NIH proposal to hide grant scores sparks backlash from researchers
The NIH is considering a rule that would stop revealing impact scores on grant applications, instead placing proposals into three broad categories, prompting criticism from scientists and research groups.
The National Institutes of Health is evaluating a revision to its grant review process that would conceal the numeric impact scores currently provided to applicants. Instead, proposals would be sorted into three buckets: “most competitive” (top 25 percent), “competitive” (next 25 percent), and “not discussed” (bottom 50 percent), the latter indicating no extended reviewer discussion. While written critiques and criterion scores would still be issued, the lack of a precise score is seen by many scientists as a step back for transparency and accountability.
Joshua Weitz, a biology professor at the University of Maryland, and organizations such as the North American Vascular Biology Organization and the Global Health Technologies Coalition have voiced concerns that the move could blur the basis for funding decisions and increase political influence. The proposal is part of broader attempts by the Trump administration to reshape NIH grant allocations, following a previously halted plan to let political appointees decide awards. The comment window, opened in August, closes today.
Why it matters
Concealing grant scores could limit researchers' insight into funding decisions and weaken oversight of federal science spending.
In this story
