While we may have hoped for a quiet August at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), recent weeks have brought a highly promoted ‘new unified strategy,’ several concerning requests for information (RFIs), and continued rumors about NIH changes to funding for policy related research. FABBS will be responding to these RFIs and would value your input. Please join us during our office hour on September 18 (register here).
Unified Funding Strategy Webinar
Last week, representatives from the Office of the Director and leaders at several NIH institutes and centers (ICs) came together to present how the agency’s new ‘unified funding strategy’ would be implemented at their specific ICs. The following NIH leadership spoke at the webinar:
- Dr. Matthew Memoli, NIH Principal Deputy Director
- Dr. Jon Lorsch, NIH Deputy Director for Extramural Research
- Dr. Ray Jacobson, Director, NIH Center for Scientific Review (CSR)
- Dr. Bruce Tromberg, Director, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB)
- Dr. Nora Volkow, Director, National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
- Dr. Karl Malik, Director, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)
NIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya was, notably, not among the speakers. Until now, ICs have varied in their approaches to grant funding decisions. About half of ICs have relied primarily on paylines – essentially, threshold peer review scores or percentiles – to make funding decisions. The remaining ICs have, in addition to peer review recommendations, consistently considered factors such as agency priorities and how much funding a research topic has already received, with flexibility in the decision-making process (see FABBS reporting).
During the webinar, NIH leaders explained other factors that will now be considered alongside peer review, rather than the payline approach. This includes relevance to the portfolio, researcher career stage (with a goal to uplift early-career scientists), geographic balance, researcher grant record, and funds available. Similar to previous grantmaking policies, IC directors have final discretion over funding decisions. According to NIH colleagues, ICs have always read summary statements and considered multiple factors in addition to the score.
NIH leaders repeatedly commented on the continued importance of peer reviewers and the expert community, which directly contradicts a recent RFI that proposes changes to the peer review process, potentially weakening its role in funding decisions (see more below). These changes come on the heels of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) proposed uniform guidance (see FABBS reporting), which included a final political review of all grants, raising skepticism and confusion across the broad health research community.
Current RFIs
Proposed Changes to Reporting Outcomes from NIH Peer Review (Due October 13)
In this RFI, NIH is proposing reducing the level of transparency provided to researchers about their grant’s score. Oddly, this was not mentioned during the recent webinar. Currently, after the peer review process, applicants can see their overall numerical score and written feedback. NIH is now planning to show only whether an application ranked in the top 25 percent, between 25-50 percent, or in the bottom 50 percent. This dramatic reduction in transparency is leading to serious concerns about potential bias and political interference during the process, reducing trust in NIH, all while rebuilding trust is a stated goal of Director Bhattacharya.
Potential NIH Funding Approaches to Support the Development of Future Clinical Trial Investigations (Due September 30)
According to this RFI, beginning in June 2027, NIH’s mentored career development “K awards” will no longer fund clinical trials. The K awards have historically supported early-career researchers through research activities, including running clinical trials with a mentor. This RFI seeks input on potential funding models that would allow recipients of mentored K awards to run clinical trials while being funded through other means. However, it is unclear whether this RFI will result in alternative funding measures before the K award changes take effect, putting at risk the opportunity for early career researchers to gain critical clinical trial training.
Measuring and Rewarding Scientific Impact (Due August 19)
See FABBS comments here.
Policy-Related Research
In recent weeks, Dr. Bhattacharya has spoken at several conferences announcing that policymakers are no longer considered key stakeholders for NIH research and the agency will not fund research intended to inform policy. According to researchers in these audiences, Dr. Bhattacharya struggled to provide a clear explanation for or any details about the change. Some NIH program officers are working with grantees to adjust proposals to avoid rejection. NIH colleagues have also reported that even grant applications with the word “policy” have been flagged.
No official announcement has been made, so FABBS is actively trying to understand the justification and the specifics of this policy’s implementation. On the face of it, the policy is not just troubling, but downright bizarre. Since NIH is funded by taxpayer dollars, with significant input and oversight by Congress, its research findings should, surely, inform policy and federal practice to improve health outcomes. It is hard not to see this new approach as another attempt to politicize federal grantmaking.
