Max Kozlov

@maxkozlov.bsky.social

12367 Followers 27 Following

science reporter covering biomedical research at Nature | proudly Ukrainian 🇺🇦 maxkozlov.com signal: mkozlov.01

HOLDING PATTERN After approval from agency scientists, applications for US National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants move into 'Status 19', the internal designation for an award that has been fully prepared but not yet funded. Over the past year, officials at the NIH and its parent agency have begun additional scrutiny at this stage. Many applications that enter Status 19 are approved after a short delay. But a small fraction - especially applications for 'non-competing renewals' - are still being held back after two months.
NIAlD announces several important leadership transitions affecting the Institute. Dr. Daniel Rotrosen, who has served for nearly three decades as a senior scientific leader and Director of NIAID's Division of Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation, will assume a,new role within the NIH Office of Program Coordination, Planning, and Strategic Initiatives (DPCPSI). Throughout his distinguished career, Dr. Rotrosen has provided exceptional leadership in advancing immunology, transplantation, and infectious disease research while helping shape scientific strategy and foster collaboration across NIH and the broader research community. His steady guidance, scientific expertise, and commitment to public service have had a profound and lasting impact on NIAID and biomedical research worldwide. In addition, Dr. Kelly Poe, Director of NIAID's Division of Extramural Activities, and Dr. Andrea Wurster, Deputy Director of the Division of Extramural Activities, will assume new assignments at the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD). Together, Drs. Poe and Wurster have played critical leadership roles in overseeing NIAID's extramural research portfolio, grants administration, and policy operations. Their dedication to scientific stewardship, operational excellence, and service to the research community has strengthened NIAID's ability to support groundbreaking research while upholding the highest standards of accountability and integrity.
Redditor user Ntroepy asks: Thank you - excellent article. I had a few followup questions: The change appears to require White House–appointed officials to approve funding calls alongside the existing scientific review structure. In your reporting, how concerned are scientists that this introduces political influence into what has traditionally been a peer-driven process? Are there specific research areas people worry could be deprioritized as a result? Your article focuses on changes to how funding is allocated, but says less about the total NIH budget. Do the experts you interviewed see these changes as a strategic shift or a way to cut overall spending? What are scientists and policy experts saying privately about this shift that didn’t make it into the article? Which areas of research are most likely to benefit from this change, and which are most at risk of losing support?
A glorious selfie with the official MAHA lanyard seconds after I made it past Secret Service screening.
Re: Exclusive: NIH to dismiss dozens of grant reviewers to align with Trump priorities! Hi Max, I just saw this article and I am so glad you wrote it. I was actually appointed to the [redacted] advisory council last fall, and interviewed with the [redacted] Director in September and ever since November, I have completely lost email communication. I was set to be appointed - they had my CV and everything. I have heard nothing, I checked with the people that appointed me and they don't know anything either. I was really excited for it, and I have no idea what is going to happen but I have resigned myself to not get my hopes up. I have done a lot of work on minority health, so I guess I will not be making it past this new round of "inclusion criteria". I don't know if that was helpful for you at all, but I just wanted to say thanks for writing this because I have felt like I am in the dark with the advisory councils now.
While the grant of a stay would throw the entire process into limbo during the course of the appeal, its denial means only that the executive defendants must comply with the Act of Congress rather than sequestering funds (probably forever) during the course of the appeal.
Subject: From the NIH Principal Deputy Director: Guidance relating to NIH Priorities Colleagues, It has come to our attention that some staff are giving guidance to various employees that the word "diversity" may not be used in any context, and that anything with the word "diversity" in it is not allowed. This is not true. For example, an employee was told they could not go to a conference to discuss research on "neurodiverse individuals." Others are being told not to use the phrase "genetic diversity." Obviously, this is bad guidance. There are clearly many appropriate uses of the word diversity, and in no way does the NIH police speech or ban