**US Scientists Shocked by NIH Peer Review Suspension and Communication Block**
This week, the Trump administration implemented a sweeping and unexpected halt to peer reviews at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), leaving researchers across the United States astonished and the scientific community enveloped in confusion and uncertainty. This suspension, seemingly triggered by a regulatory freeze instituted by President Trump in his initial days in office, has disrupted many essential NIH operations, including the peer review of grant applications—an essential mechanism for propelling scientific research in the US.
In addition to halting peer review, the NIH faced communication and travel limitations, likely part of a broader order from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the NIH’s overseeing body. This order restricts federal health organizations from issuing public statements or official communications without prior evaluation from a White House official, resulting in the indefinite postponement of scheduled study section meetings and grant reviews. While these restrictions are tentatively scheduled to lift on February 1, the effects on research are already evident.
### **An Abrupt Cessation of Peer Review**
NIH study sections consist of groups of scientists that meticulously evaluate grant applications, judge their scientific value, and recommend funding—an integral process crucial for sustaining the nation’s research momentum. The suspension of these gatherings has left academics seeking clarity and has disrupted the assessment of numerous current and forthcoming proposals.
Dr. Matthew Hirschey, an experienced grant reviewer and cell biologist at Duke University, became aware of the suspension when a colleague informed him that study section meetings had essentially been cancelled. Researchers like Hirschey depend on a reliable NIH funding stream to further their work and maintain their laboratories. The sudden cessation jeopardizes grant submissions for key deadlines—such as the approaching February 5 cutoff—and has labs across the nation preparing for an unpredictable future.
Numerous scientists have turned to online platforms to comprehend the situation, exchanging snippets of communication from NIH review officers who are also grappling with the unclear consequences of the White House’s regulatory decisions. Some conveyed that scheduled study sections were unexpectedly halted in the middle of meetings, while others received cancellation notices for upcoming peer reviews. Researchers worry that these interruptions will lead to substantial delays in an already competitive and intricate grant system.
### **Consequences Throughout the Scientific Community**
The freeze on NIH peer review is part of a more extensive regulatory freeze instituted through executive order, one of many signed by President Trump during his first day in office. Chemistry World contributor and process chemist “Chemjobber” criticized the action, arguing that those behind the freeze may not fully grasp the harm it could cause to early-career researchers and university laboratories reliant on consistent NIH funding. “Young academic careers can and will be harmed by a sudden slowdown in the grant funding process,” they stated.
Compounding the chaos, the directive mandating pre-approval of communications has hindered NIH’s capacity to formally interact with researchers, institutions, and stakeholders. Everything from public announcements to grant award notifications seems to be halted until reviewed. This communication freeze could obstruct the official issuance of notice-of-award documents—a key contractual step vital for disbursing grant funds to institutions. In the absence of these procedures, some fear ongoing research programs may encounter delays or funding interruptions.
### **Consequences for Diversity and Inclusion Initiatives**
The Trump administration has faced backlash for targeting initiatives centered on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)—a contentious issue in public discussions. Some NIH grants, along with initiatives in other agencies like the Department of Energy, incorporate DEI elements to ensure equitable access to science and tackle systemic challenges. Reports indicate that the Department of Energy has already abolished its Promoting Inclusive & Equitable Research Plan, which required grant applicants to propose strategies to enhance DEI in their projects.
Academic researchers are concerned that DEI-centered grants at the NIH could similarly face increased scrutiny or delays, jeopardizing progress made in fostering inclusivity in STEM domains. Kyle Grice, a chemist at DePaul University with a bioinorganic chemistry grant scheduled for review later this month, expressed concern regarding the broader implications. “The current situation is complete chaos. It’s an incredibly challenging time right now,” Grice noted, emphasizing that agencies like the National Science Foundation (NSF) could also be impacted.
### **Interruptions to Drug and Public Health Research**
The NIH suspension also jeopardizes vital research sectors with direct consequences for public health. Dr. Jane Liebschutz, a University of Pittsburgh researcher focused on opioid addiction prevention, cautioned that the cascading repercussions of these suspensions could jeopardize university research budgets. Speaking on the social media platform Bluesky, Liebschutz indicated that this interruption could impede scientific advancement, leading to significant economic and societal consequences.
“This will halt science,” she cautioned, anticipating that the suspension will generate considerable backlogs that further postpone funding cycles. However, she also remarked that science is likely to resume eventually, especially after a new NIH director is appointed, highlighting…