Key Dates

Related Announcements

None

Issued by

NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH (NIH)

Purpose

Introduction

The purpose of this Notice is to solicit public input on the outline for a proposed policy that would cap the number of Research Project Grants (RPGs) an individual can simultaneously serve on as Principal Investigator (PI) or Multi-Principal Investigator (MPI).

Background

As stewards of the taxpayers' investments in biomedical research and in support of the NIH's Unified Funding Strategy, the NIH must ensure that it uses funding approaches that maximize scientific productivity and innovation. One way to do this is through policies that allow the NIH to support a greater number of investigators, allowing more ideas to be explored and eventually leading to more breakthroughs (see, for example, 1). Supporting this proposal, a number of studies have observed diminishing marginal returns as grant funding for individuals increases (e.g., 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).  Studies have also indicated that larger and more complex research teams tend to produce less innovative and transformational work than smaller teams and are associated with worse career outcomes for the junior researchers in them (7, 8, 9, 10). All of these effects could be due, at least in part, to PIs being unable to effectively oversee and manage research teams once they become too large and complex (11). 

To ensure the best use of the taxpayers' dollars in supporting biomedical research, the NIH is considering instituting a cap on the number of RPGs on which an individual could simultaneously be a PI or MPI.

Limiting the number of RPGs per PI would have many benefits for U.S. science, including: 

• Broadening the distribution of funding among geographic regions and institutions to ensure different health needs can be addressed and more talent can be brought into research careers.
• Supporting more PIs and institutions, which would allow more ideas to be tested.
• Strengthening the biomedical workforce by increasing support for early-stage investigators and retaining talented mid-career researchers.
• Improving oversight of research projects, which would strengthen mentoring of trainees and increase rigor and reproducibility.

Depending on where the simultaneous RPG cap is set, different amounts of funds would be freed up to support other investigators (Table 1). 

In fiscal year (FY) 2025 10.7% of PIs were supported by three or more simultaneous RPGs, 3.6% had four or more, and 1.2% had five or more. 

Implementation Considerations

Any researcher who would be the PI or Multi-PI (MPI) on more RPGs simultaneously than the cap allows would have to give up serving on one RPG in order for the grantee organization to accept a competing renewal (Type 2) of an existing RPG with that PI. This would reduce the PI's net RPGs by one with each renewal until they reach the cap. The PI could not serve on a new competing (Type 1) RPG unless the grantee organization relinquished the number of existing RPGs needed to get to the cap (including the new competing grant) for that PI. The grantee organization could relinquish the awards by asking that they be terminated at the end of the current budget period. Alternatively, the grantee organization could ask the NIH for prior approval to change the PI to another researcher. This approach balances the goal of expeditiously freeing up funds for other uses while also giving PIs some flexibility in phasing out work on existing grants to get to the cap level. 

The two example scenarios below assume a cap of two simultaneous RPGs.

Example 1: Researcher X is the PI on three R01s and MPI on a U01. The grantee organization submits a competing renewal for one of the single-PI R01s with Researcher X as PI. In order to accept this award, the grantee institution asks the NIH for prior approval to change the PI on one of the other R01s to Researcher Y (an assistant professor in another department who conducts similar research). The following year, the organization applies to renew the MPI U01 with Researcher X as the MPI. In order to accept this award, the grantee institution asks the NIH to end the remaining (not renewed) R01 at the end of the current budget period, which is in four months. 

Example 2: Researcher X is the PI on two R01s. The grantee institution applies for a new competing R01 with Researcher X as the PI. In order to accept this new award, the grantee institution asks the NIH to end one of the existing R01s at the end of the current budget period, which is in six months.

An alternative implementation strategy to that proposed above would be to require grantee institutions to relinquish grants or change the PI to get each PI to the simultaneous cap within one year of the effective date of the policy. For PIs at the cap, the NIH would not award a new competing (Type 1) grant unless the institution relinquished or changed the PI on one of the existing RPGs.  Although this approach would free up funds more rapidly than the first proposal, it would be less flexible and could be more abrupt for PIs who are currently over the cap.

The NIH recognizes that RPGs have different budgets and durations. It will be up to applicants to decide which RPGs to apply for and what budgets to request. The Unified Funding Strategy directs all NIH Institutes and Centers to carefully examine each budget request and set awarded budgets taking into consideration a variety of factors including scientific needs, opportunity costs, and available funds.

60-day Comment Period

Comments on this Notice must be received no later than August 3, 2026. 

Information Requested

The NIH is requesting information on the proposed policy to cap the number of RPGs on which an individual could serve as PI or MPI simultaneously. Response to this Notice is voluntary. Respondents are free to address any or all of the topics listed below, or any other relevant topic for NIH to consider. Respondents should not feel compelled to address all items. 

• Pros and/or cons of the policy
• The optimal number of RPGs for the cap (2, 3 or 4)
• Strengths and weaknesses of the proposed implementation strategies
• Possible unintended consequences or policy loopholes

Submitting a Response

Comments should be submitted electronically to this webpage by August 3, 2026. 

This Notice is for planning purposes only and should not be construed as a policy, solicitation for applications, or as an obligation on the part of the Government to provide support for any ideas identified in response to it. Please note that the Government will not pay for the preparation of any information submitted or for its use of that information. 

Responses will be compiled and could be shared publicly in unredacted form. Please do not include any proprietary, classified, confidential, or sensitive information in your response. The NIH may use information gathered by this Notice to inform development of future policies or Notices of Funding Opportunity.[1] Research Project Grants are defined as activity codes DP1, DP2, DP3, DP4, DP5, P01, PN1, PM1, R00, R01, R03, R15, R16, R21, R22, R23, R29, R33, R34, R35, R36, R37, R50, R55, R56, R61, RC1, RC2, RC3, RC4, RF1, RL1, RL2, RL9, RM1, SI2, UA5, UC1, UC2, UC3, UC4, UC7, UF1, UG3, UH2, UH3, UH5, UM1, UM2, U01, U19, U34, and U3R.

Inquiries

Please direct all inquiries to:

NIH Office of Extramural Research
[email protected]