What Are the Differences Between Highlighted Topics and Funding Opportunities?

Applicants, take advantage of this overview to learn how NIH Highlighted Topics differ from Notices of Funding Opportunities (NOFOs). There are significant distinctions that you should understand when planning a project for your next application.

Highlighted Topics are a communication tool to promote a particular area of science within the NIH mission and encourage investigator-initiated applications from the community. They provide quick, simple information that is specific to the research topic area.

In contrast to NOFOs, Highlighted Topics:

  • Give the applicant more freedom and creativity in responding to a topic.
    • Are less prescriptive than a science-specific NOFO.
    • Do not direct the applicant to use a particular NOFO, a particular due date or budget, or set other eligibility or application criteria.
    • Provide topic inspiration. Applicants use an appropriate funding opportunity, such as one of the NIH Parent Funding Announcements or other broad NIH opportunities on Grants.gov.
  • Are not funding opportunities. NIH may or may not have dedicated funding for applications in any given topic area.
  • Do not impact referral or peer review of applications.
  • Expire after 1 year. However, NIH may choose to update or renew a topic.

Highlighted topics and NOFOs are two ways to find a good fit at NIH for your research idea. Find more advice at Find Your Opportunity.

Resources

Categories: Tips Before You Submit

Related News

New FY 2025 NIH Categorical Spending Data Available

NIH recently updated its annual categorical information with actual spending data for fiscal year (FY) 2025. Available on the Research, Condition, and Disease Categorization (RCDC) page, you will find the annual support level for various research, condition, and disease categories. 

New Resources

How Would You Measure and Reward Scientific Impact and Replicable Research Practices?

What does scientific impact look like today? For decades, measures such as publication counts, citation rates, and grant funding have been primarily used to assess the success of researchers. Yet biomedical research has become increasingly collaborative, interdisciplinary, and data-intensive. Progress often depends on teams of investigators, shared datasets and software, rigorous validation of findings, and sustained mentorship and training efforts.

Top Stories

For technical issues E-mail OER Webmaster