The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is proposing new limits on the number of research grants a scientist can hold at one time, aiming to distribute funding more broadly across the U.S. research community.
The proposal is part of NIH’s effort to maximize the impact of its approximately $38 billion annual research budget and provide funding opportunities to a larger number of investigators.
Under the proposal, NIH is considering several options that would cap the number of Research Project Grants (RPGs) a principal investigator can hold simultaneously. The proposed limits range from two to four grants per researcher.
According to NIH, the move could help fund thousands of additional scientists and encourage a wider range of research ideas and innovations.
Agency officials argue that spreading funding across more laboratories could increase scientific diversity, support emerging researchers, and potentially lead to more breakthroughs.
The proposal revives a similar idea first introduced in 2017 under then-NIH Director Francis Collins. That initiative was ultimately withdrawn after facing strong opposition from parts of the scientific community.
At the time, critics argued that grant caps could unfairly penalize highly productive laboratories and reduce support for large-scale collaborative research projects.
Under the new proposal, NIH estimates that a cap of four grants per investigator could free approximately $1.3 billion in funding and support around 1,900 additional researchers.
A three-grant limit could make roughly $2 billion available and support more than 3,000 new investigators, while a two-grant cap could free up about $3.5 billion and potentially fund over 5,000 additional researchers.
The agency noted that only a relatively small percentage of researchers would be affected. Data from 2025 showed that just over 10% of investigators held more than three NIH grants, while only 1.2% held five or more.
The proposal is also aligned with NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya’s broader funding strategy, which seeks to consider factors such as geographic diversity, career stage, and existing funding levels when awarding grants.
Not all experts support the idea.
Jeremy Berg said funding decisions should focus on scientific productivity and research quality rather than fixed grant limits. He warned that strict caps could affect valuable projects such as national research databases, biobanks, and large collaborative initiatives.
Meanwhile, former NIH research official Michael Lauer said he supports efforts to broaden funding opportunities but believes grant limits alone may not solve deeper challenges facing the research ecosystem, including reliance on grant funding for researcher salaries.
The proposal is expected to generate significant debate across the scientific community as policymakers, universities, and researchers weigh the benefits of broader funding access against concerns about limiting support for high-performing laboratories.
Source: International science and research policy reports
