Feedback Sought: Proposal to Cap the Number of Simultaneous Research Project Grants per Principal Investigator to Support More Researchers and Maximize Scientific Productivity and Innovation

We are seeking your feedback on whether distributing Research Project Grants (RPGs) funding across more investigators could increase overall scientific productivity and innovation (see NOT-OD-26-086). Through this Request for Information (RFI), NIH is presenting a proposal as one possible approach to advance stewardship, workforce sustainability, and the goals of the NIH Unified Funding Strategy. Comments may be sent electronically here by August 3, 2026. 

NIH has long examined whether funding distribution can be optimized to support both scientific excellence and a healthy research ecosystem. This proposal builds on these discussions about how to maximize the return on taxpayer investments in biomedical research while ensuring that promising investigators across career stages have opportunities to contribute. As one example, NIH proposed the Grant Support Index about a decade ago as an approach to balancing support across the biomedical research workforce (see these archived NIH Open Mike blogs from June 2017, May 2017, and February 2017 for more). The discussions surrounding the Grant Support Index included questions about diminishing marginal returns and the concentration of research funding among a relatively small number of investigators. While NIH ultimately pursued a different policy path through the Next Generation Researchers Initiative, the broader questions about how to distribute funding to maximize scientific opportunity and sustain the research workforce remain relevant today (including for early stage investigators).

We are also revisiting this issue after considering a growing body of evidence centered around grant funding and impact (see RFI for citations). Several studies suggest that scientific output does not increase proportionally as funding accumulates in a single laboratory. Research also suggests that smaller teams may be more likely to produce disruptive or innovative findings. Moreover, large and complex research enterprises can present challenges for oversight, mentoring, and project management. 

Taken together, these considerations motivate NIH's interest in exploring whether a cap could address these concerns. Our RFI today amplifies these themes of ensuring proper stewardship of taxpayers’ investments in biomedical research and using funding approaches that maximize scientific productivity and innovation.

Furthermore, the NIH Unified Funding Strategy informs our policy thinking (see these NIH Extramural Nexus articles from February 2026 and November 2025). It directs NIH Institutes and Centers to carefully examine each budget request and set awarded budgets, weighing a variety of factors, including peer review assessments of scientific merit, scientific needs, opportunity costs, and available funds. 

In addition, the new proposal aims to:

• Broaden 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
• Support more researchers and institutions, which would allow more ideas to be tested
• Increase support for early stage investigators and retain talented mid-career researchers
• Improve oversight of research projects, which would strengthen mentoring of trainees and increase rigor and reproducibility

It should be noted that most NIH-supported investigators would not be affected by a cap. In fiscal year 2025, approximately 11% of NIH-supported researchers held three or more simultaneous RPGs. More data are available in the RFI.

That said, we recognize implementing this proposal would have considerations for both researchers and organizations overall. We want to allow institutions flexibility in transitioning investigators to any new cap while minimizing disruption to ongoing research. The RFI goes into more details, but in general implementation may involve: 

• Some researchers may need to reduce the number of awards they serve on as program director/principal investigator (PD/PI) for their recipient organization.
• Recipient organizations may relinquish specific awards after the current budget period ends or request prior approval from NIH to change the PD/PI.
• Applicant organizations would need to decide which RPGs to apply for and what budgets to request.

What we want to hear from you

NIH has not yet made any final decisions regarding implementation of such a policy. Broad community input will help us better understand the potential benefits and drawbacks of the proposed policy. For instance:

• 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

We will critically examine your thoughtful input on this proposal as we move forward. 

Questions? Contact [email protected].