Writedit

Does 39% refer to # of awards with MYF or $$ allocated to MYF? The FY26 appropriations bill uses amount, not #. When I checked RePORTER for MYF last summer-fall, I felt many were R21 awards, which would help ICs get to 50% MYF awards (#) at ~low $ amount, but I haven't seen FY25 total for MYF$s

DoD & Homeland Security are part of this minibus - he can't cherry pick what to fund.

True, but hoping they are not completely gone …. holding out hope for the Senate NIH language to prevail in the Defense-LHHS-Transportation-HUD minibus appropriations bill being cobbled together

Realized I needed to take down the old paylines to avoid giving any false hope

#CuresCantWait

Indirect costs and scientific impact at NIMH Abstract. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) awards additional funds for extramural research to support research infrastructure and administration, su

Indirect costs and scientific impact at NIMH: “Greater indirect rate was associated with modest but statistically significantly greater number of publications … and total citations … Each 10% increase in indirect rate was associated with a 20% increase in odds of patent filing”

Lanes

“Want to feel old?” “Yes” - truer words never spoken, tear damn broken. So grateful for all you’ve shared, especially this priceless 15-y recap. I kept Lanes from 2011:

xkcd.com/931/

Varies by IC, but many have 18 (4y terms) with 12 scientific & 6 public reps. Roster approval was slow under Biden, then pending members disinvited this year - not heard of new approvals. Separate mess. Timing & content of HHS appropriation will have bigger role than timing of Council mtgs though

^pay lists

Yes, the Jan-Feb Council dates will be pushed back until all study sections have met & ICs can create playlists. There are so few Council members left, this shouldn’t be difficult. NCATS, for example, is down to 1 member, unless they are allowed to keep the 2 who should have rotated off on Oct 31.

As I thought, they are allowing late applications in line with the continuous submission window (Dec 8). I am guessing changes to the triage rate & summary statements will continue beyond the May 2036 Council.
grants.nih.gov/grants/guide...

Also, pretty sure academic & research institutions stuck with standard deadlines. Some companies, nonprofits, etc may not have known what to do or were waiting for SAM, eRA Commons, or other required registrations - would be appropriate to allow them to request extension (as with natural disasters)

Hoping an adult in the room will write a Notice clarifying that an extension to be offered (vs change to deadline). They have never offered one following past shutdowns, though.

NIH has never changed deadlines before - just allowed late submissions (eg, could allow PIs to use Continuous Submission deadline). Sit tight, leave your app there - none will be withdrawn. The loss of institutional expertise is obvious in this “Notice” (& in more ways than updated deadline).

RWJF call for proposals to replace cancelled grants

Thank you, @rwjf.org !
www.rwjf.org/en/grants/ac...

Actually, I am wrong on the timing … footnote came before Senate hearing (but maybe he had advance draft)

GOP has squawked but not convincingly, so I mostly expect Vought to go forward. He is pissed about Senate FY26 appropriation bill (eg, timing of footnote-I don’t like what Senate just did & will make NIH pay). No reactions described in The Hill seem like they would deter Vought. Hope I am wrong!

That was his first attempt to defund the NIH - that wasn’t a pocket rescission. Pocket rescission is sent to Congress, like the one for USAID & CPB, which was a practice run. Vought can freeze funds for 45 days, even if Congress rejects the rescission, by which time it will be too late to release $

Pocket rescission by Vought 45 days before end of FY25

Pocket rescission (Vought has stated intent to use, which would be 45 days before the end of FY25)

We’ll get the bill text after the hearing - just glad they are aware for now … looking forward to reading the text

Big highlight was Senator Baldwin calling out the NIH MYF “policy”

Senator Baldwin raised concern about the NIH MYF “policy” as discussion begins on Senate Labor, HHS, & Ed appropriations bill - bipartisan push back in the bill. They got the message.

Several ICs are, & some started earlier either as planned or to help spend their FY25 appropriation in time (vs achieve 50%), but they haven't updated their financial plan to reflect the rationale. NIAID MYF awards seem to be all (or mainly) in July, suggesting adoption of FY26 CJ "policy" language.

Exactly. IC staff have no desire to enable this (esp. with no written guidance), but NIH leadership does. NCI is leaderless, so not surprised they were first to formally adopt the FY26 CJ language for FY25. NINDS could be next (Aug 7 Council mtg) - or NIAID (based on leadership)

Well, not "any" language, of course, but guidance on how appropriations are to be spent.

Congress can slip any language they want into a CR, so if the Senate especially is alarmed by all this, they could and might.

Yes, they can add language stopping altogether or lengthening the transition period to (ie, <<<50% of RPGs) a requirement for MYF. Senate Appropriations Committee considers Labor-HHS-Ed Thurs morning, so contacting Senators about MYF “policy” harms is important (& House Reps, too)

“In addition, NIH has recently implemented a new policy requiring that at least one-half of the remaining funds for competing research project grants (RPGs) in FY 2025 be used to upfront fund RPG competing awards. …”

A Quiet Policy Shift That Could Devastate American Science Why NIH’s sudden move to multi-year grant funding should alarm every principal investigator and university

More about the “policy” that isn’t a policy. Most ICs haven’t updated their funding policy websites, but NCI describes the “recently implemented” MYF requirement in their July 23rd update to explain the lack of payline (but essentially 4th percentile)