Research & Developments is a blog for brief updates that provide context for the flurry of news regarding law and policy changes that impact science and scientists today.
Students who have applied for the Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP) from the National Science Foundation (NSF) have had their applications returned without review—even though their proposed research appears to fall squarely within the fields of study outlined in the program solicitation.
In response, a group of scientists created a template letter for students to share concerns with their representatives.
GRFP provides 3 years of financial support over a 5-year fellowship program for outstanding graduate students pursuing full-time degrees in science, technology, engineering, or math (STEM), including STEM education. The program solicitation, posted in September 2025, lists the following fields as eligible.
- Chemistry
- Computer and Information Sciences and Engineering
- Engineering
- Geosciences
- Life Sciences
- Materials Research
- Mathematical Sciences
- Physics & Astronomy
- Psychology
- Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences
- STEM Education and Learning Research
However, at least dozens of applicants in those fields have received emails, obtained by Eos, that stated that their proposals were ineligible.
Related
• Thread in the GRFP subreddit
• Grant Witness Template for Letter to Representatives
• Get Involved: AGU Science Policy Action Center
“The proposed research does not meet NSF GRFP eligibility requirements. Applicants must select research in eligible STEM or STEM education fields,” the email read.
Neuroscience, physiology, ecology/biogeochemistry, and chemistry of life sciences are among the proposal research topics that have been returned without review (RWR), according to posts on Reddit and Bluesky.
One Redditor described the RWR as “soul-crushing.” “The dropdown menu part is what gets me,” they wrote, referring to how they selected a category from a list within the application. “What do you mean I am ineligible in a category that YOU provided?!”
Karolina Heyduk, an ecologist and evolutionary biologist at the University of Connecticut, shared on Bluesky that one of her student’s applications was rejected. Heyduk told Eos over email that she has no idea why, as the research—on photosynthesis in bromeliads—was “clearly within stated fields that are eligible, and had no agriculture, health, or policy angles.”
“The GRFP is an opportunity for new scientists to propose their best ideas and get their first shot at external funding. While not everyone will be funded, there is some expectation of a fair and transparent review process, and that doesn’t seem to be happening this year. For new grad students, or those applying this year, the outright rejection without a clear reason is incredibly discouraging,” she told Eos.
Rejected Appeals
Some applicants have appealed the decision, after having advisers look over their applications, and have received responses, also obtained by Eos, affirming that the decision is final.
“As your application was thoroughly screened based on these eligibility criteria, the RWR determination will stand and there will be no further consideration of your application,” the email text read.
Last March, the New York Times compiled, via government memos, agency guidance, and other documents, a list of words that the Trump administration indicated should be avoided or limited. The list included “climate science,” “diversity,” “political,” and “women.”
On Reddit threads, applicants who received RWR are speculating over whether their applications may have been automatically rejected for the use of so-called banned words. One student used the word “underrepresented” in a personal statement, to reference a program to which they had previously been accepted. Others, applying for neuroscience fellowships that involved studies with rats, wondered whether the word “ethanol” had been flagged. Another said they had tried to avoid using banned words, but that it was “unavoidable.”
“My project is about bears and ‘black’ is a trigger word,” they wrote. “Insane.”
Reaching out to Representatives
The group behind the template letter for students includes Noam Ross, who is among the creators of Grant Witness, a project to track the termination of scientific grants under the Trump administration. The letter notes that, after NSF awarded significantly fewer GRFP awards than usual in the spring, it released its guidance for this year’s application more than a month later than usual—leaving students with much less time than usual to complete their applications, and leaving others ineligible to apply.
“I request that you contact the NSF administrator to ask why eligible GRFP applications are being rejected without review and to ask them to remedy the situation quickly, as review panels are convening imminently,” the letter reads. “We cannot allow the continued degradation of our scientific workforce, and [the cutting] off the opportunities for so many future scientists.”
—Emily Gardner (@emfurd.bsky.social), Associate Editor
These updates are made possible through information from the scientific community. Do you have a story about how changes in law or policy are affecting scientists or research? Send us a tip at [email protected].
