The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has currently halted the review of new grant applications, which has resulted in a delay in determining how to allocate millions of dollars for research on a variety of diseases including heart disease, cancer, Alzheimer’s, and allergies. This delay is attributed to a decision by the Trump administration to prevent the NIH from publishing new notices in the Federal Register, an action that is typically required before many federal meetings can occur.
Due to this restriction, the NIH has had to cancel meetings where thousands of grant applications were to be reviewed, according to sources familiar with the situation. As a result, approximately 16,000 grant applications have been affected, which were competing for roughly $1.5 billion in funding. NIH officials are eager to have the freeze on Federal Register notices lifted to prevent significant disruptions in funding. The NIH, with an annual budget nearing $48 billion, is the largest public supporter of biomedical research globally.
The NIH’s process for reviewing grant applications is comprehensive, involving around 2,600 meetings annually with the participation of about 28,000 scientists, doctors, and experts. These reviews are crucial for ensuring continued funding to over 300,000 researchers across more than 2,500 institutions. However, with the current freeze, applications are essentially stalled, leading to concerns and frustration among committee members, including those involved in vital sessions known as “study sections.”
Annika Barber, an assistant professor at Rutgers University, highlighted the issue during a briefing, expressing discontent over the halt in feedback on critical biomedical research. In contrast, some observers believe that a temporary pause to review grant processes is typical for a new administration. Judge Glock, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, stated that such pauses are a customary component of administrative transitions.
Following President Trump’s inauguration, a broader federal grant freeze was temporarily blocked by a federal judge. Some researchers speculate that the NIH’s Federal Register freeze might be an attempt to bypass that court ruling, though other analysts, including Glock, disagree with this view. They argue that a temporary halt for review purposes is standard and not a deliberate attempt to circumvent legal decisions.
There are calls for reform in the NIH’s grant-making process, emphasizing the need for more transparency. Critics of the current administrative approach suggest that rather than dismantling the existing system, improvements should be made to enhance its effectiveness. The NIH and the Department of Health and Human Services did not immediately provide responses to requests for comments regarding the freeze.
This development comes amid broader concerns about funding and potential restructuring at the NIH, with fears among scientists about the future implications of these administrative moves. Additionally, the Trump administration’s efforts to cap indirect costs for medical research have sparked concerns about potential negative impacts on scientific progress. There is ongoing judicial review over these cost caps, which could significantly affect medical research funding.
Further apprehension arises from proposals advocating significant changes to the NIH’s funding structure, including redirecting substantial portions of its budget directly to states via block grants. These discussions have heightened anxiety about the prospect of a substantial overhaul of the NIH’s operational framework.