NSF is good, but NIH is king in terms of research grants: check out
http://grants.nih.gov
while there are always exceptions, most grants from nih/nsf, etc. fund worthwhile and important projects (ie. the new HPV vaccine Gardasil was invented by a scientist at SUNY Rochester under an NIH grant)
then again, i'm admittedly biased (i do biomedical research for a living....and yes i have an NIH grant....studying antibiotic resistance...)
I absolutely agree with this. In fact, many, many excellent projects are
not getting funded because of NIH budget cuts. What's the funding rate now, like 5-10% of applicants?
I would suggest to the OP to check out the CRISP database if he/she wants to get specific details on funding from the NIH and related institutions (sorry, no NSF grants here, I don't think). You can search by institution, investigator, etc.
CRISP.
Also, as a note to the OP, I wouldn't consider grants to be "donations." For one, grant applicants undergo a very rigorous review process and have to show considerable evidence that their ideas are significant, important, and well-thought-out, and have to demonstrate that they already have preliminary evidence that their proposal is on to something. More importantly, these grants represent a critical investment by the federal government into the expansion of our knowledge base--and an important aspect of the development of scientific, medical, and technological advancements.
Countless life-altering and life-saving innovations are the product of the federal government's funding of grants to scientists, esp. since World War II. While the system isn't perfect, it's quite good, and it represents one of the most positive things the government does for society.