Hubbry Logo
National Institutes of HealthNational Institutes of HealthMain
Open search
National Institutes of Health
Community hub
National Institutes of Health
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
National Institutes of Health
National Institutes of Health
National Institutes of Health
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

National Institutes of Health
Map

Aerial photo of the NIH Mark O. Hatfield Clinical Research Center in Bethesda, Maryland
Agency overview
FormedAugust 1887; 138 years ago (1887-08)
Preceding agency
  • Hygienic Laboratory
HeadquartersBethesda, Maryland, U.S.
39°00′09″N 77°06′16″W / 39.00250°N 77.10444°W / 39.00250; -77.10444
Employees18,478 (2021), [1]
Annual budget$45 billion (2022)
Agency executives
Parent agencyDepartment of Health & Human Services
Child agencies
Websitenih.gov

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the primary agency of the United States federal government responsible for biomedical and public health research. It was founded in 1887 and is part of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Many NIH facilities are located in Bethesda, Maryland, and other nearby suburbs of the Washington metropolitan area, with other primary facilities in Research Triangle Park in North Carolina and smaller satellite facilities located around the United States.

The NIH conducts its scientific research through the NIH Intramural Research Program (IRP) and provides significant biomedical research funding to non-NIH research facilities through its Extramural Research Program. As of 2013, the IRP had 1,200 principal investigators and more than 4,000 postdoctoral fellows in basic, translational, and clinical research, being the largest biomedical research institution in the world,[1] while, as of 2003, the extramural arm provided 28% of biomedical research funding spent annually in the U.S., or about US$26.4 billion.[2] Basic research by the NIH contributed to every new drug approved by the Federal Drug Administration over the period 2010–2016.[3]

The NIH is responsible for many scientific accomplishments, including the discovery of fluoride to prevent tooth decay, the use of lithium to manage bipolar disorder, and the creation of vaccines against hepatitis, Haemophilus influenzae (HIB), and human papillomavirus (HPV). In 2012, the NIH comprised 27 separate institutes and centers of different biomedical disciplines.[4]

In 2019, the NIH was ranked number two in the world, behind Harvard University, for biomedical sciences in the Nature Index, which measured the largest contributors to papers published in a subset of leading journals from 2015 to 2018.[5][6]

History

[edit]

Origins

[edit]
Ida A. Bengtson, a bacteriologist who in 1916 was the first woman hired to work in the Hygienic Laboratory[7]
Dedication of first six NIH buildings by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1940
NIH campus in Bethesda, Maryland, in 1945

In 1887, a laboratory for the study of bacteria, the Hygienic Laboratory, was established within the Marine Hospital Service, which at the time was expanding its functions beyond the system of Marine Hospitals into quarantine and research programs. It was initially located at the New York Marine Hospital on Staten Island.[8][9][10] In 1891, it moved to the top floor of the Butler Building in Washington, D.C. In 1904, it moved again to a new campus at the Old Naval Observatory, which grew to include five major buildings.[11]

In 1901, the Division of Scientific Research was formed, which included the Hygienic Laboratory as well as other research offices of the Marine Hospital Service.[12] In 1912, the Marine Hospital Service became the Public Health Service (PHS).[10] In 1922, PHS established a Special Cancer Investigations laboratory at Harvard Medical School. This development marked the beginning of partnerships with universities.[10]

In 1930, the Hygienic Laboratory was re-designated as the National Institute of Health by the Ransdell Act, and was given $750,000 to construct two NIH buildings at the Old Naval Observatory campus.[10] In 1937, the NIH absorbed the rest of the Division of Scientific Research, of which it was formerly part.[12][13]

In 1938, the NIH moved to its current campus in Bethesda, Maryland.[10] Over the next few decades, Congress would markedly increase funding of the NIH. Various institutes and centers within the NIH were created for specific research programs.[10] In 1944, the Public Health Service Act was approved and the National Cancer Institute became a division of the NIH. In 1948, the name changed from National Institute of Health to National Institutes of Health.

Later history

[edit]

In the 1960s, virologist and cancer researcher Chester M. Southam injected HeLa cancer cells into patients at the Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital.[14]: 130  When three doctors resigned after refusing to inject patients without their consent, the experiment gained considerable media attention.[14]: 133  The NIH was a major source of funding for Southam's research and required all research involving human subjects to obtain their consent before any experimentation.[14]: 135  Upon investigating all of their grantee institutions, the NIH discovered that the majority of them did not protect the rights of human subjects. From then on, the NIH has required all grantee institutions to approve any research proposals involving human experimentation with review boards.[14]: 135 

In 1967, the Division of Regional Medical Programs was created to administer grants for research for heart disease, cancer, and strokes. That same year, the NIH director lobbied the White House for increased federal funding to increase research and the speed with which health benefits could be brought to the people. An advisory committee was formed to oversee the further development of the NIH and its research programs. By 1971, cancer research was in full force, and President Nixon signed the National Cancer Act, initiating a National Cancer Program, President's Cancer Panel, National Cancer Advisory Board, and 15 new research, training, and demonstration centers.[15]

Funding for the NIH has often been a source of contention in the US Congress, serving as a proxy for the political currents of the time. In 1992, the NIH encompassed nearly one percent of the federal government's operating budget and controlled more than 50 percent of all funding for health research, and 85 percent of all funding for health studies in universities.[16] While government funding for research in other disciplines has been increasing at a rate similar to inflation since the 1970s, research funding for the NIH nearly tripled through the 1990s and early 2000s, but has remained relatively stagnant since then.[17]

By the 1990s, the NIH committee focus had shifted to DNA research and launched the Human Genome Project.[18]

On January 22, 2025, the Trump administration imposed an immediate freeze on meetings – such as grant review panels – as well as travel, communications, and hiring at the NIH, affecting $47.4 billion worth of activities.[19]

Leadership

[edit]
Main article: Director of the National Institutes of Health

The NIH Office of the Director is the central office responsible for setting policy for the NIH, and for planning, managing, and coordinating the programs and activities of all NIH components. The NIH Director plays an active role in shaping the agency's activities and outlook. The Director is responsible for providing leadership to the Institutes and Centers by identifying needs and opportunities, especially in efforts involving multiple Institutes.[20] Within the Director's Office is the Division of Program Coordination, Planning and Strategic Initiatives with 12 divisions including:

The Agency Intramural Research Integrity Officer "is directly responsible for overseeing the resolution of all research misconduct allegations involving intramural research, and for promoting research integrity within the NIH Office of Intramural Research (OIR)."[21] There is a Division of Extramural Activities, which has its own Director.[22] The Office of Ethics has its own Director,[23] as does the Office of Global Research.[24]

Locations and campuses

[edit]

Intramural research is primarily conducted at the main campus in Bethesda, Maryland, and Rockville, Maryland, and the surrounding communities.

Clinical Research Center at the NIH
Main Lobby Wall at the Clinical Research Center at the NIH
Looking at the Main Lobby at the Clinical Research Center at NIH
Looking at the Main Lobby at the Clinical Research Center at NIH

The Bayview Campus in Baltimore, Maryland houses the research programs of the National Institute on Aging, National Institute on Drug Abuse, and National Human Genome Research Institute with nearly 1,000 scientists and support staff.[25] The Frederick National Laboratory in Frederick, MD and the nearby Riverside Research Park, houses many components of the National Cancer Institute, including the Center for Cancer Research, Office of Scientific Operations, Management Operations Support Branch, the division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics and the division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis.[26]

The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences is located in the Research Triangle region of North Carolina.

Other ICs have satellite locations in addition to operations at the main campus. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases maintains its Rocky Mountain Labs in Hamilton, Montana,[27] with an emphasis on BSL3 and BSL4 laboratory work. NIDDK operates the Phoenix Epidemiology and Clinical Research Branch in Phoenix, Arizona.

Research

[edit]
Clinical Center – Building 10

As of 2017, 153 scientists receiving financial support from the NIH have been awarded a Nobel Prize and 195 have been awarded a Lasker Award.[28]

Intramural and extramural research

[edit]

In 2019, the NIH devoted 10% of its funding to research within its own facilities (intramural research), and gave >80% of its funding in research grants to extramural (outside) researchers.[29] Of this extramural funding, a certain percentage (2.8% in 2014) must be granted to small businesses under the SBIR/STTR program.[30] As of 2011, the extramural funding consisted of about 50,000 grants to more than 325,000 researchers at more than 3000 institutions.[31] By 2018, this rate of granting remained reasonably steady, at 47,000 grants to 2,700 organizations.[29] In FY 2010, the NIH spent US$10.7bn (not including temporary funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) on clinical research, US$7.4bn on genetics-related research, US$6.0bn on prevention research, US$5.8bn on cancer, and US$5.7bn on biotechnology.[32]

Public Access Policy

[edit]
Main article: NIH Public Access Policy

In 2008 a Congressional mandate called for investigators funded by the NIH to submit an electronic version of their final manuscripts to the National Library of Medicine's research repository, PubMed Central (PMC), no later than 12 months after the official date of publication.[33] The NIH Public Access Policy was the first public access mandate for a U.S. public funding agency.[34]

Economic return

[edit]

In 2000, the Joint Economic Committee of Congress reported NIH research, which was funded at $16 billion a year in 2000, that some econometric studies had given a rate of return of 25 to 40 percent per year by reducing the economic cost of illness in the US. It found that of the 21 drugs with the highest therapeutic impact on society introduced between 1965 and 1992, public funding was "instrumental" for 15.[35] As of 2011, NIH-supported research helped to discover 153 new FDA-approved drugs, vaccines, and new indications for drugs in the 40 years prior.[36] One study found NIH funding aided either directly or indirectly in developing the drugs or drug targets for all of the 210 FDA-approved drugs from 2010 to 2016.[37] In 2015, Pierre Azoulay et al. estimated $10 million invested in research generated two to three new patents.[38]

Notable discoveries and developments

[edit]

Since its inception, the NIH intramural research program has been a source of many pivotal scientific and medical discoveries. Some of these include:

  • 1908: George W. McCoy's discovery that rodents were a reservoir of bubonic plague.
  • 1911: George W. McCoy, Charles W. Chapin, William B. Wherry, and B. H. Lamb described the previously unknown tularemia.
  • 1924: Roscoe R. Spencer and Ralph R. Parker developed a vaccine against Rocky Mountain spotted fever.
  • 1930: Sanford M. Rosenthal developed a treatment for mercury poisoning used widely before the development of dimercaptoethanol.
  • 1943: Wilton R. Earle pioneered the cell culture process and published a paper describing the production of malignancy in vitro, Katherine K. Sanford developed the first clone from an isolated cancer cell, and Virginia J. Evans devised a medium that supported growth of cells in vitro.
  • 1940s–1950s: Bernard Horecker and colleagues described the pentose phosphate pathway.
  • 1950s: Julius Axelrod discovered a new class of enzymes, cytochrome P450 monooxygenases, a fundamental of drug metabolism.
  • 1950: Earl Stadtman discovered phosphotransacetylose, elucidating the role of acetyl CoA in fatty acid metabolism.
  • 1960s: Discovered the first human slow virus disease, kuru, which is a degenerative, fatal infection of the central nervous system. This discovery of a new mechanism for infectious diseases revolutionized thinking in microbiology and neurology.
  • 1960s: Defined the mechanisms that regulate noradrenaline, one of the most important neurotransmitters in the brain.
  • 1960s: Developed the first licensed rubella vaccine and the first test for rubella antibodies for large scale testing.
  • 1960s: Developed an effective combination drug regimen for Hodgkin's lymphoma.
  • 1960s: Discovery that tooth decay is caused by bacteria.
  • 1970s: Developed the assay for human chorionic gonadotropin that evolved into the home pregnancy tests.
  • 1970s: Described the hormonal cycle involved in menstruation.
  • 1980s: Determined the complete structure of the IgE receptor that is involved in allergic reactions.
  • 1990s: Hari Reddi's identification and purification of bone morphogenetic proteins[39]
  • 1990s: First trial of gene therapy in humans.

NIH Toolbox

[edit]

In September 2006, the NIH Blueprint for Neuroscience Research started a contract for the NIH Toolbox for the Assessment of Neurological and Behavioral Function to develop a set of state-of-the-art measurement tools to enhance collection of data in large cohort studies. Scientists from more than 100 institutions nationwide contributed. In September 2012, the NIH Toolbox was rolled out to the research community. NIH Toolbox assessments are based, where possible, on Item Response Theory and adapted for testing by computer.[citation needed]

Database of Genotypes and Phenotypes

[edit]

NIH sponsors the Database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP), a repository of information produced by studies investigating the interaction of genotype and phenotype. The information includes phenotypes, molecular assay data, analyses and documents. Summary-level data is available to the general public whereas the individual-level data is accessible to researchers.[40] According to the City Journal NIH denies access to such attributes as intelligence, education and health on the grounds that studying their genetic basis would be stigmatizing.[41]

Coronavirus vaccine

[edit]

The NIH partnered with Moderna in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic to develop a vaccine. The final phase of testing began on July 27 with up to 30,000 volunteers assigned to one of two groups—one receiving the mRNA-1273 vaccine and the other receiving salt water injections—and continued until there had been approximately 100 cases of COVID-19 among the participants.[42][43] In 2021, the NIH contributed $4,395,399 towards the Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV) program.[44]

Grant to EcoHealth Alliance and Wuhan Institute for studying bat coronaviruses

[edit]
See also: COVID-19 lab leak theory and Investigations into the origin of COVID-19

Following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the NIH-funded EcoHealth Alliance has been the subject of controversy and increased scrutiny due to its ties to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV)—which has been at the center of speculation since early 2020 that SARS-CoV-2 may have escaped in a lab incident.[45][46][47] Between 2014 and 2019, NIH awarded approximately $3.7 million in grant funding to EcoHealth Alliance, a nonprofit organization focused on global health and infectious disease research. A portion of this funding, around $600,000, was subcontracted to WIV in China as part of a project titled "Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence."[citation needed] The project aimed to study bat coronaviruses and assess their potential to infect humans. The research at WIV included the creation of chimeric viruses, which combined genetic material from different bat coronaviruses to evaluate their ability to infect human cells.[citation needed] In documents released in 2021, including NIH correspondence with Congress, it was disclosed that one of these modified viruses resulted in an "unexpected outcome," where the virus became more infectious in humanized mice.[citation needed] The NIH maintained that this outcome was not the intended goal of the research and did not violate the terms of the grant, though critics raised concerns about potential gain-of-function research. Under political pressure, the NIH withdrew funding to EcoHealth Alliance in July 2020.[48] In 2023, HHS barred WIV from receiving U.S. government funding for a decade, citing non-compliance with safety and reporting standards.[citation needed]

NIH Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee

[edit]

On February 13, 2012, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced a new group of individuals assigned to research pain. This committee is composed of researchers from different organizations and will focus to "coordinate pain research activities across the federal government with the goals of stimulating pain research collaboration… and providing an important avenue for public involvement" ("Members of new", 2012). With a committee such as this research will not be conducted by each individual organization or person but instead a collaborating group which will increase the information available. With this hopefully more pain management will be available including techniques for those with arthritis.[49] In 2020 Beth Darnall, American scientist and pain psychologist, was appointed as scientific member of the group.

Funding

[edit]

Budget and politics

[edit]
Historical NIH budget[50]
Year $ millions
1938 0.5
1940 0.7
1945 2.8
1950 52.7
1955 81.2
1960 399.4
1965 959.2
1970 1,061.0
1975 2,092.9
1980 3,428.9
1985 5,149.5
1990 7,567.4
1995 11,299.5
2000 17,840.5
2005 28,594.4
2010 31,238.0
2015 30,311.4
2016 32,311.4
2017 34,300.9
2018 37,311.3
2019 39,311.3
2020 41,690.0
2021 42,940.5
2022 45,183.0
2023 47,683.5
2024 48,856.5

To allocate funds, the NIH must first obtain its budget from Congress. This process begins with institute and center (IC) leaders collaborating with scientists to determine the most important and promising research areas within their fields. IC leaders discuss research areas with NIH management who then develops a budget request for continuing projects, new research proposals, and new initiatives from the Director. The NIH submits its budget request to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the HHS considers this request as a portion of its budget. Many adjustments and appeals occur between the NIH and HHS before the agency submits NIH's budget request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). OMB determines what amounts and research areas are approved for incorporation into the President's final budget. The President then sends the NIH's budget request to Congress in February for the next fiscal year's allocations.[51] The House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees deliberate and by fall, Congress usually appropriates funding. This process takes approximately 18 months before the NIH can allocate any actual funds.[52]

When a government shutdown occurs, the NIH continues to treat people who are already enrolled in clinical trials, but does not start any new clinical trials and does not admit new patients who are not already enrolled in a clinical trial, except for the most critically ill, as determined by the NIH Director.[53][54][55][56]

Historical funding

[edit]

Over the last century, the responsibility to allocate funding has shifted from the OD and Advisory Committee to the individual ICs and Congress increasingly set apart funding for particular causes. In the 1970s, Congress began to earmark funds specifically for cancer research, and in the 1980s there was a significant amount allocated for AIDS/HIV research.[57]

Funding for the NIH has often been a source of contention in Congress, serving as a proxy for the political currents of the time. During the 1980s, President Reagan repeatedly tried to cut funding for research, only to see Congress partly restore funding. The political contention over NIH funding slowed the nation's response to the AIDS epidemic; while AIDS was reported in newspaper articles from 1981, no funding was provided for research on the disease. In 1984 National Cancer Institute scientists found implications that "variants of a human cancer virus called HTLV-III are the primary cause of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS)," a new epidemic that gripped the nation.[10]

In 1992, the NIH encompassed nearly 1 percent of the federal government's operating budget and controlled more than 50 percent of all funding for health research and 85 percent of all funding for health studies in universities.[16] From 1993 to 2001 the NIH budget doubled. For a time, funding essentially remained flat, and for seven years after the 2008 financial crisis, the NIH budget struggled to keep up with inflation.[58]

In 1999 Congress increased the NIH's budget by $2.3 billion[57] to $17.2 billion in 2000.[59] In 2009 Congress again increased the NIH budget to $31 billion in 2010.[59] In 2017 and 2018, Congress passed laws with bipartisan support that substantially increasing appropriations for the NIH, which was 37.3 billion dollars annually in FY2018.[60][61]

Funding freezes
[edit]

From the outset of 2025, NIH funding operations have faced interruptions on an unprecedented scale under the direction of the current executive branch of the U.S. government; disruptions as of March 2025 include the following:

• impeding grants for dementia and ALS research;

• hindering procurement of necessary resources, such as those for transporting patient blood samples;

• preventing a research scientist from consulting with physicians treating children with a devastating rare condition;

• interrupting the supply of mice for genetic studies, with years of research being imperiled as a result;

• cutting research grants for training doctoral and postdoctoral students.[62]

This has led to protests such as the Bethesda Declaration, an open letter from former and current NIH staffers.[63][64]

Extramural research

[edit]
Main article: NIH grant

Researchers at universities or other institutions outside of the NIH can apply for research project grants (RPGs) from the NIH. There are numerous funding mechanisms for different project types (e.g., basic research, clinical research, etc.) and career stages (e.g., early career, postdoc fellowships, etc.). The NIH regularly issues "requests for applications" (RFAs), e.g., on specific programmatic priorities or timely medical problems (such as Zika virus research in early 2016). In addition, researchers can apply for "investigator-initiated grants" whose subject is determined by the scientist.

The total number of applicants has increased substantially, from about 60,000 investigators who had applied during the period from 1999 to 2003 to slightly less than 90,000 in who had applied during the period from 2011 to 2015.[65] Due to this, the "cumulative investigator rate", that is, the likelihood that unique investigators are funded over a 5-year window, has declined from 43% to 31%.[65]

R01 grants are the most common funding mechanism and include investigator-initiated projects. The roughly 27,000 to 29,000 R01 applications had a funding success of 17-19% during 2012 though 2014. Similarly, the 13,000 to 14,000 R21 applications had a funding success of 13-14% during the same period.[66] In FY 2016, the total number of grant applications received by the NIH was 54,220, with approximately 19% being awarded funding.[67] Institutes have varying funding rates. The National Cancer Institute awarded funding to 12% of applicants, while the National Institute for General Medical Science awarded funding to 30% of applicants.[67]

Funding criteria

[edit]

The NIH employs five broad decision criteria in its funding policy. First, ensure the highest quality of scientific research by employing an arduous peer review process. Second, seize opportunities that have the greatest potential to yield new knowledge and that will lead to better prevention and treatment of disease. Third, maintain a diverse research portfolio to capitalize on major discoveries in a variety of fields such as cell biology, genetics, physics, engineering, and computer science. Fourth, address public health needs according to the disease burden (e.g., prevalence and mortality). And fifth, construct and support the scientific infrastructure (e.g., well-equipped laboratories and safe research facilities) necessary to conduct research.[68]

Advisory committee members advise the institute on policy and procedures affecting the external research programs and provide a second level of review for all grant and cooperative agreement applications considered by the Institute for funding.[69]

Gender and sex bias

[edit]

In 2014, it was announced that the NIH is directing scientists to perform their experiments with both female and male animals, or cells derived from females as well as males if they are studying cell cultures, and that the NIH would take the balance of each study design into consideration when awarding grants.[70] The announcement also stated that this rule would probably not apply when studying sex-specific diseases (for example, ovarian or testicular cancer).[70]

Stakeholders

[edit]

General public

[edit]

One of the goals of the NIH is to "expand the base in medical and associated sciences in order to ensure a continued high return on the public investment in research."[71] Taxpayer dollars funding the NIH are from the taxpayers, making them the primary beneficiaries of advances in research. Thus, the general public is a key stakeholder in the decisions resulting from the NIH funding policy.[72][failed verification] However, some in the general public do not feel their interests are being represented, and individuals have formed patient advocacy groups to represent their own interests.[73]

Extramural researchers and scientists

[edit]

Important stakeholders of the NIH funding policy include researchers and scientists. Extramural researchers differ from intramural researchers in that they are not employed by the NIH but may apply for funding. Throughout the history of the NIH, the amount of funding received has increased, but the proportion to each IC remains relatively constant. The individual ICs then decide who will receive the grant money and how much will be allotted.

Policy changes on who receives funding significantly affect researchers. For example, the NIH has recently attempted to approve more first-time NIH R01 applicants or the research grant applications of young scientists. To encourage the participation of young scientists, the application process has been shortened and made easier.[74] In addition, first-time applicants are being offered more funding for their research grants than those who have received grants in the past.[75]

Commercial partnerships

[edit]

In 2011 and 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General published a series of audit reports revealing that throughout the fiscal years 2000–2010, institutes under the aegis of the NIH did not comply with the time and amount requirements specified in appropriations statutes, in awarding federal contracts to commercial partners, committing the federal government to tens of millions of dollars of expenditure ahead of appropriation of funds from Congress.[76]

Institutes and centers

[edit]
Main article: List of NIH ICs

The NIH is composed of 27 separate institutes and centers that conduct and coordinate biomedical research.[77] These are:

In addition, the National Center for Research Resources operated from April 13, 1962, to December 23, 2011.

ARPA-H

[edit]
Main article: Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health

The Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H) is an entity formerly within the Office of the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services, which was created by Congress in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022.[78] Modeled after DARPA, HSARPA, IARPA, and ARPA-E, it is intended to pursue unconventional research projects through methods not typically used by federal agencies or private sector companies. Secretary Xavier Becerra delegated ARPA-H to the NIH on May 24, 2022.[79][80][81] It received $1 billion in appropriations in 2022, and $1.5 billion in 2023, and as of June 2023 it is requesting $2.5 billion for 2024.[82][83]

Consensus Development Program

[edit]

The Consensus Development Program is an initiative focused on gathering expert opinions to establish standards and guidelines in various fields, especially in health and medicine. Developed as a collaborative effort by organizations such as the NIH, the program assembles panels of specialists who assess available evidence on critical topics and form recommendations to guide clinical practice and policy. This method helps ensure that healthcare decisions are informed by the latest scientific research and expert consensus.[84]

List of previous directors

[edit]
Main article: Director of the National Institutes of Health § List of directors

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

National Institutes of Health

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the primary federal agency in the United States for conducting and supporting , operating as a component of the Department of Health and Human Services with a mission to advance fundamental knowledge of living systems to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce illness and disability. Tracing its origins to a one-room of established in 1887 within the Marine Service, the NIH has grown into one of the world's leading organizations, structured around 27 institutes and centers each targeting specific , body systems, or research areas, with most facilities located on a 300-acre campus in . In fiscal year 2024, the NIH managed a of approximately $47 billion, directing over 80% of its funds to extramural grants awarded to researchers at universities, medical schools, and other institutions nationwide, thereby supporting a vast network of scientific inquiry that has yielded empirical breakthroughs in areas such as vaccine development, genetic therapies, and diagnostic technologies. Key achievements encompass NIH-backed discoveries that have transformed , including the elucidation of mechanisms for prevention and treatment innovations that demonstrably extend lifespan and mitigate chronic conditions through rigorous, data-driven experimentation. The agency has also been central to notable controversies, including debates over the funding and oversight of on potential pathogens, where empirical assessments of risks—such as enhanced transmissibility—have prompted policy reviews and restrictions to balance scientific benefits against hazards.

History

Origins and Establishment

The Hygienic Laboratory, the direct predecessor to the National Institutes of Health, was established in 1887 as a one-room facility within the Marine Hospital Service (MHS) on , New York. Founded by Assistant Surgeon amid advances in , the laboratory aimed to apply microbiological methods to challenges, including outbreaks and enforcement, reflecting the MHS's origins in 1798 as a federal system for seamen's care that evolved into broader sanitary oversight. Initial research focused on water purity, vaccine production, and pathogen identification, with early successes in tetanus development by 1890. The laboratory relocated multiple times— to the District of Columbia in 1891 for proximity to federal operations—and expanded under the MHS, which reorganized as the Public Health Service in 1912, incorporating hygiene divisions for disease control. By the , wartime experiences with and advocacy from scientists, including former Chemical Warfare Service members, highlighted the need for a dedicated national biomedical research entity to centralize intramural studies beyond ad hoc public health responses. On May 26, 1930, the Ransdell Act (P.L. 71-251), sponsored by Representative Joseph E. Ransdell, formally redesignated the Hygienic Laboratory as the National Institute of Health (singular) within the Public Health Service. The legislation authorized fellowships for advanced training, acceptance of private endowments and gifts, and construction of expanded facilities on 55 acres in , shifting focus toward systematic biomedical investigation while retaining ties to service delivery. This establishment formalized NIH as an independent research arm, enabling growth from five staff to a structured institute amid rising federal investment in science.

Expansion and Institutional Growth

The redesignation of the Hygienic Laboratory as the National Institute of Health in 1930 via the Ransdell Act marked the beginning of institutional expansion, with Congress appropriating $750,000 for constructing two buildings on a new campus in , to which NIH relocated in 1938. Post-World War II, the agency underwent rapid growth, driven by wartime demonstrations of biomedical 's value and advocacy from voluntary health organizations and philanthropists like , resulting in the creation of new institutes including the in 1946, National Institute of Dental Research in 1948, and National Heart Institute in 1948. The extramural budget surged 100-fold from 1945 to 1950 and over 1,000-fold by 1960, reflecting a shift toward funding external grants at universities and medical schools while maintaining intramural programs. A pivotal development was the authorization of the in 1944 under the , which opened on July 2, 1953, as the largest hospital built specifically for , enabling integrated studies of basic science and patient care with over 500 beds initially. This facility, located on the Bethesda campus, symbolized the agency's growing emphasis on and supported expansions in personnel and infrastructure, with the overall NIH budget increasing 150-fold from approximately $3 million in 1945 to $460 million by 1961. By the late , NIH's mission broadened to address chronic conditions such as heart disease and cancer, further institutionalizing its role in research amid rising federal investments. Subsequent decades saw continued proliferation of institutes and centers, evolving from a singular entity in 1930 to 27 components by the early , alongside workforce growth to over 17,700 employees and a decentralized encompassing 20 institutes and additional centers. doublings, such as from $13.7 billion in FY1998 to $27.1 billion in FY2003, amplified this expansion, enhancing extramural grant mechanisms and campus facilities despite periodic critiques of administrative overhead.

Key Developments in the Late 20th and Early 21st Centuries

In response to the emerging AIDS epidemic, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) initiated dedicated research efforts in the early 1980s, with Congress appropriating the first specific funding for AIDS-related activities across the Department of Health and Human Services in May 1983. This marked a pivotal shift, as NIH intramural and extramural programs rapidly expanded to isolate the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) by 1984 and develop initial screening tests for blood supplies. By 1987, the first Phase 1 HIV vaccine clinical trial commenced at the NIH Clinical Center in Bethesda, Maryland, underscoring the agency's central role in antiviral drug development and immunology research amid the crisis. In 1988, Congress established the NIH Office of AIDS Research to coordinate cross-institute efforts, which grew to allocate billions annually by the 1990s, contributing to antiretroviral therapies that transformed HIV from a fatal diagnosis to a manageable condition. The Human Genome Project, launched in October 1990 as a collaborative international effort co-led by NIH and the Department of Energy, represented a cornerstone of genomic research, aiming to sequence the entire human DNA complement of approximately 3 billion base pairs. By 2003, the project achieved its goal ahead of schedule and under budget, producing a draft sequence that enabled subsequent advances in personalized medicine, genetic diagnostics, and disease modeling, with NIH funding constituting the majority of the estimated $3.8 billion U.S. investment (in 1991 dollars). This initiative spurred the creation of bioinformatics tools and public databases, fostering a paradigm shift from descriptive to functional genomics across NIH institutes. Fiscal expansions in the late and early amplified NIH's research capacity, with committing to double the agency's from $13.6 billion in 1998 to $27.3 billion by 2003, a 100% increase over five years that outpaced and prior growth rates. This surge, advocated by scientific communities and groups, supported a 15-16% annual funding rise under President George W. Bush's final proposed , enabling broader extramural grants, infrastructure investments, and initiatives like the NIH Roadmap for Medical Research launched in 2003 to address translational bottlenecks. However, post-doubling stagnation relative to biomedical led to critiques of reduced grant success rates and indirect cost pressures by the mid-. Policy shifts on human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research highlighted tensions between ethical constraints and scientific potential. In August 2001, President Bush restricted federal funding to research on existing hESC lines derived before that date, limiting NIH support to avoid incentivizing embryo destruction, a stance rooted in prohibiting funding for embryo creation or harm. This policy persisted until March 2009, when President Obama issued an directing NIH to develop new guidelines, culminating in the 2010 NIH Guidelines for Human Stem Cell , which expanded eligibility to lines derived under ethical by institutional committees, thereby revitalizing federal investment in while maintaining bans on derivation funding. These changes facilitated over 100 approved hESC lines for NIH-supported studies by the early , though debates over oversight and alternatives like induced pluripotent stem cells continued.

Reforms and Restructuring in the 2020s

In response to criticisms of administrative bloat and misaligned priorities, the National Institutes of Health undertook significant restructuring in 2025 under the second Trump administration. Following the confirmation of as the 18th NIH Director in May 2025, the agency announced a unified strategic framework on August 15, 2025, prioritizing research into chronic diseases such as childhood conditions and nutrition-related disorders, alongside integration of and real-world data platforms for health analysis. This strategy, informed by a presidential on gold-standard and the Make America Healthy Again Commission report, introduced enhanced oversight of foreign research collaborations through revised award structures and established the Office of Research Innovation, Validation, and Application to advance replication studies, alternative experimental models, and solution-focused inquiries into health disparities. As part of broader Department of Health and Human Services transformations directed by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and aligned with the Department of Government Efficiency initiative, NIH centralized procurement, human resources, and communications functions across its components, resulting in a workforce reduction of approximately 1,200 employees by mid-2025. These measures aimed to streamline operations and redirect resources toward core biomedical priorities, amid proposed budget reallocations that avoided outright cuts but emphasized efficiency, including a $500 million allocation (1% of the annual budget) for replication studies and fraud detection mechanisms. Legislative proposals further targeted structural changes, with the NIH Reform Act (H.R. 1497 and S. 664), reintroduced in February 2025 by Representatives Chip Roy and Morgan Griffith and Senator Rand Paul, seeking to dismantle the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and replace it with three specialized institutes focused on allergies, infectious diseases, and emerging pathogens to address perceived silos and past funding imbalances. Broader reform blueprints advocated consolidating NIH's 27 institutes and centers into six major offices organized by biological systems, reviving the Scientific Management Review Board for oversight, and capping administrative burdens on researchers at 20% of their time through AI-assisted compliance tools. Grant-making processes were overhauled to empower political appointees in final funding decisions, departing from prior scientist-led models and enabling termination of thousands of contracts deemed inconsistent with refocused priorities, including initiatives and certain international clinical trials. Bhattacharya defended these shifts as necessary to restore , foster scientific dissent, and align with empirical health outcomes over ideologically driven allocations, though they prompted an from NIH staff in June 2025 protesting the cancellations and perceived politicization. Additional policies mandated transparent reporting of null results to mitigate and expanded the NIH Common Fund to $2 billion for cross-cutting efforts like nutrition research. These reforms, implemented via administrative authority rather than new , sought to counteract longstanding institutional tendencies toward and potential biases in , prioritizing causal mechanisms in disease prevention.

Organizational Structure

Leadership and Directorate

The Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is appointed by the and confirmed by the , serving as the chief executive responsible for providing overall leadership to the agency, including oversight of its 27 institutes and centers (ICs). The Director heads the Office of the Director (OD), which functions as the central coordinating body for NIH, setting policies, managing budgets, coordinating research activities across components, and addressing cross-cutting priorities such as ethics, , and emergencies. This role involves identifying emerging scientific needs, allocating resources for intramural and extramural programs, and advising the Secretary of Health and Human Services on biomedical research strategy. As of October 2025, , M.D., Ph.D., serves as the 18th NIH Director, having assumed the position on April 1, 2025, following Senate confirmation on March 25, 2025, by a 53-47 vote. Bhattacharya, a tenured professor at prior to his appointment, specializes in , population aging, and chronic disease , with over 170 peer-reviewed publications; he co-authored the 2020 advocating focused protection during the over broad lockdowns. He succeeded Matthew J. Memoli, M.D., M.S., who acted as Director from January 22 to March 31, 2025. The OD's directorate includes senior executive roles such as the Principal Deputy Director, currently held by Matthew Memoli, who supports the Director in day-to-day operations and policy implementation. Other key positions encompass deputy directors for specific functions (e.g., program coordination, extramural research), the managing administrative services, and offices handling legislative affairs, communications, and advisory committee policy. The structure emphasizes decentralized authority for ICs while centralizing strategic oversight, with the Director chairing bodies like advisory councils to integrate input from IC directors and external experts. Recent reforms, including term limits for IC directors (up to two five-year terms subject to approval), aim to enhance accountability under the OD's leadership.

Component Institutes and Centers

The National Institutes of Health comprises 27 institutes and centers that conduct and support biomedical research, training, and information dissemination, with each focusing on specific diseases, organ systems, or operational functions. These components, operating under the Department of Health and Human Services, function semi-autonomously while coordinating through the Office of the Director to address NIH's overarching goals in health advancement. The structure includes 20 institutes primarily dedicated to targeted biomedical areas and 7 centers that provide broader infrastructural, translational, or review support; this decentralized model enables specialized expertise but has drawn scrutiny for potential silos in cross-disciplinary collaboration.

Institutes

  • National Cancer Institute (NCI): Focuses on eliminating cancer suffering through research; established 1937.
  • National Eye Institute (NEI): Conducts research on blinding eye diseases, preserving and improving vision; established 1968.
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI): Provides leadership in preventing and treating heart, lung, and blood diseases; established 1948.
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI): Advances understanding of the human genome's role in health and disease; established 1989 (as National Center for Human Genome Research, reorganized 1996).
  • National Institute on Aging (NIA): Leads research on aging processes and age-related diseases; established 1974.
  • National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA): Supports research to improve prevention and treatment of alcohol misuse; established 1970.
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID): Researches causes, diagnoses, treatments, and prevention of infectious and allergic diseases; established 1948.
  • National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS): Conducts research on arthritis, musculoskeletal conditions, and skin diseases; established 1986.
  • National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB): Develops innovative imaging and bioengineering technologies to enhance disease detection and treatment; established 2000.
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD): Focuses on improving health of children, adults with developmental disabilities, and reproductive health; established 1962.
  • National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD): Investigates causes, treatments, and prevention of hearing loss and communication disorders; established 1988.
  • National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR): Advances research on oral, dental, and craniofacial diseases; established 1948 (as National Institute of Dental Research, renamed 1998).
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK): Conducts research on diabetes, endocrine, digestive, kidney, and urologic diseases; established 1950.
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA): Leads research on addiction causes, consequences, prevention, and treatment; established 1974.
  • National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS): Studies how environmental factors affect human health; established 1969.
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS): Supports basic research in fundamental biomedical sciences; established 1962.
  • National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH): Drives research on the brain, mind, and behavior to understand and treat mental illnesses; established 1949.
  • National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD): Leads scientific research to improve minority health and eliminate health disparities; established 2010.
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS): Focuses on understanding, treating, and preventing neurological disorders; established 1950.
  • National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR): Advances nursing science to address health challenges across the lifespan; established 1986 (as National Center for Nursing Research, elevated to institute 1993).
  • National Library of Medicine (NLM): Serves as the world's largest biomedical library, providing information resources and research support; established 1956 (as part of Public Health Service, formalized under NIH).

Centers

  • NIH Clinical Center (CC): Operates the nation's largest hospital dedicated to , supporting patient trials; established 1953.
  • Center for Information Technology (CIT): Delivers computational, communications, and systems for NIH; established 1964 (as Division of Computer Research and Technology, reorganized).
  • Center for Scientific Review (CSR): Organizes of grant applications for NIH and other agencies; established 1946.
  • Fogarty International Center (FIC): Promotes and supports research training and collaboration; established 1968.
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS): Accelerates development of diagnostics, therapeutics, and medical devices from bench to bedside; established 2011.
  • National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH): Investigates complementary health approaches and their integration into care; established 1999 (as National Center for Complementary and , renamed 2015).

Facilities and Campuses

The primary NIH campus is located in , spanning over 300 acres with more than 75 buildings that house administrative offices, research laboratories, and clinical facilities. This campus supports the majority of NIH's intramural research program, including state-of-the-art laboratories for biomedical studies across various institutes. Central to the Bethesda campus is the , the world's largest hospital dedicated exclusively to , featuring 200 inpatient beds, 93 day-hospital stations, and specialized units such as positive and negative pressure isolation rooms for high-risk studies. In addition to Bethesda, NIH operates several specialized campuses for targeted research needs. The Poolesville campus in serves as the NIH Animal Center, providing facilities for housing, quarantine, and behavioral studies of large animals, including non-human , , and ungulates, to support immunological and preclinical research across multiple institutes. The Frederick campus, managed by the (NCI), is a biomedical research site at focused on cancer, AIDS, and infectious diseases, encompassing the Frederick National Laboratory for and collaborative facilities for advanced technologies like and . Further afield, the in , under the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), feature biosafety level 4 (BSL-4) capabilities for studying high-containment pathogens and infectious disease mechanisms in a secure, isolated environment. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) maintains its campus in , , equipped with laboratories for , , and a 14,000-square-foot Clinical Research Unit to investigate environmental impacts on human health. NIH also utilizes leased spaces in , including Rockville, to accommodate additional research and administrative functions.

Research Programs

Intramural Research Operations

The National Institutes of Health's Intramural Research Program (IRP) encompasses the internal research activities conducted by approximately 1,200 principal investigators and over 4,000 postdoctoral fellows across its laboratories and clinical facilities, primarily on the Bethesda, Maryland campus. This program integrates basic, translational, and clinical research, enabling direct collaboration between scientists and clinicians without the constraints of external grant cycles. Operations are overseen by the Office of Intramural Research (OIR), which develops NIH-wide policies, manages program oversight, and facilitates resource allocation for intramural projects. Intramural research accounts for roughly 10-11% of the NIH's annual , totaling over $4 billion in 2023 to support nearly 6,000 scientists in-house. sustains laboratory-based investigations, clinical trials, and training programs, with principal investigators receiving stable support to pursue high-risk, innovative projects that may not attract extramural grants. The program's structure allows for rapid pivoting to emerging health threats, as demonstrated by intramural contributions to development and genomic studies. Central to operations is the , the world's largest hospital dedicated exclusively to , housing over 180 ongoing clinical trials from various institutes, such as the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Established in 1953, it provides inpatient and outpatient care to research participants, facilitating first-in-human studies and longitudinal patient data collection that bridges preclinical findings to therapeutic applications. Intramural scientists conduct experiments in specialized facilities, including biosafety level 4 labs for high-containment pathogens and advanced imaging centers, ensuring seamless integration of discovery science with patient-oriented outcomes. Training constitutes a core operational element, hosting nearly 5,000 trainees including postbaccalaureates, graduate students, and clinical fellows who contribute to while gaining hands-on experience in a multidisciplinary environment. Tenure-track positions for principal investigators emphasize merit-based advancement, with panels evaluating scientific productivity and innovation every few years. This operational model fosters long-term projects, such as those in the National Cancer Institute's intramural program, which combine genomic sequencing with population-based studies at the Clinical Center. Despite its strengths in agility and integration, the program's concentration of resources has drawn scrutiny for potential inefficiencies compared to competitive extramural funding, though empirical returns include pivotal advances in areas like .

Extramural Grant Funding Mechanisms

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) allocates approximately 80-85% of its research budget to extramural activities, funding projects conducted by external investigators at universities, medical centers, and other institutions across the United States and internationally. Extramural grants primarily support biomedical research through investigator-initiated proposals, with the remainder directed toward intramural programs. These mechanisms emphasize peer-reviewed competition to prioritize scientific merit, innovation, and potential impact on public health. NIH employs three principal extramural funding mechanisms: , agreements, and contracts, each distinguished by the degree of federal involvement and applicant obligations. , the most prevalent, provide financial assistance for research without substantial NIH programmatic oversight, allowing principal investigators flexibility in project execution. agreements resemble but involve greater NIH collaboration, such as shared decision-making on protocol adjustments, suitable for projects requiring federal expertise like clinical trials. Contracts, in contrast, procure specific goods or services with defined deliverables, often for product development or , and are managed through competitive bidding rather than . Within the grant mechanism, NIH uses activity codes to categorize awards, with the R series dominating as project grants (RPGs). The R01, the flagship mechanism, funds independent projects typically lasting 3-5 years with budgets up to $500,000 annually (), supporting hypothesis-driven studies by established investigators. The R21 mechanism targets exploratory or high-risk , offering smaller budgets (up to $275,000 over two years) without preliminary data requirements to encourage . Other R-series variants include R03 for small-scale projects (up to $50,000/year for two years) and R15 for institutions with limited NIH history, promoting diversity in participation. Multi-project grants like P01 (program projects) coordinate collaborative teams on thematic , while grants (P30, P50) build for shared resources. Applications undergo a dual-review process to ensure rigor. The initial , conducted by scientific review groups (study sections) organized by for Scientific Review (CSR) or individual institutes, evaluates proposals on significance, investigator capability, innovation, approach, and environment—scored overall from 10-90, with recent simplification for applications due on or after January 25, 2025, emphasizing five core criteria without sub-scores. The second level involves advisory councils, which assess alignment with NIH priorities, budget recommendations, and policy considerations before final award decisions by institute directors. Success rates for RPGs hover around 20-25%, varying by institute and fiscal constraints, with paylines adjusted annually based on appropriated funds.

Specialized Initiatives and Tools

The NIH supports several cross-cutting initiatives aimed at addressing complex biomedical challenges through coordinated, large-scale efforts. The , launched in 2013, seeks to develop new tools for mapping circuits and understanding neural activity at multiple scales, with a focus on accelerating discoveries relevant to neurological disorders. By 2023, the initiative had funded over 800 projects, emphasizing technologies like high-resolution imaging and computational modeling to integrate data across levels. The Research Program, established in 2015 as part of the Precision Medicine Initiative, collects from at least one million diverse participants to enable precision medicine approaches that account for individual variability in , environment, and . As of 2024, it had enrolled over 633,000 participants, providing researchers access to de-identified data including electronic health records, genomic sequences, and survey responses via the Researcher platform. The Cancer Moonshot, initially authorized in 2016 and expanded in subsequent administrations, coordinates federal resources to achieve a decade's worth of in five years, targeting , early detection, and data sharing. Led by the , it has supported initiatives like the Cancer Moonshot Biobank, which collects longitudinal tissue and blood samples from patients to study drug response and resistance. NIH provides essential digital tools and databases to facilitate research dissemination and collaboration. , maintained by the National Library of Medicine, indexes over 39 million citations from biomedical literature, including and life sciences journals, enabling searches for peer-reviewed studies and books. serves as a public registry for studies worldwide, listing details on protocols, results, and outcomes for thousands of trials to promote transparency and patient recruitment. , part of the , archives annotated nucleotide sequences from public submissions, supporting genomic research with tools for sequence submission and retrieval. The NIH RePORTER database allows querying of funded projects, associated publications, and patents, providing transparency into extramural investments and outcomes across fiscal years. These resources, developed over decades, underpin global biomedical inquiry by standardizing data access and .

Funding and Economics

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) receives its funding primarily through annual discretionary appropriations approved by as part of the Labor, Health and , Education, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. These appropriations constitute the core of the NIH , supplemented occasionally by mandatory funding mechanisms such as transfers from the Public Health Service Evaluation Tap or the . A landmark period of expansion occurred from FY1998 to FY2003, when doubled the NIH budget through sustained annual increases averaging 14-16%, rising from $13.675 billion to $27.167 billion in nominal terms. This "doubling era" aimed to accelerate biomedical research amid advancing scientific opportunities and priorities. Post-2003, nominal appropriations grew more modestly, reaching $30.311 billion by FY2015 amid fiscal constraints, with intermittent reductions in FY2006 (-0.6%), FY2011 (-1.0%), and FY2013 (-5.0%) reflecting broader sequestration and budget control measures. From FY2016 onward, resumed consistent nominal increases, peaking at $49.178 billion in FY2023, before a slight decline to $48.811 billion in FY2024—the first annual decrease since FY2013, attributed to congressional spending caps and competing priorities. The Biden administration's FY2025 request seeks $50.174 billion, a 2.8% nominal increase over FY2024, excluding separate for the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H). In inflation-adjusted terms (using FY2023 dollars), the trajectory reveals stagnation relative to the FY2003 peak of $48.542 billion: FY2023 funding was marginally higher at $49.178 billion (+1.3%), but FY2024 fell to $47.253 billion (-2.7%), and the FY2025 request projects $47.282 billion (-2.6%). This real-term flatness persists despite nominal growth, as biomedical costs—driven by inflation in labor, equipment, and clinical trials—have outpaced general consumer price indices, resulting in compressed grant success rates and average award sizes.
Fiscal YearNominal Appropriations ($ billions)Inflation-Adjusted (FY2023 dollars, $ billions)
199611.92826.780
200327.16748.542
202349.17849.178
202448.81147.253
Overall trends show long-term expansion tied to policy initiatives like the doubling, but post-2003 reliance on incremental budgeting has yielded real funding levels insufficient to match rising research demands, prompting debates over efficiency and prioritization amid administrative expansions.

Grant Allocation and Review Processes

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) employs a dual peer review system for allocating extramural grants, with the first level conducted by scientific experts organized through the Center for Scientific Review (CSR) and the second by advisory councils of the relevant NIH institutes and centers (ICs). CSR, established in 1946, receives, assigns, and reviews the majority of grant applications—approximately 75%—across more than 250 chartered study sections grouped into review branches by scientific discipline. Applications are submitted via the electronic system, referred to an IC based on relevance to its mission, and assigned to a study section where non-federal scientists evaluate them for scientific and technical merit. In the initial peer review, a Scientific Review Officer (SRO) from CSR leads a panel of reviewers who score applications using five core criteria: significance (potential impact), investigator(s) (capability), (novelty), approach (feasibility and rigor), and environment (resources). Additional factors include protections for human subjects, vertebrate animals, and inclusion of diverse populations. Scores are discussed in a meeting, resulting in an overall impact score from 10 (highest) to 90 (lowest), often converted to percentiles for comparison; applications scoring better than the institute's payline—typically the top 10-20%—advance. For research project grants (RPGs) with due dates on or after , 2025, NIH simplified this framework by integrating criteria into scores without separate ratings for investigator or innovation, emphasizing overall merit while retaining regulatory checks. The second-level review by the IC's advisory council assesses programmatic priority, portfolio balance, and alignment with needs, without rescoring merit. IC directors then allocate funds from their —totaling about 82% of NIH's annual appropriation for extramural awards, primarily investigator-initiated RPGs like R01 —to meritorious applications, considering factors such as investigator track record, institutional distribution, and emerging priorities. Paylines vary by IC and ; for example, in 2022, R01 rates ranged from 12.8% at the to 14.7% at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, with overall RPG rates hovering around 20% amid rising application volumes outpacing growth.
Fiscal Year 2022 R01 Success Rates (Selected ICs)Success Rate (%)
12.8
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)14.7
Overall NIH Research Project Grants~20
This table illustrates variability, reflecting IC-specific priorities and competition; success is calculated as funded competing applications divided by reviewed applications. Grant mechanisms include R01 (independent , average ~$500,000 over 3-5 years), R21 (exploratory, smaller scale), and others like U01 agreements for targeted projects. Allocation favors established investigators and institutions with higher prior success, contributing to inequities where top recipients secure disproportionate shares, though NIH monitors for diversity in .

Economic Impacts and Returns on

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) extramural research funding, which constitutes approximately 83% of its budget, supports extensive economic activity through grants awarded to universities, hospitals, and other institutions. In fiscal year 2024, NIH distributed $36.94 billion in extramural grants, generating an estimated $94.58 billion in total economic output nationwide, equivalent to a multiplier of $2.56 in economic activity per dollar invested. This funding sustained 407,782 jobs across sectors including research, healthcare, and manufacturing, with indirect effects amplifying local economies in regions receiving grants. Similar analyses for fiscal year 2023 reported a $2.46 multiplier on NIH's overall funding, contributing $92.89 billion in activity. These figures derive from input-output models that account for direct spending, supplier purchases, and induced consumer effects, though such multipliers may overstate net societal benefits by not fully incorporating tax distortions or alternative public uses of funds. Beyond immediate fiscal stimulus, NIH investments yield returns through spillovers, including patents and commercialized technologies. NIH-funded patents demonstrate 20% higher economic value than average U.S. patents, with over 30% of grants leading to startups. Analyses of indicate a 43% return on public investment via accelerated drug market entries, as foundational discoveries reduce R&D risks and timelines. For instance, NIH-supported work has underpinned therapies generating billions in annual economic value, with one study estimating that each dollar of NIH funding stimulates an additional $2.56 in private R&D expenditure. These outcomes reflect causal pathways where public funding addresses high-uncertainty early-stage , enabling downstream private investment, though quantifying precise attribution remains challenging due to long lag times—often decades—between grants and applications. Critiques of NIH's economic returns highlight inefficiencies, particularly in administrative overhead and project selection. Indirect costs on grants, which cover facilities and operations, frequently exceed 50% of direct research expenses at , diverting funds from to institutional maintenance and prompting calls for caps to curb waste. Abrupt grant terminations, such as those in under cost-cutting directives, have risked squandering over $1.4 billion in prior sunk investments without yielding results, illustrating opportunity costs in a system where success rates for applications hover around 20%. Moreover, peer-reviewed assessments question the utility of portions of NIH-funded , suggesting systemic waste from low-impact studies driven by publication incentives rather than rigorous prioritization. Reports from funding advocacy coalitions like United for Medical Research, which produce many positive impact estimates, may introduce upward , as they align with stakeholders benefiting from higher budgets. Empirical thus underscores that while aggregate multipliers appear robust, net ROI depends on curbing overhead bloat and enhancing allocation toward high-potential basic over incremental or ideologically influenced pursuits.

Scientific Achievements

Foundational Biomedical Discoveries

The National Institutes of Health (NIH), particularly through its intramural research programs originating from the Hygienic Laboratory established in , has contributed to several foundational biomedical discoveries that elucidated fundamental biological mechanisms and disease etiologies. These efforts, often conducted by NIH scientists, laid groundwork for modern , , and by identifying causal pathways in cellular processes and interactions. In the early , NIH researcher Joseph Goldberger demonstrated that , a widespread disease causing , , , and , resulted from a dietary deficiency rather than an infectious agent or toxin, as previously hypothesized. Through controlled human experiments in Southern U.S. orphanages and prisons starting in 1914, Goldberger induced via corn-based diets lacking niacin precursors and reversed it with diverse foods or yeast extracts, reducing U.S. mortality from over 7,000 annual deaths in the to near elimination by the after niacin identification and fortification. This work established nutritional deficiency as a for endemic diseases, influencing vitamin research and policy. NIH intramural scientists at the Rocky Mountain Laboratory developed the first effective against in the 1920s, addressing a tick-borne rickettsial with 80-90% mortality in untreated cases. Researchers Roscoe R. Spencer and Ralph R. Parker isolated from infected ticks and guinea pigs, then produced a killed- vaccine tested in high-risk communities by 1928, which reduced and fatalities from dozens annually to near zero by 1940 through induction without live risks. This approach pioneered whole-organism vaccines for intracellular bacteria, informing later rickettsial and vector-borne controls. A landmark in molecular biology occurred in 1961 when NIH biochemist Marshall Nirenberg and Heinrich Matthaei used synthetic poly-uridine RNA in cell-free E. coli extracts to demonstrate that it directed incorporation of only phenylalanine into polypeptides, revealing the first codon (UUU) of the genetic code linking nucleotide triplets to amino acids. Building on this, Nirenberg's team at NIH systematically decoded the full 64-codon table by 1965, earning the 1968 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine shared with Har Gobind Khorana and Robert W. Holley. This decipherment provided the mechanistic basis for protein synthesis from DNA via mRNA, enabling causal understanding of genetic mutations in diseases like sickle cell anemia and foundational advances in biotechnology. Complementing genetic insights, NIH chemist Christian Anfinsen elucidated principles in the 1960s-1970s through A denaturation and renaturation experiments, showing that the native three-dimensional structure emerges spontaneously from the primary sequence under physiological conditions, without cellular templates. This "Anfinsen ," validated via spectroscopic and enzymatic assays, earned the 1972 and established sequence-determined folding as a core tenet of biochemistry, underpinning predictions of protein misfolding in diseases like Alzheimer's and . The , co-led by NIH's under from 1990 to 2003, sequenced the complete 3.1 billion base pairs of human DNA, achieving a draft in 2000 and full assembly by 2003 at under $3 billion in costs. This effort generated public databases and tools accelerating , with citations for "genomics" rising from 500,000 pre-2003 to 1.8 million by 2024, enabling causal gene-disease mappings for thousands of conditions.

Major Technological and Therapeutic Advances

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has driven numerous technological breakthroughs through intramural research and extramural funding, enabling advances in , , and that underpin modern therapeutics. These efforts have yielded tools such as high-throughput and platforms, which have accelerated and . For instance, NIH-supported innovations in mRNA technology and gene editing have transitioned from basic science to clinical applications, demonstrating the agency's role in bridging fundamental discoveries to scalable interventions. A pivotal achievement was the (HGP), initiated in under NIH leadership as part of an international consortium that sequenced the entire by 2003 at a cost of approximately $2.7 billion (equivalent to $4.5 billion in 2023 dollars after adjusting for sequencing cost reductions). This effort developed automated sequencing technologies and bioinformatics databases, reducing sequencing costs by over 99% since completion and enabling the genomic era's precision oncology and diagnostics. The project's data, publicly released without patents on the genome itself, catalyzed over 4,000 clinical tests and therapies targeting genetic variants, including targeted cancer drugs like for chronic myeloid leukemia. In vaccine technology, NIH's long-term investment in mRNA platforms—totaling $116 million in pre-pandemic basic and —facilitated rapid development of vaccines. Collaborations between NIH's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and identified the structure in early 2020, informing mRNA-1273's design, which demonstrated 94.1% in phase 3 trials by December 2020. This built on decades of NIH-funded work on nanoparticles for mRNA delivery, extending to therapeutics for cancers and genetic disorders, though varies by application and has prompted scrutiny of boosters for waning protection against variants. NIH has also advanced editing via support for -Cas9 applications, following its elucidation, funding refinements that achieved clinical approvals like editing for in 2023 using to disrupt the BCL11A , restoring production in 29 of 31 patients with sustained relief over 12 months. In , NIH intramural programs pioneered (iPSC) therapies, with clinical trials for restoring vision in patients via autologous retinal cells derived from patient iPSCs, as reported in 2022 phase 1/2 data showing improved without tumorigenicity. These technologies underscore NIH's emphasis on verifiable through rigorous trials, though scalability challenges persist due to costs exceeding $1 million per treatment initially.

Controversies and Criticisms

Gain-of-Function Research and Biosafety Concerns

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has funded research classified as , which involves modifying pathogens to enhance transmissibility, virulence, or host range, despite established risks of accidental release or misuse. In October 2014, the U.S. government imposed a moratorium on federal funding for GOF studies on , , and viruses, halting 21 NIH-supported projects amid concerns over dual-use potential and failures in high-containment labs. The pause was lifted in December 2017 following development of the HHS P3CO framework for case-by-case review of proposed experiments with potential. A prominent example involves NIH's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) awarding grant R01AI110964 to EcoHealth Alliance in 2014, totaling $3.7 million over six years, with approximately $600,000 subawarded to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) for bat coronavirus research. Experiments under this grant created chimeric viruses that enhanced pathogenicity in humanized mice, meeting the P3CO definition of GOF research of concern, contrary to initial NIH assertions that the work fell outside the moratorium's scope. Oversight lapses included EcoHealth's failure to promptly report enhanced viral growth in mice, violating grant terms, and inadequate monitoring of WIV's biosafety practices. These activities fueled debates over NIH's role in potential SARS-CoV-2 origins, as WIV's research on SARS-like coronaviruses occurred in a BSL-4 lab with documented shortcomings, including inadequate training and prior incidents of researcher illnesses. NIAID Director testified in May 2021 that NIH "has not ever and does not now fund in the ," a claim contradicted by subsequent disclosures of qualifying experiments and internal NIH reviews. In response, federal authorities suspended EcoHealth's funding in May 2024 and debarred the organization and its president in January 2025 for grant violations and facilitating unapproved GOF work. Biosafety concerns extend to NIH's domestic high-containment facilities, where lapses have included the discovery of unlabeled vials containing select agents in 2014 and operational shutdowns of BSL-4 labs in 2025 due to persistent violations. NIH guidelines mandate reporting of significant incidents to of Science Policy within 30 days, yet underreporting persists, with implicated in 67-79% of BSL-3 exposures per analyses of lab accidents. Critics, including congressional investigations, argue that NIH's risk-benefit assessments for GOF prioritize scientific gains over containment failures, amplified by foreign collaborations lacking stringent U.S.-equivalent safeguards.

Political Influence and Suppression of Dissent

In October 2020, National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director emailed , director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, expressing alarm over the , a proposal by epidemiologists advocating targeted protection for vulnerable populations rather than broad lockdowns to mitigate harms. Collins described the declaration's authors as "fringe" and urged Fauci to orchestrate a "quick and devastating published take down of this dangerous fringe component of the community," revealing coordinated efforts by top NIH officials to marginalize dissenting scientific viewpoints through public rebuttals rather than open debate. This approach extended to the origins of SARS-CoV-2, where NIH leaders, including Fauci and Collins, supported the "Proximal Origin" paper published in Nature Medicine in March 2020, which argued against a lab-leak scenario from the Wuhan Institute of Virology and labeled it implausible, despite private acknowledgments of its possibility in emails. House Oversight Committee investigations later documented how NIH-funded researchers, prompted by Fauci, shifted from initial lab-leak concerns to promoting natural-origin narratives, contributing to the dismissal of the hypothesis as a "conspiracy theory" in media and scientific discourse, which stifled inquiry into potential biosafety lapses at U.S.-supported labs. Such actions prioritized narrative alignment over empirical pluralism, as evidenced by internal communications prioritizing public messaging over unresolved virological evidence. Broader political influences have manifested in funding decisions, with administrations exerting pressure on grant allocations. Under the Trump administration's second term starting in 2025, executive directives allowed political appointees greater override authority in peer-reviewed grants, leading to revocations of thousands of awards deemed misaligned with policy priorities, such as those on diversity initiatives or certain topics, prompting internal NIH dissent via the Bethesda Declaration signed by staff protesting "politicization" of research. Conversely, prior administrations faced criticism for directing funds toward ideologically favored areas, underscoring how executive oversight can subordinate scientific merit to partisan agendas, though peer-review safeguards have historically buffered such interference until recent expansions of .

Biases in Funding Priorities

Critics have argued that NIH funding priorities often deviate from objective measures of , such as mortality rates or disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), leading to persistent mismatches. For instance, a 2011 analysis found low correlations between NIH allocations and , with conditions like depression ($719 million), injuries ($691 million), and ($613 million) significantly underfunded relative to their impact, while received disproportionate support driven by advocacy rather than . Similarly, a 2021 study of 46 diseases showed that 2019 funding levels were most strongly predicted by 2008 allocations, indicating inertia over responsiveness to evolving health needs, rather than alignment with current burden metrics. This pattern suggests that historical precedents and , rather than first-principles assessment of causal impact, shape resource distribution. Advocacy groups and political dynamics further skew priorities, elevating certain diseases through "disease politics" where metrics like dollars per death gain traction, overriding epidemiological data. Research from 2012 documented how activist campaigns for and secured funding surges in the 1990s and 2000s, far exceeding proportional burden, as congressional earmarks and public mobilization pressured NIH to reallocate despite limited marginal returns on investment. In contrast, less visible conditions like disorders or injuries receive scant attention absent strong , perpetuating inequities not justified by causal evidence of or treatability. Such influences introduce non-scientific criteria, where emotional appeals and media visibility correlate more with grants than verifiable health outcomes. Ideological considerations, particularly (DEI) mandates, have increasingly infiltrated funding decisions, critics contend, prioritizing narratives over empirical rigor. Reports from 2025 highlight NIH's prior embrace of DEI as imposing litmus tests on grantees, funding studies on or health inequities that often conflate with causation, while sidelining biologically focused . For example, grants supporting "DEI studies" were targeted for termination in early 2025 under executive directives to excise ideological content, though subsequent rulings restored some, underscoring tensions between merit-based allocation and equity goals. This reflects broader institutional biases in academia and , where left-leaning perspectives—prevalent in grant proposals—favor social determinants over genetic or behavioral factors, potentially distorting causal realism in health . Demographic patterns in funding reveal additional biases, with allocations favoring diseases predominantly affecting males and grants concentrating among white male principal investigators. A 2021 examination of NIH data across 10,000+ conditions found that in 73% of gender-specific diseases, funding disproportionately supported male-prevalent ones, such as over , uncorrelated with burden differences. Moreover, researchers holding multiple simultaneous grants (three or more) are overwhelmingly male (85%) and white (over 70%), perpetuating elite institutional dominance and reducing diversity in funded perspectives. While peer-reviewed studies claim minimal overt bias in initial evaluations, systemic factors like network effects and proposal framing likely amplify these disparities, undermining claims of pure . A conservative tilt toward incremental "edge science" also biases against high-risk, transformative projects, as NIH's risk-averse review processes favor established paradigms amid political pressures for visible outputs. Combined with and , these elements erode funding's alignment with causal priorities, prompting calls for reforms emphasizing testable hypotheses over extraneous influences.

Administrative and Efficiency Failures

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has faced criticism for administrative inefficiencies that divert resources from direct research, including high indirect cost rates and inadequate oversight of grant closeouts. In fiscal year 2023, indirect costs—covering facilities, administration, and other overhead—accounted for 27.8% of NIH's $33.8 billion in extramural awards, totaling $9.4 billion, with average rates around 30% of direct costs and some institutions exceeding 48%. Critics argue these rates contribute to institutional bloat, as universities use funds for non-research purposes like expanded administration rather than advancing science, prompting NIH to impose a 15% cap on indirect costs for all grants in February 2025 to prioritize direct research expenditures. Grant processing delays exacerbate inefficiencies, with applicants facing average waits of up to 20 months from submission to funding, often due to protracted cycles and administrative backlogs. These interruptions reduce laboratory expenditures by 52% over a 16-month period surrounding grant expiry for principal investigators reliant on a single R01 award, leading to temporary declines in staffing and operations without compensatory rebounds. In 2025, temporary funding freezes and canceled review meetings further delayed thousands of awards, compounding disruptions to ongoing momentum. A 2025 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report highlighted deficiencies in NIH's monitoring of external research grants, noting nearly 1,000 delinquent final progress reports as of August 2024—representing 0.2% of awards from fiscal years 2014 to 2024—with 656 overdue by more than a year, stemming from inconsistent closeout procedures and lack of agencywide guidance. Additionally, over 12,000 awards in fiscal year 2023 anticipated unused balances exceeding 25% of total funds, yet NIH lacks comprehensive tracking across portfolios or public resources for managing such carryovers, allowing potential waste to persist. The GAO recommended NIH address root causes of delinquencies, develop tracking mechanisms, and standardize unused fund oversight, measures with which the agency concurred but had not fully implemented by mid-2025. Efforts to curb waste are hampered by gaps in detecting duplication and recovering misused funds; a Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General review identified risks of grantees receiving overlapping NIH awards for similar work, with internal controls deemed insufficient to prevent it consistently. An analysis of over 1,000 NIH grants found instances of substantial overlap in funded projects, potentially doubling taxpayer costs for identical efforts. Congressional inquiries in 2024 questioned NIH's recovery of taxpayer dollars from nearly 30 substantiated cases involving data falsification or , revealing systemic challenges in and .

Partnerships and External Relations

Collaborations with Industry and Pharma

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) facilitates collaborations with pharmaceutical and companies primarily through mechanisms established under the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986, including Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs). These agreements enable joint research efforts where NIH provides expertise, facilities, and (IP), while industry partners contribute funding, manufacturing capabilities, and pathways. Between 1986 and 1993, NIH executed 206 CRADAs, predominantly with industrial partners, to advance technologies from to marketable products. The NIH Office of Technology Transfer (OTT) oversees licensing of federally funded inventions, with nine NIH institutes and centers granting exclusive or non-exclusive licenses to private entities for further development. Such partnerships have yielded tangible outputs, including royalties exceeding $100 million annually in some years from licensed technologies. Prominent examples illustrate the scope of these collaborations. The development of Taxol (paclitaxel), a drug derived from NIH research on Pacific tree compounds, proceeded via a 1991 CRADA between the (NCI) and Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS); by 2001, it had become the world's best-selling cancer drug, generating billions in sales. More recently, NIH contributions to stabilizing mRNA technology underpinned partnerships with for the , where NIH scientists co-authored key patents on the immunogen, enabling rapid deployment during the 2020 pandemic. NCI has utilized CRADAs to co-develop targeted therapies and immunotherapies, such as those advancing CAR-T cell treatments, with private firms handling clinical scaling and FDA approvals. Broader initiatives like the Accelerating Medicines Partnership (AMP), launched in 2014 with companies including Janssen and , pool data and resources to target diseases such as Alzheimer's and , aiming to bypass siloed R&D. These alliances accelerate translation of NIH-funded discoveries—responsible for foundational work in over 210 new drugs approved by the FDA from 2010 to 2019—into therapies, with public investment yielding returns comparable to private pharmaceutical expenditures on successful approvals. In 2020, NIH partnered with 16 firms, including and , under frameworks to expedite treatments, sharing preclinical data and resources. Critics, however, contend that such ties introduce risks of conflicts of interest, where industry priorities—favoring high-margin products—may skew NIH agendas away from neglected diseases or lead to selective reporting of favorable outcomes. A 2019 analysis found direct financial conflicts in only 3% of NIH grants, yet broader concerns persist regarding "" dynamics, with former NIH officials joining pharma boards, potentially influencing grant allocations. In the Taxol case, a 2003 Government Accountability Office review highlighted tensions over pricing and exclusivity terms in CRADAs, where taxpayer-funded IP enabled high drug costs without mandated affordability clauses. Empirical studies attribute biases to funding sources, noting industry collaborations correlate with higher rates of positive trial results, though NIH's public mandate mitigates some distortions compared to purely private R&D. Safeguards include disclosure requirements and rules tightened post-2005 scandals, but proponents of stricter separation argue these insufficiently counter profit-driven incentives that could undermine impartiality in public .

Engagement with Academia and Stakeholders

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) primarily engages with academia through its extramural , which directs nearly 82 percent of its funding—approximately $36.94 billion in 2024—to competitive grants supporting over 300,000 researchers at more than 2,500 institutions, the majority of which are universities. This mechanism funds investigator-initiated projects, training grants, and centers, fostering biomedical research at academic settings across the . The program emphasizes peer-reviewed awards, with success rates varying by mechanism but typically around 20-25 percent for research project grants in recent years. NIH further strengthens academic ties via targeted initiatives like the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Program, administered by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), which supports a network of over 60 academic hubs to accelerate the translation of basic discoveries into clinical applications. Launched in 2006 and expanded to 61 sites by the early 2010s, the CTSA provides infrastructure for interdisciplinary training, pilot studies, and data-sharing, representing NIH's largest investment in translational research ecosystems at medical schools and universities. Complementary efforts include the Graduate Partnerships Program, which pairs NIH intramural resources with university curricula to train graduate students in collaborative research environments. Engagement with broader stakeholders—encompassing advocates, societies, and representatives—occurs through advisory councils and boards for each of NIH's 27 institutes and centers, which convene external experts to review priorities, program progress, and policy recommendations. These bodies, mandated under the , incorporate stakeholder input via public meetings and nominations, as seen in the National Institute of Mental Health's dialogues with advocacy coalitions acting as advisors and educators. -centered mechanisms, such as stakeholder advisory councils for specific initiatives, solicit priorities for agendas, though implementation varies by institute and may reflect institutional selection processes influenced by prevailing academic and advocacy networks. Public comment periods on proposed policies and opportunities further enable stakeholder feedback, integrated into for areas like clinical trials and outcomes .

References

  1. https://www.nih.gov/about-nih
  2. https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/mission-goals
  3. https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/nih-almanac/about-nih
  4. https://www.nih.gov/institutes-nih/list-institutes-centers
  5. https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/organization/budget
  6. https://report.nih.gov/nihdatabook/report/5
  7. https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/impact-nih-research
  8. https://www.nih.gov/research-training/nih-research-highlights
  9. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK285586/
  10. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47114
  11. https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/organization/history
  12. https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mbio.00139-12
  13. https://irp.nih.gov/about-us/history
  14. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/phs_history/beginningsbio.html
  15. https://lifesciencehistory.com/the-national-institute-of-health-was-established-by-the-ransdell-act/
  16. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R41705
  17. https://www.visitthecapitol.gov/artifact/s1171-act-establish-and-operate-national-institute-health-april-3-1930
  18. https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/nih-almanac/about-nih-almanac
  19. https://www.uvm.edu/~vgn/oldbioinformatics/vgn/2_entrez/2a_intro/xNIHpowerpoints/postWWII.htm
  20. https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/spotlight/tl/feature/nih
  21. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w33457/w33457.pdf
  22. https://www.cc.nih.gov/about
  23. https://laskerfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2011_p_nih.pdf
  24. https://time.com/7302294/bureaucracy-reshaped-american-medical-research/
  25. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/books/n/nap10779/a200086d4ddd00026/
  26. https://www.oar.nih.gov/about/history
  27. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK232419/
  28. https://www.niaid.nih.gov/diseases-conditions/hiv-vaccine-research-history
  29. https://oar.nih.gov/about/history/oar-35-years
  30. https://www.genome.gov/human-genome-project
  31. https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/educational-resources/fact-sheets/human-genome-project
  32. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6875757/
  33. https://www.science.org/content/article/nih-budget-reaches-doubling-point
  34. https://issues.org/p_freeman/
  35. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2807%2960509-1/fulltext
  36. https://stemcells.nih.gov/research-policy/guidelines-for-human-stem-cell-research
  37. https://stemcells.nih.gov/research-policy-and-faqs
  38. https://www.hsci.harvard.edu/update-nih-guidelines
  39. https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/nih-director/statements/advancing-nihs-mission-through-unified-strategy
  40. https://www.cc.nih.gov/news/2025/may-jun/18th-nih-director
  41. https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/hhs-restructuring-doge-fact-sheet.html
  42. https://www.statnews.com/2025/09/08/nih-reform-budget-cuts-trump-administration-rfk-jr/
  43. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1497
  44. http://roy.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-roy-griffith-re-introduce-legislation-reform-nih
  45. https://legiscan.com/US/bill/SB664/2025
  46. https://arkansasadvocate.com/2025/09/04/changes-at-nih-give-political-appointees-greater-power-to-fund-or-block-research/
  47. https://www.science.org/content/article/new-nih-director-defends-grant-cuts-part-shift-support-maha-vision
  48. https://cen.acs.org/policy/research-funding/NIH-staff-break-ranks-open/103/web/2025/06
  49. https://www.aip.org/fyi/nih-director-nominee-bhattacharya-outlines-priorities
  50. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/22/opinion/jay-bhattacharya-nih.html
  51. https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/organization/nih-leadership
  52. https://www.nih.gov/institutes-nih/nih-office-director
  53. https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director
  54. https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/nih-almanac/leadership/nih-directors
  55. https://d1dth6e84htgma.cloudfront.net/NIH_Reform_Report_f6bbdca821.pdf
  56. https://www.cancer.gov/
  57. https://nei.nih.gov/
  58. https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/
  59. https://www.genome.gov/
  60. https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/organization
  61. https://www.cc.nih.gov/node/1
  62. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/25483/chapter/5
  63. https://www.cc.nih.gov/nursing/patient-care-areas
  64. https://orf.od.nih.gov/AboutORF/BFM/Pages/NIHACPools.aspx
  65. https://ors.od.nih.gov/sr/dvr/facility/pages/animalfacilitymanagement.aspx
  66. https://ncifrederick.cancer.gov/
  67. https://www.cancer.gov/about-nci/organization/nci-frederick
  68. https://orf.od.nih.gov/AboutORF/BFM/Pages/1031F.aspx
  69. https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/rocky-mountain-laboratories
  70. https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/rocky-mountain-overview
  71. https://www.niehs.nih.gov/about/visiting
  72. https://nems.nih.gov/NEMS-locations/Pages/NIEHS_at_Research_Triangle_Park.aspx
  73. https://nems.nih.gov/NEMS-locations/Pages/Bethesda_and_Poolesville_Montgomery_County_leases.aspx
  74. https://stip.oecd.org/stip/interactive-dashboards/policy-initiatives/2023%252Fdata%252FpolicyInitiatives%252F25426
  75. https://irp.nih.gov/
  76. https://oir.nih.gov/
  77. https://goodscience.substack.com/p/reforming-the-nihs-intramural-program
  78. https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/nih-almanac/clinical-center-cc
  79. https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/division-intramural-research-overview
  80. https://www.training.nih.gov/research-training/
  81. https://www.cancer.gov/research/nci-role/intramural
  82. https://issues.org/nih-intramural-research-irp-real-numbers-alexander-zetina-beale/
  83. https://grants.nih.gov/grants-process/review/first-level
  84. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps/html5/section_1/1.2_definition_of_terms.htm
  85. https://grants.nih.gov/funding/activity-codes
  86. https://www.nia.nih.gov/research/grants-funding/nia-research-grant-mechanisms
  87. https://grants.nih.gov/news-events/nih-extramural-nexus-news/2025/06/progress-on-implementation-of-the-simplified-review-framework
  88. https://grants.nih.gov/grants-process/review
  89. http://braininitiative.nih.gov/about/overview
  90. http://braininitiative.nih.gov/research/research-overview
  91. https://allofus.nih.gov/
  92. https://www.cancer.gov/research/progress/moonshot-cancer-initiative
  93. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
  94. https://clinicaltrials.gov/
  95. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/
  96. https://reporter.nih.gov/
  97. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/guide/all/
  98. https://ldi.upenn.edu/our-work/research-updates/chart-of-the-day-nih-funding-has-stalled-since-2003/
  99. https://www.aaas.org/programs/r-d-budget-and-policy/historical-trends-federal-rd
  100. https://public.csr.nih.gov/AboutCSR
  101. https://grants.nih.gov/policy-and-compliance/policy-topics/peer-review/simplifying-review/framework
  102. https://grants.nih.gov/policy-and-compliance/policy-topics/peer-review/simplifying-review/background
  103. https://grants.nih.gov/grants-process/review/after-review
  104. https://report.nih.gov/funding/nih-budget-and-spending-data-past-fiscal-years/success-rates
  105. https://report.nih.gov/reportweb/web/displayreport?rid=558
  106. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1909217116
  107. https://www.unitedformedicalresearch.org/annual-economic-report/
  108. https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/impact-nih-research/serving-society/direct-economic-contributions
  109. https://www.unitedformedicalresearch.org/statements/umr-releases-annual-nih-economic-impact-report-2025-update/
  110. https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/impact-nih-research/serving-society/spurring-economic-growth
  111. https://schaeffer.usc.edu/research/patients-win-when-nih-swings-for-the-fences/
  112. https://freopp.org/oppblog/reining-in-nih-spending-is-a-good-idea/
  113. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40179199/
  114. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002049
  115. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/phs_history/contributions.html
  116. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5070907/
  117. https://www.genome.gov/25520300/online-education-kit-1966-genetic-code-cracked
  118. https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/impact-nih-research/revolutionizing-science/scientific-breakthroughs
  119. https://www.niaid.nih.gov/diseases-conditions/decades-making-mrna-covid-19-vaccines
  120. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7413016/
  121. https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/35-years-us-investment-research-led-development-mrna-covid-vaccines
  122. https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/nih-turning-discovery-into-health/transformative-technologies
  123. https://www.science.org/content/article/nih-lifts-3-year-ban-funding-risky-virus-studies
  124. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-017-08837-7
  125. https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/dual-use-research/feds-lift-gain-function-research-pause-offer-guidance
  126. https://www.factcheck.org/2021/05/the-wuhan-lab-and-the-gain-of-function-disagreement/
  127. https://oversight.house.gov/release/hearing-wrap-up-nih-repeatedly-refutes-ecohealth-alliance-president-dr-peter-daszaks-testimony-tabak-testimony-reveals-federal-grant-procedures-in-need-of-serious-reform/
  128. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-106119.pdf
  129. https://oversight.house.gov/release/breaking-hhs-formally-debars-ecohealth-alliance-dr-peter-daszak-after-covid-select-reveals-pandemic-era-wrongdoing/
  130. https://www.bmj.com/content/382/bmj.p1701
  131. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/10/29/repeated-claim-that-fauci-lied-congress-about-gain-of-function-research/
  132. https://www.congress.gov/117/meeting/house/114270/documents/HHRG-117-GO24-20211201-SD004.pdf
  133. https://www.science.org/content/article/federal-officials-suspend-funding-ecohealth-alliance-nonprofit-entangled-covid-19
  134. https://www.clinician.com/articles/115826-cdc-nih-lab-lapses-with-deadly-agents-lead-to-calls-to-halt-research
  135. https://www.forbes.com/sites/markkortepeter/2025/05/04/nih-lab-studying-deadly-pathogens-goes-offline-over-safety-issues-is-the-public-at-risk/
  136. https://osp.od.nih.gov/policies/incident-reporting-december-2023/
  137. https://www.domesticpreparedness.com/articles/biosafety-laboratory-issues-and-failures
  138. https://www.statnews.com/2021/12/23/at-a-time-when-the-u-s-needed-covid-19-dialogue-between-scientists-francis-collins-moved-to-shut-it-down/
  139. https://www.wsj.com/opinion/fauci-collins-emails-great-barrington-declaration-covid-pandemic-lockdown-11640129116
  140. https://oversight.house.gov/release/hearing-wrap-up-suppression-of-the-lab-leak-hypothesis-was-not-based-in-science/
  141. https://www.heritage.org/public-health/commentary/how-fauci-and-nih-leaders-worked-discredit-covid-19-lab-leak-theory
  142. https://undark.org/2025/09/09/nih-grant-decisions/
  143. https://www.ehn.org/nih-staff-revolt-over-deep-cuts-and-political-interference-in-research
  144. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3171103/
  145. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016837
  146. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2775642
  147. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666535224001174
  148. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0003122412458509
  149. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1470594X221138729
  150. https://manhattan.institute/article/reform-proposals-for-the-national-institutes-of-health-nih
  151. https://blog.joelonsdale.com/p/fix-the-nih-to-fix-american-science
  152. https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/court-strikes-down-nihs-unlawful-termination-of-research-grants-on-topics-including-dei-and-gender-identity
  153. https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2025/06/20/nih-plan-to-remove-ideological-influence-from-science-how-does-this-fit-in-the-junk-science-being-promoted-by-the-u-s-dept-of-health-and-human-services/
  154. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8290307/
  155. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01297-2
  156. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6699508/
  157. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1910160117
  158. https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/encouraging-edge-science-through-nih-funding-practices
  159. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IN12516
  160. https://www.science.org/content/article/nih-slashes-overhead-payments-research-sparking-outrage
  161. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-25-068.html
  162. https://ifp.org/to-speed-scientific-progress-do-away-with-funding-delays/
  163. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10132550/
  164. https://www.chronicle.com/article/nih-funding-is-at-a-standstill-this-professor-is-tracking-the-delays
  165. https://files.gao.gov/reports/GAO-25-107362/index.html
  166. https://oig.hhs.gov/reports-and-publications/workplan/summary/wp-summary-0000352.asp
  167. https://www.nature.com/articles/493599a
  168. https://energycommerce.house.gov/posts/e-and-c-republicans-to-nih-is-agency-recovering-all-misused-taxpayer-dollars
  169. https://www.keionline.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/NIH-CRADA-Report-on-Reasonable-Pricing-Clause-1994.pdf
  170. http://www.techtransfer.nih.gov/partnerships/overview
  171. http://www.techtransfer.nih.gov/home
  172. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160791X05000448
  173. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-03-829
  174. https://www.linkedin.com/company/nih-technology-transfer
  175. https://www.cancer.gov/research/nci-role/partners-collaborators
  176. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/25591/chapter/2
  177. https://www.bentley.edu/news/new-study-shows-nih-investment-new-drug-approvals-comparable-investment-pharmaceutical
  178. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9302569/
  179. https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/17/nih-partners-with-16-drug-companies-in-hopes-of-accelerating-covid-19-treatments-and-vaccines/
  180. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1269440/
  181. https://www.science.org/content/article/three-percent-nih-grants-involved-direct-financial-conflict-interest-watchdog-report
  182. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7122252/
  183. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3767378/
  184. https://www.aau.edu/newsroom/leading-research-universities-report/nih-research-funding-supports-jobs-fuels-us-economy
  185. https://report.nih.gov/nihdatabook/
  186. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK169198/
  187. https://www.training.nih.gov/research-training/grads/gpp/institutional/
  188. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/get-involved/public-involvement
  189. https://ofacp.nih.gov/list-nih-advisory-committees
  190. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8300992/
  191. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8993962/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.