NIH Comment Portal Closes Early on Proposed Grant Review Change
Scientists reported being unable to submit comments on a proposed NIH peer-review change after the public comment portal closed before its stated deadline. The proposal would sort grant applications into three broad merit categories while withholding their exact expert-assigned scores, a move critics say would reduce transparency. The change is part of a broader push by the Trump administration to exert more influence over federal science grants.
According to the article, the NIH sought public input through a portal that opened in August. An archived version listed the deadline as 11:59:59 p.m. EST on October 13, but commenters reported being blocked hours earlier. Joshua Weitz, a University of Maryland biology professor, told Scientific American he could not access the site before midnight.
The proposal would place grant applications into three broad merit tiers while keeping the expert panel’s exact overall score confidential. Critics argue this could weaken transparency and invite political pressure. It follows an earlier, separate effort to let political appointees choose grant recipients; that plan was paused until at least December after congressional rejection.
If exact expert scores are withheld, grant applicants and NIH program officers may have less information when interpreting funding decisions. That could affect researchers’ careers, university planning, and which projects move forward. An early-closing comment portal may also shape public trust in how federal science grants are reviewed. These possible effects depend on how the policy is implemented and whether further details emerge.