The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has abruptly halted submissions of study sections to the Federal Register following a directive from the Trump administration to pause health agency communications. This unexpected move has disrupted the scheduling of critical peer review meetings that assess grant proposals, raising concerns among scientists and legal experts alike. Despite a federal requirement that study sections must be announced on the register 15 days before their meetings, those planned for February 20 did not meet this obligation, resulting in their sudden postponement.
Two scientists, who were set to participate as reviewers in a study section on February 20, only recently became aware of the requirement for these meetings to be announced in advance. The NIH customarily assembles scientists from various institutions nationwide to meticulously peer review and evaluate grant proposals. This process is fundamental to the allocation of significant NIH funding, potentially impacting billions of dollars and countless research initiatives.
"It’s basically about two weeks of work" – Jeremy Berg
An internal email from the NIH revealed that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had instructed the NIH to indefinitely withhold Federal Register submissions. Consequently, meetings slated for February 20 were canceled at the eleventh hour. Researchers, left without explanations for these cancellations, have speculated that the disruptions stem from issues related to the Federal Register.
"The idea is that the public has the right to know who’s giving advice to the federal government and when they’re meeting" – Jeremy Berg
Legal ramifications also loom over this development. Samuel Bagenstos, a law professor at the University of Michigan, criticized the administration's actions as a violation of federal judges' orders. Judge John McConnell had previously issued a temporary restraining order demanding an immediate cessation of any federal funding pause by the Trump administration.
"this idea that we’re gonna spend the money, but we’re only gonna spend the money after we have study sections, and – oops – we can’t have study sections because we’re not allowing notices of study sections to be filed in the Federal Register" – Samuel Bagenstos
The NIH press office did not provide comments in time for this report. However, sources familiar with the process estimate that for every three days' delay in conducting study sections, approximately $1 billion in NIH funding is held up. Each study section typically convenes over 20 peer reviewers to examine up to 100 proposals.
“the real disturbing thing here is that there’s a lot of really great science in those grants that really needs to be funded in a time-sensitive way. And if it’s not, labs are going to close.” – Anonymous reviewer
Researchers express concern over the broader implications of these delays. An anonymous scientist remarked on the inefficiency and potential economic ramifications of these administrative actions.
“This whole thing makes so little sense to me. They’re not even saving any money by doing this. And ultimately, what they’re doing is going to cost more money than anything else, by just delaying everything and kind of screwing up people’s lives” – Anonymous scientist
The situation has left many within the scientific community grappling with uncertainty. Carole LaBonne, another academic voice, highlighted the desperate hope among researchers for a last-minute resolution.
“They’re trying to keep it possible till the very last minute in hopes that someone has mercy and allows study sections to continue, and maybe even waives the 15 day requirement” – Carole LaBonne
Stuart Buck offered a critical perspective on the administration's broader approach, suggesting an undercurrent of disruption rather than regulation or deficit reduction.
“All the public rhetoric is about reducing the deficit or reducing regulation. But the things they’re doing so far are mostly not aimed at the deficit or regulation at all. They’re canceling contracts that are trivial compared to the deficit … firing people and canceling things and creating chaos everywhere” – Stuart Buck