In its latest swipe at the American life science community that it leads, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has published another Request for Information, this one outlining major changes to the way NIH grant scores are categorized and who receives the scores. As part of the process, NIH is seeking comments from the research community. The deadline for you to submit your comments is October 13, 2026.

The first of the two significant policy changes is the decision by NIH to place all scored grant applications into one of three categories based on their scores. Those applications with the impact scores of 25% or less would be placed in a category called “Most Competitive.” Those with scores ranging from 26% to 50% would be placed in a category called “Competitive.” Applications with scores above 50% would be placed in the “Not Discussed” category.

Probably the most worrisome change is that under this proposed system, “the final overall impact score or percentile on which the categorization was based would not be released to any of these parties [PIs, applicant institution, NIH program staff, ICO leadership, and relevant Advisory Committee].”

The loss of this information would be particularly problematic for applicants whose grants are not funded. Today, an applicant can use the Overall Impact score and percentile, along with the reviewers’ comments, to decide whether to revise and resubmit an application. A grant receiving a 9th percentile, for example, might suggest that the applicant is relatively close to the funding range and should address the reviewers’ concerns and try again. A grant receiving a 24th percentile might suggest that more substantial changes are needed. Under the proposed system, however, both applications would simply be labeled “Most Competitive.” The applicant would lose important information needed to determine whether to make modest revisions, substantially rethink the proposal, or move on to a different research idea.

The problem with using a static 25% cutoff is that it creates categories that are too broad to provide meaningful information in the current funding environment. The NIH success rate has been below 25% since 2004. A 25% cutoff therefore lumps together applications with very different funding prospects. An application in the 5th percentile and one in the 24th percentile would both be labeled “Most Competitive,” even though their likelihood of being funded may be very different. The same problem exists in the “Competitive” category, which would include applications ranging from the 26th to the 50th percentile. By reducing a wide range of scores to just three categories, the proposed system would make it much harder for applicants to understand where their application actually stands.

Kevin M. Wilson serves as Vice President, Policy, Governance and Partnerships for The American Society for Cell Biology. He's worked as the Legislative Director for U.S. Congressman Robert Weygand (D-RI) and as a Legislative Assistant for U.S. Senator Claiborne Pell (D-RI). He has a BA in Politics and American Government from the Catholic University of America. Email: kwilson@ascb.org