NIH to stop sharing research grant scores
The US health agency is seeking responses to a new system with broad categories on the final day of its consultation.
Listen to this article
There is no audio version yet. Request one and an AI voice will read the article aloud.
Read by an AI voice.
.jpg){kind=link}
The US National Institutes of Health no longer wants to disclose the numerical final score of research grant reviews to applicants and several NIH bodies. The public consultation on the proposal closes on Tuesday, after which the agency must process the responses before a final decision is made.
Under the proposal, reviewers would continue to score applications. Applicants, however, would no longer receive that final score. Instead, discussed applications would receive one of three categories: ‘Most Competitive’, ‘Competitive’ or ‘Not Discussed’. The first category would cover the top 25 per cent and the second the next 25 per cent.
The NIH says the change should place greater emphasis on reviewers’ substantive comments and on the panel discussion. The agency wants to prevent an average score or ranking from being treated as though it were an exact judgement of scientific quality.
According to the NIH, the proposed classification would not change the way reviewers reach a judgement during their meeting. Written critiques, partial scores for individual criteria and summaries of panel discussions would also remain available. The change therefore concerns the reporting of the outcome and how funding decisions are subsequently weighed.
The discussion touches on the relationship between scientific assessment and policy priorities. The NIH says institutes must weigh their strategic plans, health priorities and available budgets alongside peer review. Critics fear that less visibility of the exact score will make it harder to scrutinise or challenge decisions.
The Association of Scientists for Integrity in Policy warns that without a numerical score, researchers will be less able to assess how their application compared with other proposals. The organisation supports the opportunity to comment on the proposal, but stresses that transparency and comparability of assessments remain important.
There has been no definitive policy change. The consultation is a request for information, not a decision about the funding of a specific application. Nor has it been established whether the new categories will ultimately be introduced or when that might happen. For Dutch researchers, the significance lies chiefly in the possible change to an important international funding system for biomedical research.
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- The NIH is seeking comment on a proposal not to disclose numerical final scores.
- The proposed categories are based on existing scores and do not fully replace the underlying assessment.
- The consultation runs until 13 October 2026.
- The proposal is not yet definitive policy.
Left
Arguments Researchers must be able to see how an application was assessed and why a project does not receive funding. Broad categories can conceal differences between applications and reduce scrutiny of political or institutional preferences.
Values Transparency, equal opportunities and public accountability for research funding.
Consequences Less information can lead to greater uncertainty among researchers and distrust in the distribution of grants.
Centre
Arguments An exact figure suggests more precision than peer review can provide. A combination of categories, written criticism and panel reports can give reviewers room for more substantive explanations, provided the procedure remains open to scrutiny.
Values Carefulness, proportionality and professional assessment.
Consequences Administrative pressure may fall, but the quality of the system will depend on complete and consistent explanations.
Right
Arguments The NIH should direct funding towards research that aligns with national health priorities and strategic goals, rather than relying solely on a mechanical ranking. Programme directors need room to take context and societal benefits into account.
Values Efficiency, prioritisation and responsibility for public funds.
Consequences Greater policy discretion may align funding more closely with national goals, but requires strong safeguards against arbitrariness and political interference.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The article accurately describes the content and status of the NIH proposal. Criticism is attributed to an external scientific organisation and is not presented as an established consequence.
- confirmed The NIH is proposing not to share numerical final scores from research assessments with applicants and various NIH bodies. — Stated in the official NIH explanation of the proposal. source
- confirmed The proposal uses the categories Most Competitive, Competitive and Not Discussed. — Confirmed by the NIH. source
- confirmed The consultation closes on 13 October 2026. — The official NIH publication gives this closing date. source
- confirmed Written critiques and summaries of panel discussions would remain available. — Part of the proposed changes according to the NIH. source
Editor's note
It is certain that this concerns a proposal and public consultation, not implemented policy. The consequences for transparency and funding decisions are expectations expressed by supporters and opponents.Sources
- Your Feedback Wanted on Proposed Changes to Reporting Peer Review Outcomes for Applications — National Institutes of Health
- NIH RFI on Peer Review Reporting — Comments Due October 13 — Association of Scientists for Integrity in Policy
- First Level: Peer Review — National Institutes of Health
More on this in Dutch media
- RTL Nieuws — „nih onderzoeksfinanciering”
- NOS — „nih onderzoeksfinanciering”
- Het Parool — „nih onderzoeksfinanciering”