In Brief
Take Action: Protect Federal Scientific Research by Completing FY26 Appropriations Work
With Congress having only enacted a short-term fix to the fiscal year (FY) 2026 that covers funding the government through January 30, it remains imperative that Congress continues to hear from you about finalizing the FY26 appropriations bills that fund federal research agencies before the continuing resolution expires.
The House has proposed a total funding package for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) at $46.901 billion (-2.9% from FY25), while the Senate has outlined a more appropriate package of $48.701 billion (+0.83%). For the National Science Foundation, the House proposal sits at $7 billion (-22.74%) and the Senate at $9 billion (-0.66%). In order to maintain the most viable funding package possible for the remainder of this fiscal year, write your Members of Congress today and urge them to advance the proposal set by the Senate for FY26.
Enjoy a Happy, Healthy Holiday Season
On behalf of all of us at the Biophysical Society, happy holidays to you and your families. Thank you for being an active member of the Society and supporting our efforts in 2025. Here’s wishing you a safe and happy holiday season!
Appropriations Efforts Continue for FY26
Senate leaders have made incremental progress on a funding package but have not yet reached a final agreement, as several Republican objections remain unresolved. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) said negotiations are nearing completion following a private meeting among Republican senators, with leadership aiming to bring a minibus appropriations package to the floor as early as tomorrow. The proposal would combine five spending bills covering Labor–HHS–Education, Defense, Transportation–HUD, Interior–Environment, and Commerce–Justice–Science.
Sens. Rick Scott (R-FL) and Mike Lee (R-UT) have raised concerns about advancing the package and secured a vote on eliminating earmarks from the legislation. Republican leaders are also working to address objections from Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), who is seeking action on his proposal to ensure federal employees continue to receive pay during government shutdowns. While these concessions have helped ease internal resistance, leadership is still working to bring all factions into alignment.
Even if the Senate moves forward with the minibus, the package has not yet been negotiated with the House, leaving talks unresolved ahead of the January 30 deadline. This uncertainty comes on the heels of a recently resolved, record-breaking shutdown. Further progress will depend on negotiations between House Appropriations Committee Chair Tom Cole (R-OK) and Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins (R-ME) over overall funding levels for the remaining fiscal year 2026 appropriations bills.
NIH Ends Payline Cutoffs, Raising Fears of Political Influence in Grant Decisions
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is overhauling how it decides which grant applications to fund, ending the long-used practice of publishing paylines—peer-review score cutoffs that guaranteed funding for many investigator grants. Beginning in January 2026, all 27 institutes and centers must weigh additional factors such as scientific priorities, applicant career stage, existing support, and geographic distribution of awards.
Although about half of NIH institutes already operate without paylines, the new uniform policy will be a major adjustment for some researchers who fear that removing clear numerical thresholds could make decisions more vulnerable to political pressure from the political appointees and dilute the influence of expert peer review. NIH leaders say the policy will create a more consistent, transparent framework across institutes. Peer-review scores will still guide decisions, but paylines will “no longer serve as rigid, mechanical cutoffs.” Instead, councils will consider broader needs—health priorities, scientific opportunities, workforce considerations, and budget constraints—when making final recommendations.
Some scientists are particularly wary of language calling for greater “geographic balance,” concerned it could steer funding away from established research centers. NIH argues the goal is to address longstanding concentration of awards on the coasts. As institutes prepare for the transition, questions remain about how much discretion directors will wield—and whether the shift will strengthen or erode trust in NIH’s peer-review-driven grantmaking system.