32/T32), early-career faculty (K01/K08/K23/K99-R00/R21), or established. If established, split mid-career (has a K or first R01 → R01/R21/R34) from senior (R01/R35/P01/U01).
Preliminary data — starting from scratch, pilot evidence available, or resubmission. If resubmission, ask whether it was scored or triaged; that changes the strategic advice entirely.
Institutional environment — major research university, academic medical center, or another setting (smaller/community-based, or VA/military-affiliated). This affects which mechanisms are realistic and how to frame the Environment section.

Phase 2A — Positioning analysis, five searches

The goal is not to answer “is this novel?” It is to produce positioning language the researcher can paste into a grant. Each search builds a different part of the argument. Run them sequentially — see rate limits.

#	Facet	What it produces
1	What’s established	The “what is known” setup in Significance
2	The problem’s importance	Prevalence, burden, disparities — the “why now”
3	Current approaches and limits	What exists today, and therefore what’s insufficient
4	The method in adjacent contexts	Applied elsewhere = validation; nowhere = novelty
5	What researchers say is missing	The highest-value search — the gap, in their words

Search 5 matters most. Look explicitly for language like “future research should”, “remains unclear”, “no studies have”, “limited evidence”, “critical gap”. Pull 3–5 of these with full attribution — they become the backbone of the positioning argument, because they let the researcher show reviewers that the field itself recognizes the gap.

Build the narrative, don’t list counts

Deduplicate across all five facets by DOI first; papers found in multiple facets are high-signal. Then write 2–3 paragraphs the researcher can adapt directly:

Paragraph 1 — “The field has established [X, Y, Z from searches 1–2]. The burden is significant because [stakes from search 2].” Paragraph 2 — “Current approaches include [search 3], but they fall short because [gap quotes from search 5]. Specifically, [quote 1] and [quote 2].” Paragraph 3 — “This project proposes [the idea]. [Search 4] suggests the approach is feasible, and the gap above shows it has not been applied to [this population]. This is a [novel/underexplored] intersection.”

Evidence-depth gate: aim for at least 3 directly relevant papers per facet and 15–20 unique cited papers overall — but only where the returned evidence supports it. Never add a marginal paper to pad the bibliography. Keep gap quotes under 25 words each and paraphrase the surrounding context.

Phase 2B — Institute and grant discovery

The NIH RePORTER API requires POST, so a GET-only fetch will not work:

CURRENT_YEAR=$(date +%Y)
FY_RANGE="[$((CURRENT_YEAR-3)), $((CURRENT_YEAR-2)), $((CURRENT_YEAR-1)), $CURRENT_YEAR]"

curl -s -X POST "https://api.reporter.nih.gov/v2/projects/search" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{
    "criteria": {
      "advanced_text_search": {
        "operator": "and",
        "search_field": "projecttitle,terms,abstract",
        "search_text": "NARROW KEYWORDS"
      },
      "fiscal_years": '"$FY_RANGE"',
      "include_active_projects": true
    },
    "limit": 20, "offset": 0,
    "include_fields": ["ProjectTitle","AbstractText","ActivityCode","AwardAmount","FiscalYear","PrincipalInvestigators","Organization","OpportunityNumber","AgencyIcAdmin","ProjectNum","StudySection"]
  }'

Run a narrow AND search and a broad OR search, then deduplicate by project_num. Compute the fiscal-year window dynamically so it never goes stale. Search-quality gate. Valid JSON is not a usable portfolio. If fewer than half the returned projects are substantively relevant, refine the keywords and re-run rather than ranking institutes off noise. If no focused search yields at least 5 relevant projects, proceed but label all institute conclusions preliminary.

The most actionable finding

Produce two separate institute rankings and explain any gap between them:

Portfolio volume — tally agency_ic_admin.abbreviation.
Design and mission fit — which institutes fund projects similar in population, methodology, clinical setting, and intended outcome.

Do not simply recommend the biggest number.

“NIAID has the largest raw HSV portfolio, but most projects are basic virology or therapeutic development. NICHD has fewer awards but the closest methodological overlap with multicenter pediatric clinical prediction research; NICHD is therefore the stronger primary fit and NIAID a plausible secondary assignment.”

Then tally study_section values to identify the review panels, extract opportunity_number values starting with NOT- to find NOSIs, and match mechanisms on both career stage and project scope — a multi-site study does not fit in a 2-year $275K R21, and a pilot does not need an R01.

Phase 3 — The document

Nine numbered sections, in order, none of which may be dropped for sparse data: Executive Summary · Your Positioning in the Field · Where NIH Is Funding This Work · Recommended Funding Opportunities · Similar Funded Research · Where This Work Gets Reviewed · Strategic Recommendations & Next Steps · References · Audit Log. If study-section data is unavailable, the section still appears and explains the limitation. Missing data never authorizes removing a required section or renumbering later ones. Always include a program officer recommendation — it is the single most valuable piece of advice for any applicant. POs confirm fit, suggest the right FOA, and flag problems before submission. Verify submission dates against a live NIH page rather than trusting a static table, and note which upcoming cycle is realistic given how much work remains.

Budget ranges, submission dates, and eligibility change. Anything drawn from reference knowledge rather than a tool call in this session must be labelled as such and verified against the current official announcement before the researcher acts on it.

Audit requirements

Follow the grounding rules. This workflow needs two audit tables — Consensus searches (search #, facet, query, papers found, papers shown, papers cited, status) and RePORTER searches (type, keywords, total/returned, relevant projects used, status), including every refinement query. Add NOSI fetch outcomes where applicable. Distinguish three numbers explicitly: found by Consensus, shown to us, and cited in this report. If a plan cap was detected, say so — sparse results on a facet may be a plan ceiling rather than a genuine gap, and the researcher needs to know which.

What to check before you trust it

Check the gap quotes are real quotes, with named attribution and a working link. Unexplained sentence fragments are the failure mode here.
Read the institute reasoning, not just the ranking. The volume-versus-fit distinction is the most actionable output; if the report just names the biggest institute, that analysis was skipped.
Verify every FOA and NOSI against its official NIH page before acting. Constructed links must not be presented as verified.
A sparse RePORTER portfolio is information. It may mean an unfunded niche — an opportunity or a warning, depending on why.

Build a reusable literature-review workflow

The deeper review workflow behind the positioning analysis.

Find a real citation for every claim in a draft

Once the grant is funded, cite the same way.

Best practices

Rate limits, grounding rules, and the five primitives.

All use cases

Browse the gallery by persona.

Overview

Use cases

Find NIH grants for a research idea

What you get

Who it’s for

Phase 1 — Intake

Phase 2A — Positioning analysis, five searches

Build the narrative, don’t list counts

Phase 2B — Institute and grant discovery

The most actionable finding

Phase 3 — The document

Audit requirements

What to check before you trust it

Build a reusable literature-review workflow

Find a real citation for every claim in a draft

Best practices

All use cases

​What you get

​Who it’s for

​Phase 1 — Intake

​Phase 2A — Positioning analysis, five searches

​Build the narrative, don’t list counts

​Phase 2B — Institute and grant discovery

​The most actionable finding

​Phase 3 — The document

​Audit requirements

​What to check before you trust it

​Related

Build a reusable literature-review workflow

Find a real citation for every claim in a draft

Best practices

All use cases

What you get

Who it’s for

Phase 1 — Intake

Phase 2A — Positioning analysis, five searches

Build the narrative, don’t list counts

Phase 2B — Institute and grant discovery

The most actionable finding

Phase 3 — The document

Audit requirements

What to check before you trust it

Related