NSF 25-548: Accelerating Research Translation (ART)

NSF 25-548: Accelerating Research Translation (ART)

Historical status

NSF 25-548 was the 2025 revision of the Accelerating Research Translation (ART) program solicitation. It is now a historical reference: the competition’s two full-proposal deadlines have passed, and the official ART pages do not announce a later ART solicitation or replacement deadline. The NSF solicitation page remains the official record for this version and describes it as the current version of the document, but that wording does not reopen the closed 2026 submission windows.

The final deadline in the front matter is March 12, 2026, the later of the two dates in this solicitation. That date applied to Tracks 1, 3, and 4. Tracks 2 and 5 had an earlier deadline of January 15, 2026. Neither date is a live application opportunity now. The historical flag is intentional so readers can use the page to understand the closed cycle without mistaking it for an open call.

NSF’s ART program page records an update for awards made through ART on February 24, 2026. Its updates list also records the announcement of this expanded five-track opportunity on December 4, 2025, but it does not list a subsequent ART competition. Anyone planning a future proposal should check the official ART program page and the NSF funding search for a new solicitation rather than carrying these dates forward.

Key details from NSF 25-548

The solicitation was designed to increase the scale and pace at which academic discoveries become tangible public, economic, and societal outcomes. NSF’s definition of translation was broader than a lab-to-market pipeline. It included technology transfer, civic entrepreneurship, standards and policy contributions, instructional materials, entrepreneurship education, and other routes from research to practice. The program therefore funded institutional capacity and connected systems, not just an individual invention or a conventional research project.

The five tracks

The track structure was based on an institution’s research translation readiness level, or RTRL. NSF did not prescribe one universal numerical measure for RTRL. Examples included research volume, invention disclosures, patents, licenses, royalties, industry or non-profit partnerships, start-up activity, entrepreneurship education, and the presence of a technology transfer office.

Track 1 — Accelerating Technology Transfer (ACT). This track was for a single IHE with a low-to-medium overall research level and a credible opportunity to begin building capacity for innovation translation. The award ceiling was up to $3 million for three years, with up to 20 anticipated awards. Strong performers could have been considered for renewal support of up to two additional years and up to $1 million in additional funding, subject to availability and performance.

Track 2 — Growing Capacity for Research Translation (GROW). This track targeted an IHE with a high level of research, modest translation infrastructure, and relatively low translation activity. The lead IHE had to partner with one mentoring IHE with high RTRL. The ceiling was up to $6 million for four years, with up to 10 anticipated awards. The required mentoring relationship was a central part of the proposal design, not an optional add-on.

Track 3 — Technology Transfer Resource Centers (RESOURCE). This track supported IHEs or non-profits with strong translation capacity in creating regional resource centers. Those centers were intended to provide guidance, training, education, and services to multiple IHEs with low or emerging research capacity and little or no dedicated translation infrastructure. The ceiling was up to $8 million for four years, with up to five anticipated awards. The lead organization was expected to bring very high RTRL or comparable expertise in technology transfer, entrepreneurship, and related activities.

Track 4 — Education and Training (ET). This nationally focused track was for IHEs or non-profits able to develop, evaluate, and deploy education and training resources related to entrepreneurship, technology transfer, and related activities. The intended beneficiaries were lower-RTRL IHEs anywhere in the United States, including Track 1 and Track 2 awardees. The ceiling was up to $3 million for three years, with up to four anticipated awards. The solicitation also described possible renewal support for strong performers to expand national adoption, but any renewal was contingent and not guaranteed.

Track 5 — Coordinating Accelerating Research Translation (CART). This track called for a central hub to coordinate, evaluate, and monitor teams supported through Tracks 1 and 2, while also coordinating activities under Tracks 3 and 4. The CART cooperative agreement ceiling was up to $3 million for five years, with up to two anticipated awards. The lead had to be one high-RTRL IHE with significant experience in technology transfer, intellectual property management, entrepreneurship, and programs aimed at sustained economic and collective impacts. The proposed hub would also support a community of practice and an ART Ambassadors Network for Track 2 participants.

Eligibility and institutional fit

The eligible lead organizations were narrower than the old page’s general wording suggested. NSF listed U.S.-located non-profit, non-academic organizations directly associated with educational or research activities, including independent museums, observatories, research laboratories, and professional societies. It also listed accredited two- and four-year IHEs, including community colleges, with a campus in the United States, acting on behalf of faculty members. A university-system campus could submit separately only when it had its own leadership team, sponsored research office or equivalent, and governing structure.

The PI, co-PIs, and other senior or key personnel had to hold appointments at an organization eligible to submit. NSF strongly encouraged participation by a technology transfer office representative, when the IHE had such an office, or by the equivalent unit responsible for research intellectual property. Researchers whose primary appointment was at an overseas branch campus of a U.S. IHE were not eligible under the solicitation. Foreign academic researchers could contribute as senior/key personnel or collaborators when appropriate, but they could not receive NSF support.

The tracks also imposed submission limits. An eligible IHE could submit at most one proposal for Track 1 or Track 2, but not both. For Tracks 3, 4, and 5, an eligible organization could submit at most one proposal per track. Applicants eligible for Tracks 1 and 2 could not submit proposals for Tracks 3, 4, and 5, and vice versa, with the stated exception that a Track 2 mentoring institution could be eligible for Tracks 3, 4, or 5. If an organization submitted more than one proposal in a specific track, NSF would consider the first and return later submissions without review. There was no limit on the number of proposals per PI or co-PI.

Application mechanics for the closed cycle

NSF required full proposals; it did not require a letter of intent or preliminary proposal. Proposers could prepare a submission in Research.gov under the applicable NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide, or use the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide for a Grants.gov submission. A Grants.gov submission still transferred to Research.gov for NSF processing. The deadline time was 5 p.m. in the submitting organization’s local time, so an institution’s internal calendar needed to account for its own time zone and authorized organizational representative.

Several requirements were specific enough to deserve an early compliance check:

1. The cover-sheet and budget amounts could not exceed the ceiling for the selected track. NSF marked the maximum-budget rule as a return-without-review requirement.
2. Tracks 1 and 2 required a statement from the IHE describing its current RTRL and its motivation for scaling translation across the institution.
3. A Consolidated List of Personnel was required as a supplementary document and had to be emailed to [email protected] with the specified subject-line format.
4. Collaborative proposals submitted as separate submissions from multiple organizations were not accepted in response to this solicitation and could be returned without review.
5. Voluntary committed cost sharing was prohibited, and other budget limitations in the full solicitation still applied.

The proposal’s substantive plan needed to match the selected track. A Track 1 proposal had to explain how a lower-capacity IHE would build practical translation infrastructure. Track 2 needed both an institutional growth plan and a credible mentoring-IHE relationship. Track 3 needed a regional service model for lower-RTRL institutions. Track 4 needed a resource-development, delivery, dissemination, evaluation, and sustainability plan for education and training materials. Track 5 needed a coordination structure spanning the other tracks, including leadership roles, communication and monitoring systems, community-building activities, and evaluation.

Across the tracks, NSF’s normal merit review criteria still applied: intellectual merit and broader impacts. Reviewers were asked to consider the importance of the activity, its originality, the quality and organization of the plan, the qualifications of the team, and whether adequate resources were available. The solicitation also expected measurable goals, a mechanism for assessing progress, and a credible path to sustain useful capacity after NSF support. Those considerations remain helpful for understanding the type of institutional proposal this closed solicitation sought, but they should not be read as an invitation to submit under NSF 25-548 today.

What to do with this page

This entry is retained as an archive record for the NSF 25-548 cycle. It can help an institution compare the five-track design, reconstruct the 2026 eligibility rules, and prepare questions for a future ART announcement. It should not be used as evidence that applications are currently being accepted. There is no confirmed next-cycle date in the official ART material reviewed for this refresh, so this page does not invent one.

For a future round, start by checking whether NSF issues a new solicitation number or explicitly reopens ART. Then re-check the track names, award ceilings, institutional limits, proposal components, and whether the PAPPG or Grants.gov instructions have changed. A future announcement could alter any of those details even if the program retains the ART name. Until such an announcement appears, the only confirmed dates for this page are the closed-cycle deadlines recorded above.

Official sources

• NSF 25-548 solicitation, the authoritative record for the closed five-track competition.
• NSF Accelerating Research Translation program page, including the program synopsis, contacts, award information, and updates.
• NSF ART updates, including the February 24, 2026 awards update and the December 4, 2025 announcement of the expanded opportunity.