Paper detail

Critical Shortfall in NIH Support for Medical Physics Research

This report summarizes changes in federal research funding to the medical physics community between FY24 and FY25. By linking the AAPM membership database with NIH RePORTER records, we quantified the distribution of NIH funding for projects led by AAPM researchers. Although total NIH funding to AAPM members remained relatively stable across the two years, the composition of that funding shifted substantially. Competing (new and renewal) awards declined 50%, driven largely by an 80% collapse in new R01 grants from the National Cancer Institute (NCI). In contrast, noncompeting continuation awards increased by 10%, following a shift in how NIH funds multi-year projects. These changes occurred in the context of widespread disruptions to NIH review and grantmaking, including delayed study sections and more stringent administrative requirements. Federal funding is essential to sustaining innovation, supporting early-stage investigators, and ensuring that patients receive the best possible care. The trends identified here raise concerns about the long-term vitality and stability of the medical physics research pipeline.

preprint2026arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.