The Institute for Progress and Science Funding

by Jennifer Woods

On April 26, guest author Anna Krylov invited Heterodox STEM readers to submit proposals on how to reform U.S. science funding. That was the same day that I arrived in Indianapolis to attend the 18^th annual conference of the National Organization of Research Development Professionals (NORDP). Research development professionals are the folks at your universities who generally contribute to advancing research by communicating funding opportunities, working with investigators to prepare grant proposals, and facilitating research collaborations. It was while attending the NORDP conference that I learned about the Institute for Progress (IFP) and the recommendations it has made to reform science funding – recommendations that are currently being discussed and implemented at the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.

To illustrate the influence that the Institute for Progress is having on federal funding of science, I will focus on the NSF. Although I failed to notice it at the time, the relationship between the NSF and the IFP is not new. The partnership was announced in September 2023, and is one of the outcomes of the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022, which charged NSF “with considering alternatives to, or experimentation within, NSF’s traditional processes for receiving, reviewing, and funding research and innovation.” In partnership with NSF, “IFP will design and implement one or more economic and social experiments, statistical tests of a hypothesis.” As described by then-Director Sethuraman Panchanathan: “We know there are always ways to improve, and these ‘science of science’ experiments will allow us to test new mechanisms to accelerate decision making. The results will enhance how NSF makes investments by reducing turnaround time on final decisions, allowing greater flexibility in pivoting projects toward maximal impacts, and developing new pathways for researchers.”

The IFP defines itself as “a think tank for accelerating scientific, technological, and industrial progress.” In November 2025, the White House Office of Science and Technology issued a Request for Information on Accelerating the American Scientific Enterprise, to which IFP responded. The essence of IFP’s recommendations for reforming science funding was published as an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on December 12, 2025, and is reprinted on the IFP’s Substack. What’s most striking (to me) about IFP’s vision is its idea to fund “focused research organizations,” flexible, multi-year funding ranging from $10 million to $50 million a year to organizations that operate outside the “constraints of university bureaucracy.”

Consistent with this vision, on May 14, 2026, NSF issued a solicitation for proposals to establish “X-Labs,” a “substantial long-term investment [underscoring] NSF’s commitment to new models of research outside of traditional institutions” (emphasis mine). … NSF X-Labs are independent teams of researchers, engineers, and entrepreneurs pursuing milestone-based federal funding to solve specific scientific challenges.” As that language indicates, funding for X-Labs will not come in the form of grants. Rather, the funding comes from a new mechanism called Other Transaction Agreement Solutions Offering, or OTASO – a contract.

If the purpose of an X-Lab is to establish “new models of research outside of traditional institutions,” university-based researchers may well wonder, “How can we benefit from this opportunity?” The short answer to that question was given during an NSF-hosted webinar on May 28. (The recording and slides will hopefully appear on the X-Labs website soon). One possibility is that a university would apply for an X-Lab in Phase 0 as the lead organization. Plans for “spinning out” the X-Lab as an independent organization with its own governance structure would then be worked out during Phase 0 and fully implemented before Phase I could begin. All members of an X-Lab team would have to be full-time employees of the new independent organization. Perhaps university-based researchers could be involved in an X-Lab through sub-contracts. I’m still working through the details of the solicitation.

Given the viewpoint diversity among readers of Heterodox STEM, I can imagine that some researchers will like (or at least be intrigued by) the X-Lab concept. I can also imagine that others will bemoan it.

Here’s the important point: Whether or not you like proposed changes at NSF (and other federal agencies), make your views known. NSF issued a Request for Information (RFI) about the X-Labs initiative on December 12, 2025 (the same day as the Institute for Progress’s op-ed in the Wall Street Journal). The responses to the RFI informed the final solicitation.

More changes are coming to federal funding agencies. On May 27, NSF launched another RFI related to technology. This one seeks input on establishing “Tech Accelerators.” The initiative would “enhance the process of transforming research outputs emanating from basic research into scalable, market-ready technologies.” On May 29, the Office of Management and Budget posted an RFI to seek input on a rule change that would “improve transparency, accountability, and oversight for Federal awards” across all agencies. (A summary of that RFI can be found in the June 1 issue of FYI.)

Watch the Federal Register for opportunities to comment on RFIs. (Comments can be submitted anonymously.) Subscribe to FYI, the science policy newsletter from the American Institute of Physics. And become familiar with the Institute for Progress. It seems to be a significant influencer.

Jennifer Woods is a research development professional at an R1 university. The opinions expressed are her own and do not necessarily reflect those of NORDP or her employer.