The US National Science Foundation (NSF) has begun loosening some of its long-standing rules for evaluating research grant proposals, as the agency struggles with a growing application backlog and a shrinking workforce. As one of the world’s most influential supporters of basic scientific research, the NSF’s decision has drawn close attention from within the scientific community. While agency staff acknowledge that the revised approach may help relieve pressure on an overstretched system, many also warn that it could weaken the rigor of the peer-review process.
For many years, NSF grant proposals were typically required to receive at least three external evaluations from scientists unaffiliated with the agency. Under the updated rules, only two reviews are now required, and in certain situations, one of those assessments may be conducted internally by an NSF scientist rather than an outside expert.
These changes were outlined in a revised version of the agency’s Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide, released on December 8. Additional internal instructions provided to NSF program officers, who oversee the review process, offer more detail on how the new rules are to be applied. To better understand how the policy shift is being implemented, Nature spoke with five NSF staff members. All requested anonymity, citing fears of possible retaliation.
Program officers say that allowing internal reviews in limited cases can significantly speed up the process. One officer described the added flexibility as helpful, particularly when dealing with proposals that clearly fail to meet baseline requirements for funding. At the same time, the officer emphasized concern that the reduced number of reviews could become standard practice even for strong proposals that genuinely deserve careful consideration. Many officers stress that hearing from a broad range of external experts is essential to fair and balanced decision-making.
A reliance on diverse expert opinions has long been a cornerstone of the NSF’s review system. Like many major science funding bodies, the agency depends heavily on scientists from outside the organization to assess the quality and potential impact of research proposals. Typically, submissions are evaluated by peer-review panels made up of three to ten independent specialists. Each panelist reviews a subset of applications, and program officers often seek additional input from other external experts through ad hoc reviews.
These assessments are discussed during extended panel meetings, often lasting an entire day. Panelists consider all written reviews before arriving at a collective evaluation of each proposal. Program officers then use these conclusions to make funding recommendations to division directors, who ultimately decide which projects will receive grants.
In addition to coordinating reviews, program officers prepare written summaries of panel discussions. These summaries are shared with applicants and can provide valuable feedback for improving future submissions. Historically, such summaries were detailed and often spanned multiple paragraphs. However, new internal guidance limits these explanations to just three to five sentences. Laurel Yohe, a bioinformatics researcher at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, describes this reduction as unfortunate, noting that these summaries often offer the most coherent and useful synthesis of the entire review process.
Under the revised system, an internal review conducted by NSF staff with appropriate subject-matter expertise may be used in rare cases when program officers are unable to secure two external reviews. External evaluations may still come from panelists or ad hoc reviewers, but some staff members strongly oppose the idea of substituting internal assessments for outside input. One program officer argued that the NSF’s mission is to serve the scientific community rather than direct it, and that relying on internal judgments risks undermining that principle.
According to internal documents, the stated goal of the new policy is to reduce workloads for both program officers and external reviewers, while easing bottlenecks that have slowed the review pipeline. Many staff members agree that the need for change is real, as the agency is operating under extraordinary strain.
The NSF has been hit hard by recent staffing reductions. Policies implemented under the administration of US President Donald Trump have led to widespread layoffs and encouraged federal employees to resign. As a result, the NSF has lost nearly 20 percent of its workforce, shrinking from around 1,700 employees at the start of 2025 to roughly 1,400 today. This reduction has significantly limited the agency’s ability to process the large volume of grant applications it receives.
Operational challenges were further compounded by a 43-day government shutdown in October and November, during which the NSF was forced to cancel more than 300 review panels. Although those panels have since been rescheduled, the disruption left the agency far behind its usual timetable for making funding decisions.
An NSF spokesperson did not specify whether the relaxed review requirements are intended as a permanent reform or a temporary response to current pressures. The spokesperson stated only that the new approach is designed to accelerate the handling of shutdown-related backlogs while preserving the integrity of the external merit review system.
Staffing issues are not the only source of upheaval at the agency. This week, the NSF is completing its move out of its longtime headquarters to make space for the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. The agency’s new offices, located about one kilometer away, are not yet fully equipped with furniture or computer networking infrastructure. As a result, employees remain uncertain about when they will be able to return to working in person, adding yet another layer of disruption to an already challenging period for the nation’s primary science funding agency.
Leave a Reply