NIH Opened Its Team-Science RM1 to 13 Institutes and Dropped the Institutional Cap. The First Deadline Is November 17.
October 21, 2026 · 7 min read
Granted Research Team · Editorial policy
NIH has funded multi-investigator science for decades, mostly in two formats. A multi-PI R01 gives two or three investigators shared aims and one budget. A P01 program project bundles several separate projects under shared cores. Neither format suits a problem that needs five people from five disciplines working on one question and accountable for one result.
The RM1 activity code was built for that kind of problem. Until now it was mainly a single-institute experiment run by NIGMS, which made very few awards. On October 14, 2026, NIH released PAR-27-003, the Collaborative Program Grant for Interdisciplinary Teams (RM1, Clinical Trial Optional), and expanded it into a trans-NIH program. Thirteen institutes and centers now take part, applications open on a standing cycle through September 2029, and the predecessor's institutional application limit has been removed. NIH's extramural staff promoted it on the Extramural Nexus two days later.
The first due date is November 17, 2026, four weeks from today.
The terms
| Item | PAR-27-003 |
|---|---|
| Activity code | RM1 (Research Project with Complex Structure) |
| Team | 3 to 6 PDs/PIs, all at domestic institutions |
| Direct costs | Up to $1.5 million per year; "most awards are expected to be between $500,000–$900,000" |
| Duration | Up to 5 years; renewals allowed, but not beyond 10 years total |
| PI effort | Generally at least 2.4 calendar months (20 percent) per PD/PI; some ICs set higher levels |
| Research Strategy | 20 pages, with three required parts: Program Description, Team Integration Plan, Summary Table |
| Institutional limit | None. Multiple applications are allowed if scientifically distinct |
| Clinical trials | Optional, except NIDCR doesn't accept trials under this NOFO |
| Foreign subawards | Not allowed; foreign components and consultants are allowed |
| Cost sharing | None |
| Expiration | September 27, 2029 |
Participating institutes: NIGMS, NEI, NHGRI, NIA, NIAAA, NIAID, NIAMS, NIDCD, NIDCR, NIDA, NINDS, NLM, and NCCIH.
Several large institutes are not participating: NCI, NHLBI, NIMH, NIDDK, NICHD, NIEHS, NIBIB, NINR, and NIMHD. A cardiovascular, cancer, or psychiatric team must find a scientific angle that fits a participating IC's mission, or use that institute's own mechanisms. Applications outside the participating missions won't be funded under this NOFO.
The due-date calendar
Due dates repeat on a three-cycle pattern:
| Due date | Peer review | Council | Earliest start |
|---|---|---|---|
| November 17, 2026 | March 2027 | May 2027 | July 2027 |
| January 26, 2027 | July 2027 | October 2027 | December 2027 |
| May 26, 2027 | November 2027 | January 2028 | April 2028 |
| September 27, 2027 | March 2028 | May 2028 | July 2028 |
The pattern continues through a final due date of September 26, 2029. All deadlines are 5:00 PM local time for the applicant organization.
A team that hasn't already been working together shouldn't aim for November 17. The January 26 cycle gives about three more months to build the Team Integration Plan, which is the part of the application reviewers are told to probe hardest. Waiting costs about five months on the earliest start date.
How rarely this mechanism has paid out
The base rate matters before anyone commits six PIs' time.
NIH RePORTER shows the NIGMS predecessor, PAR-23-077, produced four new awards across fiscal years 2024 through 2026: University of Chicago in FY2024, University of Oregon in FY2025, and University of Virginia and Cornell in FY2026. Its own predecessor, PAR-20-103, shows two new awards in FY2023. Across all of NIH, RePORTER lists 35 new RM1 awards in FY2024–2026. Most came from institute-specific RFAs at NIDA (12) and NINDS (8), not from a broad, investigator-initiated announcement.
The four PAR-23-077 awards carried first-year direct costs between about $938,000 and $1.26 million, and total costs between about $1.38 million and $1.76 million. That is above the old announcement's stated "most awards $700,000–$900,000" range. The new NOFO sets the expected range lower, at $500,000 to $900,000.
Two conclusions follow. First, PAR-27-003 makes no promise about the number of awards: funding is "contingent upon NIH appropriations and the receipt of a sufficient number of meritorious applications," and the NOFO says "a limited number of Team Science applications will be funded." Spreading the program across 13 institutes widens the pool of potential funders, but each IC now decides with its own money and its own priorities. Second, the budget signal reads as a deliberate reset. A team that asks for $1.4 million a year is asking above the range NIH has just published. Expect reviewers and program staff to read the requested budget alongside the claim that this work truly needs a team.
This comes as NIH is still considering a cap on simultaneous research project grants per PI (our analysis of NOT-OD-26-086 and the 3,300 comments). About 700 respondents asked that multi-PI awards count only partly toward any cap. How NIH counts a six-PI RM1 under a future cap is unresolved, and that question applies to every senior investigator considering joining a team.
What reviewers are told to look for
The review criteria are unusually explicit about what a "team" means here, and they work as a checklist:
- One goal, not a bundle. "Does the application propose a single cohesive and highly integrated program?" "Does the scope and complexity … justify a collaborative team science approach as opposed to multiple individual projects/grants?" An application that reads like three R01s stapled together will be scored down.
- Every PI is necessary. Reviewers are asked whether "each PD/PI is necessary and the planned effort is appropriate." A sixth PI added for institutional politics weakens the application.
- Shared leadership. The leadership criteria ask whether governance gives "all investigators a meaningful voice in decisions, preventing any single PD/PI from becoming dominant," whether there are "fair, transparent governance processes" for reallocating resources, and whether there are "provisions for shared professional credit." This is stronger than standard multi-PI language. A senior lab head acting as de facto director with junior partners as contributors is the exact pattern the criteria are written against.
- Innovation through integration. Reviewers are asked how team integration leads to "innovation beyond individual effort."
- Rigor framing. The Program Description must separate exploratory from confirmatory work and say whether supporting data meet NIH rigor and transparency standards. This reflects NIH's current emphasis on reproducibility and has been appearing across new NOFOs.
All of that has to fit in 20 pages. The Team Integration Plan (coordination activities, progress tracking, adding expertise, managing leadership changes, assigning credit, and whether you'll hire a program manager) and the required Summary Table both count toward the limit. A separate Multiple PD/PI Leadership Plan is also required, and the NOFO warns against repeating content between the two. An applicant over 20 pages is withdrawn without review.
An External Advisory Committee is optional unless the project involves clinical research, in which case it's required. Describe its role, but don't name the members.
Who should apply, and how
Early-stage investigators are explicitly encouraged as PIs, but the NOFO is clear about the cost: an ESI or New Investigator named as a PD/PI on a funded RM1 loses that status for future applications. For an ESI in the R01 queue, joining as a PI could give up the ESI payline advantage on their next independent grant. Joining as a co-investigator keeps it. Decide that on purpose, not by default.
Effort is a real commitment. At least 2.4 months for each of six PIs means 14.4 person-months of senior effort on one program. NIH staff "will verify that the research effort requirements are met before issuing an award." PIs who already hold several R01s should check their committed effort now. The NOFO also lists R35 MIRA participation as a topic for pre-submission consultation, so MIRA holders need IC guidance before signing on.
Talk to the IC before writing. The NOFO "strongly" encourages early contact with program staff on mission fit, suitability for team science, effort requirements, IC-specific budget limits, and future renewals. With 13 institutes, picking the right IC is a strategic choice. Section VII lists a contact for each participating IC, and several have dedicated team-science inboxes: NIGMS-TeamScience@NIH.gov, NINDSTeamscience@ninds.nih.gov, NIDCD-TeamScience@nih.gov, and NIAID_RM1@mail.nih.gov.
Research offices: removing the institutional limit means no internal competition is required, but it also means four teams from the same medical school can now apply and compete against each other in review. Coordinate before the January cycle rather than after.
International collaborators can stay on the team as unfunded collaborators, consultants, or through foreign components. A funded subaward to a foreign site makes the whole application noncompliant, as it now does across NIH (background on the foreign-subaward policy).
A team-science mechanism with no institutional limit, 13 participating institutes, and three years of standing due dates is a significant opening even with a small number of awards. If your team is aiming for January 26 and wants help turning separate lab agendas into one 20-page integrated program, Granted can help structure the Program Description, Team Integration Plan, and Summary Table against the review criteria.