NIH’s Priorities Announcement Receives Mixed Responses from Researchers
On August 15, 2025, Jayanta bhattacharyathe director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), released a statement announcing a “unified strategy” to align the agency’s funding activities with a newly released list of priorities included in the letter. In his statement, Bhattacharya emphasized how NIH funding, originating from taxpayer dollars, is a finite resource, and that the outlined priorities will help the NIH responsibly use the money to address chronic health problems of Americans and invest in next-generation research tools.
The listed priorities include expansion of replication studies and alternative testing models, creation of a “real-world data” resource, and a strategy to implement artificial intelligence in research. Also mentioned is an emphasis on work in autism research, overseeing NIH funding outside the US, and promoting research “on scientifically valid, measurable health outcomes.”
“The priorities are interesting to me as an epidemiologist and as a rheumatologist who sees patients,” said Alexis Ogdiea researcher at the University of Pennsylvania. She has studied the impact of diet on psoriatic arthritis and was excited to see the role of nutrition in chronic conditions also highlighted as a priority. “I think it’s trying to take science and really apply it to patients, and kind of how we’re using data in the real world.” She added that the inclusion of research into health disparities eased some of the concerns she had when previous announcements indicated these fields may no longer be invested in.
A note at the top of the list of priorities explained that the outlined topics were not an exhaustive list of focus areas for the NIH, but instead guidance on specific issues identified by the current administration as gaps in research. The note indicated the NIH would support research not outlined in the priority list as well.
However, amid ongoing changes at the NIH, other researchers felt that some priorities, specifically a statement about training future biomedical scientists, fell flat. Ian Morgana postdoctoral fellow and biophysicist at the National Institutes of General Medical Sciences and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute specified how recent reductions in force and funding freezes have stymied research and career development opportunities at the agency.
“It’s really good that they’re bringing attention to (improving early career researcher training), but they’re giving us this, like, shiny red apple…And you take that shiny, red apple, and as soon as you bite into it, you find that it’s rotten to its core,” he explained. He added that the director did not seek input from early career researchers on what changes would be helpful to improve their training.
Amid funding cuts to agencies and programs that conduct research into the effects of environmental exposures and chronic diseases, though, he explained that it was unclear how invested the institute was in that work. “They’re pointing out really important things that we absolutely should be focusing on and improving on, but when you actually look at what they’re doing, it’s oftentimes the exact opposite,” he said.
Another concern surrounding the priorities was an announcement in an internal memo that has since been published on social media that called for an internal review of all ongoing research. The stated goal was to ensure that the work aligned with the agency’s priorities.
Ogdie said that she wasn’t sure whether similar rereviews have occurred previously, but added, “Reviewing grants that have already been approved for funding, as someone who has a grant that is approved for funding—and I’m waiting anxiously for (it) to come in the door—that obviously scares me a little bit, that someone could come through and take it out.”
Amidst recent dismissals of dedicated grant reviewers and previous delays in releasing funding, Morgan expressed concern about how this newest round of reviews could further postpone the release of research dollars. “It almost seems designed to slow things down and to shut down biomedical research,” he said.
Coupled with other changes to research funding, Morgan expressed concerns about how the new policies would affect biomedical research long term. He highlighted how many young researchers have been turned away from positions in labs because of funding uncertainties.
Additionally, he said, “By making all of these announcements, it’s going to stifle what sort of grants and what type of research is going to be done, because people are afraid that if they say the wrong thing or propose the wrong thing, that they are not going to get their funding.” This, Morgan added, will limit the kind of breakthrough research that leads to radical improvements in health.
Ogdie said that, with all of the continuous changes, many scientists are feeling a lot of anxiety. “We don’t really know where things are going. We want to see some stability (and) know that grants are going to be able to be funded,” she said.
While she said that the communications from the NIH have felt more organized and grounded since Bhattacharya joined, she added that the understaffing across the agency and its ripple effects on the whole research ecosystem still concerns her. She is especially worried about the effect on trainees. “This level of uncertainty is especially damaging for those just starting their careers and even those thinking about pursuing a career in research.”
Despite the extent of challenges, Morgan said, “It’s not too late to turn things around.” He added that the most important thing that scientists can do is to express the value of research to people in their community and how these changes affect the ability to do that work. “It behooves us as scientists to go out into the public and talk to our neighbors, talk to our friends, talk to our colleagues, encourage people to not talk down to others around us, but to address legitimate concerns.”