The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has announced a new policy to cap the number of research proposals submitted by individual researchers each year, citing an overwhelming influx of AI-generated applications. The decision, unveiled on July 17, aims to maintain the integrity and efficiency of the NIH’s application review process.
In the policy document titled “Supporting Fairness and Originality in NIH Research Applications,” the NIH detailed its concerns about the increasing use of AI tools by Principal Investigators (PIs) to generate multiple research proposals. The agency noted that while the percentage of PIs submitting more than six applications annually is low, AI has enabled some to submit over 40 distinct applications in a single round, straining the review system.
Impact of AI on Research Submissions
The new policy, effective September 25, limits individual PIs or program directors to six new, renewal, resubmission, or revision applications per calendar year. This move is part of NIH’s broader effort to ensure that applications reflect the original ideas of researchers rather than AI-generated content. The NIH warned that applications substantially developed by AI would not be considered original and could lead to sanctions if detected post-award.
NIH’s decision comes amid growing concerns about the role of AI in academic research. Earlier investigations revealed that AI-generated content has infiltrated scientific publications. A search on Google Scholar for the phrase “as of my last knowledge update” found over 100 papers likely relying on AI tools like ChatGPT. Additionally, a journal published AI-generated images, including a notably bizarre depiction of a rat with exaggerated features.
Broader Context and Historical Parallels
The issue of AI-generated content is not confined to research alone. In 2023, the science fiction and fantasy magazine Clarkesworld halted submissions due to an overwhelming number of AI-generated stories. Academic journals have also faced challenges, with Nature reporting the retraction of 10,000 “sham papers” and Wiley-owned Hindawi journals retracting over 8,000 fraudulent articles, leading to the discontinuation of 19 journals.
According to a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the Trump administration previously terminated $1.81 billion in NIH grants across various research areas, highlighting the ongoing challenges faced by the agency in maintaining funding and oversight.
Reactions and Future Implications
The NIH’s policy shift has sparked discussions among researchers and policymakers. Just days before the announcement, Nature reported that the NIH planned to replace advisory council members with individuals aligned with the Trump administration’s priorities, raising concerns about political influence in scientific research.
In response to inquiries, the NIH stated, “NIH developed this policy to ensure that the research application system promotes fairness and originality and to mitigate the potential overload of its review systems.” The agency’s analysis found that only 1.3% of PIs submitted more than six applications in 2024, suggesting the new limit will impact a small fraction of applicants.
As AI continues to evolve, the NIH’s policy may set a precedent for other research funding bodies grappling with similar challenges. The move underscores the need for balance between leveraging AI’s capabilities and preserving the originality and integrity of scientific inquiry.
Updated 4:00 p.m. EST to include comment from NIH.
