In what initially appeared to be good news, the National Science Foundation (NSF) released the 2027 Graduate Research Fellowship (GRFP) Solicitation — on time as opposed to last year’s delay – with FABBS disciplines appearing on the list of eligible fields. However, a closer look revealed the Social, Behavioral and Economic (SBE) Sciences Directorate had been removed from the list of partner organizations and also from the list of applicable Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) codes, which determine how applications are reviewed.
Furthermore, STEM Education (EDU) & Learning Research has been removed from the list of eligible fields, along with eight other SBE disciplines: Communications, Cultural Anthropology, International Relations, Law and Social Science, Political Science, Public Policy, Science Policy, and Social Science Education. While NSF continues to say they are not taking steps to eliminate SBE in fiscal year 2026 (FY26), it is hard not to interpret these changes as efforts to do exactly that. While disheartening, FABBS still encourages students to apply. The deadline for applications in Psychology and Social Sciences is October 20.
The GRFP announcement followed the long anticipated release of 12 other funding solicitations covering all NSF Directorates except for SBE; STEM EDU; and Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships (TIP), which has been actively sharing opportunities throughout the year.
FABBS has also been tracking SBE staffing. According to available information, SBE had an estimated 48 program directors in January 2025. This month, SBE will be down to 13 staff members, as some rotators return to their home institutions and others move to temporary positions at other Directorates. Some NSF Directorates have posted new job solicitations, but there have been none for SBE.
FABBS continues to use every opportunity to voice our objections and hold NSF accountable. On August 24, FABBS submitted a response to NSF’s request for comment on their proposed guidance on financial assistance, which aligns the agency’s policies with the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) guidance proposed in May (see previous FABBS reporting). In our comments, we stressed that the notice was premature and an inappropriate mechanism for changes with the level of significance in the proposal. Further, FABBS believes these significant changes should not be put forward in the absence of leadership, as NSF lacks both a Director and a National Science Board (NSB).
The American Psychological Association (APA) and Association for Psychological Science (APS) have developed action alerts for anyone wanting to raise concerns about NSF.
