The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has announced a significant change to its grant award process, moving away from the use of published funding cutoffs – historically known as “paylines” – in favor of a more unified, yet undefined, funding strategy. The shift, detailed in a November 21, 2025 announcement, raises questions about transparency and how scientific merit will be weighed against political influence in funding decisions.
The End of Paylines: A Quiet Change
The announcement itself downplays the significance of the change. The term “payline” doesn’t appear until well into the document, buried within a broader discussion of streamlining NIH funding. This deliberate placement underscores a key point: the NIH is actively de-emphasizing a metric that scientists have relied on for decades to assess their chances of securing research dollars.
The decision stems from an August 7, 2025 Executive Order issued by President Trump, granting his administration increased control over grant allocation. This move effectively shifts power away from the scientific peer review process, which traditionally guided funding decisions based on merit.
What Were Paylines and Why Do They Matter?
Paylines represented the percentage of submitted grant applications that an NIH Institute, Center, or Office (ICO) would fund in a given year. For example, a 10% payline meant that only one in ten applications would receive funding. These figures allowed researchers, patient advocates, and the public to gauge the competitiveness of NIH funding and hold the agency accountable.
Over the past two decades, paylines have steadily declined, reflecting a stagnant Congressional budget for the NIH against the rising costs of scientific research. As of 2025, many ICOs had paylines below 10%, meaning fewer than one in ten applications were successful. The latest change eliminates even this imperfect benchmark.
The Risks of Opacity
The shift away from paylines introduces several concerns. First, without a transparent metric, it becomes harder to assess whether funding decisions are based on scientific merit or political considerations. The NIH claims that peer review will still be weighed, but the announcement provides no details on how much influence it will retain.
This ambiguity is particularly troubling given the Trump administration’s track record of terminating already-awarded grants and withholding funds from universities that do not comply with its demands. Without paylines, the risk of politicized funding decisions increases significantly.
What Does This Mean for Researchers?
The elimination of paylines creates uncertainty for scientists. Previously, a strong peer review score and a percentile ranking below the payline offered a reasonable expectation of funding. Now, that correlation is less clear. Researchers may be left guessing whether their proposals will succeed based on scientific merit or arbitrary political factors.
The NIH’s new strategy may also encourage researchers to target ICOs with historically higher funding rates, further concentrating competition and potentially overlooking promising projects in underfunded areas. The long-term consequences remain uncertain, but the change undoubtedly introduces a new layer of unpredictability into the already competitive world of NIH grant funding.
Ultimately, the decision to abandon paylines raises serious questions about transparency and accountability in federal research funding. While the NIH insists its goal is clearer and more consistent decision-making, the move risks undermining the scientific process in favor of political control.
