The National Institutes of Health has recently implemented several changes to how it awards and oversees research grants.
Seven things to know:
1. On Nov. 18, the NIH said all award notices will now include language stating grants can be terminated “if the agency determines that the award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities.” The change retroactively applies to all grants issued on or after Oct. 1.
2. Jenna Norton, PhD, MPH, an NIH program officer placed on administrative leave in November, said in a recent Instagram post that the update reduces legal risks for the agency to terminate grants, MedPage Today reported.
3. Dr. Norton also warned the provision could increase uncertainty for researchers and complicate clinical trial efforts.
“How can you ethically recruit somebody into a clinical trial if you can’t be sure the administration won’t change its mind on its priorities and terminate your study mid-stream?” she said.
4. On Nov. 21, the NIH shared an updated framework for how it will make grant decisions. The agency said it will use a more holistic review process instead of relying on paylines, which are simple score thresholds that about half of NIH’s institutes or centers previously used to determine which grant applications were likely to be funded.
5. New factors in funding decisions include the researcher’s career stage, geography, institutional research priorities and how much NIH support an investigator already receives.
“This framework … will help ensure we continue to support the most scientifically meritorious research ideas possible, address health priorities and support a robust biomedical workforce,” NIH said.
6. The updated framework follows an executive order issued by President Donald Trump in August, which clarified that paylines and peer review scores are advisory and gave senior political appointees a formal role in reviewing grant awards.
7. While the NIH said the new framework aims to provide clearer, more consistent funding decisions, several former NIH employees have raised concerns that political considerations could outweigh scientific merit, according to MedPage Today.
