research grants social science

Funding & Programs

The CCSS supports groundbreaking and ambitious social science research at Cornell through an array of funding opportunities and programs.

“Thanks to CCSS, we were able to build a dynamic and synergistic collaboration, which opened up opportunities for joint research projects and a new NSF grant submission.” – Natalie Bazarova, Communication

What We Offer

The CCSS provides grant and fellowship opportunities, grant writing support, and options for collaborating with social science researchers. Mouse over the options below and click on any to learn more!

Apply for Seed Funding

Need seed money? Up to $12,000 is available for PI-eligible faculty to catalyze research or conference initiatives. 

Apply About Faculty Fellowships

Fellows receive time, space, and funding for ambitious social science research.

External Grant Preparation Support

CCSS has several programs to support Cornell social science researchers pursuing external funding opportunities. 

Discover Data Science Fellowships

Designed to give outstanding Cornell graduate students the opportunity to advance their computational social science training within the CCSS’s diverse and intellectually vibrant community.

The Qualitative and Interpretive Research Institute provides funding, support, and shared resources for qualitative social scientists at Cornell!

Find a Collaborator

Looking for a collaborator, expert, or resource in the social sciences? Search the extensive database of our affiliates, all researchers at Cornell!

View Past Grantees & Fellows

Search our database of all past CCSS grantees, fellows, collaborative projects, and working group grants.

View Past Collaborative Projects

From 2004 to 2020, these faculty-led projects examined contemporary social science issues of common interest.

Looking for data and computing-related services?

We'd love to hear your ideas, suggestions, or questions!

Are you a CCSS affiliate?

To qualify for CCSS funding and programmatic offerings, you must quickly register as an affiliate:

Get Funding for your Social Science Research Project

Faculty can apply for grants to study social science research topics of their choice..

The Social Science Research Institute (SSRI) invites grant applications from Duke University faculty to study social science research topics of their choice. The size of the grants will range from $5,000 to $25,000, and SSRI anticipates providing at least $100,000 through this program. The number and size of grants awarded will depend upon the applications received.

This is an open call for research in the social sciences—tell us what research you want to do, how this funding will help you to do that work, and what research product this grant will enable or enhance (paper, chapter, grant proposal, book proposal, etc.). If faculty intend to use this grant to fund preliminary work for a larger grant application, SSRI will help to develop your grant writing plans, including identifying grant opportunities if that is useful to you. It is not a requirement to view this funding as preliminary work for a grant application.

Who is eligible to apply: Faculty in the social science departments in the college of Arts and Sciences, and social scientists in the Schools of Divinity, Fuqua, Law, Nicholas and Sanford are eligible to apply. Faculty in the Schools of Nursing and Medicine can apply only in conjunction with a faculty member in one of the above departments or schools. Faculty from other Arts and Sciences departments may apply with permission if they are addressing a social science topic; interested faculty should write a short email to  [email protected]  to get approval to apply.

*Proposal deadline: March 1, 2022 *Funding notification: April 8, 2022 *Acceptable start dates: May 1, 2022 to September 1, 2022 (grants will run for one year)

Submit proposals to:  [email protected]

Submission requirements: Single PDF that contains the following information: (100 word abstract that states research question(s) to be answered; 1-page single space proposal that says how the money will help provide an answer(s); budget requested, with a 1 paragraph justification; note whether this grant is a seed project. Money can be used for any approved Duke Research expenditure, including course buy out and staff funding. SSRI may be able to help link faculty with graduate students at a subsidized rate in addition to this grant program.

If this is of interest, please reach out to SSRI Director Don Taylor at  [email protected] .

Social Science Opportunities, by Funding Program

Please confirm all deadlines with the funder prior to beginning work on an application, as they are subject to change. Explore more Social Science opportunities in the  Pivot database .

Additional Site Navigation

Social media links, additional navigation links.

• Alumni Resources & Events
• Athletics & Wellness
• Campus Calendar
• Parent & Family Resources

Helpful Information

Dining hall hours, next trains to philadelphia, next trico shuttles.

Swarthmore Traditions

How to Plan Your Classes

The Swarthmore Bucket List

Search the website

• Executive Team
• Academic Advisory Board
• Foundation Board
• Annual Reports
• Collaborative Fellowships
• Early Career Fellowships
• First Book Grants
• Independent Scholar Fellowships
• Mid-Career Fellowships
• Political Economy Fellowships
• Small Group Projects
• Other Projects & Partnerships
• Associated Academics
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Assessment Procedure
• 20th June: Disability & Political Representation
• Season IV: 2023-24
• Season III: 2022-23
• Season II: 2021-22
• Season I: 2020-21
• 1st ISRF Lecture Series: Migration
• Other Events
• Issue 29: Climate Education
• Print Archive
• Mailing List

website creator

INDEPENDENT SOCIAL RESEARCH FOUNDATION

Interdisciplinarity innovation independent thought.

Contributions to topics & debates across the social sciences

FELLOWS & PROJECTS

ISRF-supported Fellows & Projects since 2010

GRANTS & COMPETITIONS

Supporting individual Fellowships & Small Group Projects

Platforms for research dissemination and contributions to wider debates

The Independent Social Research Foundation is a public benefit foundation funded by a group of private philanthropists with interests in academia and social science, founded in 2008.

The ISRF is dedicated to advancing the social sciences through the promotion of new modes of inquiry and the development of interdisciplinary expertise and methods, and through better understanding of social entities and processes.

To achieve this objective the ISRF provide a series of funding opportunities, enters into partnerships with academic institutions and supports research activities that promote development across the social sciences and humanities.

How We Do It

The ISRF is an endowed foundation – the endowment, and any additional donations, are directly used to promote and support the objectives of the ISRF. Oversight responsibility for the Foundation’s endowment lies with the ISRF Investment Committee.

The  Executive Team  are responsible for the implementation and monitoring of the annual budget, as approved by the  Foundation Board . The Foundation is advised by an Academic Advisory Board comprised of leading international academics from across the social sciences.

The Foundation subscribes to a code of ethics covering its governance, its adherence to legal and good practice requirements including equality, confidentiality and financial control, and its academic values of fairness, transparency and independence

As a Netherlands-registered Stichting, the ISRF is required to maintain a policy plan which draws together the objectives and activities of the Foundation. It is also required to produce an Annual Report , to have its own  remuneration policy , and to publish both a financial statement for the most recent financial year and an ANBI Form .

The Independent Social Research Foundation wishes to support independent-minded researchers to explore and present original research ideas which take new approaches, and suggest new solutions, to real world social problems.

ISRF funding is awarded competitively through a series of Grant Competitions – individual Fellowships and flexible, small group awards.

Award recipients are invited to present their work at  ISRF Congress events, to participate in ISRF Conferences , and to contribute articles to the ISRF Bulletin .

Existing or previous ISRF Fellows may apply to the ISRF Dissemination Fund for a grant of up to £500 towards the cost of, for example, holding an event at which a book (or a book to which they have contributed significantly) is launched.

The ISRF also hosts its own regular Book Launch events, celebrating the published work of ISRF Fellows past and present.

The ISRF Conference provides a platform for interventions, conversations and provocations around a theme.

The ISRF Congress provides a platform for ISRF Fellows to report on, and discuss, their research projects.

BOOK LAUNCHES

The ISRF Book Launch series celebrates the publication of books by current and former ISRF Fellows.

Beginning with a pilot series in 2024, ISRF Lectures will provide a platform for ISRF Fellows to present their research to a wider audience.

ANNUAL WORKSHOP ARCHIVE

Held annually between 2013 and 2019, the ISRF Annual Workshop provided a platform for ISRF Fellows to report on their research projects, and also to contribute to conversations and discussions around a theme.

Beginning with the inaugural Annual Workshop in May 2013 event, the ISRF has run and funded a number of events with the aim to provide a platform for ISRF Fellows to report on their research projects, and also to contribute to broader conversations and discussions across the social sciences.

Since launching in 2013, the ISRF Bulletin has provided information on the interdisciplinary research of ISRF Fellows.

Recent posts include:

Gifts From the Arms Trade

ISRF Fellow, Jill Gibbon, and photographer, Ricky Adam, are working on a photo book of gifts collected during a decade infiltrating the international arms trade

Read On…

Protest and Paradigm Shifts

In this monthly Director’s Note, Christopher Newfield asks what it’s going to take to effect a paradigm shift on climate knowledge.

Close Reading Climate Change (CRCC): A Working Protocol

In this contribution to Bulletin 29, the authors explore the uses of a new close reading protocol for climate change education.

Ecoliteracy: Skills for Sustainable Education

In this contribution to Bulletin 29, Sieglinde Lemke critically explores how education needs to change if we are to build sustainable ways of acting, thinking, and being.

Beyond the Sustainable Development Goals:  A Freireian Approach to Education for Sustainability in Higher Education

In this contribution to Bulletin 29, Jane Hindley explores the potential of radical pedagogies to move challenge and beyond the limits of the dominant sustainable development framework.

Struggles for the Human

ISRF Fellow Lara Montesinos Coleman’s new book draws on the experiences of grassroots organisations in Colombia to expose neoliberalism’s damaging privatisation of human rights.

Read More interdisciplinary articles in the ISRF Bulletin .

Academic inquiries.

Dr Lars Cornelissen Academic Editor

GENERAL INQUIRIES

Despoina Livieratou Academic & Administrative Assistant

Independent Social Research Foundation

62 Bayswater Road London W2 3PS

Please note that the ISRF does not respond to unsolicited grant applications.

If you are considering an application to one of our Fellowship competitions, please check the  Frequently Asked Questions  before contacting us directly.

Funding opportunities for research, knowledge exchange and impact

Finding the right funding opportunity for you.

Here we share a range of popular internal and external funding opportunities for social sciences researchers and academics. These funding schemes are either managed internally or externally, and are either open to applications, and/or further rounds may be open to applications in future.

John Fell Fund

To foster creativity and a proactive approach to research opportunities in all subject areas, particularly interdisciplinary fields.

Strategic Research Fund

To build lasting research capacity through major transformative investments in researchers and research, and impact at scale. 

To accelerate research and innovation, resulting in impact on a local level to a global scale.

Business Engagement Seed Fund

A flexible fund, designed for those who are starting to think about collaborating with businesses.

Engagement Fellowships

To enable social scientists to engage with non-academic stakeholders and build lasting partnerships and research impact.

Interdisciplinary Hubs

To establish, organise and/  or catalyse interdisciplinary communities ready to apply for significant external research funding in the relevant subject area.

Fixed-term Researchers Support Fund

To support fixed-term research staff with career development, and research and impact-related activities. Contact [email protected] to apply.

Stay up to date with the latest opportunities

Monthly funding and opportunities digest.

The Social Sciences Research, Impact, and Engagement (RIE) Team curates and circulates the latest opportunities in an easy to read monthly newsletter. It primarily focuses on research, impact, and engagement funding suitable for researchers in the social sciences but also includes regular calls, annual competitions, prizes, and one-off funding schemes. Simply select your career stage and preferences when you subscribe to receive opportunities of most interest to you or visit the RIE SharePoint to browse all items.  

Subscribe to the Funding and Opportunities Digest

Browse all open and upcoming opportunities on the RIE SharePoint

All the information in the Funding and Opportunities Digest is accessible anytime on our SharePoint site too, along with resources and guidance on how to apply. Don't forget, the RIE team are available to help with applications, advice and more details. 

Explore the latest funding opportunities and guidance on our SharePoint

For bespoke funding opportunities, we also suggest logging on to  Research Professional  using your University email address, where you can set up your own, regularly updated, funding email alerts. Information on using Research Professional can be found  here . We also advise you to subscribe to the mailing lists of key funders:  Research England ,  UKRI ,  ESRC ,  Leverhulme Trust , and the  British Academy .

Funding support

Support for researchers in the Social Sciences Division is provided locally in each department; from the Research, Impact and Engagement (RIE) team in the Division; and centrally in the Research Services Grants team:

Departmental support

All departments in the Social Sciences Division have staff providing support and guidance for researchers making a funding application. Researchers are advised to contact their department in the first instance to discuss their proposed application, develop the associated budget, and obtain departmental approval prior to submission.

Find your departmental research support staff

Divisional support

Members of the Division’s Research, Impact and Engagement (RIE) team  specialise in providing guidance and support on various aspects of research funding. The RIE team also provides bespoke training, advice, and funding information seminars for departments, research centres and researchers at particular career stages. Please contact:

Dr Alex Martalogu

Sarah Mallet (on maternity leave)

For planning of impact and non-academic engagement within your research design, contact:

Tom Korff - Senior Impact and Engagement Manager

Samantha Harper - Research Impact Facilitator

Key contact point for DSPI, Sociology and Education

Francesca Richards - Research Impact Facilitator

Key contact for SAME and SOGE

Rebecca Jones - Research Impact Facilitator

Key contact for Economics, ODID and OSGA

Becky Launchbury - ESRC IAA Manager

For support with ESRC Impact Acceleration Account applications and HEIF Social Science Engagement Fellowships

Simon Guillaume - Innovation and Business Partnerships Manager

For support with business engagement and innovation/commercialisation of research, Strategic Innovation Fund and BE Seed Fund

Noora Kanfash - Public Policy Facilitator

For support with research engagement with public policy

University support

University central support teams provide specialist advice and guidance about research funding, application submission, contract negotiation and post-award management to departments and Principal Investigators through:

Research Services

Finance division: research accounts.

Oxford University Innovation Ltd

Before you apply.

Please speak to your departmental research support team in the first instance. Each department may have an internal selection process for particular funding opportunities with a bespoke deadline. If you are considering applying through Oxford, please contact the appropriate department. Before you apply, consider...

• The funder: Every funder has its own aims for investing in research. Discuss your research design with your departmental research support staff to make sure it aligns with the funder’s aims, in order to increase your chance of success.
• Eligibility: Many funding schemes have applicant eligibility criteria, so make sure you comply before you apply.
• Resources: Many funding schemes will have a defined envelope of funds available, and some will have rules about what this can be spent on. It is worth checking the resource implications for your research design.
• Research design: Make sure your research is designed to answer the questions/objectives of the research, and with sufficient resource to management for successful delivery.
• Career stage: Research funding can be used to develop and demonstrate your career trajectory, build a portfolio with credible levels of management for successful delivery.
• Reviewing the application: Every successful research application has been reviewed. This is useful both within your discipline to recognise any gaps in knowledge, but also outside of your discipline to ensure that you have made a coherent argument that a multi-disciplinary panel would appreciate.

Social Science Research Grants

The ADVANCE at WSU program periodically funds small grants to conduct social science research aimed at generating publishable projects on factors affecting the recruitment, retention, and advancement of women in Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine (STEMM) disciplines. ADVANCE at WSU strives to develop an inclusive research institution whose faculty are supported by a system that promotes career-long excellence.

The Social Science Research Program aims to (1) increase the representation of women in STEMM disciplines by providing institutional support through programs, policies, procedures, and climate change at critical points in the academic pipeline (e.g., recruitment, pre-tenure, and post-tenure advancement and leadership); (2) develop and disseminate innovative strategies that can be applied in similar institutions (researchintensive, rural, land grant universities) as well as other academic and workplace settings more broadly; and (3) put in place an infrastructure that givesthese efforts highest institutional support and visibility and allows for transformative efforts to continue at WSU.

The program’s three key initiatives are aimed at recruitment and retention efforts, targeting women in STEMM fields and historically under-represented faculty in all disciplines. ADVANCE at WSU relies upon the NSF definition of underrepresented groups.

Click HERE for a full description of the program and guidelines

Questions and Proposal Submission:

Previous Recipients:

Proposals are accepted throughout the year and will be considered if funding is available.

• Dr. Tahira Probst: Survey Says… (Part 1) (Part 2)
• Dr. Jill McCluskey: Solving the Two Body Problem
• Dr. Dana Lee Baker & Dr. Carolyn Long: Success Stories: Examining Work-Life Balance in STEM and Non-STEM Faculty
• Dr. Tahira Probst & Dr. Amy Wharton: A Summary of STEM Faculty Reactions to the 2008-2010 Budget Cuts

ADVANCE at WSU Lighty Building, Room 190F  P.O. Box 641061 Pullman, WA 99164-1061

 509-335-9739   Contact Us

Last updated: 04 February 2015 08:42

Funding opportunity: Large grants for ambitious research in the social sciences: outline stage

Apply for a large grant to fund ambitious social science-focused research with the potential to generate significant economic or societal impact.

This opportunity also includes funding for one ‘resilience in crises’ grant in collaboration with AHRC.

You must be based at a UK organisation eligible for funding. Standard ESRC eligibility rules apply.

This is the outline proposal stage of the opportunity.

Proposals must be between £1 million and £2.5 million at full economic cost (fEC). ESRC will fund 80% of fEC.

Proposals can be up to five years in length.

Who can apply

Standard ESRC eligibility rules apply. The principal investigator for this funding opportunity must be based at an organisation eligible for funding for the duration of the grant. Eligible organisations are:

• UK higher education institutions
• research council institutes
• UK Research and Innovation (UKRI)-approved independent research organisations
• public sector research establishments
• NHS bodies with research capacity.

Check if your institution is eligible for funding .

What we're looking for

We invite proposals from individuals and research teams at eligible institutions to take forward an ambitious research agenda with the potential to generate significant economic or societal impact.

Our expectations are that large grants funded under this funding opportunity will:

• undertake a programme of ambitious and novel research
• show strong commitment for the career development of researchers (particularly at early-career stage)
• make significant contributions to scientific and economic or social impact
• involve potential users of research and include a clear strategy for creating impact that improves outcomes for individuals, society and the economy
• drive interdisciplinary research within and beyond the social sciences
• take advantage of international collaborative or comparative opportunities.

This funding opportunity for large grants is separate from the ESRC research centres competition which provides larger scale funding. We are planning to launch the next research centres competition in 2023.

Given the scale of the grant, it is likely that successful applications will be led by either:

• researchers with appropriate experience
• less experienced researchers with appropriate mentoring and support that enables successful project delivery.

Social science-focused projects

We welcome proposals from any area of ESRC’s social science disciplines .

We expect to fund:

• four projects from any discipline within the social sciences as part of the open element of this opportunity
• one project specifically related to ‘resilience to crises’ (referred to as the ‘highlight notice’).

Social science-focused projects (open element)

For the open element, it is an essential requirement that your primary research area is in the social sciences.

At least 50% of the proposed programme of research must fall within ESRC’s remit. Please refer to the list of research areas that fall within ESRC’s remit for further information.

‘Resilience to crises’ highlight notice

In addition to the social science-focused open element projects, this funding opportunity also includes dedicated funding for a project relating to building societal resilience to crises at regional, national, or transnational scales.

This highlight notice is co-funded by ESRC and the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) and is open to interdisciplinary proposals from across the social sciences, arts and humanities. At least 50% of the proposed programme of research must fall within the combined remits of ESRC and AHRC.

ESRC and AHRC are looking to fund at least one large grant that has the capacity to help decision makers either:

• pre-empt and reduce vulnerabilities to crises
• support the sustainable management of risk
• support inclusive and sustained recoveries from crises.

Under this theme, applicants may wish to address one or more of the following:

• systems approaches to understanding fragility and how populations’ resilience to shocks, and their multiple impacts, can be strengthened
• responses to cascading risks as one event triggers a series of shocks or to compounding risks as multiple risks interact in time and space
• the varied capacities and intersecting identities that shape how communities and populations respond to crises and their consequences quickly and comprehensively
• effective decision-making and management responses to crises, including the data needed to track and measure events and the institutions and policies that are needed for inclusive, informed action
• challenges and innovations around data collection and research methods in fragile or volatile settings
• approaches to supporting the recovery of the human-environment interface and evaluating the impact of responses on sustainable development
• risks and barriers to inclusive resilience (since shocks occur within a complex system of interrelated social, political, economic, cultural, health, environmental, institutional and technological factors) or solutions to overcome them
• how immediate, reactive approaches to shocks can be combined with long-term risk-mitigation strategies to increase community and population resilience.

We invite applications that are interdisciplinary. Applications may focus on any part of the world, including projects that are comparative in approach.

For the purposes of this resilience to crises highlight notice, we are interested in crises and populations (the total inhabitants of an area) at the subnational regional, national, or transnational scale. Examples of crises include, but are not limited to:

• civil and international conflict
• financial crises
• pollution events
• ecological disturbances.

More information about the background to resilience to crises project is in the ‘additional info’ section.

Who can be included in proposals

Research proposals can include multiple applicants, for example, co-investigators. However, there must be one principal investigator who takes the lead responsibility for the conduct of the research and observance of the terms and conditions. An applicant can act either as principal investigator or co-investigator on only one proposal for this funding opportunity.

Studentships are not eligible under this funding opportunity.

International co-investigators

ESRC attaches major importance to the position of UK social science in the international and global arena.

We positively encourage active collaborations between UK researchers and those in other countries, where this will help to ensure that UK research is at the international leading edge. Co-investigators based in overseas research organisations can therefore be included in research grant proposals.

Find out more about the inclusion of international co-investigators .

Business, third sector or government body co-investigators

Business, third sector or government body co-investigators based in the UK can also be included on research grant proposals.

Get further information on the inclusion of business, third-party or government co- investigators .

Knowledge exchange and generating impact

While some research topics are more theoretical than others, awards made under this funding opportunity will provide for excellent research with economic or societal impact.

You are expected to carefully consider how best to build links and contacts with potential beneficiaries and users of the research at the earliest possible stages of research design and development, and to work towards co-production of knowledge with research users and people with lived experience where appropriate.

In addition to knowledge exchange and impact strategies that focus on particular user groups or specific named beneficiary organisations, we also strongly encourage public engagement activities which bring together researchers and the wider public.

Consideration of, and advance planning for, knowledge exchange (KE) and strategies to maximise economic or societal impact should be central elements of proposals submitted to this funding opportunity.

You are encouraged to:

• work with your institution’s professional services to ensure that you build on existing strengths and good practice for impact and knowledge exchange
• identify and actively engage relevant users of research and stakeholders at appropriate stages
• articulate a clear understanding of the context and needs of users, and consider ways for the proposed research to meet these needs or increase understanding of them
• outline the planning and management of associated activities including timing, personnel, skills, budget, deliverables and feasibility
• include evidence of any existing engagement with relevant users.

We expect sufficient budget to be dedicated to delivering knowledge exchange activities. The resources required to undertake effective knowledge exchange will need to be accurately reflected and costed into the full proposal.

You may find it helpful to refer to ESRC guidance on including impact in your research proposal .

You can also refer to the ESRC impact tool kit which includes information on:

• developing impact strategies
• promoting knowledge exchange and public engagement
• communicating effectively with key stakeholders.

Leadership and management

We ask you to explain how you will provide leadership to a potentially diverse group of collaborators and support an inclusive research environment, and how the proposed programme of activities and its outputs will be managed.

Promoting equality, diversity and inclusion is an integral part of UKRI’s vision to deliver new knowledge and an enriched, healthier, more sustainable and resilient society and culture, and to contribute to a more prosperous economy.

Partnerships within research proposals, particularly involving research in low-income and middle-income countries, should be transparent and based on mutual respect. They should recognise different inputs, different interests and different desired outcomes. You should ensure:

• data is shared and used ethically and meets the identified needs of society
• partnerships are ethical, equitable and sustainable with meaningful, substantive and clear engagement.

Those invited to submit full proposals will be required to develop more detailed leadership and management plans.

Career development and capacity-building

We will be looking for evidence of a strong commitment to supporting the development of researchers (particularly at the early-career stage) and of plans for capacity building.

There are a range of career development opportunities and capacity-building activities that could be incorporated into the proposal. We expect these kinds of approaches to be summarised in the outline and addressed in detail in the full proposal.

Proposals should specifically enable early career researchers, particularly at the postdoctoral level, to move towards becoming independent researchers in the chosen field of the proposal. This may include:

• leading workstreams with supervision
• the development of a training and mentoring programme as a workstream within a grant, or designed in a way that can be embedded across the initiative.

We welcome innovative approaches to early career researcher development and will consider how these can be accommodated in detail at the full proposal stage.

Following the review of the PhD , part of our strategy to support doctoral training is the ambition for all ESRC-funded students to have the opportunity to undertake a three month placement in academia, policy, business or third sector organisations.

We encourage you to consider how you might identify and develop placement opportunities for ESRC-funded students across the lifecourse of the grant.

Research ethics

• ensure that the proposed research will be carried out to a high ethical standard
• clearly state how any potential ethical and health and safety issues have been considered and will be addressed, ensuring that all necessary ethical approval is in place and all risks are minimised before the project commences.

All proposals must comply with the ESRC framework for research ethics .

Grant details and budget

The full economic cost (fEC) of proposals should be between £1 million and £2.5 million for a period of up to five years.

ESRC will fund 80% of the fEC. Grants are expected to start by 1 October 2023.

Investigator time must be costed into the proposal and justified in the ‘justification of resources’ attachment.

Co-investigator funding

Co-investigators must make a significant contribution to conducting the research.

ESRC will fund all eligible and justified costs associated with international co-investigators and UK business, civil society or government bodies at 100% fEC. However, these combined costs must not exceed 30% of the full 100% fEC cost of the grant.

How to apply

There are two application stages to this opportunity:

• outline application stage
• full application stage.

Applicants successfully shortlisted at the outline stage will be invited to submit full applications.

Outline application stage

You must submit your outline application using the Joint Electronic Submission (Je-S) system .

All principal and co-investigators must have a Je-S account which has been verified by a third party before they can be found in searches within the Je-S system and added as an applicant. To get you started on creating an account, please refer to the Je-S helptext .

We recommend you start your application early. You can save completed details in Je-S at any time and return to continue your application later.

When applying, select ‘new document’ then:

• council: ESRC
• document type: outline
• scheme: outline proposal
• call/type/mode: 2022/2023 large grants outline call.

If applying for the resilience to crises highlight area, please include the phrase ‘crises highlight’ at the beginning of your grant title so that we can clearly identify it.

Once you have completed your application, make sure you ‘submit document’.

You can find advice on completing your application in the Je-S handbook .

Your host organisation will also be able to provide advice and guidance on completing your application.

ESRC must receive your application by 20 September at 16:00.

You will not be able to apply after this time. Please leave enough time for your proposal to pass through your organisation’s Je-S submission route before this date.

You should allow sufficient time for your research organisation to complete the submission process. It will not be possible to submit proposals after the set deadline.

There are further details about how to add information and attachments to Je-S in the ‘Je-S guidance’ document in the ‘additional info’ section of this opportunity.

Attachments

Along with your Je-S application, you will also need to include the following mandatory attachments:

• case for support (no more than four sides of A4)
• justification of resources (no more than one side of A4).

You may also include a list of key publications (no more than one side of A4). This is optional.

For more information to help you complete these documents refer to the Je-S ESRC specific requirements .

No other attachments are permitted. You must not upload CVs.

Case for support

The case for support is the body of your research proposal. It must not exceed four sides of A4 and should cover the main features of the research. Include details of any potential for linkages to other research activities (for example, those supported by other funding bodies in the UK or overseas).

The case for support must include:

• an introduction that sets out the aims and objectives of the research in context. It should briefly sketch the main work on which the research will draw. Any relevant policy or practical background should be included
• the research questions you will address. These should be written out clearly in plain English
• a description of the proposed research methods and explanation of the reasons for their choice. Particular care should be taken to explain any innovation in the methodology or where you intend to develop new methods
• a clearly stated framework and methods for analysis, including an explanation of the reasons for their choice
• an explanation on the steps you will take, to provide opportunities for users to benefit from your research, and to ensure that your research has maximum economic and societal impact
• the expected outputs both academic and those orientated to potential users (such as articles, papers, datasets, events). Where possible, describe the expected impact.

Using up to one of the four sides of A4 in the ‘case for support’ attachment, you must include:

• how various work-streams in the proposal will be coordinated and managed and briefly detail project management resources and administrative support
• how the grant’s leadership will provide adequate operational capabilities and resources to meet the demands of the research
• consideration of equality, diversity and inclusion, and evidence that any partnerships are equitable
• an outline of your commitment and plans regarding capacity-building and the professional development of researchers at all stages of their career. This detail will need to be further developed at the full phase of the opportunity.

Applicants must:

• ensure the proposed research will be carried out to a high ethical standard
• clearly state how any potential ethical, and health and safety issues have been considered and will be addressed, ensuring that all necessary ethical approval is in place before the project commences and all risks are minimised.

ESRC’s framework for research ethics contains a full explanation of our approach, with guidance for applicants.

Justification of resources

This statement (of up to one side of A4) should be used to justify the resources required to undertake the research project, and to confirm the feasibility of the proposed activity within the requested budget. Explain why the indicated resources are needed, taking account of the nature and complexity of the research proposed.

Proposals which include co-investigators from third sector organisations that are deemed not to engage in economic activity must provide evidence of this status within the justification of resources statement.

List of key publications

This is optional.

The bibliography (up to one side of A4 in length for references cited in the proposal only) should be attached. Please note publications not cited in the proposal should not be added.

Accounting for the unknown impacts of COVID-19

UKRI acknowledges that it is a challenge for applicants to determine the future impacts of COVID-19 while the pandemic continues to evolve.

Applications should be based on the information available at the point of submission and, if applicable, the known application specific impacts of COVID-19 should be accounted for. Where known impacts have occurred, these should be highlighted in the application, including the assumptions or information at the point of submission.

There is no need to include contingency plans for the potential impacts of COVID-19. Requests for travel both domestically and internationally can be included in accordance with the relevant scheme guidelines.

How we will assess your application

Assessment process.

There are two stages to this opportunity:

• outline proposal stage
• full proposal stage.

Outline proposals will be assessed and shortlisted in December 2022 by an assessment panel.

Outline stage assessment criteria

Outline proposals will be assessed against the following criteria:

• originality and potential to make a significant contribution to theory, methods or knowledge
• ambition and innovation (including drawing on combinations of disciplinary and cross-disciplinary expertise and approaches)
• clarity of conceptual and theoretical foundations
• suitability of research design and methods to address aims and objectives
• appropriate consideration and management of risk and ethical issues
• strong evidence of engagement with users at the project planning and inception stages through to completion and impact of the project
• evidence of considered and realistic engagement and dissemination strategy and clear plans to maximise academic and societal or economic impact that improves outcomes for individuals, society and the economy
• convincing management plans on how the programme of activities and its outputs will be delivered
• consideration of equality, diversity and inclusion, with clear evidence that any partnerships are equitable
• clear commitment to capacity building and career development activities.

Shortlisted applicants will subsequently be invited to submit applications to the full proposal stage in December 2022, with a closing date in March 2023. Further Je-S guidance will be issued at this time.

Full stage assessment criteria

At the full proposal stage, we will assess proposals for:

• originality and potential contribution to knowledge
• research design and methods
• outputs, dissemination and impact
• value for money
• leadership, management and deliverability.

Full proposals will be referred to a minimum of four external peer reviewers, including reviewers from outside the UK. Proposals will need to meet the standard ESRC minimum quality threshold based on reviewer scores to be shortlisted for the assessment panel.

Shortlisted applicants to the full stage of the funding opportunity will be given the opportunity to respond to anonymised reviewer comments before proposals are considered by the assessment panel. The full stage commissioning panel will meet in June 2023.

At both the outline and full proposal stages, the assessment panel will take into consideration the overall thematic balance across the open element and the themes detailed in the highlight notice. ESRC reserves the right to modify the assessment process as needed.

Funding decisions

Funding decisions are expected to be available in late July or early August 2023.

Grants will commence on 1 October 2023.

Contact details

Get help with developing your proposal.

For help and advice on costings and writing your proposal, please contact your research office in the first instance, allowing sufficient time for your organisation’s submission process.

Ask about this funding opportunity

Any questions relating to this funding opportunity, including about ESRC research funding rules, should be emailed to:

ESRC large grants team

Email: [email protected]

We aim to respond within three working days.

Get help with applying through Je-S

[email protected]

01793 444164

Opening times

Je-S helpdesk opening times

Additional info

‘resilience to crises’ highlight notice background.

Crises often expose the fragility of populations at regional, national and transnational scales. Such events can be triggered by a broad range of shocks and stresses, including environmental, political, economic, and social.

Such events can have severe and far-reaching consequences, including:

• mass displacement
• economic hardship
• disease outbreaks
• food and water scarcity
• supply chain vulnerabilities
• biodiversity and heritage loss
• political instability
• psychological trauma.

They may also create or exacerbate other vulnerabilities.

While it is not possible to predict or prevent every risk or emergency, we want to understand what more we can do to build societal resilience to withstand, adapt to, and recover from acute or chronic shocks.

Understanding evolving crises and shock events through the lens of resilience can enable a deeper understanding of how to better manage and address population-level vulnerabilities. The interconnected and interdependent nature of these vulnerabilities requires systems approaches and recognition of multiple coping mechanisms.

Grant management, monitoring and evaluation

Each successful award will be assigned an investment manager from ESRC. The investment manager will work with award-holders to provide guidance on:

• communications.

They will act as the first point of contact for any queries award-holders may have for ESRC about their terms and conditions.

ESRC’s investment managers oversee portfolios of research, and will be aware of other complementary research that ESRC and UKRI have funded. They can assist in facilitating collaboration between awards, and keep award holders updated on relevant news and opportunities from ESRC and UKRI.

Supporting documents

Je-S guidance for applicants (PDF, 225KB)

Equality impact assessment (PDF, 321KB)

This is the website for UKRI: our seven research councils, Research England and Innovate UK. Let us know if you have feedback or would like to help improve our online products and services .

Stanford Research Development Office

Curated Funding Opportunities in STEM, including Quantitative Social Sciences

Selected open funding opportunities.

RDO curates this list of open funding opportunities in STEM* to highlight large, collaborative, and/or strategic funding opportunities that may be of particular interest to the Stanford community. Please note that STEM* includes social sciences that utilize quantitative methods.

Summaries of selected funding opportunities have been compiled from Grants.gov, Grants.ca.gov, and other agency announcements below. See our Find Funding Overview for more ways to search funding opportunities in your area of interest. This page will be regularly updated to spotlight new opportunities.

Looking for something you've seen here in the past? Review past opportunities in our archive (SUNet ID required).

Find medical-related funding opportunities at Stanford Medicine's Research Management Group

Find more funding opportunities from the State of California at the California Grants Portal

Foundations

Find more funding opportunities from foundations at Stanford University Corporate and Foundation Relations

Other funding opportunities can also be found on the funding page curated by Stanford's Office of Technology Licensing

Recurring Funding Opportunities by Topic

• NSF opportunities in climate and sustainability , last update June 2023
• DEIA opportunities , last update June 2023
• Federal Instrumentation and Infrastructure grants , last update June 2023
• Recurring Limited Submissions Programs
• Collaborative Funding Mechanism list compiled by the National Organization of Research Development Professionals
• NSF Growing Convergence Research program
• NSF Research Coordination Networks meant to foster communication and collaborations in a new or developing area of science or engineering
• Life Sciences
• Physical Sciences and Engineering
• Social and Behavioral Sciences

Funding Opportunities in the Humanities, Arts, and Interpretive Social Sciences

The RDO team also curates a list of funding opportunities for researchers in the Humanities, Arts, and Interpretive Social Sciences .

Created: 09/23/21

Updated: 05/30/24

Privacy Overview

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS. A lock ( Lock Locked padlock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Funding at NSF

The U.S. National Science Foundation offers hundreds of funding opportunities — including grants, cooperative agreements and fellowships — that support research and education across science and engineering.

Learn how to apply for NSF funding by visiting the links below.

Finding the right funding opportunity

Learn about NSF's funding priorities and how to find a funding opportunity that's right for you.

Preparing your proposal

Learn about the pieces that make up a proposal and how to prepare a proposal for NSF.

Submitting your proposal

Learn how to submit a proposal to NSF using one of our online systems.

How we make funding decisions

Learn about NSF's merit review process, which ensures the proposals NSF receives are reviewed in a fair, competitive, transparent and in-depth manner.

NSF 101 answers common questions asked by those interested in applying for NSF funding. 

Research approaches we encourage

Learn about interdisciplinary research, convergence research and transdisciplinary research.

Newest funding opportunities

Nsf small business innovation research / small business technology transfer phase ii programs (sbir/sttr phase ii), nsf small business innovation research / small business technology transfer phase i programs (sbir/sttr phase i), national artificial intelligence research resource (nairr) pilot demonstration projects, nsf scholarships in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics program (s-stem) scholarship supplements for advanced technological education (ate) recipients.

Language selection

• Français fr

Government of Canada invests in research partnerships to push the boundaries of innovation

From: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada

News release

Research partnerships have the power to amplify the impact of new ideas through the creation and exchange of knowledge across disciplines, sectors and borders. Such partnerships generate valuable insights that can lead to intellectual, cultural, social and economic benefits for all Canadians.

Funding will help foster and create partnerships between world-class research institutions and organizations in the field of social sciences and humanities

May 29 , 2024 – Ottawa, Ontario – Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada

Today, the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, announced more than $51 million to support 90 research partnerships across Canada. This investment, through the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada’s Partnership Grants and Partnership Development Grants , provides researchers from different disciplines and postsecondary institutions the opportunity to work together on challenging topics and research questions in social sciences and humanities.

These partnerships involve close collaboration with the public, private or not-for-profit sectors, as well as international researchers. They also provide unique training experiences in a partnership context, with opportunities for students to acquire new research and professional and workforce-ready skills.

Funded projects will explore various topics, such as transparency in governance, adult education, histories of performance, attachment issues in children, homelessness and responsible procurement. By bringing in different expertise, perspectives and skill sets, these partnership projects help strengthen knowledge and maximize research outputs with local, regional, national and global impacts. Whether it’s supporting students or helping world-class researchers, science and research funding helps shape tomorrow’s leaders and gives them a fair chance to succeed in this important field.

“Partnerships allow for the exploration of groundbreaking ideas by bringing together Canada’s top researchers and organizations. The government is proud to invest in Canada's collaborative research spirit. Together, they foster existing partnerships or develop new ones that will fuel discoveries and innovations for a better tomorrow for all Canadians.” —The Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry

“From examining the links between legislation, innovation and society, to developing partnerships for strengthening economic development in rural communities, these partnership grants in the social sciences and the humanities address important topics that will unlock new knowledge and advance society to provide better outcomes for Canadians and the global community.” —Ted Hewitt, President, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada

Quick facts

Budget 2024 proposed $1.8 billion to the federal research granting councils to increase core research grant funding and support Canadian researchers, including students and postdoctoral researchers.

Budget 2024 also provided $825 million to increase the value and number of research scholarships and fellowships.

SSHRC Research Partnerships funding for social sciences and humanities research is intended for formal partnerships between postsecondary institutions and/or organizations of various types.

More than $37 million  in Partnership Grants was awarded to 15 projects over seven years, while 75 projects will receive a total of over $14 million  in Partnership Development Grants over three years .

SSHRC Partnership Development Grants award between $75,000 and $200,000 in value for a duration of between one and three years. They support the development of partnerships or the design and testing of new partnership approaches to nurture existing and emerging opportunities for research collaboration, best practices and/or models that can be adapted by others or scaled up to a regional, national or international level.

SSHRC Stage 2 Partnership Grants award up to $2.5 million in value for a duration of between four and seven years. They support new and existing formal partnerships to advance research, research training and/or knowledge mobilization in the social sciences and humanities. 

Since 2016, the Government of Canada has invested more than $16 billion in science and research across the country.

Associated links

• SSHRC Research Partnerships
• SSHRC Partnership Development Grants: Competition overview
• SSHRC Partnership Development Grants: Latest award recipients
• SSHRC Stage 2 Partnership Grants: Competition overview
• SSHRC Stage 2 Partnership Grants: Latest award recipients

Audrey Milette Press Secretary Office of the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry [email protected]  

Media Relations Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada [email protected]  

Media Relations Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council 613-219-2489 [email protected]    

Stay connected

Find more services and information at Canada.ca/ISED .

Follow Canadian Science on social media.

X:  @CDNScience | Facebook:  Canadian Science | Instagram:  @cdnscience

Follow SSHRC on social media:   X ,  Instagram ,  Facebook

Page details

• Faculty & Staff Portal

Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences

New research grants kickstart projects and inspire interdisciplinary collaborations.

• Faculty & Staff
• Dean's message
• Office of the Dean Directory
• Directions & contact
• Indigenous Priorities
• Equity, Diversity and Inclusion
• Student experience
• Cormack Teaching Awards
• Dean's Medal Awards
• Employee Achievement Awards
• Year in Review
• Anthropology
• Applied Legal Studies
• Cognitive Science
• Criminology
• French Cohort
• Gender, Sexuality, and Women's Studies
• Gerontology
• Global Asia
• Global Humanities
• Graduate Liberal Studies
• Hellenic Studies
• Indigenous Languages
• Indigenous Studies
• International Studies
• Labour Studies
• Linguistics
• Political Science
• Public Policy
• Social Data Analytics
• Urban Studies
• World Languages & Literatures
• Departments and programs
• FASS One @ Surrey
• High school visits
• First Year in Surrey
• Get involved in student life
• Co-op and careers
• Explore FASS programs
• Advising and Resources
• Connect with Arts Central
• Plan your Program
• Career Experience
• FASS Mentorship in Burnaby
• FASS One in Surrey
• Student Unions
• Undergraduate journals
• FASS Forward
• Get FASS Familiar
• Graduate Students
• Kickstarter Seed Recipients
• Breaking Barriers Recipients
• Apply for funding
• Manage funding
• Frequently asked questions
• Research centres & institutes
• Jack and Doris Shadbolt Fellowship
• Jack and Nancy Farley Visiting Scholar
• Canada Research Chairs
• Distinguished SFU Professors
• Fellows & Members
• Multilingual SFU
• Virtual Presentations
• FASS in the Class: The off-campus visit
• Discover FASS: The on-campus visit
• FASS Presentation Request Form
• Faculty updates
• Teaching fellows
• FASS One FAQs
• FASS Friends and Mentors (FAM)
• Peer Mentors 2023
• Departmental Intranet
• Create an inclusive society
• Become a global citizen
• Action your political potential
• Free your mind
• Build a better future
• Next steps for new students (redirect)
• Convocation

by Robyn Humphreys

Last fall, Dean Laurel Weldon announced new initiatives to support research at FASS and to increase funding opportunities which will showcase the innovative and pioneering work by FASS researchers and their collaborators.

"It is a FASS priority to enhance research activity and to build vibrant research communities throughout the university. These two new FASS grant programs open up new opportunities for us to work together to realize this vision."

- Laurel Weldon, FASS Dean

The Kickstarter Seed Grant helps get new projects off the ground. Kickstarter grants provide funding for FASS faculty members to bring greater visibility and/or engagement to their research and cultivates projects that are likely to secure external funding.

The Breaking Barriers Interdisciplinary Incentive Grant encourages research collaboration. Breaking Barriers grants support teams made up of at least two disciplines and involve faculty members from outside of FASS. These projects aim to deepen our understanding of the world’s most pressing issues, and to create solutions to these problems.

Kickstarter Seed

The initiative funded 33 Kickstarter projects which range from producing podcasts, hosting townhalls, expanding digital access to materials, to amplifying the experiences of those marginalized by age, race, class, gender, sexual orientation, or ability by fostering new connections with communities outside of SFU.

award recipients

research projects

fields of study

Breaking Barriers

FASS researchers rose to the challenge to develop new interdisciplinary collaborations to tackle a wide range of complex problems. Seven Breaking Barriers projects in total have been funded.

Team Awards

Researchers

Collaborative fields of study

Grant recipients had many great things to say about these two new grants. Here is a selection of their feedback:

"The video being developed using the Kickstarter Fund is part of a series of videos we are developing across different cities in Metro Vancouver for Mobility, Access and Participation (MAP) Partnership Grant's Stakeholders Walkability/Wheelability Audit in Neighbourhood (SWAN) project. The Kickstarter fund is being used to develop the video with study participants and coresearchers in the City of Burnaby."

Atiya Mahmood, Gerontology, Kickstarter Seed recipient

"The Molyvos Connections project team is preparing for its trip to Greece. With institutional support from SFU, students, researchers and community members will be delving into family archives and local material culture as they seek to situate a small part of the North Aegean in global geographies, all by way of a rich family archive that spans nearly one hundred years of history."

Dimitrios Krallis, Global Humanities, Kickstarter Seed recipient

"The Breaking Barriers grant is so important for our SSHRC Insight Grant team to conduct essential research on worker driven social responsibility in the Canadian context. We are all excited to create further research collaboration opportunities between Beedie and the School of Public Policy on the most pressing global challenges impacting British Columbia, Canada, and the world today." 

Ali Bhagat, School of Public Policy, Breaking Barriers recipient

"Much Indigenous knowledge has been forgotten, so our project focuses on the star lore of Salish peoples with the intent of reclaiming their insights about the night sky. The intent of our research is revitalize customary wisdom and share it with the campus community." 

Eldon Yellowhorn, Indigenous Studies, Breaking Barriers recipient

"The Kickstarter grant is allowing me to reach running communities that I would not be able to connect with otherwise. I'm studying running crews and collectives, especially those that centre women, LGBTQI+ and BIPOC runners in their practice. This research can't be done without fieldwork and the ability to be with and run with people in the same space."

Lindsey Freeman, Sociology and Anthropology, Kickstarter Seed recipient

Images provided by Lindsey Freeman.

Lists of grant recipients

• Kickstarter Seed Grant recipients
• Breaking Barriers Interdisciplinary Incentive Grant recipients

As these research projects get underway, we will share their progress, successes, and impacts. Bookmark FASS News and follow us on social media for updates.

COVID Select Subcommittee Releases Dr. Fauci’s Transcript, Highlights Key Takeaways in New Memo

WASHINGTON — Today, Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic Chairman Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio) released the transcript from Dr. Anthony Fauci’s transcribed interview. Dr. Fauci served as the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and was the face of America’s public health response during the COVID-19 pandemic. His closed door, 14-hour, two-day testimony in January 2024 has served as a critical component of the Select Subcommittee’s investigations into the origins of COVID-19, pandemic-era domestic policy failures, and improvements to the United States’ public health system. In conjunction with the transcript, the Select Subcommittee also released a new staff memo that highlights the key takeaways from Dr. Fauci’s transcribed interview. The memo can be found here .

The Select Subcommittee also released four additional transcripts from senior public health officials. These transcripts, as well as Dr. Fauci’s transcript, can be found below:

• Dr. Anthony Fauci Part 1
• Dr. Anthony Fauci Part 2
• Dr. Hugh Auchincloss
• Dr. Cliff Lane
• Greg Folkers
• Gray Handley

Below are important exchanges from Dr. Fauci’s transcribed interview:

SOCIAL DISTANCING : The “6 feet apart” social distancing recommendation forced on Americans by federal health officials was arbitrary and not based on science. Dr. Fauci testified that this guidance — which shut down schools and small businesses nationwide — “sort of just appeared” and was not based on any scientific studies.

Majority Counsel: “ Do you recall when discussions regarding, kind of, the at least a 6 foot threshold began? ”

Dr. Fauci: “The 6 foot in the school?”

Majority Counsel: “Six foot overall.  I mean, 6-foot was applied at businesse s—”

Dr. Fauci: “Yeah.”

Majority Counsel: “ —it was applied in schools, it was applied here.  At least how the messaging was applied was that 6-foot distancing was the distance that needed to be— “

Dr. Fauci: “ You know, I don’t recall.  It sort of just appeared.  I don’t recall, like, a discussion of whether it should be 5 or 6 or whatever.  It was just that 6 foot is— ”   

Majority Counsel: “ Did you see any studies that supported 6 feet? ”

Dr. Fauci: “ I was not aware of studies that in fact, that would be a very difficult study to do. ”

MASKING : Dr. Fauci testified that he did not recall any supporting evidence for masking children. Concerningly, mask-wearing has been associated with learning loss and severe speech development issues in America’s children.

Majority Counsel: “ Do you recall reviewing any studies or data supporting masking for children? ”

Dr. Fauci: “ You know, I might have, Mitch, but I don’t recall specifically that I did. I might have. ”

Majority Counsel: “ Since the — there’s been a lot of studies that have come out since the pandemic started, but specifically on this there have been significant on kind of like the learning loss and speech and development issues that have been associated with particularly young children wearing masks while they’re growing up. They can’t see their teacher talk and can’t learn how to form words. Have you followed any of those studies? ”

Dr. Fauci: “ No. But I believe that there are a lot of conflicting studies too, that there are those that say, yes, there is an impact, and there are those that say there’s not. I still think that’s up in the air. ”

TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS : Dr. Fauci unequivocally agreed with EVERY travel restriction issued by the Trump Administration at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. This testimony runs counter to the public narrative that the Trump Administration’s travel restrictions were xenophobic. During his transcribed interview, the Biden Administration’s counsel curiously prohibited Dr. Fauci from answering questions on whether he recommended the travel restrictions.

Majority Counsel: “ Did you agree with President Trump’s decision to restrict travel from China? ”                             

Dr. Fauci: “ I did , and I said there were caveats to restrictions. I agreed with it, but I said we have to be careful because sometimes when you do restrictions they have negative consequences in that you don’t have open access to help or even information. But fundamentally, I agreed at that time, since we had almost no infections that we knew of in our country, that at least a temporary restriction would be important. ”

Majority Counsel: “ Did you also agree with the EU travel restriction? ”

Dr. Fauci: “ I agreed with the suggestion that that be done, yes. ”

Majority Counsel: “ Did you agree with the U.K. travel restriction? ”

Dr. Fauci: “ Yes, I did. ”

Majority Counsel: “ Did you recommend instituting travel restrictions in response to the pandemic? ”

Biden Administration Official: “ I’m going to step in here .”

VACCINE MANDATES: Dr. Fauci admitted that vaccine mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic could increase vaccine hesitancy in the future. He also claimed that these mandates were not sufficiently studied ahead of the pandemic. Previously, Dr. Fauci advocated “that when you make it difficult for people in their lives, they lose their ideological bullshit, and they get vaccinated.”

Majority Counsel: “ Do you think mandating vaccines can result in some hesitancy? ” 

Dr. Fauci: “ I think one of the things that we really need to do after the fact, now, to — you know, after-the-game, after-the-event  evaluation of things that need to be done, we really need to take a look at the psyche of  the country, have maybe some social-type studies to figure out, does the mandating of vaccines in the way the country’s mental framework is right now, does that actually cause more people to not want to get vaccinated, or not? I don’t know. But I think that’s something we need to know. ”

LAB LEAK THEORY : Dr. Fauci acknowledged that the lab leak hypothesis is not a conspiracy theory. This comes nearly four years after prompting the publication of the now infamous “Proximal Origin” paper that attempted to vilify and disprove the lab leak hypothesis.

Majority Counsel: “ Just you sitting here today, do you think the possibility or the hypothesis that the coronavirus emerged from a laboratory accident is a conspiracy theory? ”

Dr. Fauci: “ Well, it’s a possibility. I think people have made conspiracy aspects from it.  And I think you have to separate the two when you keep an open mind, that it could be a lab leak or it could be a natural occurrence. I’ve mentioned in this committee that I believe the evidence that I’ve seen weighs my opinion towards one, which is a natural occurrence, but I still leave an open mind. So I think that in and of itself isn’t inherently a conspiracy theory, but some people spin off things from that that are kind of crazy .”

GAIN-OF-FUNCTION RESEARCH : Dr. Fauci repeatedly played semantics with the definition of “gain-of-function” research in an effort to avoid conceding that the NIH’s funded this dangerous research in China . As the head of NIAID and the face of America’s response to the pandemic, Dr. Fauci certainly understood the common definition of “gain-of-function.” Yet, he repeatedly refused — both behind closed doors and to Sen. Rand Paul during a 2021 hearing — to clarify a general understanding of the term and instead only referred to his own “operative definition.

Dr. Fauci: “ So, when I, to repeat, when I’m asked is something gain of function, I’m referring to the operative definition of gain of function according to the framework of the 3PCO…That’s my definition. That is the regulatory operational definition. And as we were talking about before, other people use the word “gain of function” this, “gain of function” that, and everybody’s got their own interpretation of it.  But when you’re deciding whether a grant should be funded, this is the operational definition. And when I was asked anywhere by the Congress, by the Senate, by Senator Paul this is what I was referring to .” 

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST : Dr. Fauci claimed that his staff had no conflicts of interest regarding the origins of COVID-19, yet his Senior Advisor — Dr. David Morens — was “best-friends” with disgraced and soon-to-be debarred EcoHealth Alliance President Dr. Peter Daszak . Considering Dr. Morens worked under Dr. Fauci’s leadership for more than 20 years, it seems highly unlikely that Dr. Fauci was genuinely unaware of this relationship.

Majority Counsel: “ I was wondering if you had thoughts on whether Dr. Daszak should have filed competing interest statements when he was weighing in on these issues, whether through the National Academies or other venues. ”

Dr. Fauci: “ You know, I hesitate to speculate about what someone else should do. The only people that I am involved with is my own staff, who we’ve mentioned many times in this discussion, who don’t have a conflict of interest. ”

GRANT APPROVAL : Dr. Fauci testified that he signed off on every foreign and domestic NIAID grant without reviewing the proposals. He was also unable to confirm if NIAID has ANY mechanisms to conduct oversight of the foreign laboratories they fund . NIAID’s flawed grant process — which relies heavily on trusting its grantees without verifying — leaves opportunities  for adversaries to exploit.

Majority Counsel: “ Who gives the final approval? ”

Dr. Fauci: “ You know, technically, I sign off on each council, but I don’t see the grants and what they are.  I never look at what grants are there.  It’s just somebody at the end of the council where they’re all finished and they go, ‘Here,’ and you sign it .”  

Majority Counsel: “ Okay. So to your knowledge, NIAID wouldn’t kind of independently verify the biosafety of a foreign lab? ”

Dr. Fauci: “ Again, I’d have to say I’m not sure.  To my knowledge, I wouldn’t be able to make a statement that I would be confident it would be. ”

Majority Counsel: “ Do you know if NIAID grants go through any type of national security review as part of the process? ”

Dr. Fauci: “ National security review? ”

Majority Counsel: “ So, like, through the National Security Council or— “

Dr. Fauci: “ No. ”

Majority Counsel: “ —or anyone in the [intelligence community]— “

Dr. Fauci: “ Not to my knowledge .”

Majority Counsel: “ I guess what we’re trying to learn going forward is, obviously, U.S. labs are vetted, certified, and there’s a standard of how U.S. labs operate. Are foreign labs held to the same standard as U.S. labs when they receive U.S. money, or are they the standards of the country in which they operate? ” 

Dr. Fauci: “ I am not certain. I have heard again, I think it was subsequent to of course, that was never brought up. ”

Majority Counsel: “ Uh huh. ”

Dr. Fauci: “ When I was the director, no one ever asked me, you know, who determines, you know, what the standards of a foreign lab are. But so the answer to your question is I don’t know, okay? ”

FEIGNED IGNORANCE : Dr. Fauci claimed he “did not recall” numerous issues and events surrounding the pandemic more than 100 times . Specifically, Dr. Fauci testified that despite the fact EcoHealth Alliance was conducting risky gain-of-function research in China, he did not know any details about the grant, nor did he maintain a relationship with its President, Dr. Peter Daszak.

Majority Counsel: “ Do you recall when you first found out that the year 5 progress report was missing from the EcoHealth grant? ”

Dr. Fauci: “ I don’t recall precisely.  It was somewhere on a briefing that the staff gave to me.  I don’t know exactly when that was.  It could have been later.  I don’t know. ”

Majority Counsel: “ Okay.  Do you think, just to the best of your recollection, whether it was before you were aware that the year 5 progress report was late before May 2021 or it would have been after? ”

Dr. Fauci: “ I don’t recall. ”

• International

Fauci testifies on the origins of Covid-19

By Antoinette Radford, Maureen Chowdhury, Elise Hammond, Carma Hassan and Jen Christensen

Key takeaways from Dr. Anthony Fauci's testimony at House hearing on Covid-19 pandemic

From CNN's Jen Christensen, Elise Hammond, Antoinette Radford and Maureen Chowdhury

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), testified Monday at a House subcommittee hearing about the US response to the Covid-19 pandemic and the origins of the virus.

The hearing was Fauci’s first public testimony on Capitol Hill since his retirement from government service. It turned contentious at times as Republicans grilled Fauci over a wide range of topics, including the basis for public health recommendations during the pandemic and email use by public health officials.

Here are key takeaways from the hearing:

• US still needs to be better prepared for next pandemic: Fauci said there are still some things the US needs to work on to be ready for another pandemic, saying in “some respects” the country is better prepared to deal with a health crisis than in 2020, “but in others, I am still disappointed.” One thing that he hopes the US will do better moving forward is tightening communication between the federal response and local public health officials.
• Republicans grill Fauci over public health official’s use of email: Fauci testified Monday that he has not used his personal email to conduct business, and he was not aware before a congressional investigation that a former senior adviser at the National Institutes of Health had used an unofficial email. The House Oversight select subcommittee on the coronavirus pandemic previously released a series of  private   emails  that Republicans argue show that some NIH officials deleted emails and tried to get around requirements to disclose information through public records laws.
• Fauci testifies about possible origins of virus that caused Covid-19: Fauci testified that in early 2020, he was informed through phone calls with two scientists that they and others were concerned that the virus that causes Covid-19 could have been manipulated in the lab. The day after those calls, Fauci said several international virologists examined it further and found that “several who at first were concerned about lab manipulation became convinced that the virus was not deliberately manipulated.” Scientists found the most likely scenario, Fauci said, was a virus that transferred from an animal to a human, “although they still kept an open mind.”
• Fauci details threats he and his family have received: Fauci detailed the threats he received during his time as the director of the NIAID, describing threats against him and his family. “Everything from harassments from emails, texts, letters of myself, my wife, my three daughters. There have been credible death threats leading to the arrest of two individuals – and credible death threats means someone who clearly was on their way to kill me. And it’s required my having protective services essentially all the time.”
• 6-foot social distance guideline: Fauci clarified that the 6-foot guidance for social distancing given during the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic did not come from him, but from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Fauci, who repeated the guidance during the pandemic, once said that there was no science behind it — but he meant that there were no clinical trials to back it up. He added that he believed the CDC used studies about droplets years ago as reasoning for the 6-foot guidelines.

Fauci says he supports suspending funding to EcoHealth Alliance

CNN's Jen Christensen

Dr. Anthony Fauci said on Monday he supports suspending US grant funding to EcoHealth Alliance , a New York-based virus research organization that has been tied to question and controversy around the origins of the virus that causes Covid-19.

The US Department of Health and Human Services in May suspended funding to EcoHealth Alliance and proposed the group be blocked from receiving federal funds in the future, possibly for years.

Asked on Monday if he supposed the suspension and debarment of EcoHealth Alliance, Fauci responded “yes.” 

Before the pandemic, the US gave a $120,000 grant to EcoHealth Alliance with a subaward that funded work at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. In April 2020, the National Institutes of Health terminated the grant.

Fauci said that he later learned that the White House had called to tell the NIH to cancel the grant. Asked Monday if he agreed or disagreed with the decision at the time, he said that wasn’t his problem with the request.

“It wasn’t a question of agreeing or disagreeing. It was like, ‘Can we really do that? I don’t think that you can do that.’ And as it turned out I was right, because the general counsel of HHS said, 'By the way, you can’t do that. You’ve got to restore the grant,' ” Fauci testified.

The grant was reinstated, then suspended pending a compliance review.

Fauci said once he learned that there were compliance issues with the grant, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases was told to stay out of it.

Since that time, NIH found numerous violations of grant policies by EcoHealth and has since blocked funding to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and suspended and proposed blocking NIH funding to EcoHealth as an institution and Dr. Peter Daszak individually.

In a May letter to EcoHealth Alliance and its president, Dr. Peter Daszak, HHS lists 30 pieces of evidence some dating back to 2013 to support its decision. HHS said in a memo that EcoHealth failed to “adequately monitor” virus growth experiments at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, notify the NIH that viruses studied there “appeared to grow beyond permissible thresholds” laid out in a grant or provide requested information in a timely manner.

In a statement last month, a spokeperson for EcoHealth Alliance said the organization was “disappointed by HHS’ decision" and that it would contest the decision.

GOP subcommittee chair and ranking member wrap up hearing with closing statements

From CNN's Maureen Chowdhury

In his closing statement, Ranking Member Raul Ruiz thanked Dr. Anthony Fauci for his testimony and for his decades of service to the nation in dealing with various epidemics and pandemics.

He also blasted Republicans for pushing extreme narratives for political gain.

"Over the past four years you have been personally targeted by extreme narratives of the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic and the US governments response to it," Ruiz said. "These extreme narratives have been the bedrock of this subcommittees Republican-led probe and have been undermined by what's been found through interviews and by thousands of documents that have been reviewed."

Ruiz added that the evidence found that "Dr. Fauci did not fund research through the EcoHealth Alliance Grant that caused the Covid-19 pandemic, Dr. Fauci did not lie about gain of function research in Wuhan China, Dr. Fauci did not orchestrate a campaign to suppress the lab-leak theory."

Subcommittee Chair Brad Wenstrup also thanked Fauci for coming voluntarily to testify.

He went on to say that the hearing was an opportunity to learn more about the government's Covid-19 response and how the government can improve and do better. He said that while there some things that were done well, there were some wrongdoings in the office where Fauci served.

Wenstrup highlighted that moving forward, clarity is important in order to improve messaging.

"I think what I'm most concerned about as we go forward as a country and from our agencies is that we an be trusted and that we are better in our messaging and talk about clarity," Wenstrup said.

Officials will evaluate "cost-benefit ratio" of vaccine mandates in analysis of pandemic response, Fauci says

From CNN's Elise Hammond

When evaluating the United States’ handling of the Covid-19 pandemic, public health officials will take a closer look at “the cost-benefit ratio” of things like vaccine mandates, Dr. Anthony Fauci said.

Fauci was answering a question about whether issuing mandates could have led to vaccine hesitancy.

“That’s something that I think we need to go back now, when we do an after-the-event evaluation about whether or not given the psyche of the country and the pushback that you get from those types of things — we need to reevaluate the cost-benefit ratio of those types of things,” Fauci said.

Earlier in the hearing, Fauci defended the government’s use of vaccines as saving “hundreds of thousands of lives in the United States and millions of lives throughout the world.

US still needs to close communication gaps to be better prepared for next pandemic, Fauci says

Dr. Anthony Fauci said there are still some things the United States needs to work on to be more prepared for another pandemic in the aftermath of Covid-19.

The former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) said in “some respects” the country is better prepared to deal with a health crisis than in 2020, “but in others, I am still disappointed.”

Fauci was answering a question from Florida Democratic Rep. Jared Moskowitz, who served as the Director of the Florida Division of Emergency Management during the pandemic. The lawmaker said he felt that states were not ready to deal with Covid-19.

“I think one of the things that was really a problem with the response was the degree of divisiveness that we had in the country about a lack of a coherent response where we were having people, for reasons that had nothing to do with public health or science, refusing to adhere to public health intervention measures,” Fauci said.

One thing that he hopes the US will do better moving forward is tightening communication between the federal response and local public health officials.

He said there was a “disconnect between the healthcare system and the public health system” during Covid-19 in the US. Specifically, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) could not demand information from local agencies, which caused a lag in sharing data.

“We were at a disadvantage,” Fauci said, adding that the CDC is working on ways to fix this pain point.

California lawmaker whose parents died of Covid-19 thanks Fauci for life-saving policies

California Democratic Rep. Robert Garcia, who said both of his parents died from Covid-19, thanked Dr. Anthony Fauci for putting in policies that saved lives during the pandemic.

Garcia said his mother was a health care worker and she and his step-father both died from Covid-19.

“I lost both of my parents during the pandemic, so I take this very personally," he said, condemning other lawmakers “who are tasked to be responsible and actually help the American people” attack medical professionals, Garcia said.

The comments came after heated remarks from Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene who criticized mask mandates and called for Fauci to be put in prison.

“Your quote-unquote so-called science that the gentlewoman is referring to has saved millions of lives in this country and around the world,” Garcia said. “It’s important to note that my opinion is that you are an American hero and your team has done more to save lives than all 435 members of this body on both sides of the aisle.”

GOP chairman has to remind Marjorie Taylor Greene to be respectful as she refuses to call Fauci a doctor

CNN's Haley Talbot

GOP Chairman Brad Wenstrup had to remind Georgia Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene to be respectful after she insisted that she would not refer to Dr. Anthony Fauci by the title of doctor and would only refer to him as "Mr. Fauci."

"You're not doctor, you're Mr. Fauci in my few minutes," Greene said.

In response, Wenstrup ordered Greene to address Fauci as a doctor. “I have instructed her to address him as doctor,” Wenstrup said. 

“I’m not addressing him as doctor,” she shot back.  

Several Democratic lawmakers jumped in to criticize Greene over her refusal to address Fauci as a doctor.

Wenstrup then asked members to “afford all other members the respect they are entitled” and to “refrain from using rhetoric that could be construed as an attack on the motives or character of another member or the witness.”

Fauci: NIH official using unofficial email is an "aberrancy and an outlier"

Dr. Anthony Fauci testified Monday that he has not used his personal email to conduct business, and he was not aware before a congressional investigation that a former senior adviser at the National Institutes of Health had used unofficial email.

“What you saw, I believe, with Dr. Morens was aberrancy and an outlier,” Fauci testified on Monday, referring to a former senior adviser at NIH. “The individuals at the NIH and NIAID are a very committed group of individuals and this one instance that you point out is an aberrancy and an outlier.”

The House Oversight Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic previously released a series of  private emails  that Republican members of the committee argue show that some NIH officials deleted emails and tried to get around requirements to disclose information through public records laws.

In a memo  published at the end of May , committee members said Dr. David Morens, a former senior adviser to Fauci, engaged in “nefarious behavior.” The committee points to email that Morens sent another colleague that suggests he would send email to Fauci’s private account and “there is no worry about FOIAs.” FOIA is the Freedom of Information Act, the law that gives the public the right to obtain federal records, including emails sent within government agencies. Morens’ email goes on to say that he can also hand information to Fauci to avoid it being a part of the public record.

“He is too smart to let colleagues send him stuff that could cause trouble,” Morens said in a 2021 email to Peter Daszak, the president of EcoHealth Alliance, a nonprofit virus research organization linked to controversy about the origins of the virus that causes Covid-19. The US Department of Health and Human Services suspended funding to the group in May.

Fauci details threats he and his family have received

From CNN's Antoinette Radford

Anthony Fauci detailed the threats he received during his time as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, describing death threats against him and threats against his wife and daughters.

Democratic Rep. Debbie Dingell asked Fauci to explain what some of the threats were, where he replied:

“Everything from harassments from emails, texts, letters of myself, my wife, my three daughters. There have been credible death threats leading to the arrest of two individuals – and credible death threats means someone who clearly was on their way to kill me. And it’s required my having protective services essentially all the time," Fauci said.

Fauci said he feared that the threats against public health workers during the Covid-19 pandemic would serve as a “powerful disincentive” for the best and brightest candidates to take up the profession.

“They say to themselves, 'I don’t want to go there. Why should I get involved in that?'” he said.

“They’re reluctant to put themselves and their family through what they see their colleagues being put through,” he testified.

Please enable JavaScript for a better experience.