The White House appears to be backing away from a plan to give political appointees greater control over which National Institutes of Health grants receive funding, after bipartisan congressional pushback — but the administration has not abandoned the idea of changing how NIH research dollars are awarded.
Any new layer of political review could affect which diseases and populations receive research attention, which studies move into clinical trials and, ultimately, which treatments and prevention strategies reach patients. Reporters covering research institutions, hospitals and public health should identify NIH-funded projects in their communities and determine whether they could be delayed, rejected or subjected to additional scrutiny.
NIH funding supports research into cancer, heart disease, infectious diseases, obesity, mental health and virtually every other area of medicine. Changes to how grants are selected could affect which questions researchers are able to study, which populations are included in research and how quickly new findings make their way into clinical practice.
The administration has argued that NIH has funded research that conflicts with its priorities and has sought greater control over federal grantmaking. The reported proposal would add another layer of review to a system traditionally built around scientific peer review and expert assessment of research proposals.
For months, physician and medical organizations have raised concerns about that shift. In July, the American Medical Association (AMA) told the Office of Management and Budget that federal grants should retain rigorous, merit-based review and warned that political review could allow otherwise meritorious research to be rejected based on its topic, the populations it studies or how the work is characterized. The AMA also specifically raised concerns about protecting research that examines whether treatments and interventions work for different patient populations.
The Obesity Society, which represents researchers and clinicians working in a field affecting more than 100 million U.S. adults, said in a public statement it, “strongly opposes any effort to inject political ideology into decisions about which scientific research receives federal funding.” The society said research funding decisions should be based on “scientific merit, rigorous peer review and qualified expertise,” and warned that political review could delay research into obesity and related diseases.
What to watch
Follow the money. Which grants are delayed, rescinded, terminated or subjected to additional review? Look beyond the dollar amount and identify what the research was designed to accomplish.
Track the pipeline. A canceled grant can mean more than a researcher losing funding. Ask whether clinical trials are being stopped, laboratories are laying off staff or early-career scientists are abandoning research careers.
Look at what topics are affected. Examine whether grants involving particular diseases, populations, methods or areas of public health are disproportionately affected. Compare funded and rejected applications when records are available.
Watch Congress and the courts. Congress has already moved to block a similar OMB proposal from taking effect through a provision in the FY2027 continuing resolution. Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins warned Sept. 22 that the proposed executive order could undermine NIH’s merit-review process.
Most importantly, localize the story. Ask researchers at universities and medical centers in your state which NIH grants are pending, delayed or at risk. Then follow those projects into the communities they are intended to serve.
The most consequential effects may not appear as a single canceled grant. They may emerge months or years later as a clinical trial that never launches, a promising treatment that takes longer to develop, a disease that receives less research attention or a generation of researchers who decide there is too much uncertainty to stay in the field.
