American Lung Association Research Awards and Grants 2027–2028: Up to $100,000 a Year for U.S. Lung Health Research

American Lung Association Research Awards and Grants 2027–2028: Up to $100,000 a Year for U.S. Lung Health Research

The American Lung Association Research Institute has opened its 2027–2028 Research Awards and Grants cycle for scientists whose work can improve the prevention, diagnosis, treatment, or public-health response to lung disease. The cycle is not one single grant with one fixed award size. It is a group of mechanisms for different career stages and research areas, including early-career mentored work, lung cancer, respiratory pathogens, interstitial lung disease, indoor air, public policy, and broader lung-health research.

The official program page lists awards from $50,000 to $100,000 per year. Most listed mechanisms support up to two years, while the Indoor Air Award can support up to three years. The full application deadline is December 1, 2026, through ProposalCentral. The research term is scheduled to begin July 1, 2027, after administrative review and scientific peer review.

There is an important timing distinction. The program page lists September 18, 2026 as the deadline for a letter of intent when a mechanism requires one. That date has passed as of September 20, 2026. Applicants should therefore check the selected award description immediately: a mechanism without an LOI requirement may still be preparing for the December 1 full application deadline, while an LOI-based mechanism may no longer be available to a new applicant this cycle unless the Association confirms otherwise. This guide separates confirmed program facts from preparation advice so researchers can make that distinction before investing substantial time.

Key details

The amount in the table is a range, not a promise that every applicant can request the maximum. The award description for the chosen mechanism controls the amount, duration, project scope, and supporting-document requirements. Researchers should use the American Lung Association page as the starting point, then read the linked program description and terms and conditions before drafting the application.

What the opportunity funds

The cycle is designed for research that advances lung health and reduces the burden of lung disease. The Association’s official list covers several distinct kinds of work. The Catalyst Award provides $50,000 per year for up to two years for mentored early-career scientists moving toward independence. It accepts basic, behavioral, clinical, or translational lung-health and disease research. The Dalsemer Interstitial Lung Disease Award offers the same annual amount and duration for mentored junior investigators studying the mechanisms and biology of interstitial lung disease.

Other mechanisms serve investigators at a more independent stage. The Innovation Award offers $75,000 per year for up to two years for independent basic, behavioral, clinical, or translational lung-health research. The Hastings Innovation Award for Interstitial Lung Disease also offers $75,000 per year for up to two years, with specific seniority requirements that include holding an NIH K- or R-type award within the previous five years and not having served as principal investigator on three or more R01-type grants.

The Lung Cancer Discovery Award and Emerging Respiratory Pathogen Award each list $100,000 per year for up to two years. The lung-cancer mechanism supports clinical, laboratory, epidemiological, or other groundbreaking work that improves understanding, diagnosis, or treatment of lung cancer. The respiratory-pathogen mechanism focuses on the pathobiology and immediate or long-term implications of respiratory infections, including emerging problems involving known organisms and new pathogens.

The cycle also includes public-health and environmental mechanisms. The Public Health & Public Policy Research Award offers $50,000 per year for up to two years for research and evaluation of public policy or public-health programs, as well as pilot ideas that can inform policy about healthy air and lung disease. The Indoor Air Award offers $50,000 to $100,000 per year for up to three years for work that improves indoor air quality, informs interventions in healthy indoor environments, or affects public policy.

An applicant should select the mechanism because the project fits its purpose, not simply because it has the largest dollar figure. A well-matched $50,000 mentored award is more credible than a poorly matched $100,000 mechanism. The mechanism’s career-stage language, disease area, required prior awards, LOI status, and project expectations should all be part of the initial fit check.

Who is eligible

The program-level requirements are clear. Applicants must be employed by a U.S. not-for-profit institution, and each applicant must certify authorization to work in the United States. The institution’s Signing Official must also certify that the applicant’s employment is expected to continue for the full duration of the grant period. This is an institutional commitment, not just a personal eligibility checkbox, so researchers should involve the grants or sponsored-research office early.

The research institution must be located in the United States and be owned and operated exclusively for scientific and educational purposes as a nonprofit institution, according to the Association’s FAQ. The public FAQ says that the researcher does not necessarily have to be a U.S. citizen, but the required employment certification still applies. A researcher working outside the United States, or proposing to conduct the work at a non-U.S. institution, should not assume that a U.S. collaborator solves the eligibility problem.

Every mechanism adds its own requirements. Early-career awards may require mentoring arrangements or a particular path toward independence. The interstitial lung disease and Innovation Awards list prior NIH award and principal-investigator limits. The Allergy Respiratory Diseases Award requires a primary faculty appointment in an allergy-immunology division. A prospective applicant should treat the program-level requirements as a first screen and the mechanism description as the decisive eligibility document.

The Association also limits candidates to one application and letter of intent per funding period. Applying to multiple mechanisms is not a harmless way to improve the odds: the official page says applicants who apply for more than one American Lung Association grant or award in a cycle forfeit any chance of funding. Departments and laboratories are not subject to the same institution-wide limit; the FAQ says the Association does not limit the number of applications from one institution, department, or lab. The candidate-level limit still requires careful internal coordination.

Timeline and deadline

The 2027–2028 cycle was announced August 5, 2026, and materials were made available through ProposalCentral. The official anticipated timeline sets September 18, 2026 as the LOI deadline for mechanisms that require a letter of intent. LOI outcomes are expected by October 23, 2026. All full applications are due December 1, 2026. Administrative and scientific review is scheduled for January through April 2027, outcome notifications are expected in June 2027, and the research term begins July 1, 2027.

Because the current date is after the LOI deadline, the first practical step is to identify whether the intended mechanism required an LOI. The current page marks the Catalyst, Emerging Respiratory Pathogen, Innovation, Lung Cancer Discovery, and Indoor Air Awards as requiring an LOI. The page does not mark the Allergic Respiratory Diseases, Dalsemer Interstitial Lung Disease, Hastings Innovation, or Public Health & Public Policy awards with that note. That distinction is useful, but applicants should still verify the live ProposalCentral record and the current program description before relying on it.

The six-to-eight-month overall process means a December submission is not a quick-turnaround award. A researcher should plan around a June 2027 decision and a July 2027 start, while checking institutional approvals, employment continuity, and any project-specific start conditions. Do not treat the date of an announcement or an informal conversation as an extension of the published deadline.

How to apply

Applications are submitted through ProposalCentral, the Association’s grant application system. Start at the official awards page, choose the mechanism, open its program description and terms, and then use the ProposalCentral application link. The American Lung Association strongly recommends reading the program descriptions and terms and conditions to determine eligibility and prepare an accurate submission.

The application should be built around the selected mechanism’s question. A Catalyst application should make the mentoring and independence pathway visible. An Indoor Air proposal should show how the work will improve understanding, intervention, or policy around indoor environments. A Public Health & Public Policy application should explain how the research will evaluate a program, test an idea, or produce evidence relevant to policy decisions. These are preparation principles, not substitutes for the mechanism-specific instructions.

Before opening the form, ask the institution’s sponsored-research office to confirm the Signing Official, employment-certification process, internal routing deadline, and treatment of any budget categories. The FAQ states that overhead and indirect expenses are not allowed. That restriction needs to be reflected in the budget before the proposal reaches institutional review; discovering it after the scientific narrative is finished can force avoidable revisions.

The Association’s FAQ says supporting documents vary by grant mechanism and encourages applicants to involve mentors, referees, and grant officers early. This means there is no responsible one-size-fits-all upload checklist. Read the award description for the exact research plan, budget, mentoring, reference, institutional, and other documents required for the chosen mechanism. If the current ProposalCentral record and a general webpage appear inconsistent, save the current instructions and ask the program contact or ProposalCentral support which document controls.

Building a persuasive application

A strong proposal should make four things easy to understand: the lung-health problem, the specific question, the method that can answer it, and the result that matters if the work succeeds. The reviewers are asked to assess scientific merit, technical feasibility, innovation, and significance to the Association’s mission. A proposal can be innovative without being vague. Define the comparison, population, model, endpoint, dataset, or intervention precisely enough that a reviewer can test whether the design supports the claim.

Show why the project belongs in the selected mechanism. A clinical or translational project may be scientifically excellent but poorly positioned if the application does not explain the mechanism’s intended stage or disease focus. For mentored awards, describe what the applicant can do now, what the mentor contributes, and what independence will look like at the end of the award. For an established investigator mechanism, document the prior award history and research position the guidelines ask for rather than assuming the reviewers will infer it from a CV.

Make feasibility concrete. Identify the access to samples, participants, records, facilities, instruments, collaborators, or analytic expertise that the project requires. Explain what is already available and what must be completed before the award begins. A work plan with milestones and decision points is more useful than a list of activities. If a method could fail, explain the alternative path and how that changes the interpretation of the result.

Keep the budget tied to the science. Since the award is paid semi-annually to the institution and cannot include overhead or indirect expenses, coordinate the requested costs with the institution’s rules and the award description. Each major cost should serve a stated aim. Avoid a budget that appears to purchase equipment or personnel without showing why that resource is necessary for the proposed work and timeline.

Review, evidence, and preparation strategy

The Association conducts an internal pre-review for eligibility before eligible applications proceed to external peer review. Its committees include accomplished researchers with relevant expertise. The public review page says the committees assess scientific merit, technical feasibility, innovation, and significance to the organization’s mission. Outcome notifications and reviewer critiques are emailed in May or June, although the current cycle page gives June 2027 for the 2027–2028 cycle.

The competition is substantial. The Association’s FAQ reports that it has funded about 20% of submitted applications over the last five years. Recent mechanism-level results on the review page vary considerably: the cited 2026 results show 407 applications and 46 funded overall, with the percentage funded differing by mechanism. These historical figures are context, not a forecast for 2027–2028, but they support a careful, evidence-led application.

Use a pre-submission review that mirrors the published criteria. Ask one reviewer to check scientific logic, another to check feasibility and resources, and a third to read only for mission fit and clarity. Ask each person to mark the sentence where they first become uncertain about the central claim. Then revise the proposal so the key evidence, limitation, and next decision are visible before the reader has to search for them.

Do not rely on the Association to provide a custom eligibility opinion or draft feedback. Its FAQ says staff generally cannot discuss individual projects before or after submission and cannot provide customized feedback because of the volume of proposals. The practical response is early internal review, a mentor who understands the mechanism, and a grants officer who can resolve institutional questions.

Common mistakes to avoid

The most serious mistake is applying to more than one mechanism in the same cycle. The program page expressly warns that doing so forfeits the chance of funding. Choose after comparing fit, not after drafting multiple near-identical proposals.

Another mistake is ignoring the LOI status. A full application cannot automatically repair a missed letter-of-intent deadline. As of this page’s update date, September 18 has passed. Confirm the requirement before treating December 1 as an available route, and contact the Association only for clarification rather than assuming a late submission will be accepted.

Applicants also risk using an outdated award description, including prohibited indirect costs, or overlooking a mechanism-specific career-stage rule. Download or save the current instructions, record the date you checked them, and have the institution review the final version. Do not claim that a project is policy-relevant, clinically feasible, or ready for independence without giving the evidence that supports that claim.

Finally, do not confuse a strong scientific idea with a complete application. The reviewers need a feasible plan, a realistic budget, a clear institutional home, and a credible explanation of what the award will make possible. A narrow project with a convincing path to an interpretable result is usually easier to evaluate than an ambitious list of loosely connected aims.

Frequently asked questions

Can a researcher outside the United States apply?

The research institution must be a U.S. nonprofit institution owned and operated exclusively for scientific and educational purposes. Applicants must also certify authorization to work in the United States. A non-U.S. researcher should confirm the employment and institutional requirements before preparing an application.

What is the largest award listed for this cycle?

The Emerging Respiratory Pathogen Award and Lung Cancer Discovery Award list $100,000 per year for up to two years. The Indoor Air Award lists $50,000 to $100,000 per year for up to three years. The exact mechanism description controls the request and duration.

Can I apply for two mechanisms?

No. The Association says each candidate may submit only one application and LOI per funding period, and applying for more than one grant or award in a cycle forfeits any chance of funding.

Are indirect costs allowed?

No. The FAQ says overhead and indirect expenses are not allowed. Confirm the permitted budget categories in the current award description and with the institutional grants office.

How are awards paid?

The FAQ says grants are paid semi-annually to the institution only. The award is treated as an educational benefit and does not require the recipient to perform services for the American Lung Association.

What if my mechanism required an LOI?

The official timeline lists September 18, 2026 as the LOI deadline when applicable. That date has passed. Check the mechanism page and contact the Association’s awards-and-grants team if you need a definitive answer about whether a late or alternative submission is possible; do not assume the December full-application deadline overrides the LOI requirement.

Official links and next steps

Begin with the American Lung Association Awards and Grants Opportunities page, which lists the current mechanisms, amounts, timeline, ProposalCentral link, and eligibility rules. Read the Research Awards and Grants FAQ for the one-application limit, nonprofit-institution rule, payment method, indirect-cost restriction, and application-system guidance. The Review and Funding Process page explains the pre-review, external peer review, criteria, and recent funding statistics. The Association’s August 5, 2026 call for proposals confirms the new 2027–2028 cycle and describes its research purpose.

For a researcher considering this cycle now, the next steps are straightforward: identify one mechanism, verify whether its LOI deadline has passed, confirm the U.S. nonprofit employment arrangement, ask the institution about the Signing Official and internal deadline, and read the complete mechanism-specific instructions in ProposalCentral. If the mechanism remains open to a full application, work backward from December 1 with enough time for scientific review, budget review, certifications, and final submission confirmation. If the LOI has closed, preserve the project for the next cycle or ask the funder for an official clarification rather than treating an uncertain submission as a dependable funding plan.