Профиль

They use the acronym TANS = Title abstract project narrative and specific aims Just those sections AFAIK

Do give the full story a read: you'll find a play-by-play of all the steps NIH applications go through, with the new political reviews included. And a pdf of all 235 disfavored words. PS: If you hit a paywall trying to read the story, making a free account will open up the full story.

Inside the new political screening that’s stalling NIH grantsMandatory reviews by top health officials and checks for 235 disfavoured terms have left hundreds of vetted grant applications in administrative limbo.www.nature.com

“We’re the test case,” one NIH program officer told me. “It’s demoralizing the number of hours we spend working up a grant that they might kill at the last possible moment. It’s a tremendous waste of taxpayer dollars.”

This process has tripled the workload for NIH staff, who now have to renegotiate application language and scope to align with political priorities. And it could expand. On May 29, the White House proposed rules that would give political appointees similar control at other federal agencies.

According to internal data I obtained, only 57% of these non-competing grant renewals entering Status 19 in FY26 cleared within 10 days. During the same period over the previous three years, that number was over 95%. And the last 10% of the 'problem' applications can stay stuck for months on end.

This extra layer of review by NIH and HHS officials has delayed funds from reaching labs, especially for labs waiting on a renewal of their funds for projects approved in past years.

Top NIH officials have repeatedly said there's no "banned words" at the agency. But the NIH created an algorithm that checks every application for 235 "disfavoured" terms (eg 'gender', 'fossil fuel'). If it finds one, the grant is classified internally as “not clean.” We've published the list.

“Just because the topic is something that makes some people uncomfortable doesn’t mean we shouldn’t research it,” says one NIH programme officer. They add that the studies were deemed scientifically rigorous by multiple panels of scientists before they were shut down.

In rare cases, these extra reviews can prevent applications from being funded. I learned of two such applications, which touched on politically sensitive topics but were not against the NIH’s priorities list.

Sometimes they even reprimand agency scientists for letting through these applications, which scored in the top percentiles. “There were a lot of problematic...grants in the queue this week”, says one e-mail. “Many of them had significant problems that should have been caught by your staff.”

Feedback from these officials sometimes questions whether projects should be funded at all. One comment on a grant read: “Does [the institute] really want to fund this study? Seems likely to end up in a Congressional waste report.”

Applications are often sent back bc they have - disfavored words - a foreign component w/o “clear benefit” to the US - alleged “lobbying activities”, or projects that aim to inform policy - “vague language”, e.g. ‘social determinants of health’, which is deemed not to include “measurable concepts”

Historically, Status 19 was a final step used to give Congress a heads-up about grants soon to be issued. But internal emails show its purpose has quietly shifted. NIH and HHS leaders now use it as a way to review every single grant before they're released.

In the past once an NIH grant application was finalized, after passing two rounds of scientific peer review and gaining approval from agency scientists, its funding was practically guaranteed. Not anymore. Now, those approved applications are hitting a wall known internally as "Status 19."

Kind of a perennial message these days, but these are tough times for independent science journalism. There's no mincing words there. Please consider supporting your outlet(s) of choice.

This mirrors a broader trend, as 16 of the NIH's 27 institutes and centres currently lack permanent directors. These removals also come as the administration pursues charges against some scientists involved with COVID-19 research who were in Fauci's orbit.

The agency is pivoting. NIH director Jayanta Bhattacharya outlined a new vision that moves away from pandemic preparedness, basic immunology, HIV/AIDS, and biodefence. Bhattacharya specifically referred to those subjects as Fauci's legacy.

This forced reassignment of career scientists is highly unusual for the NIH. Career scientists are typically not replaced when presidential administrations change. Some scientists fear this shows a growing political influence over science at the institute.

Most recently, three senior officials—Daniel Rotrosen, Kelly Poe, and Andrea Wurster—were given the choice to either accept reassignment outside the institute or resign. Notably, all three of these scientists worked under former director Anthony Fauci.

To cope with the lack of staff, institutes like the NHGRI are using multi-year funding, giving approved projects their money upfront as a lump sum rather than annually. This helps the NIH use up its budget more quickly, but it also means that fewer overall researchers and labs receive funding.