Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    An AI-Driven Work Force
    AI and Microcredentials
Sign In
News

Squeezed by Congress, NIH Hesitates to Limit Big-Dollar Grant Recipients

By Paul Basken March 28, 2012

The director of the National Institutes of Health on Wednesday promised Congress a light touch on a key effort to help younger researchers, saying the agency did not expect much change from a planned new layer of scrutiny for senior scientists.

The NIH, in a bid to support less-experienced researchers at a time of federal budget cuts, has pledged that any scientist with at least $1.5-million in existing grant money will face an additional review before being awarded yet another grant.

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

The director of the National Institutes of Health on Wednesday promised Congress a light touch on a key effort to help younger researchers, saying the agency did not expect much change from a planned new layer of scrutiny for senior scientists.

The NIH, in a bid to support less-experienced researchers at a time of federal budget cuts, has pledged that any scientist with at least $1.5-million in existing grant money will face an additional review before being awarded yet another grant.

That idea was sharply criticized by Sen. Richard C. Shelby of Alabama when NIH leaders came before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee to outline their budget request for the 2013 fiscal year. Such a plan “discourages success,” said Mr. Shelby, the subcommittee’s top Republican.

Mr. Shelby was promptly assured by Francis S. Collins, the NIH’s director, that the new layer of review would probably produce few instances of the NIH’s denying a grant that was otherwise found worthwhile on the basis of scientific merit.

Only about 6 percent of all NIH grant applicants exceed the $1.5-million threshold, Dr. Collins told the subcommittee. “It is just that if an investigator has already achieved that amount of funding, and comes in asking for more, that particular grant is going to get a little bit more scrutiny,” he said.

More than 3,000 researchers currently hold at least $1.5-million each in NIH grants, according to data compiled by Robert Roskoski Jr., a retired professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at Louisiana State University. A total of 375 researchers have more than $5-million each in NIH grants, and 98 have more than $10-million, according to Dr. Roskoski’s tables.

Imperfect, Short-Term Solutions

The NIH, hoping to help younger researchers win a share of that money, held a conference last week at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, in New York, to provide junior faculty with tips and contacts on its grant-review committees. The NIH also has taken other steps, including shortening its grant-application forms and setting aside spaces for younger researchers on the grant-review panels.

Over all, however, NIH officials acknowledge that such steps are imperfect, short-term solutions that they hope will allow younger researchers to maintain their careers until Congress decides to finance scientific research at a level commensurate with its importance in fueling the U.S. economy.

Congress has cut the budget of the NIH, the leading supplier of federal money for basic research at American universities, by about 20 percent relative to inflation since 2003. And yet, Dr. Collins said, spending on health research has consistently proved worthwhile, even if just in terms of the money. One study, he told the subcommittee on Wednesday, shows that every dollar spent on the NIH returns the country about $2.21 in economic benefit.

Conditions, however, may get worse. If a set of automatic budget cuts approved by Congress takes effect in January, the NIH will lose nearly 8 percent of its $31-billion budget, meaning it will award about 2,300 fewer grants than expected, Dr. Collins said. And Republicans in the House of Representatives plan to vote this week on a budget proposal that would cut federal spending as a proportion of gross domestic product to 16 percent in 2050, down from 24 percent in 2011.

Still, the NIH faces pressure from lawmakers to please local constituents. Mr. Shelby, in arguing against the new NIH review of researchers holding at least $1.5-million in agency grants, said that grant-award decisions should be based strictly on scientific merit. But he also prodded Dr. Collins to include Alabama in its Institutional Development Award program, which reserves money for researchers at universities in states where the success rate for NIH grant applications has historically been low.

ADVERTISEMENT

And one of his Republican colleagues, Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi, which is one of the 23 states already in the program, said he appreciated the help it provides in delivering resources to “underserved communities.”

The subcommittee’s chairman, Sen. Tom Harkin, a Democrat of Iowa, took the opportunity to remind Mr. Shelby of his interest in seeing the NIH support the best possible science. “We’re not in the business of just spreading money around,” Mr. Harkin said.

We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Tags
Law & Policy
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
Paul Basken Bio
About the Author
Paul Basken
Paul Basken was a government policy and science reporter with The Chronicle of Higher Education, where he won an annual National Press Club award for exclusives.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

More News

Photo illustration showing Santa Ono seated, places small in the corner of a dark space
'Unrelentingly Sad'
Santa Ono Wanted a Presidency. He Became a Pariah.
Illustration of a rushing crowd carrying HSI letters
Seeking precedent
Funding for Hispanic-Serving Institutions Is Discriminatory and Unconstitutional, Lawsuit Argues
Photo-based illustration of scissors cutting through paper that is a photo of an idyllic liberal arts college campus on one side and money on the other
Finance
Small Colleges Are Banding Together Against a Higher Endowment Tax. This Is Why.
Pano Kanelos, founding president of the U. of Austin.
Q&A
One Year In, What Has ‘the Anti-Harvard’ University Accomplished?

From The Review

Photo- and type-based illustration depicting the acronym AAUP with the second A as the arrow of a compass and facing not north but southeast.
The Review | Essay
The Unraveling of the AAUP
By Matthew W. Finkin
Photo-based illustration of the Capitol building dome propped on a stick attached to a string, like a trap.
The Review | Opinion
Colleges Can’t Trust the Federal Government. What Now?
By Brian Rosenberg
Illustration of an unequal sign in black on a white background
The Review | Essay
What Is Replacing DEI? Racism.
By Richard Amesbury

Upcoming Events

Plain_Acuity_DurableSkills_VF.png
Why Employers Value ‘Durable’ Skills
Warwick_Leadership_Javi.png
University Transformation: a Global Leadership Perspective
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin