The National Institutes of Health faces an unprecedented administrative crisis that could halt billions of dollars in research funding within weeks.
Thirteen of the agency's advisory councils are on track to have no voting members by late February, according to an exclusive report in Nature. These councils must review grant applications before funding can be awarded. Without them, roughly half of NIH's institutes could be unable to distribute research dollars.
This isn't a slow bureaucratic drift. The advisory councils are being systematically emptied - and the timeline is remarkably tight.
The councils operate under strict federal rules: members serve four-year terms and cannot continue beyond their expiration date without reappointment. Previous administrations typically appointed new members well before terms expired, maintaining continuity. That hasn't happened.
Why this matters
NIH distributes approximately $47 billion annually in research grants - the lifeblood of biomedical research in America. These grants fund everything from basic cancer research to clinical trials for rare diseases, from neuroscience labs at universities to community health studies.
The advisory councils serve a critical gatekeeping function. Federal law requires that grant applications be reviewed not just by scientific peer review panels, but also by these councils, which provide a second layer of evaluation and ensure research aligns with public health priorities.
No council, no approval. No approval, no funding.
Researchers I've spoken with over the years emphasize that NIH funding isn't just about the money - it's about stability. Multi-year grants allow scientists to pursue ambitious projects that take time to yield results. A funding freeze would disrupt ongoing research, force lab closures, and push talented researchers out of science entirely.
The domino effect
If the councils aren't reconstituted quickly, the consequences cascade:
• Universities and research institutions have already hired staff and ordered equipment based on anticipated grants • Graduate students and postdocs depend on NIH funding for their positions • Clinical trials could be forced to halt enrollment or discontinue patient monitoring • International collaborations may collapse as U.S. partners can't deliver on commitments
Perhaps most concerning: early-career researchers, who typically depend heavily on NIH grants to establish their labs, could abandon academic research entirely. Rebuilding that talent pipeline takes decades.
A pattern emerges
This comes alongside other science policy decisions that have researchers worried. Earlier this month, NASA announced it would end funding for its planetary science analysis and assessment groups - independent advisory bodies that have guided missions like Curiosity and New Horizons. The World Health Organization is now operating without U.S. participation after the administration's withdrawal last week.
Taken together, these moves represent a significant shift in how the U.S. government engages with its scientific community.
The universe doesn't care about administrative deadlines. But research depends on them. And right now, the clock is ticking on billions of dollars that fund the basic science underlying tomorrow's medical breakthroughs.
NIH declined to comment on contingency plans for maintaining grant operations if councils remain unstaffed.
