A tumultuous time for federal research funding didn’t stop the University of Pittsburgh from increasing its annual haul through the National Institutes of Health.
For the year ending Sept. 30, Pitt received roughly $670 million from the country’s top funder of medical research, up from $661 million the year prior.
That’s according to an analysis released last month by the North Carolina-based Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research, which has tracked National Institutes of Health funding since 2006.
Despite the additional dollars, Pitt’s ranking among top recipients dropped to No. 7 from No. 6.
The Blue Ridge list put Johns Hopkins University in the No. 1 spot with $866 million in funding. The University of Pennsylvania pulled in $723 million, good for fifth place.
Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center and Penn State University ranked 89th and 90th, respectively, receiving a combined $183 million from the National Institutes of Health.
Carnegie Mellon University’s $35 million haul was good for 176th.
Pitt obtained more money for physical medicine and psychiatry research than any other school.
Its six health sciences schools — dental medicine, health and rehabilitation sciences, medicine, nursing, pharmacy and public health — each made the top 20 for their categories.
Dr. Anantha Shekhar, senior vice chancellor for health sciences and medical school dean at Pitt, called this distinction “a real testament to the excellence and productivity of our researchers.” The research funding landscape, he noted, has become unstable.
In February 2025, the Trump administration moved to limit funding for indirect research costs, like facilities maintenance and administrative overhead. Congress and the federal courts have since blocked those plans.
A July order from the Office of Management and Budget froze all National Institutes of Health funding but was quickly abandoned after protests from members of Congress and patient advocates.
Now, the research agency is delaying posting calls for grant applications, raising the prospect of major funding disruptions for researchers, Science magazine reported Tuesday.