NIH Is Writing Its Next Five-Year Plan Right Now — and Researchers Have a Narrow Window to Shape It

Every five years, the National Institutes of Health writes a document that most researchers never read but that shapes nearly every funding decision the agency makes. The NIH-Wide Strategic Plan sets the priorities, themes, and frameworks that filter down through 27 institutes and centers, informing which program announcements get issued, which study sections get convened, and which research directions receive dedicated mechanisms.

The FY 2027-2031 plan is now in development. NIH held its first public webinar on March 16. A second is scheduled for April 8. And at a moment when the agency is simultaneously overhauling how it makes funding decisions, cutting new awards by 74% compared to recent averages, and reshaping peer review — the strategic plan isn't just a planning document. It's the blueprint for how roughly $250 billion in federal research spending will be directed over the next half-decade.

Why This Strategic Plan Is Different

Previous NIH strategic plans were drafted during periods of relative institutional stability. The FY 2021-2025 plan, for instance, was developed when paylines were functioning normally, peer review meetings ran on schedule, and the relationship between study section scores and funding decisions was reasonably predictable.

None of that is true anymore.

Director Jay Bhattacharya's "unified funding strategy," announced in late 2025, eliminated the payline system that approximately half of NIH's institutes and centers had relied on for decades. Under the old system, applications scoring above a threshold percentile got funded. The process was mechanical, but it was predictable — researchers understood the rules and could plan accordingly.

The new system gives institute directors discretion to weigh peer review scores alongside career stage, existing funding levels, geographic diversity, and alignment with NIH and institute priorities. Those priorities, in turn, are defined by the strategic plan.

This creates a direct throughline that didn't exist before: the strategic plan's language shapes institute priorities, which shapes how directors exercise their new funding discretion, which determines who gets funded and who doesn't. The plan has always mattered. Now it matters structurally, because it's the framework institute directors will point to when explaining why a well-scored application didn't get an award.

What NIH Has Signaled So Far

Even before the formal strategic planning process opened for public comment, NIH leadership telegraphed several priority areas that are likely to appear in the final document.

Chronic disease and nutrition. The director has repeatedly emphasized chronic health conditions affecting Americans, childhood diseases, and diet-related illness. This aligns with the broader administration health agenda and suggests expanded mechanisms for nutrition science, metabolic disease research, and prevention-focused interventions. Researchers working in these areas should expect new funding announcements — and should frame existing work to connect with these themes where genuine overlap exists.

Artificial intelligence and alternative testing models. NIH has flagged next-generation tools including AI applications in research, alternative methodologies to reduce animal testing, and real-world data platforms. The New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) push is accelerating, and the strategic plan will likely formalize this as a cross-cutting priority. For researchers in computational biology, bioinformatics, or translational science, this signals an opportunity to propose AI-integrated approaches.

Replication and reproducibility. The unified strategy specifically calls out "replicable, reproducible, and generalizable research" as a counter to what NIH sees as publication-favoring bias. Applications that include pre-registered protocols, replication components, or methodological rigor arguments may find a more receptive audience under the new framework.

Health disparities with measurable outcomes. A subtle but important shift: NIH's framing of health equity research emphasizes "solution-oriented approaches with measurable outcomes" rather than documentation-focused studies. This signals a move away from funding research that describes disparities toward funding research that demonstrably reduces them. The distinction matters for how you frame your Specific Aims.

Autism research and data science. A new data science initiative addressing autism etiology and care needs has been specifically mentioned, suggesting a dedicated mechanism or program announcement.

How the Public Comment Process Works

The 21st Century Cures Act requires NIH to update its strategic plan every five years with public input. The process typically includes:

Public webinars. The first was held March 16, 2026 (12:30-1:30 PM ET). The second is April 8, 2026 (2:30-3:30 PM ET). Both feature NIH leadership presenting the high-level framework followed by a Q&A session. Registration is required.

Requests for Information (RFIs). NIH traditionally publishes one or more Federal Register notices soliciting written comments on draft priorities. These RFI responses become part of the administrative record and are reviewed by the planning team. Watch the NIH Extramural Nexus for announcements.

Institute-level input. Many individual institutes and centers conduct their own strategic planning processes that feed into the agency-wide plan. If your research falls primarily within one IC's portfolio, engaging at that level can be more targeted and effective.

How to Make Your Input Actually Count

Having participated in or analyzed multiple rounds of NIH strategic planning, here's what separates comments that influence the final document from comments that get filed and forgotten.

Anchor to data, not aspirations. The planning team receives thousands of comments that say "NIH should invest more in [my field]." The ones that get traction cite burden-of-disease data, unmet clinical need statistics, and evidence that current funding levels are misaligned with the problem's scale. If you can demonstrate that a research area receives 2% of NIH funding while addressing a condition responsible for 10% of disability-adjusted life years, that asymmetry is persuasive.

Name specific mechanisms, not just topics. Comments that say "NIH should support early-career investigators in computational biology" are less actionable than comments that propose "A K99/R00-equivalent mechanism for researchers transitioning from industry AI roles into academic biomedical research." The more concrete your recommendation, the easier it is for the planning team to incorporate it.

Connect to the stated priorities. If your research intersects with chronic disease, AI, reproducibility, or health disparities — the themes NIH has already signaled — frame your comments to show that connection. You're not trying to redirect the plan; you're helping NIH see how your field fits within the framework they're already building.

Be specific about what you want changed from the current plan. The FY 2021-2025 plan is public. If a research area was underrepresented, name it. If a mechanism was missing, describe it. If a priority was stated but never operationalized through program announcements, say that. Comparative analysis between the plan's stated priorities and what actually got funded is powerful evidence.

Submit both individually and through professional societies. Individual comments carry weight, but professional society submissions often carry more because they represent consensus positions across multiple investigators. If your society is preparing a strategic plan response, contribute to it — and submit your own comment reinforcing the key points.

The Timing Problem

Here's the challenge for researchers on the ground right now: NIH is developing a five-year strategic plan during a period when near-term funding is severely disrupted. As of March 3, 2026, competitive new awards were running 74% below the FY 2021-2024 average. Emergency modifications to peer review — including reducing discussed applications from the top half to the top third — remain in place through the May 2026 advisory council round.

As the FY2026 spending bill demonstrated, Congress has protected NIH's topline at $48.7 billion, rejecting the administration's proposed 40% cut. The money is appropriated. The issue is the rate at which it flows into new awards versus renewals, supplements, and administrative actions.

This creates a peculiar dynamic: the strategic plan will describe NIH's aspirations for 2027-2031, but the current funding apparatus isn't delivering against the 2026 plan. Researchers providing comment should be direct about this gap. A strategic plan that proposes bold new directions while the agency is unable to fund standard R01 renewals on time will read as disconnected from reality.

What the Strategic Plan Won't Fix

The strategic plan doesn't set the budget. It doesn't determine indirect cost rate policy. It doesn't resolve the structural tension between the unified funding strategy's discretionary model and the traditional merit-review system. And it won't address whether institutes with acting directors (several currently lack Senate-confirmed leadership) can effectively exercise the expanded discretion the new funding strategy grants them.

What the plan does establish is the intellectual framework within which all of those decisions get made. It's the document that IC directors cite when explaining their funding choices to advisory councils. It's the reference point for program officers designing new FOAs. And it's increasingly the lens through which congressional appropriators evaluate whether NIH is delivering on its mission.

What Researchers Should Do Before April 8

Register for the April 8 webinar. Even if you don't ask a question, understanding the framework NIH presents will help you draft targeted written comments.

Read the FY 2021-2025 plan. It's publicly available on the NIH website. Identify where your research area was included, where it was absent, and what promises were made but not kept. This comparative analysis is the foundation of a strong written comment.

Coordinate with your institution's Office of Research. Many universities submit institutional comments through their VP for Research or Dean of the Graduate School. Ask whether your institution is preparing a response, and offer to contribute.

Draft your comment now. When the formal RFI opens, the deadline will feel tight. Having a draft ready means you can refine rather than scramble.

The NIH strategic plan is one of the few mechanisms where individual researchers can directly influence the direction of federal research funding — not through political connections or lobbying, but through reasoned argument about what science needs. At a moment when so much of the research funding environment feels beyond any one person's control, the strategic plan comment process is an arena where informed voices genuinely matter.

For researchers tracking funding opportunities that align with NIH's emerging priorities, Granted can help you identify relevant FOAs, monitor program announcements, and build proposals that connect your work to the strategic themes that will shape the next five years of biomedical research funding.