Funder AI policies

What research funders say about AI in grant applications

Before a PI uses AI on a proposal, someone has to check the funder's rules. This page has the published rules for 381 research funders, for applicants and for reviewers. Each rule is quoted from the funder's own policy and linked to it. Last checked .

Bans AI6

Applicants may not use AI to write any part of an application.

  • Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses

    AWHONN bans AI tools in preparing and submitting any scholarship, grant, or award application. The ban covers text generators, paraphrasers, summarizers, and translators. To protect the integrity and authenticity of applications, AWHONN may check for AI use through human review and a signed declaration.

  • Blakemore Foundation

    The Blakemore Foundation fellowship guidelines (Blakemore and Blakemore Freeman Fellowships) and the Blakemore Kingfisher page both say applicants may not use AI to write any part of the essay or answers. AI may be used only to research the fellowships and the application. The pages give no guidance for peer reviewers.

  • Climate Intervention Environmental Impact Fund

    The Guidelines for Grant Applicants say AI use in cover letters and applications is not acceptable. Applications are reviewed for AI use, and any found to use it are rejected immediately. The applicant is then barred from all future applications. The pages give no guidance for reviewers.

  • Eisenhower Fellowships

    Eisenhower Fellowships bans generative AI/ChatGPT in writing the EF application, per the eligibility criteria for the 2026 Fall Innovative Entrepreneurs Program and the 2026 USA Program. An applicant suspected of using it will not advance. The pages give no guidance for reviewers.

  • Mensa Foundation

    The Mensa Foundation's article "Top 10 Tips for Scholarship Essays" tells scholarship applicants not to use AI to write their essay. This is advice in a blog post, not a formal policy document. The Foundation also screens essays with software that flags likely AI-generated entries. The pages give no rule on whether judges may use AI themselves.

  • Wake Forest University - The Program for Leadership and Character

    The Educating Character Initiative (ECI) is the grantmaking arm of the Program for Leadership and Character at Wake Forest University. It does not approve the use of generative or assistive AI in composing grant proposals. This position appears in both its 2027 institutional grants RFP and its Communities of Impact grants RFP. The funder has published no guidance for reviewers.

Limits AI34

Applicants may use AI for some tasks, and the funder restricts how much of an application AI may write.

  • Activate

    Activate allows Fellowship applicants to use AI tools for drafting, editing, or brainstorming. The concepts must be the applicants' own, and applicants must be able to speak fluently about everything they submit. Technical reviewers may not use AI to write reviews or paste applicant materials into public AI tools. Activate uses enterprise AI for research and summarization. Humans make all selection decisions.

  • AISES (Advancing Indigenous Science and Engineering Society)

    The AISES AI Scholarship Policy (on the AISES Scholarships page) allows AI for brainstorming, outlining, editing, revision and proofreading. Applicants must write all responses themselves, in their own voice, and use their own thoughts for idea generation and response writing. The pages give no AI rule for reviewers and no disclosure requirement.

  • American Psychological Foundation

    The American Psychological Foundation (APF) allows applicants to use AI tools to organize their thoughts and structure a proposal. The final ideas and content must be the applicant's own. APF will decline proposals developed primarily by AI. Applicants must acknowledge and disclose any AI use in the application.

  • American Public Transportation Foundation

    The American Public Transportation Foundation (APTF) asks scholarship applicants to write their own responses. The Board may disregard any submission that appears to be fully generated by AI tools.

  • Arrowhead Regional Arts Council

    ARAC's Art Project Grant guidelines (individual and organization) and the Artist Equity Grant guidelines say AI may be used only for limited administrative help on the written parts, such as grammar, structure, or clarity. ARAC strongly discourages using AI to generate narrative content. Project funds cannot pay for AI-generated artwork, and AI-generated work samples are prohibited. The pages give no disclosure rule and no rules for reviewers beyond a note that reviewers tend to score AI-reliant proposals lower.

  • Biographers International Organization (BIO)

    The Clio Fellowship for Archival Research and the Robert and Ina Caro Travel / Research Fellowship pages say the same thing. Applicants may use tools such as AI for research, but the concept and writing must originate from the applicant. The pages give no disclosure rule and no guidance for reviewers or judges on AI.

  • Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas

    CPRIT's Statement on the Use of Artificial Intelligence, in RFA R-27.1-RRS (Recruitment of Rising Stars) and RFA R-27.2-CPRA (Catalyst Pilot Research Award), says AI tools may assist with limited aspects of application preparation. The investigator and the institution are responsible for all AI-generated content. The pages set no disclosure rule and no fixed limit, and give no rules for reviewers beyond saying CPRIT staff will test AI in its own closed system and that peer reviewers and a human make all funding decisions.

  • East Central Regional Arts Council

    The East Central Regional Arts Council (ECRAC) addresses AI in its FY2026-2027 Individual Artist and Culture Bearer grant guidelines. The guidelines bar the use of AI to fully generate art, application answers, or art grant proposals. An application with excessive AI-generated content may be deemed ineligible.

  • Electronic Research Administration

    eRA is the grants administration system of NIH, so NIH policies apply to it. NIH does not treat an application as the original ideas of applicants if AI substantially developed the application or any section of it. NIH peer reviewers may not use generative AI to analyze applications or write critiques.

  • Foundation for Physical Therapy Research

    The Foundation for Physical Therapy Research has set AI rules in two 2026 documents. Its Research Grant guidelines say that, in line with NIH policies and standards, applications substantially developed with AI are not considered original work. Applications with substantive and undue AI use are disqualified from review. Its Postdoctoral Fellowship FAQ says AI cannot be used to create or refine research or training plans.

  • Gravity Research Foundation

    The Gravity Research Foundation's 2027 Awards for Essays on Gravitation say essay ideas must not be AI generated. The page does not say how this is checked, and it does not define what counts as AI generated. The page gives no guidance for reviewers or judges on AI.

  • Greenacres Foundation

    Both Greenacres Foundation RFPs (Ecology & Environment Grants Part 2 and the Regenerative Agriculture RFP) say the foundation and the grantee exchange AI policies during the agreement process. AI tool use must then follow the more restrictive of the two policies. The pages give no other AI rule for applicants and no guidance for reviewers.

  • International OCD Foundation

    The International OCD Foundation (IOCDF) sets a policy on generative AI in Research Grant Program proposals. Generative AI tools should not be used to conceptualize a proposal. They may be used in drafting. One example is translating text when English is not the principal investigator's first language. The principal investigator must state in the application whether any AI tools were used and what that use involved.

  • Internet Society

    The Internet Society Fellowship Program does not prohibit generative AI. The tools should be only a supportive resource, for example for brainstorming, structural editing, translation, grammar correction, or accessibility needs. Essays and project proposals must reflect the applicant's own insights and experience. Plagiarism or uncredited AI-generated narratives lead to disqualification.

  • Internet Society Foundation

    The Internet Society Foundation's FAQ "Information for Applicants" says generative AI tools are not prohibited for preparing applications, but they should be supportive resources only. Applicants must use their own words and ideas and are responsible for accuracy. The pages state no disclosure rule and give no guidance for peer reviewers on AI.

  • Jerome Foundation

    The Jerome Foundation allows AI for tasks such as proofreading, translation, or summarizing. The substance, ideas, and concepts of an application must still be the applicant's own. An applicant who submits an AI-generated or AI-augmented work sample without disclosing it will be deemed ineligible. Panelists are told not to enter applications into AI tools. Staff will not enter application content into AI tools, except to transcribe video responses for accessibility.

  • John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation

    The John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation requires Guggenheim Fellowship applicants to attest to how they used generative AI. Any use must have been limited to brainstorming, researching, editing, or formatting. The substantive ideas, analysis, and conclusions must be the applicant's own.

  • Michael Smith Health Research BC

    The 2026 Research Trainee Guidelines say Health Research BC discourages generative AI tools in application development. Applications must be the applicant's original concepts and ideas, and applicants who use AI must exercise caution and comply with the Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research. The pages state no disclosure rule and no guidance for reviewers.

  • Mid-America Arts Alliance

    Mid-America Arts Alliance (M-AAA) strongly discourages applicants from using AI to write answers to narrative application questions. It does allow AI to proofread and edit responses to meet word or character limits. The Catalyze guidance does not allow AI-generated artwork. The Artistic Innovations guidelines say an application that uses AI for any other purpose will be deemed ineligible. M-AAA prohibits reviewers from using AI tools.

  • Mississippi Arts Commission

    The Mississippi Arts Commission has published an AI statement for its grant programs. A human applicant must develop, review, and enter all required data in a grant application. A human must also be the primary author of any artwork. An application that uses generative AI without disclosing it is ineligible.

  • National Institutes of Health

    NIH does not treat applications, or sections of applications, that are substantially developed by AI as the original ideas of applicants. AI may help with limited aspects of preparing an application. Applicants remain responsible for any plagiarism, fabricated citations, or other misconduct that AI introduces. NIH peer reviewers may not use generative AI to analyze applications or write critiques.

  • Natural Resources Canada

    The Energy Innovation Program guides for the Innovation Ecosystem Enablers call and the Clean Fuels call say generative AI may be used in applications for support purposes only. Applicants stay responsible for accuracy and citations. The pages state no disclosure rule for applicants and give no guidance for reviewers.

  • Nevada Arts Council

    The Nevada Arts Council allows applicants to use AI when writing applications or creating artistic work samples, within limits. Neither may be fully AI generated, and both must show meaningful human authorship. Applicants must disclose whether they used AI and how. Council staff and panelists may not use AI to review applications or to generate feedback.

  • Pediatric Epilepsy Research Foundation

    PERF, the Pediatric Epilepsy Research Foundation, recognizes that some investigators use generative AI when writing proposals. It expects each letter of intent (LOI) to reflect the applicant's own work. An LOI that does not follow these guidelines is returned without review.

  • People's Trust for Endangered Species

    The PTES Conservation Insight Grants Guidance for Applicants (March 2026), section 5, strongly discourages using AI to design a project or complete the application form. It allows AI for some tasks, such as translation and summarising text already written to fit a word count. Applicants stay responsible for accuracy. PTES says it does not use AI to assess applications, so the pages give no rules for reviewers.

  • Phi Theta Kappa

    Phi Theta Kappa (PTK) says ChatGPT is a tool and is not intended to be the author of a scholarship essay. PTK treats copy-pasted AI-produced work as plagiarism. Applications with discovered plagiarism are removed from consideration. Applicants are now asked to verify on the application that their essays are their own work.

  • ResearchNB

    The ResearchNB Award Guidelines 2026-2027 have a Responsible Use of AI section. It says only that ResearchNB aligns with Tri-agency guidance on AI in developing and reviewing applications, and it states no rule of its own. The pages do not give the Tri-agency rules, so check that guidance directly. The Guidelines also let reviewers use Microsoft Office Translator.

  • Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists (SCA)

    The Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists (SCA) requires applicants for SCA Research Grants to disclose and describe any AI tool used to prepare an application. The description goes on the title page. AI tools may not generate substantial segments of content. The SCA will investigate concerns that generative AI was misused. Grant reviewers may not use AI tools that require entering grant contents or other confidential review material.

  • South Carolina Arts Commission

    The South Carolina Arts Commission permits AI for editing, proofreading, and improving the clarity and quality of narrative text. Applicants who use AI to help write or edit an application do so at their own risk. The Commission bars generative AI from creating the proposed artwork or generating work samples.

  • The Foundation for Enhancing Communities

    The Grantseeker FAQs say applicants may use AI as a helpful tool. AI should complement the applicant's expertise and effort, not replace them entirely. The page sets no disclosure rule and no numeric limit, and it gives no guidance for reviewers.

  • UK Research and Innovation

    UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) sets limits on how applicants may use generative AI. Applicants must not use it to generate an entire application, or sections of one, without human involvement. They must not use it in interviews that form part of the application process. Applicants are expected to be open about where they used generative AI in developing an application, and UKRI states that this information will not affect assessment. Minimal use, such as translation or improving English, does not need to be disclosed.

  • Virginia Tobacco Region Revitalization Commission

    The Commission's RFP, quoted in its Fall 2026 Board Book, allows AI tools to help organize thoughts or format a document. It strongly encourages applicants, project partners and consultants to write their own applications. Applications that appear substantially AI-authored may be declined for review. The pages give no guidance for reviewers and no disclosure rule.

  • Whitley Fund for Nature

    Whitley Fund for Nature (WFN) requires original work in its application forms. All concepts, ideas, and activities must come from the applicant, the applicant's team, or stakeholders, and must reflect reality. Applicants are asked not to submit content that relies heavily on AI. Acceptable uses are clarifying terminology, translating into English without changing content, creating graphics that illustrate concepts (not photos), and correcting language or grammar. Applicants who used generative AI tools should state which software they used, why, and how they adapted the AI content to their project.

  • Wilson Ornithological Society

    The Wilson Ornithological Society (WOS) prohibits using generative AI to write text for its research grant and travel/caregiver award applications. Applicants may use it to translate their own text into English, and they must disclose that use. Committees and reviewers may not put any application material into generative AI tools.

Requires disclosure64

Applicants may use AI and must say where they used it.

  • ACS Division of Chemical Education

    The ACS Division of Chemical Education (DivCHED) sets AI rules for Strategic Projects Funding (SPF) proposals. Applicants may use assistive, non-generative AI without disclosure. This covers help with grammar, spelling, formatting, and readability. Any generative AI used to prepare a proposal must be disclosed, as must any generative AI planned for the proposed work. Generative AI may not be used in proposal review.

  • Alzheimer's Research UK

    The Application FAQs say applicants may use generative AI if the original thoughts are their own, and Alzheimer's Research UK will not penalise AI use. Application forms will carry an AI question, and the funder will screen applications for AI use. The pages give no guidance for reviewers on AI.

  • American Cancer Society

    ACS permits AI tools in grant applications. Applicants are responsible for everything in an application, including content produced by an AI tool or large language model. Applicants should credit any AI tool used in developing the application and cite the source of the content where possible. They should follow AI rules at their institution. Their use of AI cannot conflict with the ACS Guidelines for Research and Peer Review Integrity.

  • American Heart Association

    The American Heart Association (AHA) allows applicants to use a large language model such as ChatGPT, or another AI tool, to create or edit proposal content. Applicants must disclose that use when they submit. AHA states that disclosure does not affect peer review. A proposal may be administratively withdrawn if AI use is not disclosed accurately. Reviewers may not use AI to write or edit critiques. They also may not upload any part of a proposal into an AI tool.

  • American Institute of Architects

    The American Institute of Architects (AIA) requires award applicants to disclose any use of AI in creating their submissions. The application portal asks three things: whether AI was used, which programs or tools were used, and which areas of the application AI affected.

  • American Lung Association

    The American Lung Association requires applicants to briefly describe any AI tools they used and the purpose of each as part of the submission. Applicants may use AI-based tools for limited administrative help, such as grammar editing, formatting, or readability. AI systems must not be used to generate falsified data, citations, images, or research results. Failure to disclose material AI use can lead to administrative withdrawal of the application, rescission of an award recommendation, or termination of funding.

  • American Occupational Therapy Foundation

    The American Occupational Therapy Foundation (AOTF) allows AI tools for help with writing proposals, such as spell-check and language suggestions. Applicants remain fully responsible for accuracy and citations. They must acknowledge any AI-generated text in footnotes. Reviewers may not upload AOTF applications into any AI system.

  • American Psychiatric Nurses Association (APNA)

    The APNA Research Grant Proposal Submission Walkthrough says applicants must complete an AI Disclosure in the Proposal Information step of the online submission. The page does not say what AI use is allowed or what the disclosure must contain. The pages give no guidance for reviewers.

  • Austrian Science Fund (FWF)

    The Austrian Science Fund (FWF) generally permits AI in preparing proposals. Significant AI contributions to the design or drafting of a proposal must be disclosed. The PI Projects guidelines ask for a brief description of any AI use in the Co-authors form. Applicants are fully responsible for all content. FWF checks applications and reviews for AI use at random and when a violation is suspected.

  • Biochemical Society

    The Biochemical Society permits applicants to use AI tools to help write or edit applications and to collect and analyze data. Applicants must disclose which tool was used and how. AI tools may not be used to generate images or videos. Reviewers may not use AI to generate or summarize the content they review, and may not upload applications to AI tools.

  • British Educational Research Association (BERA)

    BERA's AI Statement allows generative AI in submissions, including award and funding applications, but requires full disclosure at the point of submission. The disclosure must name the tool and what it was used for. Reviewers and judges must not use free AI tools, and peer review must be human-led.

  • California Air Resources Board

    The CARB FAQ for the Pre-Proposal Solicitation for Sustainable Transportation and Communities Projects (FY 2024-2025) allows GenAI in pre-proposals. Applicants must disclose its use and certify that they reviewed the material and verified it is accurate. The pages give no guidance for reviewers on using AI in peer review.

  • Cancer Grand Challenges

    The Expression of Interest guidelines from Cancer Grand Challenges set one rule on generative AI. Applicant teams must attribute AI tool outputs in their applications correctly and explicitly. The attribution names the AI source. Where practicable, it also names the specific model or models and the software used. It states how the content was generated, for example by listing the prompt.

  • Cancer Research UK

    Cancer Research UK (CRUK) advises caution with generative AI in funding applications. Applicants who use it must explicitly attribute AI outputs in the application. Where practicable, they should name the model and software and say how the content was generated. Applications must contain accurate information. Host institutions must confirm that the application does not breach CRUK's Research Integrity: Guidelines for Research Conduct. Peer reviewers must not share application content with generative AI tools. They must also not use these tools to formulate or edit their critiques.

  • Department of Energy Office of Science

    DOE Office of Science applies a "fair-use" concept to generative AI in applications. Applicants must disclose the use of any AI tools, unless the tools were used solely for editing an original draft. A Project Narrative that is not the researchers' own work, including a machine-generated one, may be academic dishonesty or research misconduct. The pages give no guidance for peer reviewers.

  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG)

    The DFG page "KI in der Antragstellung" says AI use in preparing an application is generally permitted and is neither rewarded nor penalized in review. Applicants must disclose the use of generative models in a way suited to science, and need not mark text passages. Reviewers may use AI only in a supporting role under the "Leitlinie zur Nutzung von Künstlicher Intelligenz in der Begutachtung" (DFG-Vordruck 4.04), with confidentiality and disclosure duties.

  • Dutch Research Council (NWO)

    NWO's policy on the use of generative AI (January 2025) welcomes AI use when preparing a grant application, if applicants use it responsibly. Applicants must be transparent about AI use when writing the application and may not include hidden prompts. Reviewers, judges and committee members may not use AI at all in assessing applications.

  • Einstein Foundation Berlin

    The Einstein Foundation Berlin FAQ "Information on the application process" says applicants should write application texts themselves. Generative AI as a supportive tool may be permissible if it is clearly disclosed, with the tool and purpose named. The page gives no guidance for reviewers.

  • EMBO (European Molecular Biology Organization)

    EMBO's policy page and its Postdoctoral Fellowships guidelines allow AI tools in applications. Applicants stay fully and solely responsible for originality and accuracy. The Fellowship Programme asks applicants to disclose which AI tools were used and for what purpose. The Young Investigator and Global Investigator Network guidelines state only the permission and responsibility, with no disclosure request. The pages give no AI guidance for reviewers or selection committees.

  • Epilepsy Research Institute

    The Epilepsy Research Institute's guidance for applicants (Emerging Leader Fellowship and two co-funded PhD studentships, August 2025) allows generative AI tools. Applicants must use them responsibly and legally, and must declare if and how they used AI in the application form. The Scientific Advisory Committee and expert reviewers will not input application contents into AI tools or use them in reviews.

  • European Association for Cancer Research

    The EACR allows AI in applications but requires disclosure of any use, except simple language translation or grammar checks. The rule appears on the EACR-Mark Foundation Postdoctoral Fellowships page and in its Programme Guidelines, and the Travel Fellowships and Collaboration Fellowships pages state the same disclosure rule. The pages give no guidance for peer reviewers or panelists on AI.

  • Fibrolamellar Cancer Foundation

    The Fibrolamellar Cancer Foundation lets grant applicants use AI tools when developing proposals. The application must disclose all AI use and describe how the tools were used. Applicants are fully responsible for the accuracy of their proposals. Members of FCF review committees may not use AI tools to analyze, summarize, or interpret applications, or to write critiques.

  • Firebird Foundation for Anthropological Research

    The Firebird Foundation expects each grant application to be the applicant's own work. It also encourages responsible use of AI. Applicants must say whether they used AI, which tools they used, and how.

  • Foundation for Contemporary Arts

    FCA does not require applicants to disclose AI that helped write text answers. It notes that AI has a flattening effect on artist statements and project narratives. Disclosure is required when AI generates media or is a primary contributor to the final work. To disclose, applicants write "Generated by AI" in the description of each relevant work sample. FCA staff and panelists do not use AI to review applications.

  • Gerda Henkel Foundation

    The Gerda Henkel Foundation generally permits generative AI in preparing applications. Applicants must take full academic responsibility for the content and follow good scientific practice. The application form must record which stages of the work involved generative AI. An application prepared entirely with AI, with no academic review or control by the applicant, is not permitted.

  • German Research Foundation

    The DFG generally permits AI when applicants prepare a funding proposal. Using AI does not change how a proposal is assessed during review, evaluation and decision-making. Applicants must disclose which generative models they used, for what purpose and to what extent. Reviewers may use AI only to support their work. All substantive judgements stay with the reviewer, and confidential proposal content must be protected.

  • Golden Field Office

    Golden Field Office notices built on DOE's NOFO Part 2 version 4.0 (for example DE-FOA-0003548, Unleashing Tribal Energy Development) require applicants to say in the project summary whether they used generative AI to develop the application, and how. They also state that applicants remain responsible for the accuracy, authenticity, and authorship of everything they submit. Notices built on Part 2 version 2.1 (for example the 2026 geothermal field tests NOFO) require that any AI use be appropriately attributed. Applicants should check Part 2 of their NOFO.

  • Grayson-Jockey Club Research Foundation, Inc.

    Grayson-Jockey Club Research Foundation requires applicants to disclose fully any AI-assisted technology, such as ChatGPT or Claude, used to write or edit an application or to create images. AI that assists with grammar and style is allowed. Using AI to generate content is strongly discouraged. Applicants must check every AI-generated reference. A fabricated reference leads to immediate rejection.

  • Health Effects Institute

    HEI asks applicants to disclose AI use when developing a proposal. The disclosure covers which tools were used, which tasks they assisted, and how and to what extent they were used. Each proposal must include a statement declaring any use of generative AI. Reviewers may not upload proposals into AI tools. They also may not use AI to analyze, summarize, or evaluate proposal materials.

  • Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada

    Heart & Stroke requires applicants to state clearly whether AI generated any material in their proposals or application materials, and where it appears. Applicants must reference that material appropriately. Tools like Grammarly only correct appearance, clarity, or presentation, so their use needs no disclosure. Heart & Stroke may use AI-based tools to help prepare Scientific Officer notes that summarize review committee discussions.

  • Heart Research UK

    Heart Research UK's Policy of Generative AI Use in Developing and Reviewing Applications allows applicants to use generative AI with caution. Applicants must state in the application if generative AI was used, except when it only helps with language, and must check that AI outputs are valid. Reviewers may not use generative AI in any part of expert review.

  • Hong Kong Research Grants Council

    The Research Grants Council asks applicants to disclose their use of AI where it applies. The disclosure covers the tools used, the purpose, and how and to what extent AI was used. The requirement appears in the GRF/ECS call letter and in the Theme-based Research Scheme call. TRS applicants must also follow their university's AI policies. They take full responsibility for AI-generated content.

  • Indy Arts Council

    Indy Arts Council asks grant applicants to disclose whether and how their submissions used AI. The council states that submissions that do not meet its expectations will not be competitive. Grant application reviewers are prohibited from using large language models and generative AI to analyze or write evaluations. The council says it uses no AI technology in its curatorial or grant processes at this time.

  • Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences

    IAFNS permits applicants to use generative AI when responding to its requests for proposals, but disclosure is required. The principal investigator (PI) is responsible for the content of any submission. The Optimizing Nutrition for the Brain RFP adds a requirement for institutions. They must make sure AI outputs are valid and contain no false or hallucinated information.

  • International Development Research Centre (IDRC)

    IDRC asks all applicants to disclose whether generative AI was used to prepare application materials. This appears in the AI4D call for concept notes on socio-economic impacts of AI in Africa and in the SGCI Multilateral Research Call FAQ and call outline. Disclosure does not affect evaluation, and applicants stay responsible for all content. The pages give no guidance for peer reviewers on AI, apart from a link to Tri-Council guidance on AI in the development and review of proposals.

  • Jack Kent Cooke Foundation

    The Jack Kent Cooke Foundation expects applicants to write their scholarship application responses entirely themselves, from their own perspective. The foundation says generative AI is a tool that could help with some parts of the application. Applicants are asked to report any AI use in a place provided in the application.

  • Kidney Cancer Association

    The Kidney Cancer Association award guidelines allow language models and AI writing tools as a supplementary aid when applicants prepare grant proposals. The core ideas, data, and content must be the applicant's original work. Applicants should declare any AI use in the application. They are responsible for checking all AI-generated content.

  • KidneyCure (ASN Foundation for Kidney Research)

    The AI Use Policy on the Early Career Training Grant Pilot Program and Transition to Independence Grants pages allows AI tools such as ChatGPT. Applicants must take responsibility for the content and report AI use in the Citations section, with details of the tool. The pages give no guidance for reviewers.

  • Lipedema Foundation

    The Lipedema Foundation allows AI use in proposals if applicants disclose it transparently. Its applicant FAQ refers readers to the section titled USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) on the lipedema.org/rfp2025 page for details.

  • Lloyd's Register Foundation

    Lloyd's Register Foundation permits responsible use of generative AI in grant applications. It expects the use to be accurate, transparent, ethical, and lawful. Applicants must tell the foundation if they use generative AI to create or support any original content for an application. Applicants are responsible for how they use it.

  • Massage Therapy Foundation

    The Massage Therapy Foundation allows limited AI use, such as brainstorming, summarizing, or creating figures. Applicants must fully disclose it, including the tool, the purpose, and the extent of assistance. Applicants may not present AI-generated content as their own work. Submissions that are primarily AI generated will not be reviewed. MTF does not enter submitted proposals into AI tools.

  • Misophonia Research Fund

    The Misophonia Research Fund (MRF) allows large language models to help with writing proposals. It says critical thinking, review, and analysis must be done without AI. Applicants must disclose any AI use and describe how it was used. Disclosure will not hurt the review of a proposal. A proposal that the MRF finds used AI without disclosure is subject to withdrawal.

  • Missouri Arts Council

    The Missouri Arts Council strongly cautions applicants against using AI to write grant applications. Any use of AI tools must be disclosed. Administrative uses such as formatting, checklists, or grammar checks are generally permitted without disclosure. Panel reviewers may not use AI to review applications.

  • NASA Headquarters

    NASA's Science Mission Directorate (SMD) does not prohibit generative AI in ROSES proposals. Any AI use must be cited in the proposal's references section. The citation gives the tool name, version, date and time, and how the tool was used. Proposers are responsible for the accuracy of AI-assisted content. NASA has published no rule on AI use by reviewers.

  • NASA Research Opportunities (NSPIRES)

    NASA's Science Mission Directorate (SMD) does not prohibit generative AI in ROSES proposals. Any AI use must be cited in the proposal's references section. The citation gives the tool name, version, date and time of use, and how it was used. Proposers are responsible for the accuracy of AI-assisted content. NASA has published no rule on AI use by reviewers.

  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration

    The ROSES-2024 Summary of Solicitation says SMD does not prohibit Generative AI tools such as ChatGPT in proposals or award reports. Proposers must cite any content not created by the team, giving the program name, version number, date and time, and how the AI was used. Proposers stay responsible for accuracy and authenticity. The pages have no guidance for reviewers.

  • National Endowment for the Humanities

    NEH allows applicants to use AI when preparing applications. Applicants must acknowledge any AI-generated text they insert into a proposal, using footnotes or other marginal notations. NEH may declare an application ineligible if an applicant does not comply. Peer reviewers may not upload NEH applications into a cloud database, including outside AI services.

  • National Science Foundation

    NSF's Notice to Research Community (December 14, 2023) encourages proposers to say in the project description whether and how generative AI was used. It is encouraged, not required. Proposers stay responsible for accuracy and authenticity. Reviewers may not upload proposal content or review information to non-approved generative AI tools.

  • NATO Science for Peace and Security Programme

    The NATO SPS sample application forms for Advanced Research Workshops (ARW) and Multi-Year Projects (MYP) ask applicants whether they used generative AI tools such as ChatGPT or Jasper in preparing the proposal. Both forms also warn that using AI to fill out the budget Excel file may corrupt the template and cause automatic rejection. The pages give no guidance for reviewers.

  • Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study (NIAS-KNAW)

    The Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study (NIAS-KNAW) requires applicants for a NIAS fellowship who use generative AI to prepare their application to disclose that use in the application. The regulations set out this requirement. The funder has published no guidance on AI in peer review.

  • North American Spine Society

    The NASS Research Funding Program General Guidelines on the funding page allow AI in a letter of proposal or application but require applicants to disclose the program used at the time of submission. Projects that use AI in study design methodologies must have an AI/data scientist subject-matter expert as a collaborator. The pages give no guidance for peer reviewers on AI.

  • Office of Science

    The Office of Science (SC) at DOE takes a "fair-use" approach to generative AI. Applicants may use AI tools to help present their own intellectual work in an application. Any AI use must be disclosed in the application, unless the tool was used only to edit the applicant's original draft. A Project Narrative that is not the work of the proposed researchers, including a machine-generated one, may count as research misconduct.

  • Ohio Art Council

    The Ohio Arts Council (OAC) allows applicants to use AI to help write or edit grant proposal text. The people who authorize and submit a proposal remain responsible for its accuracy and for making sure it reflects their own work. Applicants are asked to disclose any third-party AI used in an application or its attachments. OAC's policy also bars AI content from being the sole or determinative basis for eligibility, scoring, or award recommendations.

  • Prevent Cancer Foundation

    The Prevent Cancer Foundation requires applicants for its research grants and fellowships to disclose any use of generative AI in preparing an application. Applicants are fully responsible for the content. The disclosure is collected for information gathering only and has no effect on the review process.

  • Radiological Society of North America (RSNA)

    The RSNA Research & Education Foundation allows AI in applications but requires a disclosure statement. The Research Seed Grant, Research Scholar Grant, and Research Resident/Research Fellow Grant Policies and Procedures (August 2025) all carry the same rule. The pages give no guidance for peer reviewers on AI use.

  • Royal Geographical Society

    The Royal Geographical Society asks grant applicants to disclose any use of generative AI tools. Translation and improving English do not need to be disclosed. A disclosure does not influence the assessment outcome. Reviewers are asked not to use generative AI tools in their reviewing.

  • Royal Society

    The Royal Society allows generative AI in applications but requires that its use be acknowledged. The Research Grants 2026 scheme notes (section 9) and the University Research Fellowship scheme notes (section 10) say applicants must name the AI source and specify how content was generated. The pages give no rules for reviewers beyond a pointer to the joint funders statement, which is not reproduced here, so check the scheme notes for your program.

  • RSNA Research & Education Foundation

    The RSNA Research Scholar Grant Policies and Procedures (August 2025) allow AI but require applicants to disclose its use in a supplemental AI Disclosure Statement. The statement must name the tool and version, access dates, manufacturer, and how it was used. The pages give no separate AI rules for reviewers.

  • Society of Toxicology

    The Society of Toxicology (SOT) has general guidance on AI. If AI helps produce content shared with SOT leadership, volunteers, or others in the SOT community, an attestation statement must document that use. SOT does not support content generated only by AI without human review. It does not recommend AI for content meant to be unique to one person, such as a personal statement in an awards application. Acceptable uses may differ by program.

  • South Dakota Department of Transportation

    The South Dakota Department of Transportation (SDDOT) requires every research proposal to include an AI Use Statement. The statement covers two things: how AI tools were used to prepare the proposal, and how AI is expected to be used during the research. A proposal prepared without AI tools must say so in a set sentence.

  • Spencer Foundation

    The Spencer Foundation's Policy on the Use of Generative AI allows applicants to use generative AI as an assistive tool, but they must disclose it through a checkbox in the online submission system. Applicants may not submit verbatim AI-generated drafts. Reviewers are strictly prohibited from using generative AI.

  • Wellcome

    Wellcome's policy 'Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) in our grant application process' (last updated 8 April 2026) allows applicants to use generative AI but requires them to declare substantive use on the application form. Minimal use, such as language help, need not be disclosed. Reviewers and committee members must not put confidential applications into generative AI tools.

  • Wellcome Trust

    Wellcome allows applicants to use generative AI tools when preparing a grant application. Any substantive use must be reported on the application form. Minimal use, such as translation, improving English, or formatting, does not have to be disclosed. Expert reviewers and advisory committee members must not enter confidential applications into generative AI tools.

  • Worldwide Cancer Research

    Worldwide Cancer Research allows applicants to use generative AI but requires them to acknowledge or declare all use. The rule comes from the Application Handbook 2026 (section 5.11) and the Researcher FAQs. Peer reviewers are asked not to use generative AI, and a suspected AI-generated review will not be used.

Permits AI54

Applicants may use AI and stay responsible for what they submit.

  • Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA)

    ARIA's FAQs on the use of generative AI tools in funding applications and assessment say applicants may use AI tools to prepare applications. There is no disclosure rule. Applicants should use AI with caution, follow their company or host institution policies, and comply with intellectual property and data protection laws. External reviewers must not input application content into generative AI tools. ARIA staff may use secure generative AI tools as assistive review tools.

  • Agency for Health Care Research and Quality

    AHRQ has published no AI rule of its own on using AI to write or review grant applications. The only guidance that reaches its applicants comes from the HHS Office of Research Integrity (ORI). ORI recommends that applicants identify any generative AI tools used in preparing a grant application and explain how the tools were used. The guidance is nonbinding. It is provided to assist entities that apply for or receive Public Health Service (PHS) funding for biomedical or behavioral research. AHRQ is one of the PHS components within HHS. AI use that is disclosed but inconsistent with the accepted practices of the research community may still be considered evidence of research misconduct. No statement says that NIH's AI policies apply to AHRQ. Each NOFO should be checked for added rules.

  • Agency for Science Technology and Research

    A*STAR permits applicants to use generative AI responsibly when preparing grant applications. Research integrity, accountability, and originality must be preserved. Applicants must declare that they are fully responsible for the content. The declaration does not require disclosure of AI use unless the grantor asks for it. Compliance checks may involve AI detection tools.

  • Air Force Office of Scientific Research

    The AFOSR open research BAA does not prohibit generative AI in proposals. AFOSR strongly encourages applicants to disclose any use but does not require it. Applicants use these tools at their own risk. They are responsible for avoiding plagiarism, unauthorized use of intellectual property, and misinformation. External reviewers may not use generative AI.

  • Alabama Humanities Alliance

    The Alabama Humanities Alliance grant guidelines say applicants may write proposals with an AI program such as ChatGPT or Claude. They ask those applicants to review the application personally and verify that the information is correct. They also ask applicants to check that AI has not produced dense, repetitive descriptions of humanities keywords or left out the most important details.

  • Alexander von Humboldt Foundation

    The Humboldt Foundation welcomes the use of AI as an aid, including in the application process. For now, it does not require applicants to identify their use of AI. In the Henriette Herz Scouting Programme, reviewers are asked not to use generative AI tools when preparing their statements.

  • Alzheimer's Association

    The Alzheimer's Association permits applicants to use large language models and other generative AI tools when preparing letters of intent and full applications. Applicants are fully responsible for the content of their proposals, including any parts an AI tool produced. The Association states that using these tools will not affect the review of an application.

  • American Association of University Women

    AAUW allows fellowship and grant applicants to use generative AI tools when preparing their application narratives. The funder says AI should assist and not replace the applicant's own ideas and writing. Narratives should reflect the applicant's authentic voice and original work. No disclosure requirement is stated.

  • American Brain Tumor Association

    The American Brain Tumor Association (ABTA) permits generative AI in grant applications. Applicants are fully responsible for the content of their applications. The funder encourages them to review thoroughly anything an AI tool creates. For Metastatic Brain Tumor Collaborative grants, publishable content such as the lay summary must be written by the applicant or by others on the project, or built from information they wrote. Reviewers for these grants may not use AI to analyze, summarize, interpret, or critique applications.

  • American Chemical Society

    The ACS Petroleum Research Fund (PRF) makes disclosure of AI use optional. An applicant who does disclose using AI tools to prepare an application must describe how the tools were used. PRF reviewers may not upload any proposal content to generative AI tools.

  • American Council of Learned Societies

    ACLS permits applicants to use AI tools to research or write a proposal. The applicant remains responsible for any errors, hallucinations, or plagiarism. ACLS encourages applicants to say where and how they used AI, but does not require it. Peer reviewers for ACLS may not use generative AI to read applications or write reviews.

  • American Welding Society

    The American Welding Society (AWS) does not prohibit applicants from using AI to help draft personal essay statements for its national scholarships. Reviewers look for authenticity and originality. AWS encourages applicants to share real experiences.

  • Atlas Network

    Atlas Network's grant application guide tells applicants to draft their own goals first. AI is not meant to produce them. Applicants may then use AI to pressure-test the drafted goals. The guide also says to use an AI account that does not train on inputs or retain them before pasting in sensitive project details.

  • AWS Foundation (American Welding Society)

    The AWS Foundation National Scholarships page says using AI to help draft personal essay statements is not prohibited. It sets no disclosure rule. Reviewers look for authenticity and originality, and authentic stories carry more weight. The page gives no separate rules for reviewers beyond this note.

  • Bartlesville Community Foundation

    Bartlesville Community Foundation says applicants may use AI to help write grant applications. The funder says the tool should add to the applicant's own expertise and effort. It should not take their place.

  • British Heart Foundation

    The British Heart Foundation (BHF) permits applicants to use generative AI to prepare an application. The tools must be used responsibly and follow the relevant legal and ethical standards. Committee members and external reviewers may not use generative AI when assessing grant applications.

  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research

    CIHR follows the guidance it issued jointly with NSERC, SSHRC and CFI. Applicants may use generative AI, including to draft, summarise or translate parts of an application. Disclosure of its use is not required. The named applicant is accountable for everything in the application. Reviewers are strictly prohibited from using any generative AI tool, including tools procured by their institutions.

  • Community Foundation for Monterey County

    The Community Foundation for Monterey County (CFMC) allows AI use in its application-based grant requests. Applicants who use AI tools are encouraged to proofread before submitting, to write in their organization's voice, and to add local data and information that supports their statements.

  • Community Foundation of Henderson County

    The Community Foundation of Henderson County permits applicants to use AI tools for grant and scholarship applications. Applicants stay fully responsible for the originality, accuracy, and integrity of everything they submit. An application may ask whether and where AI was used. The answer has no weight in the committee's decision. It lets applicants explain how they used AI, which the funder says builds transparency and trust. Local volunteer reviewers do not use AI to evaluate applications.

  • COST Association

    COST's Open Call Proposers' Guidelines (Level C, March 2026, oc-2026-1) allow applicants to use Generative AI. They set no disclosure rule and no cap on AI use. Proposers must be human and stay fully responsible for all content. The Independent External Experts' Guide (OC-2025-1) bars reviewers from uploading proposal parts to AI tools or using AI to assess scientific content.

  • Department of Education

    The Department of Education states that using AI to develop grant application materials is allowable. Applicants must still certify that the contents of an application are true, complete, and accurate, whether or not AI generated them. The Department has published no guidance on reviewers using AI.

  • Department of Education - Fulbright-Hays Programs

    The Department of Education allows AI to be used in developing grant application materials. Applicants must still certify that the whole application is true, complete, and accurate, whether or not AI generated its content. ED has published no guidance on reviewers using AI.

  • Directorate for Education and Human Resources/NSF

    NSF permits proposers to use generative AI. It encourages proposers to say in the project description whether and how they used it, but does not require this. Proposers remain responsible for the accuracy and integrity of what they submit. NSF reviewers may not upload any proposal or review content to non-approved generative AI tools.

  • European Molecular Biology Laboratory

    The only AI guidance is a 2026 EMBL Career Development blog post summarizing a fellowship Q&A panel. It says AI tools may be used to improve readability, structure and clarity, but applicants stay fully responsible for the scientific content. It states no disclosure rule and gives no guidance for reviewers. The post is advice from panelists, not a formal funder policy.

  • European Research Council

    The ERC Scientific Council states that using AI to draw up a research proposal does not relieve the author of full and sole authorship responsibility. That responsibility covers acknowledgements, plagiarism, and good scientific and professional conduct. Reviewers may not upload proposals to online AI tools. They may not use AI to summarise or assess a proposal. They may use AI to polish language or to search for information on the topic.

  • Food and Drug Administration

    FDA has published no AI rule of its own on using AI to write or review grant applications. The only guidance that reaches FDA applicants comes from the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) at HHS. ORI recommends that applicants identify any generative AI tools used in preparing a grant application and explain how the tools were used. The guidance is a nonbinding recommendation. It applies to applications for Public Health Service (PHS) funding for biomedical or behavioral research. Disclosed AI use that departs from the accepted practices of the relevant research community may still be considered evidence of research misconduct. Applicants should check each FDA NOFO for added rules.

  • Humanities Nebraska

    Humanities Nebraska allows applicants to use generative AI when writing grant applications. As with any answer on an application, responses must accurately reflect what the applicant can realistically accomplish.

  • Institute of Education Sciences

    IES says AI use in developing grant applications is allowable. The rule appears in Part III.A of the Requests for Applications for 84.305D and 84.305S (posted August 6, 2026). Applicants must certify that the whole application is "true, complete, and accurate" even if AI generated it. The pages give no disclosure rule for applicants and no guidance for reviewers.

  • Israel Cancer Research Fund

    The ICRF General Policies Governing ICRF Grants allow AI-produced components in an application with no disclosure rule. The PI is fully responsible for all content and language, and must acknowledge that responsibility on submission (per the 2025 General Policies, rev. 9/2024). Reviewers may not use AI tools to evaluate applications, and ICRF may use AI tools to screen applications.

  • Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS)

    JSPS KAKENHI documents (FY2026 application procedures, the FY2026 call for proposals, FY2024 procedures and the FY2025 handbook) do not ban AI or require disclosure for applicants. They warn of copyright and confidentiality risks and leave the decision on AI use to the individual researcher. The call for proposals bars reviewers from entering any proposal content into generative AI.

  • Medical Research UK

    Medical Research UK allows applicants to use AI tools when developing an application, where appropriate. Applicants stay responsible for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of what they submit. The funder also expects generative AI to be used responsibly. It lists acknowledging generative AI outputs in applications as best practice.

  • Mitacs

    Mitacs permits generative AI in developing, writing, or editing proposals. Applicants who use it are expected to follow the FASTER principles. They should not enter confidential or proprietary information into AI systems. They remain responsible for the accuracy and originality of the proposal. Reviewers are not allowed to put proposal content into generative AI systems.

  • National Health and Medical Research Council

    NHMRC's revised Policy on Use of Generative AI in Grant Applications and Peer Review, in effect from 28 April 2026, lets applicants use AI as a support tool. The pages state no disclosure rule for applicants, and applicants stay responsible for accuracy and integrity. Reviewers may use AI only to improve the wording of their own comments. The pages describe the policy only in summary, so check the full policy before advising faculty.

  • National Lottery Community Fund

    The National Lottery Community Fund allows applicants to use AI tools to help write funding applications. It will not reject an application only because AI was used. Applicants should make sure their answers are accurate and reflect their own work.

  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

    NOAA's Guidance for NOAA Funding Applicants & Recipients allows generative AI in proposal preparation and sets no disclosure rule for applications. Applicants stay responsible for the accuracy and authenticity of proposal content. The Managing Emerging Risks page says SI tools should not be used to generate a review of a proposal, and reviewers must not put review materials into SI tools.

  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)

    The NSERC Discovery Grant guide (section 3.2.2) allows applicants to use generative AI in the DG application, with no disclosure rule on these pages. Applicants stay fully responsible for the content. Reviewers must not use generative AI or public tools such as ChatGPT to evaluate applications, and must not penalize applicants solely for using AI.

  • New Jersey Commission on Cancer Research

    The NJCCR RFA 2027 says AI is not banned in grant writing, and it sets no disclosure rule or limit on how much AI may write. Applicants use AI at their own risk, and all material must be the applicant's original ideas and language. AI-caused plagiarism, fabricated citations or falsified information counts as research misconduct. Reviewers may not use generative AI to analyze or critique applications (RFA Appendix 5).

  • New Jersey Department of Health

    The NJCCR RFA 2027 (Appendix 5, Guidelines on Generative Artificial Intelligence and Grant Confidentiality) says AI is not banned in grant writing and sets no disclosure rule. NJCCR strongly cautions that PIs use AI tools at their own risk, and proposals must be the applicant's original ideas and language. Fabricated citations, plagiarism or falsified information from AI count as research misconduct. Reviewers may not use generative AI to analyze or critique applications.

  • Novo Nordisk Foundation

    The Novo Nordisk Foundation's Policy on Ethical Use of AI covers applicants and reviewers. Applicants may use AI, but they stay fully accountable for everything produced with AI help. Committee members and peer reviewers may not use AI to evaluate applications. They may not upload any application content to an AI tool.

  • NSF X-Labs

    The NSF X-Labs solicitation and FAQ contain no statement about AI use by proposers or reviewers. The only published guidance is NSF's agency-wide notice on generative AI in merit review. The notice encourages proposers to describe any generative AI use, but does not require it. It holds proposers responsible for the accuracy of their proposals. It prohibits reviewers from uploading proposal content to non-approved AI tools.

  • Office of Career Technical and Adult Education

    The Department of Education (ED) allows the use of AI in developing grant application materials. Applicants must certify that everything in an application is true, complete, and accurate, whether or not AI generated it. ED has published no guidance on reviewers using AI.

  • Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

    OESE has published no AI guidance of its own. Its competitions, such as the EIR Mid-Phase Grants, require applicants to follow the Department of Education's Common Instructions, which allow AI in developing application materials. Applicants must still certify that the whole application is true, complete, and accurate, whether or not AI generated it.

  • Office of Postsecondary Education

    The Department of Education says applicants may use AI to develop grant application materials. Applicants must still certify that all contents of the application are true, complete, and accurate, whether or not AI generated them. The Department has published no guidance on reviewers using AI.

  • Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute

    PCORI policies allow applicants to use AI tools when preparing letters of intent (LOIs) or full applications. Applicants who do so take on the risk themselves. Submitting materials to PCORI is a representation that they hold original ideas and content from the applicant team. AI use may introduce fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or other research misconduct concerns, and PCORI's Research Misconduct Policy covers any allegation. In its competitive funding review processes, PCORI prohibits putting confidential LOI or application information into technological tools such as generative AI.

  • Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency

    The PCCD Applicants Manual, in the section "The Use of AI in Grant Applications," allows applicants to use AI tools to develop proposals. It sets no disclosure rule. Applicants must review all submitted content for accuracy. The pages give no guidance for peer reviewers.

  • Regieorgaan SIA

    Regieorgaan SIA allows generative AI when preparing an application, as long as it is used responsibly. The page on writing an application points applicants to the NWO generative AI policy (January 2025) and the core values of the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, and says to check generated text. The pages set no disclosure rule for applicants. Reviewers may not use generative AI at all and may not enter anything from a proposal into a generative AI model.

  • Research Council of Finland

    The Research Council of Finland (RCF) permits generative AI and similar digital tools to support the preparation of applications. Applicants do not have to state whether they used such tools. RCF staff, reviewers, and decision-makers may not enter content from application documents or review reports into generative AI tools.

  • Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada

    SSHRC follows the guidance it issued jointly with CIHR, NSERC and CFI. Applicants may use generative AI, including to draft, summarise or translate parts of an application. Disclosure of AI use is not required. The named applicant is responsible for everything in the application. Reviewers are strictly prohibited from using any generative AI tool, including tools procured by their institution.

  • Suffolk Community Foundation

    Suffolk Community Foundation allows applicants to use AI tools such as ChatGPT or Copilot when writing funding applications and reports. An application will not be rejected only because AI was used. Applicants remain responsible for accuracy. The foundation does not require disclosure of AI use. It expects openness when AI materially affects the content or delivery of a proposal.

  • Swiss National Science Foundation

    The SNSF allows researchers to use AI to prepare grant applications and has no disclosure rule for applicants in these pages. Applicants are the sole authors and bear full responsibility for the content (SNSF news item of 2024-02-28; topic page on responsible use of AI). Reviewers and referees may use AI only in a supportive role and must disclose its use (Guidelines for reviewers and referees).

  • Tinker Foundation

    The Tinker Foundation accepts the use of AI tools to refine Institutional Grants applications, including for editing and translation. It discourages organizations from relying on AI to develop or describe project concepts. According to the foundation, the strongest applications reflect the organization's own experience, analysis, and understanding of the proposed work.

  • U.S. National Science Foundation

    NSF permits proposers to use generative AI. Proposers are encouraged, but not required, to say in the project description whether they used it and how. Proposers remain responsible for the accuracy and integrity of everything they submit. NSF reviewers are prohibited from uploading any proposal or review content to non-approved generative AI tools.

  • Volkswagen Foundation

    The Volkswagen Foundation currently treats the use of generative models in or for submitted proposals as neither a plus nor a minus when it makes decisions. Reviewers may not use generative models to prepare reviews. Documents provided for review must not be entered into generative models.

  • Wenner-Gren Foundation

    The Wenner-Gren Foundation strongly encourages applicants to say whether and how they used generative AI. The disclosure goes in a confidential section of the proposal that reviewers cannot see. Applicants remain responsible for the integrity of what they submit. If plagiarized writing or fabricated information is detected, the project is removed from consideration. Reviewers may not upload applications, feedback drafts, notes, or ratings to any generative AI tool.

Varies by program195

The rule is set in each program's guidelines, so check the one you are applying to.

  • 4Culture

    4Culture addresses AI on the Arc Artist Fellowship page. Applicants who use AI tools to help write their narratives are encouraged to edit and personalize them, so that the application is unique to the applicant. Panelists for this fellowship may not use AI summary tools to review applications. They also may not use generative AI to score submissions or write comments on applications.

  • Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health

    ARPA-H has no agency-wide rule on applicants using AI. Rules are set in each solicitation (ISO). Several 2026 ISOs, including HEARING, STOMP, and AIR, tell proposers not to generate solution summary or proposal text with generative AI. ARPA-H may itself use AI to organize and summarize proposals. It says it will disclose this in the ISO and that humans stay responsible for all evaluation decisions. Applicants should read the submission instructions in their ISO.

  • Agricultural and Applied Economics Association

    The Agricultural and Applied Economics Association has published one AI rule that applies to the GSS and C-FARE Policy Communications Competition, a student policy brief competition with cash prizes. Entrants who use AI for any part of the policy brief must cite or acknowledge that use fully and properly. The funder points entrants to the MLA guide on when AI needs a citation and when an acknowledgment is enough.

  • AIA New York

    AIA New York sets its AI rules for each program separately. The Figures of Architecture competition does not accept AI-generated images and graphics. Entrants to the AIANY Design Awards must clearly mark any use of AI or AI-generated imagery in their submission.

  • AIA New York / Center for Architecture

    The Figures of Architecture design competition does not accept AI-generated images or graphics. The funder has published no organization-wide AI rule.

  • Alaska Department of Health

    The Fall 2026 applicant guide for the Rural Health Transformation Program (RHTP) asks applicants to write their responses from their own knowledge and experience, not from AI-generated language. Applicants who use AI to help draft or edit should read the response closely to confirm it accurately reflects their organization.

  • Alpha Omega Alpha

    The pages state AI rules only for two named programs: the Helen H. Glaser Student Essay Award and the AΩA Poetry Award. In both, generative AI may be used for limited editorial help only, and authors must include an AI statement and the AI prompts. The pages give no funder-wide rule and no guidance for reviewers.

  • Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society

    The Helen H. Glaser Student Essay Award allows generative AI only for limited editorial help, such as grammar, spelling, or organization. It bars AI from producing substantive narrative content, reflections, interpretations, or storytelling. The cover page must carry an AI statement that says whether AI was used and how.

  • American Academy of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery

    The CORE Grants Program has an AI policy. It does not ban AI in applications. It makes the applicant fully responsible for accurate and original content. It warns that AI content submitted without verification can hurt review. For reviewers, the policy cites the NIH rule that bars peer reviewers from using generative AI to analyze applications or write critiques.

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science

    The AAAS Mass Media Science & Engineering Fellowship sets rules on AI for applicants. Applicants must affirm that text from AI, machine learning, or similar tools was not used to create the submission or its figures, images, or graphics. Limited editing with tools such as Grammarly is allowed. It must be declared in the application.

  • American College of Clinical Pharmacy

    The ACCP Clinical Pharmacy Research Challenge gives Letter of Intent guidance that includes an acknowledgement section. That section must disclose any use of AI. Teams must describe any tool used to generate text or images. Teams that used no AI must state that clearly.

  • American Concrete Institute

    The American Concrete Institute sets AI rules for the Eco Concrete Student Competition. For the report, generative AI is allowed mainly for brainstorming, grammar and clarity. It may not be used to generate the core discussion and analysis. Its use must be explained in a separate section. In the video, AI-generated voices, avatars and footage are not allowed. AI used to prepare text, graphics or slides must be disclosed.

  • American Diabetes Association

    The American Diabetes Association (ADA) sets AI rules in its Advancing Innovative Research (T1D) RFA. It permits only limited, non-substantive AI help, such as grammar editing, formatting, and reference management. AI may not draft or edit any scientific section. Any AI use must be disclosed on institutional letterhead signed by the PI and Research Officer.

  • American Epilepsy Society

    The American Epilepsy Society requires disclosure of AI use in proposals for the Susan S. Spencer, MD Next Generation Research Grant. Disclosure covers AI used to generate the proposal's ideas and AI used to help write or edit it.

  • American Hand Therapy Foundation

    The Hand in Hand Research Grant is a joint grant from AOTF, ASHT, and AHTF, and it is run through AOTF. The AOTF policy on AI applies to it. Applicants may use AI to help with writing. They remain responsible for accuracy. AI-generated text must be footnoted. Reviewers may not upload applications into AI systems.

  • American Institute in Taiwan

    The TechGirls Exchange Program bars candidates from using any AI tool, including ChatGPT, for their written responses. The review panel may end the candidacy of anyone found to have used AI in the application process.

  • American Legion Auxiliary

    The American Legion Auxiliary reviews every Military Spouse Scholarship essay with AI tools to check originality. The tools help identify potential plagiarism and AI-generated content. Applicants who rely heavily on AI will be disqualified.

  • American Museum of Natural History

    The American Museum of Natural History restricts generative AI in applications to its doctoral program and graduate fellowships. Applicants may not use it for any intellectual content. They may use it to proof grammar, spelling, and formatting.

  • American Ornithological Society

    The American Ornithological Society (AOS) allows applicants to the Latin American/Caribbean Conservation Research Grant to use generative AI for English translation. AI should not write the main content of a proposal. The AOS AI policy bars outside AI notetakers from grant meetings. It also tells anyone who uses AI to evaluate applications to watch for algorithmic bias.

  • American Psychology-Law Society

    The American Psychology-Law Society treats AI-generated proposal text as plagiarism for its Grants-in-Aid for Graduate Students. Applicants who are unsure whether a tool complies with the grant's AI policy should contact the committee chair.

  • American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

    The ASGE 2027 Research Awards RFA permits AI use that is transparent and purposeful, within limits. Applicants should confirm that the tool does not take ownership of the output. AI-generated figures should be described in the caption. ASGE discourages using AI to find or format references. For the AI Scholars Program, AI may edit, brainstorm, or proofread. It must not generate the substance of responses.

  • American Society of Hand Therapists

    The Hand in Hand Research Grant is a joint grant from AOTF, ASHT, and AHTF, and it is run through AOTF. The AOTF policy on AI applies to it. AI tools may help with writing. Applicants are responsible for accuracy. AI-generated text must be footnoted. Reviewers may not upload applications into AI systems.

  • American Society of Nephrology

    The American Society of Nephrology has an AI policy for the Ben J. Lipps Research Fellowship. Applicants may use tools like ChatGPT to help write, but they remain responsible for the content. AI-generated images are discouraged and are not allowed without a clear description. AI used in formal research design or methods should be cited.

  • American Urological Association

    The American Urological Association bars applicants to its Data Research Program from using generative AI tools to draft Letters of Intent or full applications.

  • Amgen Foundation

    The Amgen Scholars Program sets no program-wide conditions on generative AI in applications for now. Host institutions may set their own rules. Applicants who use AI are asked to judge carefully what content is appropriate and to cite in full any sources that are not their own work.

  • Anthropic

    Anthropic's research grant and API credit programs, including Economic Futures and AI for Science, publish no rule on how applicants use AI. The Anthropic Fellows Program is applied for through Anthropic's hiring site. That site points applicants to its guidance on candidates' AI usage. The guidance says to write the first draft yourself and then use Claude to refine it. Take-home assessments are to be completed without Claude unless Anthropic indicates otherwise.

  • Arkansas Arts Council

    The Arkansas Arts Council runs Arts Across Arkansas, a high school arts program that awards cash prizes. The council does not accept submissions created directly or indirectly by or with AI (artificial intelligence).

  • Arkansas Game and Fish Commission

    The AGFC Conservation Scholarship allows applicants to use AI for two things only: brainstorming before they write, and checking spelling and grammar in text they wrote themselves. AI may not write, draft, or outline the essay or the video script. Misuse may lead to disqualification.

  • Arts and Humanities Council of Montgomery County

    The Arts and Humanities Council of Montgomery County asks applicants to its FY27 Wheaton Cultural Project Grants to submit a short AI disclosure statement. The statement says whether generative AI meaningfully shaped the application or its materials. Disclosure has no effect on the score. The FY27 ARSG application permits AI as an aid to the creative or scholarly process. It does not accept work samples that AI generated entirely.

  • Arts Midwest

    Arts Midwest has set AI rules for two programs, the Midwest Award for Artists with Disabilities and the NEA Big Read. Applicants may use AI to edit or proofread narratives. Fully AI-generated narratives are discouraged. AI-generated artwork is not allowed. The NEA Big Read application asks whether AI was used and how.

  • Asian American Journalists Association

    The Asian American Journalists Association (AAJA) sets its AI rules by program. JCamp applicants may not use AI to assist with applications. For the AAJA Awards, humans must lead all submitted work. Any AI use must be labeled and explained, and AI photos are not accepted in photojournalism categories.

  • Association for Molecular Pathology

    The Association for Molecular Pathology allows AI tools such as ChatGPT for the Trailblazers Travel Award essay only to help with prose or word count. The tools may not generate the content of the essay.

  • Association for Psychological Science (APS)

    The Small Grants page of the APS Teaching Fund allows generative AI, including large language models. Applicants must disclose whether and how they used it in the project description. The pages state this rule only for the Teaching Fund Small Grants program, not for APS as a whole. They give no guidance for reviewers.

  • Azrieli Foundation

    The Azrieli Foundation sets limits on AI use for the Azrieli Music Prizes. AI may support language, communication, and presentation, such as translation, proofreading, and organizing written materials. It may also generate electronic audio demos. AI may not be used to create music or scores, and doing so leads to disqualification. Any AI use in an application must be disclosed.

  • Barberton Community Foundation

    The Barberton Community Foundation's Tuscora Park Health & Wellness scholarship application bars the use of AI. An application is invalid if AI was used to write the essay. Applicants also certify that they did not use AI for any part of the application or essay.

  • Bayer

    Bayer's grants and contributions portal has no published rule on AI use by applicants or reviewers. The Bayer Foundation Scientific Fellowships guidelines (September 2026, for the 2027 cycle) cover one case. The required 1-minute motivation video may not contain AI-generated content.

  • Beaver County Foundation

    Beaver County Foundation requires scholarship essays to be written only by the student. The foundation does not permit AI or other writing assistance tools.

  • Beckman Foundation

    The Beckman Foundation allows AI tools as supplementary resources for the Arnold O. Beckman Postdoctoral Fellowship. Applicants decide whether to use them and are expected to use them ethically and responsibly. Any AI use must be described in a brief statement submitted with the references. Reviewers may not upload application materials into an AI tool. The Foundation does not use AI to screen or evaluate applications.

  • Boettcher Foundation

    The Boettcher Foundation addresses AI in its Boettcher Scholarship application. It says generative AI tools like ChatGPT can help applicants brainstorm an essay topic, build an outline, and refine the essay. It advises applicants against relying heavily on these tools.

  • Bonfils-Stanton Foundation

    The Arts in Society page says AI use is the applicant's choice and should complement, not replace, the applicant's own voice. It says the Foundation does not use AI to review applications. The guidance appears on the page for one program, Arts in Society, which RedLine administers. The pages state no disclosure requirement and no rule for peer reviewers or panelists.

  • British Society of Soil Science

    The only page provided is the application form for the Teaching Soil Science Grant. It lets applicants use AI tools but requires them to say whether they did and, if so, how. The pages give no guidance for reviewers and no rule for the Society's other grants.

  • California Institute of Technology

    The Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope Cycle 1 Call for Proposals is run through IPAC at Caltech and follows NASA policy. Any proposal material derived from generative AI must be described and cited in the References. Applicants who fail to disclose generative AI use are disqualified. Reviewers may not upload proposal content or review materials to generative AI tools.

  • Canadian Cancer Society

    The 2026 Challenge Grants page lists an "AI Use Disclosure" (maximum 2,500 characters, spaces included) as a required part of the full application. The page gives no other detail on what to disclose, and it states no rule on how much AI may be used. It has no guidance for reviewers on AI. Check the application guide for specifics.

  • Carnegie Science

    Carnegie Science's Earth and Planets Laboratory (EPL) allows cautious use of generative AI as a research or writing aid in postdoctoral fellowship applications. Applicants must take responsibility for everything they submit. They attest that the application gives appropriate credit to tools, including generative AI, where the tool materially contributed. EPL states that it does not use AI to evaluate applications.

  • Casualty Actuarial Society

    The only rule comes from the 2026 RFP on evaluating LLMs for a P&C actuarial task benchmark. It says authors must report specific use of AI, if any, while producing research. The page gives no AI rules for the CAS as a whole and no guidance for reviewers.

  • Centers for Disease Control - CGH

    The CDC has published no AI rule of its own, and neither has its extramural research program (ERA), on using AI to write or review grant applications. The only guidance that reaches its applicants comes from the HHS Office of Research Integrity (ORI). ORI recommends that applicants identify any generative AI tools used in preparing a grant application and explain how they were used. The guidance is a nonbinding recommendation. It covers applications for PHS-funded biomedical or behavioral research only. It does not reach program or service cooperative agreements. Disclosed AI use that departs from accepted practice in the applicant's field may still be considered evidence of research misconduct. Each NOFO should be checked for added rules.

  • Centers for Disease Control - NCBDDD

    Neither CDC nor its extramural research program (ERA) has published an AI rule of its own on using AI to write or review grant applications. The only guidance that reaches applicants comes from the HHS Office of Research Integrity (ORI). ORI recommends that researchers identify any generative AI tools used in preparing a grant application and explain how those tools were used. The guidance is a nonbinding recommendation. It applies to applications for Public Health Service (PHS) funding for biomedical or behavioral research only, so it does not cover program or service cooperative agreements. Disclosed AI use that departs from the accepted practices of the research community may still be considered evidence of research misconduct. Each NOFO should be checked for added rules.

  • Centers for Disease Control - NCCDPHP

    Neither CDC nor its chronic disease center (NCCDPHP) has published an AI rule of its own on using AI to write or review grant applications. The only guidance that reaches its applicants comes from the HHS Office of Research Integrity (ORI). ORI recommends that researchers identify any generative AI tools used in preparing a grant application and explain how they were used. The guidance is a nonbinding recommendation. It covers applications for PHS-funded biomedical or behavioral research only. Disclosed AI use that is inconsistent with the accepted practices of the research community may still be considered evidence of research misconduct. The guidance does not reach program or service cooperative agreements. Each NOFO should be checked for added rules.

  • Centers for Disease Control - NCEH

    Neither CDC nor its extramural research program (ERA) has published an AI rule of its own on using AI to write or review grant applications. The only guidance that reaches CDC applicants comes from the HHS Office of Research Integrity (ORI). ORI recommends that applicants identify any generative AI tools used in preparing a grant application and explain how the tools were used. This is a nonbinding recommendation. It covers applications for PHS-funded biomedical or behavioral research only, and it does not reach program or service cooperative agreements. AI use that is disclosed but departs from the accepted practices of the research community may still be considered evidence of research misconduct. Each NOFO should be checked for added rules.

  • Centers for Disease Control - NCEZID

    Neither CDC nor its National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID) has published an AI rule of its own for writing or reviewing grant applications. The only guidance that reaches NCEZID applicants comes from the HHS Office of Research Integrity (ORI). ORI recommends that researchers identify any generative AI tools used in preparing a grant application and explain how the tools were used. The guidance is a nonbinding recommendation. It applies to applications for PHS-funded biomedical or behavioral research only. It does not cover program or service cooperative agreements. Disclosed AI use that departs from the accepted practices of the research community may still be considered evidence of research misconduct. Each NOFO should be checked for added rules.

  • Centers for Disease Control - NCHHSTP

    Neither CDC nor its HIV, viral hepatitis, STD, and TB center (NCHHSTP) has published its own AI rule on using AI to write or review grant applications. The only guidance that reaches its applicants comes from the HHS Office of Research Integrity (ORI). ORI recommends that researchers identify any generative AI tools used in preparing a grant application and explain how they were used. The guidance is a nonbinding recommendation. It covers applications for PHS-funded biomedical or behavioral research only. Disclosed AI use that departs from the accepted practices of the research community may still be considered evidence of research misconduct. The guidance does not reach program or service cooperative agreements. Applicants should check each NOFO for added rules.

  • Centers for Disease Control - NCIPC

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and its injury center (NCIPC) have published no AI rule of their own on using AI to write or review grant applications. The only guidance that reaches applicants comes from the HHS Office of Research Integrity (ORI). It recommends that applicants identify any generative AI tools used in preparing a grant application and explain how they were used. The guidance is nonbinding. It is meant for entities that apply for or receive Public Health Service (PHS) funding for biomedical or behavioral research. Disclosed AI use that is inconsistent with the accepted practices of the relevant research community may still be considered evidence of research misconduct. The guidance does not cover program or service cooperative agreements. Each NOFO should be checked for added rules.

  • Centers for Disease Control - NCIRD

    Neither CDC nor its extramural research program (ERA) has published an AI rule of its own on using AI to write or review grant applications. The only guidance that reaches its applicants comes from the HHS Office of Research Integrity (ORI). ORI recommends that applicants identify any generative AI tools used in preparing a grant application and explain how the tools were used. The guidance is a nonbinding recommendation. It covers applications for Public Health Service (PHS) funded biomedical or behavioral research only. It does not reach program or service cooperative agreements. AI use that is disclosed but departs from accepted practice in the relevant research community may still be considered evidence of research misconduct. Applicants should check each NOFO for added rules.

  • Centers for Disease Control - OD

    Neither CDC nor its extramural research program (ERA) has published an AI rule of its own on using AI to write or review grant applications. The only guidance that reaches CDC applicants comes from the HHS Office of Research Integrity (ORI). ORI recommends that applicants identify any generative AI tools used in preparing a grant application and explain how they were used. This guidance is a nonbinding recommendation. It covers applications for PHS-funded biomedical or behavioral research only. It does not reach program or service cooperative agreements. Disclosed AI use that departs from the accepted practices of the relevant research community may still be considered evidence of research misconduct. Applicants should check each NOFO for added rules.

  • Centers for Disease Control - OPHPR

    Neither CDC nor its extramural research program (ERA) has published an AI rule of its own on using AI to write or review grant applications. The only guidance that reaches its applicants comes from the HHS Office of Research Integrity (ORI). ORI recommends that applicants identify any generative AI tools used in preparing a grant application and explain how they were used. The guidance is a nonbinding recommendation. It covers applications for PHS-funded biomedical or behavioral research only. It does not reach program or service cooperative agreements. Disclosed AI use that departs from accepted practice in the applicant's field may still be considered evidence of research misconduct. Each NOFO should be checked for added rules.

  • Centers for Disease Control - ORR

    Neither CDC nor its extramural research program (ERA) has published an AI rule of its own on using AI to write or review grant applications. The only guidance that reaches CDC applicants comes from the HHS Office of Research Integrity (ORI). ORI recommends that applicants identify any generative AI tools used in preparing a grant application and explain how they were used. The guidance is a nonbinding recommendation. It covers applications for PHS-funded biomedical or behavioral research only. It does not reach program or service cooperative agreements. Disclosed AI use that departs from the accepted practices of the relevant research community may still be considered evidence of research misconduct. Each NOFO should be checked for added rules.

  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

    Neither CDC nor its extramural research program has published an AI rule of its own on using AI to write or review grant applications. The only guidance that reaches CDC applicants comes from the HHS Office of Research Integrity (ORI). ORI recommends that applicants identify any generative AI tools used in preparing a grant application and explain how they were used. This guidance is a nonbinding recommendation. It covers applications for PHS-funded biomedical or behavioral research only, and it does not reach program or service cooperative agreements. Disclosed AI use that departs from the accepted practices of the relevant research community may still be considered evidence of research misconduct. Applicants should check each NOFO for added rules.

  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - ERA

    Neither CDC nor its extramural research program (ERA) has published an AI rule of its own on using AI to write or review grant applications. The only guidance that reaches CDC applicants comes from the HHS Office of Research Integrity (ORI). ORI recommends that researchers identify any generative AI tools used in preparing a grant application and explain how they were used. This guidance is a nonbinding recommendation. It applies to applications for PHS-funded biomedical or behavioral research only. It does not reach program or service cooperative agreements. Disclosed AI use that departs from the accepted practices of the research community may still be considered evidence of research misconduct. Each NOFO should be checked for added rules.

  • CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL CSTLTS

    Neither CDC nor its extramural research program (ERA) has published an AI rule of its own on using AI to write or review grant applications. The only guidance that reaches CDC applicants comes from HHS's Office of Research Integrity (ORI). ORI recommends that researchers identify any generative AI tools used in preparing a grant application and explain how they were used. This is a nonbinding recommendation. It covers applications for PHS-funded biomedical or behavioral research only, and it does not reach program or service cooperative agreements. Disclosed AI use that departs from the accepted practices of the relevant research community may still be considered evidence of research misconduct. Each NOFO should be checked for added rules.

  • Centers for Disease Control-GHC

    Neither CDC nor CDC's Global Health Center has published an AI rule of its own on using AI to write or review grant applications. The only guidance that reaches its applicants comes from the HHS Office of Research Integrity (ORI). ORI recommends that applicants identify any generative AI tools used in preparing a grant application and explain how those tools were used. The guidance is a nonbinding recommendation. It covers applications for PHS-funded biomedical or behavioral research only. It does not reach program or service cooperative agreements. Disclosed AI use that departs from the accepted practices of the relevant research community may still be considered evidence of research misconduct. Applicants should check each NOFO for added rules.

  • Centers for Disease Control-PHIC

    Neither CDC nor its extramural research program (ERA) has published an AI rule of its own on using AI to write or review grant applications. The only guidance that reaches CDC applicants comes from the HHS Office of Research Integrity (ORI). ORI recommends that applicants identify any generative AI tools used in preparing a grant application and explain how the tools were used. The guidance is a nonbinding recommendation. It applies to applications for PHS-funded biomedical or behavioral research only, and it does not reach program or service cooperative agreements. Disclosed AI use that departs from the accepted practices of the relevant research community may still be considered evidence of research misconduct. Each NOFO should be checked for added rules.

  • City of Seattle

    The City of Seattle's Office of Arts & Culture published 2027 guidelines for The Creative Advantage Arts Partner Roster. The guidelines allow applicants to use AI to help write applications. Applicants must acknowledge any AI use for writing or editing. Applicants remain responsible for accuracy. AI use is not considered in review or scoring.

  • Coefficient Giving

    Coefficient Giving has set no organization-wide rule on the use of AI by applicants. Its Project Tailwind call automatically removes submissions that its systems flag as AI-generated. The funder also says its own staff use AI tools in grantmaking, for example to collect information about a grant and draft writeups.

  • Community Foundation for Northern Virginia

    The funder's rules vary by opportunity. Under the Community Foundation for Northern Virginia (CFNOVA) FY2027 grant guidelines, applicants may use AI tools to help prepare an application, and routine use need not be disclosed. Applicants must still make sure the final application is accurate, original, appropriate, and reflects their organization's work. For the Plein Environmental Scholarship Fund, an application completed by generative AI is disqualified.

  • Community Foundation for Southern Arizona

    The Community Foundation for Southern Arizona (CFSA) addresses AI use on its Corazón Grants page. CFSA welcomes the thoughtful use of AI tools to draft and refine grant applications. Applicants stay responsible for the accuracy and completeness of their content, and the content must reflect their organization's work and voice. Applicants should take care not to share confidential or sensitive information with AI tools.

  • Community Foundation for Southwest Washington

    The Community Foundation for Southwest Washington published a blog post with tips from its scholarship reviewers. The post says AI cannot replace writing a scholarship essay oneself. It says AI can help with specific parts of the process. It advises applicants not to use AI to write an outline or essay.

  • Community Foundation for the Alleghenies

    The Community Foundation for the Alleghenies (CFA) allows AI tools for scholarship applications. The applicant stays fully responsible for the originality, accuracy, and integrity of all submitted content. Applicants must not submit AI-written essays as their own, use AI to fake documents or achievements, rely on AI to tell their personal story, or share sensitive personal data with public AI tools. Local volunteer teams review the applications, and these reviewers do not use AI in their evaluation.

  • Community Foundation of Elmira-Corning and the Finger Lakes

    The foundation's 2026 Community Grant Program application allows applicants to prepare parts of the application with AI tools. Applicants who do so attest that they thoroughly reviewed all content the AI generated. They also commit to its accuracy, completeness, and alignment with their goals and representations.

  • Community Foundation of Western Massachusetts

    The Community Foundation of Western Massachusetts sets one AI rule for ValleyCreates Capacity-Building Grants. Work samples generated purely through AI are not eligible. Applicants who used AI as a tool to support a work sample should include an explanation.

  • Cures Within Reach

    Cures Within Reach (CWR) states in its 2026 ReGRoW RFP that it will not consider LOIs or full proposals substantially written, wholly or partly, by large language models or other generative AI. CWR may remove an application from funding consideration if significant AI use is detected.

  • DARPA - Defense Sciences Office

    DSO has no office-wide rule on AI. Its current Office-wide BAA says nothing about AI use by proposers. Some individual DSO solicitations do address it. The DSO Pitch Day announcement (DARPA-PA-26-01) asks proposers to state on the cover sheet whether they used AI tools and which ones. It also asks them to cite AI-assisted content. DARPA says this answer is not used in evaluation. Applicants should check the cover sheet and instructions of the specific solicitation they are answering.

  • Division 2: Society for The Teaching of Psychology

    The Society for the Teaching of Psychology (Division 2) requires a disclosure statement for its Excellence in Teaching Awards. The statement goes on the dossier cover sheet. It must explain how, if at all, generative AI was used to prepare the dossier or any materials in it.

  • Division of Arkansas Heritage

    The Division of Arkansas Heritage has published one AI rule, for Arts Across Arkansas. This is the Arkansas Arts Council's student art program with cash prizes. The council does not accept submissions created directly or indirectly by or with AI.

  • DOC NOAA - ERA Production

    NOAA has published no agency-wide policy on AI use in grant applications or review. One current funding notice, the Climate Program Office FY 2027 SI/ML competition, encourages applicants to say in the project narrative whether and how they used generative AI. The same notice bars reviewers from uploading application content to generative AI tools. Other current NOAA NOFOs say nothing on the subject, so advisers should check the specific NOFO.

  • Doris Duke Foundation

    The Doris Duke Foundation has published no foundation-wide rule on AI in grant applications. One call sets its own rule. The Artists Make Technology Lab, run with Mozilla Foundation, allows applicants to use AI to brainstorm ideas, clarify language or help with translation. It does not allow AI to generate full responses. Applicants must declare any AI use. The RFP for each call should be checked.

  • ELECTRI International

    ELECTRI International runs final proposals for the Electrical Contracting Innovation Challenge (ECIC) student competition through software. The software helps identify how much AI was used to create each proposal. The ECIC Jury is notified of AI usage and receives the percentage of content generated by AI.

  • Erie Community Foundation

    Erie Community Foundation scholarships that require an essay ask applicants to write the response themselves. The essay should reflect the applicant's own experiences and ideas. The foundation encourages applicants to complete essays without artificial intelligence tools.

  • European Molecular Biology Organization

    The rules differ by scheme. For Scientific Exchange Grants, EMBO guidelines make applicants fully responsible for the originality and accuracy of their applications. Applicants are also asked to say whether they used AI tools and for what purpose. For the Maria Leptin EMBO Science Journalism Fellowships, AI tools may not be used to create an application.

  • European Respiratory Society

    The pages are the ERS Short-Term Research Fellowship (STRF) April 2026 Application Guidance, so the rule is stated for this one program only. Section 4.7 permits AI to improve clarity and language, bars AI for generating scientific ideas, and asks applicants to disclose AI use and purpose. The pages give no guidance for reviewers on AI.

  • European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases

    The European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases allows AI tools such as ChatGPT when preparing an application for the ESPID Fellowship Award. Applicants must say so in the cover letter. The acknowledgement names the tool and how it was used.

  • European Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons

    The Pioneer Research Award page says applications are screened for AI assisted generated writing. Flagged applications are queried and rejected if above an acceptable threshold. The page does not define the threshold, does not say what AI use is allowed, and gives no rules for reviewers. The rule is for this one program only, and no funder-wide policy appears on the pages.

  • Fight for Sight

    Fight for Sight leaves it to applicants to the Social Change Fund to decide whether to use AI, such as ChatGPT, in their applications. The funder expects applicants to check all submitted information and make sure it is accurate. The funder says it does not currently use AI to assess applications.

  • Finlandia Foundation National

    Finlandia Foundation National ran the 2025 National Sauna Week Poster Contest, an art contest with cash prizes. The funder does not permit AI-generated images in entries.

  • Flinn Foundation

    The Flinn Foundation sets different rules for each program. Flinn Scholars must write their own essays. ChatGPT should not write them, though such resources can serve as helpful writing partners. For the Flinn-Brown Fellowship, the foundation recognizes that applicants may use generative AI to develop and refine their application.

  • Formas

    Formas sets its AI rules for each call. In the Explore 2026 call, applicants must say which AI tools they used, where in the application they used them, and for what purpose. Use of AI only for basic spelling or grammar checks is exempt. Formas reviewers are currently not allowed to use AI tools to help review applications.

  • Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center

    Fred Hutch has published guidance on AI use in applications for two programs. The HutchCAN Student Program strongly discourages AI tools for writing responses and says generative AI should not be used to write application responses. The Program for Advancing Career Exploration (PACE) asks applicants who need AI tools as a disability accommodation to email hutchadvance@fredhutch.org before submitting.

  • Fulbright Denmark

    Fulbright Denmark's 2026-2027 Fulbright Student cover sheet says every application goes through a plagiarism check as part of the technical review process. The funder's review tools can also detect text generated by artificial intelligence. Applicants are strongly advised to write in their own words and voice.

  • Fulbright Finland Foundation

    The application checklist for the Fulbright Finland Foundation's scholar and professional programs includes a question about AI use. It asks applicants whether they used AI in the scholarship application process. Those who did are asked to name the tools or platforms and the purposes.

  • Fulbright Scholar Program

    The Fulbright Scholar Program has no program-wide rule on AI. The instructions for U.S. Scholar applications do not mention AI. The 2027-2028 application instructions for the Visiting Scholar Program (non-U.S. scholars) warn that copying text from generative AI directly into an application may hurt admission or affiliation decisions at U.S. host institutions. At least one country commission sets a stricter rule. The Fulbright Commission in Egypt requires applicants to disclose any AI use. It disqualifies applicants who use AI in place of their own original thinking or who use it without proper disclosure.

  • Grand Challenges Canada

    The only AI rules Grand Challenges Canada has published apply to one funding opportunity, Nexa Lighthouse (Climate x Health Innovation: Asia and the Pacific). Applicants to that call may use generative AI to help prepare proposals. They are expected to propose original ideas and are responsible for accurate, properly referenced content. The Nexa Lighthouse partners may also use AI tools to help process and evaluate applications.

  • Grand Rapids Community Foundation

    Grand Rapids Community Foundation addresses AI in its scholarship applications. It says AI tools can help with brainstorming or editing. A personal statement should still reflect the student's own voice and perspective.

  • Greenwall Foundation

    The Greenwall Foundation's Making a Difference Letter of Intent (LOI) form asks applicants to check boxes showing how, if at all, they used AI to develop the LOI. The foundation says it wants to better understand how bioethics researchers use AI in their work. Reviewers do not see the answer, and it plays no part in review.

  • Guild of Carillonneurs in North America

    The pages give AI rules for two named GCNA contests only, not for the funder as a whole. The Franco Composition Contest bars works made wholly or in substantial part by AI and requires an AI declaration with each entry. The Franco Proposal Contest requires winners to declare AI use when they submit the completed score. The pages give no guidance for reviewers or jurors on AI.

  • Health Resources and Services Administration

    HRSA has published no AI rule of its own on using AI to write or review grant applications. The only guidance that reaches its applicants comes from the HHS Office of Research Integrity (ORI). ORI recommends that researchers identify any generative AI tools used in preparing a grant application and explain how the tools were used. This is a nonbinding recommendation. It covers applications for Public Health Service (PHS) funding for biomedical or behavioral research only. Disclosed AI use that is inconsistent with the accepted practices of the research community may still be considered evidence of research misconduct. Most HRSA grants fund service or workforce programs, which this guidance does not cover. Each NOFO should be checked for added rules.

  • Helmholtz Association

    The Helmholtz Association has set AI rules for Helmholtz Enterprise proposals (Field Study Fellowship and Spin-off program). Applicants must declare whether and how they used AI tools. AI must not be the sole or primary author of a proposal. Applicants are also strongly advised against commercial AI tools that send data to external servers.

  • Henry Luce Foundation

    The Henry Luce Foundation has published no foundation-wide rule on AI for grant applicants. Its Luce Scholars Program does set one. Applicants may use AI tools for editing only. They must certify that the Personal Statement and all Short Answer Questions are their own work.

  • Human Frontier Science Program

    The HFSP Research Grant guidelines allow generative AI only to improve the readability and language of an application. They do not allow it to create content. Applicants are asked to disclose any AI use. Reviewers are asked not to use AI tools or AI-detection programs in their assessments.

  • Illinois Humanities

    Illinois Humanities requires that entries to the Gwendolyn Brooks Youth Poetry Awards be the original work of the young poet. AI cannot be used. The awards have a no-tolerance policy for AI-generated writing.

  • Institut français

    Institut français addresses AI on its AOCA (Support for cultural operators in Africa) program page. Applicants may use AI tools to help draft and present their applications. The application must still be original and keep its unique identity.

  • Institute of Food Technologists

    The Institute of Food Technologists sets AI rules for each IFTSA student competition separately. In the IFTSA and Mars product development competition, AI may help with ideas, research, outlining, and grammar. It should not generate or substantially write the final proposal. AI-generated visuals in the slides must be disclosed. In the Graduate Research Video Competition, AI may be used for research and planning. It may not be used to create any part of the final video.

  • Institute of International Education

    The Institute of International Education sets its AI rules program by program. For the Artist Protection Fund, using AI tools such as ChatGPT to generate, draft, paraphrase, or substantially develop application materials is strongly discouraged. Signs that content is AI-generated may count against an application. For the Medtronic Spark Scholarship, applicants may not submit AI-generated content that lacks meaningful personal input. They also may not misrepresent their experiences using AI tools.

  • Interfaith America

    Interfaith America's RFP for the Interfaith Civic Pluralism Fellowship 2026-27 allows generative AI tools in preparing grant applications. Permitted uses include editing, translation, organization, and refining ideas. Applications should still reflect the applicant's own thinking, experience, and proposed approach. Applicants are responsible for the accuracy, originality, and authenticity of all materials. Substantive AI use should be disclosed.

  • International Society of Nephrology

    The ISN Fellowship Program allows applicants to use AI tools such as ChatGPT or Claude when writing an application. The use must be careful. Applicants are fully responsible for the accuracy of the application and must proofread all AI-generated material. Fraudulent use or false statements lead to rejection and possible blacklisting.

  • IPRA Foundation

    The IPRA Foundation's Peace Research Grant instructions state that all applications are screened for generative AI, and that its use is forbidden. AI tools such as Grammarly may be used to correct spelling and grammar.

  • Jacobs Foundation

    The Jacobs Foundation has published no AI policy of its own. The Jacobs CIFAR Research Fellowship is run in partnership with CIFAR. CIFAR's published policy allows applicants to use generative AI if they fully verify all AI-generated content and take responsibility for it. The same policy bans public online tools for evaluating applications. The fellowship call does not say whether these policies apply to it. Applicants and reviewers should check with the program.

  • Knights Templar Eye Foundation

    The Knights Templar Eye Foundation's Career-Starter Grant guidelines include a section headed "Declaration of Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process." It asks for a statement on whether AI and AI-assisted technologies were used to prepare the grant, and in what capacity.

  • Landscape Architecture Foundation

    The LAF Honor Scholarship in Memory of Joe Lalli requires applicants to label any part of their work samples that AI generated. Applicants must also explain what role AI played.

  • Lower Manhattan Cultural Council

    The Creative Engagement program guidelines from the Lower Manhattan Cultural Council (LMCC) let applicants use generative AI when preparing grant applications. Everything submitted must be accurate and truthful, and nothing may be fabricated. Panelists may not put application materials into external generative AI tools. Whether AI was used, or seems to have been used, should have no bearing on a panelist's assessment.

  • Lundbeck Foundation

    The Lundbeck Foundation's LF Experiment 2026 call asks applicants who used AI in preparing an application to say how they used it. Examples given are conception, writing, summary, grammar, or figures. Applicants must also name the AI tools they used.

  • Maine Community Foundation

    Maine Community Foundation has set out how AI may be used in its scholarship applications. AI can help with learning a language, revising, or proofreading. It should not be used as a copy-and-paste shortcut. Applicants are encouraged to draw on their own thoughts for ideas and essays, written in their own voice.

  • Maryland State Arts Council

    The Maryland State Arts Council's Grants for Artists FY 2027 guidelines require applicants to say whether generative AI was used to develop, create, or refine any work sample. Samples made with AI support can be considered if the artist keeps primary creative control. Samples generated entirely by AI are not accepted.

  • Mass Cultural Council

    Mass Cultural Council sets AI rules program by program. In Grants for Creative Individuals, applicants may use AI programs to generate ideas and brainstorm for the narrative questions. Work samples created entirely by AI are ineligible. If AI was used as a tool in creating the work, the application must say so. The Andover Cultural Council requires applicants to disclose AI used to generate art, music, or other content or expression.

  • Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

    The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education sets AI rules by program. Applicants to the 21st Century Community Learning Centers grant may use AI to brainstorm and outline, but not to ghostwrite. They must disclose and cite any AI use. Applicants to the U.S. Senate Youth Program scholarship must affirm that they did not use AI to write their essays.

  • Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research

    The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research allows applicants to the Bridge Funding Program to use LLMs and other generative AI tools when preparing LOIs and full applications. Applicants are fully responsible for all content, including any parts an AI tool produced. Using these tools does not affect how an application is reviewed.

  • Mid Atlantic Arts

    The pages are the New Jersey Individual Artist Fellowships Rules and Instructions (2027 and 2026 editions), which Mid Atlantic Arts runs for the NJ State Arts Council. Works purely generated through AI are not eligible. Artists may use AI as part of a generative process if they keep creative control, and they must disclose the tool and how it was used. The pages give no AI guidance for panelists. These rules cover this one program, not the funder as a whole.

  • Milken Institute

    The Milken Institute hosts the Ann Theodore Foundation (ATF) Breakthrough Sarcoidosis Initiative RFP. ATF supports the ethical and responsible use of AI tools. Applicants are accountable for anything AI developed or edited. Applications are confidential, so neither ATF nor Milken's SPARC will use AI to analyze submissions.

  • National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine

    The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine have no single AI rule that covers all their fellowships and grants. The applicant guide for the NRC Research Associateship Programs (NRC RAP) and the Air Force Science and Technology Fellowship (AF STFP) says generative AI tools should be used to support an applicant's own voice, not replace it. Applicants who use them are expected to review and verify all AI-supported content for factual accuracy and relevance, and to avoid plagiarism and copyright infringement. The funder has published no AI guidance for Gulf Research Program applicants or for reviewers.

  • National Communication Association

    The National Communication Association has published an AI rule for its Communication Elevation Grant. Applicants who use generative AI in any application materials must include a one-paragraph Generative AI Acknowledgment. The statement must name the section, the nature of use, the platform, and the prompt.

  • National Court Reporters Association

    The NCRA CASE Student Scholarship requires that the ideas, analysis, and final written content of the essay come from the applicant. AI may not be used to generate or compose all or a substantial portion of the essay.

  • National Endowment for Democracy

    The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) sets rules on AI for its Hurford Youth Fellows and Reagan-Fascell Democracy Fellowship programs. Applicants may not copy and paste AI-generated answers wholesale into an application. Limited AI use for generating ideas, editorial guidance, and translation is allowed if it does not overly change an applicant's writing style or the content of the application.

  • National Geographic Society

    For the Slingshot Challenge, the National Geographic Society recommends that applicants avoid AI-generated content in video submissions. Examples are images, video, and script writing. A video selected for final consideration may lead to a request for information about where its content came from. That includes AI generators and common use websites.

  • National Parent Teacher Association

    The National Parent Teacher Association sets one rule on AI for the Reflections Arts Program. Entries may not be made only with generative tools such as AI. Entrants who use digital technology must describe the tools and methods, including any generative elements, in 10 to 50 words. Entrants should also check whether their state PTA prohibits AI.

  • National Radio Astronomy Observatory

    The National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) states in its observing Call for Proposals that, starting in semester 26A, proposers who use AI tools while preparing a proposal should tick the AI Usage checkbox. The checkbox is on the proposal's General page in the Proposal Submission Tool.

  • National Society Daughters of the American Revolution

    The National Society Daughters of the American Revolution (NSDAR) bans generative AI tools for writing any part of a DAR scholarship application. Essays and other written content must be the applicant's own original work. Applications may be checked with software that detects plagiarism or AI use.

  • National Trust for Historic Preservation

    The National Trust for Historic Preservation discourages heavy reliance on AI in applications to the Action Fund National Grant Program. Applicants who use AI should review its output and rework it to match how they would state the idea. The funder describes a funded project as one where AI was not relied on heavily to draft the application.

  • NEA Foundation

    The pages state an AI rule for one program only, the NEA Foundation Global Learning Fellowship (GLF 2027 Application FAQs). Applicants may use generative AI to brainstorm or organize ideas but must not copy and paste from AI apps into responses. The pages give no guidance for reviewers and no funder-wide rule.

  • Neuroendocrine Tumor Research Foundation

    NETRF's 2026 Mentored Research Award RFA permits applicants to use AI tools to help write or edit an application. The funder does not require applicants to disclose that use. Applicants are solely responsible for all content. Reviewers may not enter any part of a proposal into AI or LLM tools.

  • New England Foundation for the Arts

    For the 2026 National Dance Project (NDP) Production Grant, the New England Foundation for the Arts (NEFA) says generative AI tools can support various accessibility needs. NEFA also says it has a responsibility to share information for applicants who choose to use such tools. The application portal opens with an AI statement, and applicants are asked to read and acknowledge it.

  • New Hampshire Charitable Foundation

    For the Racial Justice Fund, the New Hampshire Charitable Foundation discourages the use of AI in the application. The foundation says it wants to hear about the applicant's work in the applicant's own voice.

  • New Mexico Economic Development Department

    Guidance on AI in applications differs by program. For the Healthy Food Financing Fund, AI may help organize or edit responses. Each answer must still be specific and accurate. Guidance for Creative Industries Division grants tells applicants to avoid unedited AI-generated responses in the narrative.

  • NIH Challenges

    NIH has published no single AI rule for its prize challenges. The rules of each challenge decide. Recent NIH challenges that address AI mostly allow generative AI when the participant discloses the tool and how it was used. At least one, the Complement-ARIE Reduction to Practice Challenge, says generative AI should not be used to write a submission. Applicants should read the rules of the specific challenge before entering.

  • North Carolina Department of Natural & Cultural Resources

    The State Library of North Carolina, part of the North Carolina Department of Natural & Cultural Resources (DNCR), runs the NC Compass Grant. Applicants must say whether and how they used generative AI. Using AI tools gives an application no advantage or disadvantage. Reviewers will not use generative AI for merit review.

  • Northwestern Medicine

    The Women's Board of Northwestern Medicine Lake Forest Hospital offers scholarships that require a personal statement. The statement should describe the applicant's experiences in the applicant's own words. Applicants are told not to submit AI-generated responses.

  • Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU)

    ORAU administers the NASA Postdoctoral Program (NPP). The program does not prohibit generative AI tools such as ChatGPT. It also does not prohibit professional human writers. Applicants must acknowledge content that is not their own creative product. Any proposal material not produced by the proposer must be cited. When AI is used, the citation gives the program name, version number, date and time, and a statement on how the AI was used. Missing citations for generative AI use may lead to denial of the application.

  • Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health

    OASH has published no AI rule of its own on using AI to write or review grant applications. The only guidance that reaches its applicants comes from the OASH Office of Research Integrity (ORI). ORI recommends that applicants identify any generative AI tools used in preparing a grant application and explain how they were used. The recommendation is nonbinding. It covers applications for PHS-funded biomedical or behavioral research only, and it does not cover OASH's service grants. Disclosed AI use that departs from accepted practice in the relevant research community may still be considered evidence of research misconduct.

  • Open Technology Fund

    The pages state an AI rule only for one program, the OTF Request for Proposals for the User Experience & Discovery Lab. Applicants to that RFP must disclose any AI use in preparing the submission, including how it was used and the main prompts. They must also provide their internal AI policies. The pages give no rules for reviewers and no funder-wide rule for applicants.

  • Oregon Humanities

    Oregon Humanities discourages the use of AI or LLM tools to draft proposals for the Community Storytelling Fellowship. The funder also does not publish nonfiction stories written by AI or with AI assistance.

  • Palestinian American Research Center

    PARC sets AI rules by program. The Fellowships for Palestinians require proposals to reflect the applicant's own intellectual work and to avoid substantial AI generation. Undisclosed AI use may discredit an application. The Tanya Baker-Asad Scholarship strongly discourages generative AI, with translation and grammar correction as the only exceptions.

  • Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art

    The Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art allows AI tools on its Early Career Fellowship application form. They may be used to support clarity or formatting. Applicants must make sure all content is original and accurately reflects their research and project.

  • Pennsylvania Society of Physician Associates

    The Pennsylvania Society of Physician Associates sets one AI-related requirement for the Thomas J Lemley Award for Health Disparities. The letter of submission must confirm that the work is original and was created by the primary author or co-authors. It must also confirm that the work was not ghost-written by anyone not named as an author and was not written using AI such as ChatGPT.

  • Petoskey-Harbor Springs Area Community Foundation

    The Petoskey-Harbor Springs Area Community Foundation expects scholarship applicants to submit original work. It discourages the use of AI tools to generate or substantially revise essay content. Its Scholarship Advisory Committee gives strong consideration to essays that are authentic, personal, and written in the applicant's own voice.

  • Pfizer Inc.

    Pfizer has no grant-wide rule on AI use. Some 2026 Pfizer competitive grant RFPs require applicants to disclose whether they used AI tools to prepare the application. Examples are a US ALK-positive lung cancer education RFP and a US PTCL research RFP. These RFPs say that failure to disclose may lead to disqualification. Most other 2026 Pfizer RFPs reviewed have no AI clause, so applicants should check the specific RFP they are answering.

  • Phycological Society of America

    The Phycological Society of America (PSA) offers a need-based membership grant, which provides free or discounted membership. Applicants may use generative AI to help draft materials or to improve grammar and spelling. Submissions must be original and must represent the applicant's own work. Any use of AI-generated content must be clearly disclosed.

  • Progress and Poverty Institute

    The 2026 Progress of Ideas Grant (Mason Gaffney Digital Collection) limits AI and translation tools to supportive functions. Applicants should not use them to generate full responses or to replace their own input. Applications that look heavily AI-generated may receive further review. The application asks whether and how applicants used AI.

  • PRSA Foundation

    The PRSA Foundation does not allow AI to be used for the PRSA Houston Scholarships application.

  • Research Corporation for Science Advancement

    The pages cover only the Team Science Accelerator program, not RCSA as a whole. Teams must submit an AI use statement with the Letter of Intent, and a plan for AI is a finalist selection criterion. The pages give no guidance on whether AI may write application text, and none for reviewers.

  • Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

    The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) has published no foundation-wide AI policy. At least one 2026 call, Local Data for Equitable Communities, says applicants may use generative AI tools. RWJF warns that AI-generated text can contain errors or read as generic and inauthentic. That could put an application at a disadvantage in review. RWJF asks applicants to check that the text reflects their local context and project. The FAQ for each specific call should be checked.

  • Roche

    Roche and Genentech have published no general rule on AI use in grant applications or peer review. One Roche India program, the LEAP 2.0 scholarship challenge for final-year oncology students, told applicants that AI-generated proposals are not allowed. It also said an AI detection tool would be used to spot them.

  • Royal Academy of Engineering

    The Royal Academy of Engineering's guidance for Enterprise Fellowships makes applicants fully responsible for their application. The application must reflect the applicant's own voice and ideas. Relying only on generative AI to write it is not acceptable. Applicants must acknowledge any generative AI use by naming the tool and describing how it was used.

  • Royal Society of Edinburgh

    The Enterprise Fellowship Scheme Regulations and Terms & Conditions (2026) say only that the RSE follows the Research Funders Policy Group's statement on generative AI tools in funding applications and assessment. The pages do not set out that statement or any specific rule on AI use or disclosure for applicants. They give no separate guidance for reviewers. Check the Research Funders Policy Group statement before advising faculty.

  • Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene

    The Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene sets rules on AI for the Presidents' Fund. Applicants may use AI tools only for limited, supportive tasks such as spelling, grammar, readability, and formatting. AI must not be used to generate substantive content or to draft, rewrite, or embellish descriptions of the proposed work or impact. It must not produce text that is not the applicant's own.

  • Save Our Seas Foundation

    The Save Our Seas Foundation requires Keystone Grant applications to be written by the applicant. Applicants may use tools that check their writing, such as Grammarly or DeepL. The foundation will not accept applications where generative tools such as ChatGPT created the text.

  • Scholarship America

    The New York Life Golden Futures Scholarship is sponsored by New York Life and administered by Scholarship America. Submissions must not use any AI or large language model.

  • Seattle Office of Arts and Culture

    The Seattle Office of Arts and Culture allows applicants to the Creative Advantage Arts Partner Roster to use AI when writing applications. Applicants stay responsible for accuracy. They must acknowledge any AI use for writing or editing. That acknowledgment is not considered in review and does not affect scoring.

  • Simons Foundation

    The pages state an AI rule for one program only: the Simons Collaborations in Ecology and Evolution 2027 Request for Applications. Applicants must say whether generative AI was used and how, at both the vision statement (LOI) stage and the full proposal stage. The pages give no guidance for reviewers and no funder-wide AI policy.

  • Sloan Foundation

    The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation has no formal policy on applicants using generative AI. The 2025 Metascience and AI Postdoctoral Fellowship call permits generative AI for preparing funding applications and advises caution. It names the UKRI policy as useful guidance. The foundation's general grant proposal guidelines do not mention AI.

  • Smithsonian Institution

    The Smithsonian Institution addresses AI in its Latino Museum Futures Internship. Applications should not rely on AI to generate answers or create portfolio materials. The program prefers personal reflection and demonstrated skills over academic jargon and perfect writing.

  • Society for Conservation Biology

    The Society for Conservation Biology gives Smith Fellows applicants a chance to disclose whether they used AI tools such as ChatGPT, Grammarly, or Claude, and how. Disclosures are not penalized and reviewers do not see them. Program staff may use AI tools for tasks such as summarizing reviewer feedback and matching proposals with reviewers. AI is not used to evaluate or score proposals.

  • Society for Developmental Biology

    The Society for Developmental Biology runs the John Doctor Education Prize, a short science communication video competition. The Society states that all content should be user generated. It does not allow the use of AI.

  • Society for the Teaching of Psychology (STP)

    The pages give an AI rule only for the STP Excellence in Teaching Awards. The cover sheet of the dossier must include a disclosure statement on how, if at all, generative AI was used. The pages have no AI guidance for reviewers, and no funder-wide rule for other STP grants or awards.

  • Society of Actuaries

    At least two current SOA Research Institute requests for proposals state that AI should not write the proposal. The proposal should be in the researcher's own words. Any use of AI in generating it should be fully disclosed. At least one SOA call for analysis also states that submissions must not materially rely on AI-generated content. Exceptions are AI use that is disclosed and AI use limited to editorial help.

  • Society of Children’s Book Writers and Illustrators

    SCBWI sets its AI rules event by event. The 2025 New England Spring Conference Post-Conference Writing Contest requires stories to be written entirely by the author, with no AI-generated content. The 2027 Winter Conference portfolio event for illustrators does not accept artwork created in any part with generative AI.

  • Society of Professional Journalists

    The SPJ/JEA High School Essay Contest is run by the Society of Professional Journalists with the Journalism Education Association. Each entry must be original and written by the student. The student may receive only minimal guidance from others, and AI tools count as others. An essay found to be written by AI, in whole or in part, is disqualified and removed from consideration.

  • South Arts

    South Arts requires applicants to the Southern Prize for Literature to disclose any use of generative AI in the application, and to state its purpose. Using generative AI does not relax the rule that the submitted work must be original. It must also be the sole intellectual and creative property of the author.

  • Southeastern Brain Tumor Foundation

    The Southeastern Brain Tumor Foundation strictly prohibits AI tools for the Voice of Hope (VOH) Scholarship. The ban covers ChatGPT, Grammarly AI, and other text-generating software. The foundation runs AI detection software. Applications that break the policy are disqualified without notice. Spell-check and grammar tools that do not create content are allowed.

  • Space Telescope Science Institute

    The AI rules for applicants that STScI has published appear in the JWST Cycle 5 call for proposals. Proposers may use generative AI tools. Any material derived from them must be described and cited, and failure to disclose their use results in disqualification. Some uses, such as producing hallucinated references, are not acceptable. JWST reviewers may not use generative AI tools for any part of their reviews.

  • State of Alaska

    The Alaska Department of Health has issued AI guidance for Fall 2026 applications to the Rural Health Transformation Program (RHTP). Applicants are encouraged to write their responses from their own knowledge and experience, not from AI-generated language. Applicants who use AI tools to draft or edit should check each response carefully. It must accurately reflect their organization.

  • State of Mississippi

    The Mississippi Arts Commission (MAC) sets AI rules for its Artist Roster application. A human applicant must develop, review, and enter all application data. Creative work must reflect human authorship. Applicants must certify whether generative AI was used and explain how it was used. Undisclosed use makes the application ineligible. If generative AI was used in artwork, the human-authored draft and the final work must be uploaded together as one work sample.

  • State of North Carolina

    The State Library of North Carolina's NC Compass Grant asks applicants to state in the application whether generative AI was used to develop it, to what extent, and how. The answer has no effect on how the application is judged. Reviewers will not use generative AI in merit review.

  • State of North Dakota

    The North Dakota Department of Public Instruction publishes an application addendum for the United States Senate Youth Program (USSYP) scholarship. It requires applicants to certify that every written component is their own original work. The certification also states that no part of the writing was generated with artificial intelligence tools or services, in whole or in part.

  • State of Ohio

    The Ohio Arts Council (OAC) is a State of Ohio agency. It allows grant applicants to use AI when writing or editing proposal text. The content must be accurate and must reflect the applicant's own work and intent. Applicants are asked to disclose any third-party AI used in an application or its attachments. OAC's policy also says AI content cannot be the sole or determinative basis for any grant eligibility, scoring, or award recommendation.

  • State of South Dakota

    AI rules differ from one agency to the next. The South Dakota Department of Transportation (SDDOT) requires each research proposal to explain how AI tools were used to prepare it. The proposal must also explain how AI is expected to be used in the research itself.

  • Sturgis Area Community Foundation

    The Sturgis Area Community Foundation requires scholarship applicants to write their own original essays. They may not use artificial intelligence (AI) programs to help. An applicant suspected or found to have used AI on the essay is removed from consideration.

  • Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Admin

    SAMHSA has published no AI rule of its own on using AI to write or review grant applications. The only guidance that reaches its applicants comes from the HHS Office of Research Integrity (ORI). ORI recommends that researchers identify any generative AI tools used in preparing a grant application and explain how they were used. The guidance is nonbinding. It covers applications for Public Health Service (PHS) funding for biomedical or behavioral research only. AI use that is disclosed but departs from the accepted practices of the research community may still be considered evidence of research misconduct. Most SAMHSA grants are service programs, which the guidance does not cover. Each NOFO should be checked for added rules.

  • Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Adminis

    SAMHSA has published no AI rule of its own on using AI to write or review grant applications. The only guidance that reaches its applicants comes from the HHS Office of Research Integrity (ORI). ORI recommends that applicants identify any generative AI tools used in preparing a grant application and explain how they were used. This guidance is a nonbinding recommendation. It covers applications for Public Health Service (PHS) funding for biomedical or behavioral research only. Disclosed AI use that departs from accepted practice in the relevant research community may still be considered evidence of research misconduct. Most SAMHSA grants are service programs, which the guidance does not cover. Each NOFO should be checked for added rules.

  • Sundance Institute

    Sundance Institute sets AI rules program by program. The 2027 Development Track asks applicants to describe how and to what extent they used generative AI in the application or in any submission materials. The same question covers any plan to use generative AI to realize part of the film's story or artistic vision. The Sundance Collab x TikTok Micro-Series Challenge does not allow generative AI to create, develop, or revise submissions.

  • The Academy of Korean Studies

    The Academy of Korean Studies holds a 2026 contest for Korea-related teaching and learning materials. Entries in the Visual Educational Content category may be made with various digital tools, including generative AI.

  • The Gerber Foundation

    The Gerber Foundation allows scholarship applicants to use AI tools when writing personal statements, but only as an assistant and never as the author. The foundation states that it does not use AI or automated screening algorithms to review, sort, or evaluate scholarship applications. It describes its review and selection process as fair, holistic, and entirely human.

  • The Honor Society of Phi Kappa Phi

    The only AI statement is on the Fellowship Resources page, and it covers the Phi Kappa Phi Fellowship only. It says all Fellowship applications will be subjected to AI screening. The page does not say whether applicants may use AI to prepare an application, and it gives no guidance for reviewers.

  • The John A. Hartford Foundation

    The call for proposals for the New Partners Program, run by The John A. Hartford Foundation, includes an artificial intelligence use acknowledgment in its list of required proposal appendices.

  • The Mark Foundation for Cancer Research

    The EACR-Mark Foundation Postdoctoral Fellowships are run by the European Association for Cancer Research (EACR). Applicants should disclose any use of AI in preparing an application. Simple translation or grammar checks are the only exception. The disclosure should name each AI tool and give the exact prompts. It should also say whether AI influenced key arguments, and how the applicant verified the AI output. The disclosure does not affect assessment.

  • The Philadelphia Foundation

    The Philadelphia Foundation has addressed AI tools for scholarship applications in an answer to the question of whether they may be used. Its answer does not say yes or no. It says that everything applicants submit, including essays and short answers, must be truthful and written from their own unique perspective.

  • The Robert H. N. Ho Family Foundation Global

    The funder's AI rules apply to competitions that ACLS runs with the Robert H. N. Ho Family Foundation. In the Early Career competition in Buddhist Studies, applicants may use AI tools such as Claude or ChatGPT to write an application. Applicants must make sure the content is factual and the sources are properly sourced. Applicants are encouraged to say where and how they used AI. In the Global Buddhism Series, authors must disclose AI use in their manuscript under Yale University Press guidelines.

  • U.S. Mission to Kazakhstan

    The U.S. Mission to Kazakhstan bars TechGirls Program candidates from using any AI tool, including ChatGPT, for their written responses. The review panel reserves the right to end the candidacy of anyone found to have used AI tools in the application process.

  • U.S. Mission to Kenya

    The plagiarism agreement in the Fulbright Foreign Language Teaching Assistant (FLTA) application says some US host institutions may scan applications for AI-generated language. It also says that pasting generative AI content directly into an application may hurt admission or affiliation decisions.

  • United Negro College Fund

    UNCF's general official contest rules require contestants to warrant that the materials and information they submit are created solely by them. The materials may not be created by AI or include contributions from AI. UNCF may deem ineligible any submitted material created by AI.

  • University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (CPAESS)

    The UCAR Next Generation Fellowship allows applicants to use AI tools for two things: brainstorming ideas for the personal statement or essays, and improving the grammar, spelling, or clarity of their writing. Applicants should not submit content generated entirely by AI as their own without meaningful revision. The program team may run application materials through AI detection tools.

  • University of Colorado Boulder

    The Natural Hazards Center at CU Boulder has a generative AI policy. It applies to any author who submits a research proposal, report, article, award application, or other work to the Center. That includes applicants to its Research Award Programs. The policy says generative AI tools should never be used to create data, original scholarly writing, or other related outputs. Authors who used generative AI at any point in their research or writing should disclose each use in the body of the submission and in an author note. A submission that does not follow the disclosure policy is returned to the author without review.

  • Utah Division of Arts & Museums

    The pages state AI rules for three named programs only, not for the funder as a whole: the FY27 Individual Artist Advancement Grant, the Utah Artist Fellowships and the Statewide Annual Exhibition. In each, AI assistance in submitted artwork must be acknowledged in the medium description, and skipping this can lead to disqualification. The Fellowship also requires literary work samples to be original and not AI-assisted. The pages give no guidance for reviewers.

  • Ventura County Community Foundation

    VCCF permits AI tools in scholarship applications only for checking spelling, grammar, and clarity. The ideas and examples in essays must be the applicant's own. VCCF may deny an application if it suspects AI was used in an essay.

  • VentureWell

    VentureWell allows E-Team Program applicants to use AI tools while preparing an application. The ideas, evidence, and plan must belong to the team, and applicants must tell VentureWell how they used AI. An application that AI largely wrote may not be submitted, even if the team edits it afterward. Reviewers may not enter applications into AI tools or use AI to score, rank, or summarize them. VentureWell does not use AI detection software to judge applications.

  • W. M. Keck Foundation

    The W. M. Keck Foundation's Research Program application includes a question on generative AI. If applicable, applicants describe how they used it to prepare the proposal, in up to 300 characters. Applications are not evaluated on this answer. The foundation may use AI tools to analyze proposals and generate summaries. Its staff, reviewers, and consultants are prohibited from sharing applicant data with AI tools that train on it.

  • Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges

    The rules differ by grant program. Under the Job Skills Program, colleges may use AI for clarity, organization, and editing. They are discouraged, but not prohibited, from using it to generate substantive content. All facts and data must be human-verified. SBCTC will not use AI to score applications. The Hospital Employee Education and Training (HEET) program asks applicants to describe how much generative AI was used to develop and write the proposal.

  • Wyoming Department of Education

    The Wyoming Department of Education allows generative AI in the Wyoming Teacher of the Year application for polishing grammar, tightening formatting, and structuring an outline. All applicants must honestly disclose how much AI they used. The department says AI can help with the mechanics of writing, but the application itself should not come from AI.

  • Yampa Valley Community Foundation

    Yampa Valley Community Foundation allows AI use in the Community Grant Cycle. It requires a person to oversee the work and confirm that all content is accurate. The foundation encourages applicants to disclose any AI tool use at any stage, so reviewers do not have to guess.

Reviewer rules only28

The funder has rules for reviewers and has published none for applicants.

  • Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health

    The pages describe how ARPA-H itself may use AI in reviewing proposals, including a pilot in the IGoR program. They give no rule for applicants on using AI to prepare a proposal. Applicants should check the ISO for the program, such as ARPA-H-SOL-26-155 for IGoR, since the pages say AI use in review is disclosed there.

  • American Federation for Aging Research

    AFAR has published no rule on whether applicants may use AI to write applications. Its 2027 letter of intent instructions for the Junior Faculty and Sagol Network GerOmic awards cover AFAR's own use of AI. AFAR may use outside service providers, including AI-assisted software, for administrative processing of applications. Application materials are not used to train AI models. AFAR staff and reviewers make all eligibility and funding decisions.

  • AstraZeneca United States

    AstraZeneca US uses generative AI for the initial screening of grant applications to its Medical Education Grants Office. The funder has published no guidance on applicants' own use of AI.

  • Department of Justice

    The Department of Justice's Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) bans the use of AI to review applications. Peer reviewers may not upload any part of an application into an AI platform or a large language model such as ChatGPT.

  • Dept. of the Army -- USAMRAA

    The funder has published no rule on how applicants may use AI for USAMRAA-managed funding. This includes CDMRP announcements, which are now issued by the Defense Health Agency Contracting Activity. For CDMRP peer review, a September 2026 Defense Health Agency contract document addresses reviewer use of AI. The document is a draft statement of work for the peer review contractor. It bars reviewers from using generative AI to evaluate applications. It also bars them from sending application content to AI tools without government approval.

  • Focused Ultrasound Foundation

    The Focused Ultrasound Foundation's applicant guide says the Foundation may enter application materials into generative AI systems it has approved. In those systems, a service agreement with the provider protects the data, and the model is not trained on it. The Foundation also offers an optional AI tool that gives notes on a letter of intent. The tool's notes are not a review, score, or funding decision.

  • Foundation for Cancer Research in Italy

    AIRC bars reviewers from uploading any part of an application or its materials to online software that does not ensure data confidentiality. The ban covers generative AI tools built on large language models, such as ChatGPT.

  • Foundation for Food & Agriculture Research (FFAR)

    FFAR's Policy on Prohibiting Artificial Intelligence Tools in Peer Review bars peer reviewers from using AI in any part of review. The page gives no guidance for applicants on using AI to prepare an application. Do not infer an applicant rule from this page.

  • Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research

    FFAR bans the use of AI tools anywhere in its peer review process. Reviewers may not put proposal materials into AI tools. They may not use AI to draft or refine critiques. They may not base scoring, ranking, or funding recommendations on AI-generated analyses or summaries.

  • Foundation for Prader-Willi Research

    The advocate reviewer guidelines of the Foundation for Prader-Willi Research ban the use of AI, large language models, or similar tools, including ChatGPT, to help with proposal reviews. The quoted guideline gives the purpose as protecting the integrity and confidentiality of the review.

  • Great Lakes Fishery Commission

    The Great Lakes Fishery Commission has stated its position on AI in peer review of research proposals. Reviewers cannot and should not use AI, large language models, or other generative AI technologies. The commission says this would breach confidentiality. The commission has published no guidance for applicants.

  • Independent Social Research Foundation

    The ISRF pages give AI rules for its selection process only. The Assessment Procedure page and the Early Career Fellowship (ECF9) page say ISRF will not use Generative AI to select proposals, and that external assessors must not use it. The pages say nothing about whether applicants may use AI to prepare an application, and give no disclosure rule.

  • Institute of Museum and Library Services

    IMLS bars its peer reviewers from using AI tools to analyze or critique grant applications. Users of generative AI tools cannot control where submitted information is sent, saved, viewed, or used later. IMLS has published no guidance on applicants using AI to write applications.

  • John Templeton Foundation

    The John Templeton Foundation has published no rule on whether applicants may use AI to write proposals. Its privacy policy says it may process applicants' personal information with automated technologies, including AI, for several purposes. These include reviewing and evaluating funding applications. The policy also says it may use that information to train those tools. It states that the foundation does not make significant decisions based solely on automated processing.

  • LEO Foundation

    The LEO Foundation states that it does not currently use AI, machine learning, or algorithmic decision-making in any part of its application handling. People assess all grant applications. The funder has published no guidance for applicants on AI.

  • MacArthur Foundation

    MacArthur has published no rule on whether applicants may use AI to write proposals. Its AI policy for staff bars the use of AI for grantmaking decisions or evaluation. Staff also may not enter confidential, proprietary, personal, or sensitive information into AI tools, except as the policy permits. During due diligence, staff may use AI tools to gather public information. They then review and verify what they find.

  • Massachusetts Clean Energy Center

    MassCEC bans generative AI in external review of its Tech-to-Market (T2M) grant proposals. Reviewers may not upload proposals to an AI tool or use AI to summarize proposals. The funder has published no guidance on AI for applicants.

  • Military Health System Research Program

    The Military Health System Research Program has published no rule on how applicants may use AI for research programs managed by CDMRP. For CDMRP peer review, a September 2026 Defense Health Agency contract document, a draft statement of work for the peer review contractor, bars reviewers from using generative AI to evaluate applications. It also bars them from sending application content to AI tools without government approval.

  • National Institute of Food and Agriculture

    NIFA prohibits generative AI tools during the evaluation of grant applications. The stated purpose is to protect the integrity of its peer review process. The funder has published no guidance on applicants using AI to write applications. Its application guide and current funding notices do not address the topic.

  • New Mexico Department of Finance and Administration

    For the Capital Development Program Fund, the Department may screen submitted applications with AI at its discretion. The screening flags responses that could make an application ineligible. Personal identifying information is removed or redacted first. The funder has published no rule for applicants on their own use of AI.

  • Rainwater Charitable Foundation

    For the Learning Research Network (LRN) program, Rainwater Charitable Foundation says it may use secure AI-assisted tools. The tools may organize and analyze applications and support their scientific review. Any AI-generated analysis is advisory. Human reviewers make the final funding decisions. The funder has published no rule for applicants.

  • Research Council of Norway

    The Research Council of Norway bars referees from using artificial intelligence, such as ChatGPT, when assessing applications. The funder has published no guidance for applicants.

  • Research Ireland

    The Research Ireland Review Process page sets a rule for reviewers only. Reviewers may not use any generative AI tools in reviewing grant applications. The pages give no guidance for applicants on using AI in an application.

  • Schmidt Sciences

    Schmidt Sciences has published no rules on whether applicants may use AI to prepare proposals. Its AI Use and Guidance statement covers how the funder and its reviewers handle submissions. Neither will upload confidential proposals to public AI tools that may retain them or train on them. Schmidt Sciences may use enterprise-grade, privacy-preserving AI tools to help administer and evaluate proposals.

  • The Branco Weiss Fellowship – Society in Science

    The Branco Weiss Fellowship, Society in Science, bans reviewers from using generative AI models to analyse proposals or write reviews. Reviewers also may not enter information from documents provided for review into these models. The cited guidelines set no rule for applicants.

  • The Rockefeller Foundation

    The Rockefeller Foundation uses AI tools in reviewing applications to the Cities Deliver: AI Solutions for Public Services call. Some information from applications and interviews is given to these tools to summarize and help review it. The tools assist human reviewers. They do not replace human judgment.

  • Tiny Blue Dot Foundation

    The privacy policy of Tiny Blue Dot Foundation says the foundation may use automated systems, including AI and machine learning tools, to help intake, triage, evaluate, process, and report on grant applications. The policy sets no rules for how applicants use AI in their own submissions.

  • Wellcome Leap

    Applicants to Wellcome Leap agree, by applying, that the funder may use third-party AI systems to help process, summarize, or assess proposal materials. Wellcome Leap may use the results in its evaluation processes. The funder sets no rules for applicants' own use of AI.

This page summarizes what each funder has published and is not legal advice. Policies change, and one solicitation can add its own rules. Confirm against the funding announcement before you apply.

See FundFit match these funders' programs to your researchers.

Request a demo

Or browse every funder in the directory →