In Brief
On May 29, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a proposed rule that would formalize several executive-order-driven changes to federal grantmaking, including provisions related to the Gold Standard of Science, federal grant oversight, and Schedule F employees. If adopted, the rule would significantly expand OMB’s authority to impose new requirements and restrictions on federal grants. More information is available in the BPS memo and the June 22 BPS Town Hall webinar recording.
BPS encourages all members—both U.S. and international—to submit comments before the July 13 deadline (11:59 p.m. EDT). To support participation, BPS has partnered with the American Physical Society (APS) to provide a tool that helps researchers prepare comments consistent with the proposed rule’s requirements.
- All comments must include the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) you are responding to; for example, Peer Review (§200.205(d)) or Prohibition on International Scientific Collaboration (§200.220). You can either title the comments as shown or incorporate the CFR in parentheses within the body of your comment.
[NOTE: The APS tool will assist you with providing the correct CFR citations]
- Comments should be unique, well-reasoned, and submitted by you as an individual.
- Submissions may be made anonymously without harming the credibility of the comment.
Submit your comments now!
NIH Issues RFI as it Considers Limits on Number of Grants per Researcher
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is considering a policy that would cap the number of research project grants (RPGs) a principal investigator can hold at one time, aiming to distribute funding more broadly across the research community.
The proposal would limit investigators to between two and four NIH grants, with the agency arguing that the change could increase scientific innovation by supporting more researchers and a wider range of ideas. Depending on the cap selected, NIH estimates it could free up between $1.3 billion and $3.5 billion annually and fund an additional 1,900 to 5,230 investigators.
The plan revives a similar proposal that NIH abandoned in 2017 after strong opposition from the research community. Critics argued that limiting grants could disadvantage highly productive laboratories and hinder collaborative research efforts. NIH says the proposal aligns with its broader funding strategy, which emphasizes supporting investigators across career stages, expanding geographic diversity, and considering existing funding levels when making awards. The agency is accepting public comments on the proposal through August 3.
NSF Redirects Funding to New $1.5 Billion X-Labs Initiative
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is reportedly cutting funding for hundreds of basic science research programs by 20% to 30% this fiscal year, despite receiving only a 3% overall budget reduction.
The cuts are believed to be funding NSF’s new $1.5 billion X-Labs initiative, designed to accelerate the commercialization of federally funded research. Managed by NSF’s Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships (TIP) Directorate, the program has sparked debate over whether expanding commercialization efforts could come at the expense of fundamental research.
Several directorates are reportedly facing significant reductions. The Math and Physical Sciences Directorate has seen a 30% budget cut, while the Biology Directorate has lost roughly $200 million. Earlier this year, NSF also dissolved its Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences Directorate, reallocating approximately $150 million.
The funding shift has drawn scrutiny because Congress directed that no NSF directorate receive more than a 5% reduction compared with FY 2024 levels. Critics argue the cuts may conflict with that guidance and weaken support for foundational scientific research.
NSF Tightens Conflict-of-Interest Rules for Grant Reviews
The National Science Foundation (NSF) will implement stricter conflict-of-interest (COI) rules on August 3, prohibiting agency staff and peer reviewers from participating in any grant review panel if they have an institutional conflict with a proposal under consideration.
NSF says the change is intended to standardize COI policies across the agency. Under current rules, reviewers and staff can generally participate in a panel as long as they recuse themselves from discussions and decisions involving proposals from their own institution.
The new policy comes as NSF continues to operate with a significantly reduced workforce, having lost roughly one-third of its staff over the past 18 months. Many researchers worry the stricter requirements could further strain the agency’s review process by limiting the pool of eligible experts and increasing the need for additional review panels or ad hoc evaluations.
NSF receives approximately 40,000 grant proposals each year and funds about 10,000. Nearly 90% of proposals undergo review by expert panels or agency staff, making the availability of qualified reviewers critical to the agency’s funding decisions.