American Heart Association Postdoctoral Fellowship 2027: Applications Closed

American Heart Association Postdoctoral Fellowship 2027: Applications Closed

The American Heart Association (AHA) Postdoctoral Fellowship is a mentored research-training award for postdoctoral researchers who are not yet independent. The 2027 award cycle described here is closed. The AHA’s official program page sets the proposal deadline at August 5, 2026, at 3 p.m. Central Time, says that late submissions are not accepted, and lists an award start of January 1, 2027. The AHA funding-opportunities page currently does not identify a later postdoctoral fellowship cycle or deadline. This page is therefore a historical reference to the published 2027 round, not an open call. Check the AHA’s official funding pages for any future announcement before planning an application.

The program supports cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and brain-health research. Its purpose is to develop a postdoctoral fellow’s research ability and career, with an established mentor providing scientific guidance and a focused training plan. The fellowship is not a stand-alone research grant: the AHA provides the fellow’s stipend and specified project support, while the mentor’s laboratory must provide other money needed to carry out the proposed work.

The 2027 cycle at a glance

These dates and amounts describe that specific round. They do not establish that a new application window is open. The 2027 program page remains the primary source for the archived cycle’s rules and any notice that AHA adds to that page. The broader funding-opportunities page is useful for checking whether AHA has listed a later call.

Award amount and what it covers

For this cycle, the annual stipend followed the fellow’s years of experience. The AHA listed $63,480 at zero years, $63,900 at one year, $64,380 at two years, $66,948 at three years, $69,180 at four years, $71,748 at five years, $74,424 at six years, and $77,076 at seven or more years. The applicable rate was tied to the program’s published schedule. Applicants needed to work with their institution to determine the appropriate line for their situation rather than assume every awardee received the maximum.

In addition to the stipend, the award provided $12,200 per year for health insurance and $3,000 per year in project support. The health-insurance allowance could be applied to further supplement health-insurance cost, but the AHA says that allowance could not be used for another purpose. At least $1,500 of project support had to go toward travel to a national conference. The AHA encouraged attendance at its Scientific Sessions; international travel was allowed without prior approval. The official page says there was no limit on an individual project-support line item, listing travel, computer, and equipment as examples.

The award did not cover indirect costs. More importantly for budgeting, the fellow received a stipend, so the mentor’s laboratory had to supply additional financial support required for the proposed research. Reagents, animals, substantial equipment, and core-facility fees should not be assumed to come from the fellowship. A sound project plan connects the proposed work to the mentor’s funded research and explains what resources the lab will provide. The mentor also had to describe how the fellow contributed to developing the proposal and how the work fits the fellow’s training and career goals.

The initial award period could be one or two years. A fellow could apply for a second award of up to two years, with all eligibility criteria applying again. The maximum was four years of AHA-funded postdoctoral fellowship support per person. Renewal was not automatic and should not be counted as guaranteed funding when planning a position or laboratory budget.

Who the 2027 round was designed to support

The applicant had to hold a post-baccalaureate doctoral degree or equivalent, or an eligible doctoral-level clinical degree. The AHA listed MD, DO, DVM, PharMD, DDS, DPh, and PhD in science, nursing, public health, or another clinical health-science field. Eligibility was checked at award activation for the degree and career-stage requirements: the awardee could not still be pursuing a doctorate and could have no more than five years of research training or experience since earning the qualifying degree. Clinical training was excluded from that five-year calculation.

The award was for trainees who were not yet independent and was not intended for individuals of faculty rank. It expected fellows to spend at least 80% of full-time work on research or work in support of independent research. The AHA describes flexibility for clinicians balancing research with clinical responsibilities, but clinical, teaching, or administrative duties that are not integral to the research training could not displace the required research effort. The official terms also say that a fellow promoted to a staff or faculty position must resign, with a stated exception for a fellow who has a faculty position while maintaining clinical responsibilities under an instructor’s supervision. Applicants in that situation needed to consult the AHA and institutional grants officer rather than rely on a simplified rule.

The host had to be a U.S.-based non-profit able to conduct the proposed work. The AHA’s examples include medical, osteopathic, dental, veterinary, public-health, pharmacy, and nursing schools; universities and colleges; and public or voluntary hospitals. The project needed an established investigator as mentor, an appropriate research environment, and a credible plan for scientific and career development. A mentor could supervise no more than four AHA-funded predoctoral or postdoctoral fellows at a time, subject to the stated exclusions and co-mentor distinction.

The applicant needed an eligible immigration designation at proposal submission and had to maintain one of the listed designations throughout the award. The AHA lists U.S. citizenship, permanent residence, a pending permanent-resident application with the specified USCIS receipt, E-3, F-1 for predoctoral or postdoctoral fellows, G-4, H-1B, J-1 for predoctoral or postdoctoral fellows, O-1, TN, and DACA. The official rules distinguish visa categories and career stages; for example, the J-1 note specifies that other awardees must obtain H-1B or equivalent status by the proposal due date. Applicants with immigration questions were directed to consult their institutional grant officer.

Applicants had to be AHA Professional Members when submitting. The AHA advised joining or renewing while preparing the ProposalCentral application and cautioned that membership processing could take several days. It also expected mentors connected to training or mentored-research awards to keep active AHA Professional Membership. These requirements applied to the closed 2027 submission window and should be checked again if a later cycle is announced.

Application materials and submission route

The AHA required electronic submission through ProposalCentral. For the archived round, the system opened on May 15, 2026, eight weeks before the deadline. All submissions required a designated institutional representative’s signature, so applicants needed to coordinate with their institution’s grants office well before final submission. The deadline applied to the complete proposal, including required third-party material; the AHA encouraged early submission and did not accept late proposals, extensions, or appeals.

The central research plan had a five-page limit. The fellow and mentor were expected to develop a thoughtful, systematic proposal addressing a clear investigative question in cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, or brain-health research. The fellow had primary responsibility for writing and preparing the application, with substantial guidance from the mentor. The plan needed to explain the hypothesis, the fellow’s role, specific aims, methods, and how the research would advance the fellow’s training. If the work involved human participants or vertebrate animals, applicants had to explain how relevant biological variables, including sex, informed the design, analysis, and reporting. Work studying only one sex required a strong justification.

The application also included an applicant biosketch and career-goal statement, a mentor biosketch, and an individualized mentor training plan. The fellow’s goals and the mentor’s plan had to complement one another. The AHA said a standardized training plan would not be viewed favorably. The mentor needed to demonstrate relevant experience, adequate current funding, and a specific commitment to the fellow’s progress. The application addressed responsible conduct of research and the training environment as well as the scientific project.

Three reference letters were required. Referents uploaded their own reports through ProposalCentral by the deadline, and the proposal could not be submitted without them. A mentor, co-mentor, department head, collaborating investigator, or consultant contributing to the proposal could not serve as a referent. The AHA expected letters to be written by people familiar with the applicant’s scientific interests and abilities, not drafted by the applicant. Applicants also prepared a budget and justification and secured the institutional endorsement and signature. This archive describes materials required for the 2027 cycle; consult the future cycle’s instructions if AHA publishes a new call because application forms and requirements can change.

How review worked

The AHA described a 1-to-9 scoring scale and three main review areas. The fellow’s potential counted for 30%. Reviewers considered the applicant’s promise for a research career, specified career plans, research experience or publications, support from references, and the rationale for the proposed training.

The mentor’s commitment and research-training plan counted for 40%, the largest stated share. Reviewers considered the mentor’s experience and funding, the match between the plan and the fellow’s developmental goals, and the quality of the training environment. They also assessed whether the project was suitable for the applicant’s experience, whether it balanced challenge and feasibility, and whether the mentor clearly explained the fellow’s contribution and access to laboratory resources. A generic mentor plan was a poor fit for this criterion because AHA expected an individualized account of how the fellow would develop.

Evaluation of the research as a training vehicle counted for 30%. Scientific merit mattered, but the work was considered in relation to the applicant’s development and the AHA mission. The proposal needed a clear problem, rationale, hypothesis, methods, and meaningful role for the fellow. Reviewers considered whether the plan could produce a successful learning experience and whether it addressed cardiovascular disease, stroke, or brain health. The AHA reserved the right to triage applications, including triaging at least half of submissions.

The review structure explains why the program joined project quality with training. A technically interesting study still needed to be feasible in the mentor’s lab and useful to the fellow’s career development. A persuasive application would explain both what the research could establish and what research judgment, methods, or independence the applicant would gain. The mentor’s resources mattered because the AHA stipend did not supply all research costs.

Restrictions and planning lessons from the closed round

An applicant could submit only one Postdoctoral Fellowship application per deadline. An awardee could hold only one AHA research award at a time and could not hold a comparable outside fellowship as a source of supplementation. The AHA allowed supplementation from other sources to meet the sponsoring institution’s stipend and benefit levels, but that was distinct from holding another comparable fellowship. A fellow with an ongoing training grant could request a delayed start of up to six months to complete it, with prior approval. Delayed-start intent had to be stated in the personal-statement section of the biosketch.

The AHA prohibited identical or significantly similar proposals from different investigators, and prohibited duplicative content between a mentor’s grant proposal and a fellow’s fellowship proposal. A mentor and fellow could both receive support when the aims did not duplicate one another. Applicants could present preliminary data generated by the mentor, which recognized that a new fellow might not yet have a substantial dataset. Research plans and other proposal documents could not use hyperlinks to data, figures, or additional information.

For future applicants, the closed cycle offers a useful planning outline but not a live checklist. First, confirm that the official AHA page has announced a new cycle and read its current request for proposals. Then assess degree timing, research experience, immigration designation, effort, host institution, and mentor fit against the new rules. Discuss laboratory funding and the fellow’s specific role before drafting aims. Work with the grants office on institutional signatures; allow referees time to upload independent letters; and complete membership requirements early. These are practical lessons from the published 2027 process, not evidence of dates or rules for an unannounced round.

Historical-cycle questions

Can I apply to the 2027 round now? No. The official deadline was August 5, 2026 at 3 p.m. Central Time, and AHA states that it does not accept late submissions, extensions, or appeals.

Has AHA announced the next postdoctoral fellowship deadline? The official program page reviewed for this entry continues to describe the 2027 cycle, and the current funding-opportunities list does not show a later postdoctoral fellowship call. No later deadline is confirmed here. Check the AHA funding page for future announcements rather than treating the archived date as a recurring schedule.

What did the 2027 award provide? Its annual stipend ranged from $63,480 to $77,076 according to years of experience, plus $12,200 for health insurance and $3,000 in project support. At least half of the project-support amount had to be spent on national-conference travel. The fellowship did not pay indirect costs, and the mentor’s laboratory had to fund additional research needs.

Could the award last longer than two years? The initial award could cover one or two years. A fellow could apply for a second award of up to two years, subject to the eligibility rules, for a maximum of four years of AHA postdoctoral fellowship support. The additional period was not automatic.

Where should applicants verify any new call? Use the official AHA Postdoctoral Fellowship page and the broader AHA funding-opportunities page. The program page is the source for its detailed eligibility, budget, application, and review terms; the broader list helps identify posted calls. Confirm the current request for proposals before relying on any archived requirement.

Official sources

• 2027 American Heart Association Postdoctoral Fellowship — deadline, key dates, eligibility, budget, restrictions, required references, and review criteria for the cycle documented here.
• American Heart Association Research Funding Opportunities — current list of open requests for proposals.

The direct local HTTP check returned 403, but the official AHA program page and funding list were accessible for this review through the AHA’s published web content. The verified program URL remains the official page above. This entry keeps the actual closed-cycle deadline in its metadata for archival accuracy and uses the historical-reference flag so the date is not presented as an upcoming opportunity.