Some critics of the new policy say the cap could hinder researchers in need of funding:
Scientists hoping to obtain some of the National Institutes of Health's (NIH's) dwindling research funds face a new challenge: They will be limited to submitting six applications per calendar year, according to a notice the agency released this week. The policy, which also prohibits applications written with the assistance of generative artificial intelligence, is ostensibly designed to prevent researchers from overwhelming the NIH grant-review system with large numbers of proposals, especially low-quality ones produced with AI.
But some critics worry the cap—which applies to grant resubmissions, renewals, and revisions as well as original applications—will hurt scientists who are already struggling to obtain federal funding as NIH freezes and rescinds many grants for political reasons and President Donald Trump's administration seeks to cut the agency's annual budget by more than one-third.
[...] Others, however, argue the cap is warranted—and perhaps even necessary. "It's a reasonable approach to an unfortunate problem," says Michael Lauer, who served as deputy director for extramural research at NIH until his retirement in February. (NIH did not provide a current official for a requested interview on the new policy.)
Lauer notes that not long before he left NIH, he and his colleagues identified a principal investigator (PI) who had submitted more than 40 distinct applications in a single submission round, most of which appeared to be partially or entirely AI generated. The incident was "stunning" and "disappointing," says Lauer, who was not involved in creating the new NIH policy but hopes the cap will discourage other researchers from abusing the system.
Aside from the cap, the policy makes clear that NIH will not consider AI-generated proposals to be the original work of applicants. "NIH will continue to employ the latest technology in detection of AI-generated content to identify AI generated applications," the agency's notice says. If AI use is detected after an award has been granted, NIH warns, the agency may refer the matter to the Office of Research Integrity while imposing penalties. It's unclear whether applicants will have an opportunity to appeal these decisions, or which tools will be used to detect AI-generated content. These programs can vary wildly in terms of accuracy, with some showing bias against non-native English speakers.
[...] The tricky part, Lauer says, is determining an appropriate cap. Although he argues that a single researcher submitting more than 40 applications is "clear abuse" that wastes valuable time among NIH staff and volunteer grant reviewers, Lauer stresses that NIH "is not interested in preventing honest scientists from doing their work." According to the new notice, the number of PIs who submit more than six applications per year is "relatively low."
But some researchers worry about hitting the cap over the various funding calls within a year. "I submitted 5 proposals THIS round. 4 last round. Planning 3-5 next round. Until we are funded or have to shut down," Jason Rasgon, an entomologist and epidemiologist at Pennsylvania State University, writes in a post on Bluesky. "None of them used even a hint of AI to write. This is significantly hampering my planned survival strategy." (NIH has three standard review and award cycles each year, with application due dates varying based on the type of grant.)
Other critics worry the Trump administration is simply creating yet another hurdle for researchers even as it slashes science budgets. "This isn't about AI, it's about reducing the pathways to funding," Mariya Sweetwyne, a cell biologist at the University of Washington School of Medicine, writes in a post on Bluesky. The new policy, she notes, does not differentiate between applications from individual researchers and those submitted by multiple principal investigators. "This is going to squash collaborations like bugs."
(Score: 5, Interesting) by PiMuNu on Thursday July 24 2025, @12:03PM (2 children)
I guess it hurts senior people who have their name in many proposals (but usually just a name and not actually doing anything).
(Score: 2) by looorg on Thursday July 24 2025, @01:12PM
It won't really hurt them. They just rotate who is in charge or who is the lead. Most of them have a couple of senior people on the list. They can lend their name to lots of projects. So they just split the "lead" between them. After all it's all their research assistants and such that will eventually do the heavy lifting anyway.
But yes this is a thing. It has become a lot more common in the last year or two that they limit the amount of applications you can make. Not only accepted offers. But applications. I have some insight into some of the largest places here that hand out grants and from talking to them they just get more and more applications. A lot of them also have all the hallmarks of being more or less automated. From other countries even tho they should probably not even know about these local grants, or they can't even fulfill the requirements of the grants such as language and local area expertise if the proposal is handed in by six guys from China etc.
One problem as noted here is that it might, and does, kill research proposals from new and younger scientist. They won't get picked over the senior professors and such that have hundreds of finished projects. So their only bet is really to try and attach themselves to someone such and eventually hope to break free. In that regard it might just kill a lot of interesting projects. Cause they don't have the right people with the right credentials attached to them.
Then there is the thing where you submit a lot of different proposals and hope some of them make it and that is then the project you work on and the other ideas go back in the box again and you'll see if they can get grant money perhaps next year/time. Some clearly do this a bit to much, if you are submitting 40ish proposals a year. That said I have like 3-5 ready proposals in a folder I can hand in or alter as needed when needed if opportunity presents itself.
Eventually you tire tho ... What you want to do research on is rarely what they want to pay for. It's a bit soul crushing.
(Score: 1) by shrewdsheep on Thursday July 24 2025, @01:13PM
I guess the limit applies to being among the main applicants. Being on the grant for support (data analysis, lab measurements etc.) is probably still unlimited.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday July 24 2025, @01:10PM (2 children)
It sounds reasonable, but not for resubmissions. If what you're doing is a rewrite of something already submitted that should have a much higher limit. Perhaps 24/year.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2025, @04:07PM
At this rate, all the scientists have left the room. This isn't working.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by aafcac on Thursday July 24 2025, @06:57PM
That is either the main goal of this or at a bare minimum a happy coincidence. It's not like the GOP has been a fan of science at any point during the last several decades.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday July 24 2025, @08:08PM
While this may help to prevent a single person from submitting a bunch of AI generated nonsense. It won't fix the problem of people submitting AI generated nonsense. The better the LLMs get at not hallucinating, the worse this problem will become.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2025, @10:40AM
Grant writing sucks. The statement of work might be 15 pages with several mandatory sections. Citations can be a lot of work. There's often no page limit on references because some reviewers may look to see how often you've cited them and factor that into their decision. That's quite a bit of work on its own. Then there's designing and writing the proposal to mitigate risk, in case you find out after you start the work that some objectives aren't going to work. And there's the fundamental issue of just having a good idea to begin with. Funding percentages are often in the single digits, meaning a lot of good proposals are rejected, and grants from agencies like NSF often require revisions and resubmissions before they're approved. It's a huge amount of work to write proposals, so I understand why PIs cut corners.
Reviewers are in limited supply unless you want to turn merit review over to AI. I suggest not doing that. But the limits seem overly restrictive. For competitions with a single deadline or are yearly, maybe limit PIs to one proposal per competition. For open competitions where proposals can be submitted anytime, maybe limit PIs to one or two proposals under review at a time.
Letters of intent are a useful filter for PIs and program managers when the recommendations are binding. I'm surprised they're not mentioned at all. Just allow one LOI per month or something like that. If a proposal ia encouraged but then reviewed poorly, maybe don't accept revised versions without a new LOI. If a resubmission is encouraged (e.g., the proposal scores well but not well enough to get funded), allow a resubmission within a set time period like three months without a new LOI. If revisions take longer, the PI has to go back through the LOI process.
Also, simplify what's required for proposals and have a centralized government database where PIs add their CV, current and pending support, results from prior research, and the like, so that proposals are less of a pain.