r/NIH

Under “binning” proposal, applications’ numerical ratings would no longer be used for final funding decisions

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) rejects more SBIR and STTR projects because of foreign risk.

The Small Business Innovation and Economic Security Act of 2026 requires federal agencies to explain foreign risk decisions. However, many rejection letters do not give specific reasons for the decision.

We collect information to measure this problem. We want to evaluate options for action, such as:
Contact Congress.

Start legal action under the Administrative Procedure Act.

How you can help

Did you receive a rejection letter? Write a comment below or send a message if the NIH rejected your project for foreign risk this year.

Did the letter explain the reason? Tell us if the NIH gave a clear reason or a general statement.

Share this post: Send this post to other companies and researchers in your network.

Write a comment below or send a direct message.

The Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC), a group of federal and public members, advises the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) about federal activities related to research on autism spectrum disorder and behavioral interventions. Now, RFK Jr. is using his position as the HHS Secretary to push forward dangerous and unproven theories on autism.

I have a quick question. I emailed my program officers about three weeks ago with one reminder email in between. I understand that they are very busy given the current funding climate. The grant was score well. What else can I do in this situation?

On Friday, a Request for Information was published to gather feedback from the external community about proposed changes to the reporting of peer review outcomes. You can find the proposed changes here: https://rfi.grants.nih.gov/?s=6a2b1c22c3fcfda46e0badd2; comments may be submitted at the same site.

 

In brief, NIH proposes to report peer review outcomes as falling into one of three categories, determined by overall impact score: Most Competitive, Competitive, Not Discussed. NIH will be publicizing the RFI through multiple channels but I’d like to make you aware of it and NIH would appreciate it if you shared it with your network. Comments must be received by Oct 13.

 

I started my position last year, so I’m still pretty new to all of this and not sure what to expect after getting scores (though maybe nobody really knows these days).

I submitted two R21s in February, one as PI and one as co-I. They came back at the 7th and 8th percentiles, respectively. From what I’ve read, in a normal funding year both would probably have been in pretty good shape, but with the current funding situation, I’m wondering how much it now comes down to programmatic fit/priorities.

I’m still waiting for the summary statements before reaching out to the POs, but I’m not really sure what I should be asking them. For those of you who have been through this before, what do you usually discuss with your PO after getting a score? Maybe ask about programmatic fit? Is there anything I can do at this stage to advocate for my application or make sure the PO has the information they need?

Also, has anyone recently had an R21 funded (or not funded) with scores around the 7th–8th percentile? Would love to hear about your experience.

To clarify, are there any major differences in the day to day work? Different systems that the NIH requires? I'm curious about your experience if you've worked on these types of studies before.

Agency will no longer allow K career awards to fund clinical trials

Basically ICE can do whatever they want with full-on Balaclava MASKS.

But Bethesda area grocery store clerks trying to protect customers and themselves as we head into Fall cold/flu season by wearing an N95 mask need total medical documentation or will be fired.

thoughts on this direction?

For those just passing through here - the idea of Councils is every dollar NIH spends has to be made public and with a chance for independent outside review (that halcyon transparency you may remember from the before times).

To be fair Council members, experts of high standing scientifically, historically went with the flow but that was because funding was based on science, merit, SCORES.

But this is a new age time to put up or shut-up. I would love to see some activism. But will we?

Here's the RFI released today: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-26-088.html

NIH proposes to only report score categories from peer review rather than impact scores or percentiles. In their own words:

>The first-level peer review process is proposed to be modified to place an application in one of three overall impact categories: 

>"Most competitive" (based on the top 25% of final overall impact scores),
"Competitive" (based on the 26-50% of final overall impact scores), or
"Not discussed" (scores >50%, or ND)

>With the exception of the reporting of final overall impact scores and percentiles, all other initial review group procedures would be retained. As happens currently, all voting members of a peer review group would continue to enter individual overall impact scores for each application discussed. A final overall impact score would still be calculated for each discussed application for purposes of assigning the application to the appropriate category. The category assigned would be communicated to the principal investigator(s), applicant institution, NIH program staff, ICO leadership, and the relevant NIH Advisory Council. However, the final overall impact score or percentile on which the categorization was based would not be released to any of these parties.