1. United States
2. Va.
3. Letter

Reject NIH's proposed change to hide numerical peer-review scores from grant applicants and institute staff. The plan, outlined in notice NOT-OD-26-088, would replace specific impact scores with a three-bin system — "most competitive," "competitive," and "not discussed" — stripping researchers of the precise feedback they rely on to make real decisions about lab staffing and funding strategy. NIH is accepting public comments until October 13, and your office should submit formal opposition before that deadline. The timing here is not incidental. This change arrives alongside political screening of grants, terminations of health disparities research, and a White House proposal to give political appointees override authority over peer review. As University of Arizona epidemiologist Elizabeth Jacobs put it, "This is a setup for obscuring the impact of the political review of grants." Hiding scores doesn't elevate scientific merit — it makes it easier to fund based on politics while leaving applicants with no way to challenge or even detect it. The current numerical system is imperfect, but it is transparent. This proposal trades accountability for opacity, and that is a trade American science cannot afford.