Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Grant applications

Undo NIH policy to ease effect of cuts

You say that a petition by US biomedical scientists against the one-retry limit on grant applications to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) was “beside the point”, despite acknowledging the validity of their arguments (Nature 492, 7; 2012). As the petition's author, I disagree: trying to correct a poor policy decision is not the entire point, as we all recognize, but it is most certainly part of the point.

We believe that the petition — which has now been signed by more than 3,000 scientists (see — outweighs the questionable arguments for retention of the policy put forth by the NIH (see

In our view, NIH study sections cannot distinguish the quality of proposals in the first quartile. Therefore, once the percentage of applications being funded falls significantly below the 25th percentile, those in the first quartile that go unfunded should be allowed to resubmit as many times as they wish because they are equal in merit to those that are funded.

We are not in the grip of an “unhealthy” obsession, as you suggest. The NIH's unfair decision could be undone with the stroke of a pen, which would help to ease these tough times for biomedical research. We urge scientists to continue working on all fronts to contain the damage caused by reduced federal spending on research.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert Benezra.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Benezra, R. Undo NIH policy to ease effect of cuts. Nature 493, 480 (2013).

Download citation


Quick links