NSF Cuts Grant Solicitations in Half and Overhauls Peer Review

The National Science Foundation is preparing its most sweeping operational overhaul in decades: cutting grant solicitations from more than 200 to roughly 100 while fundamentally changing how proposals are reviewed.

NSF Chief Management Officer Micah Cheatham disclosed the plans at a National Science Board meeting on February 25, framing the consolidation as both a workforce necessity and a simplification for applicants. "The fewer solicitations you have, the less time grant applicants have to figure out which of our pigeonholes they fit into," Cheatham said.

What Changed in Merit Review

The new rules, effective since December 15, represent a significant shift in how NSF evaluates proposals:

• External reviewers reduced from three to two. One of the two required reviews can now be conducted internally by NSF staff rather than outside scientists.
• Panel review is now optional. Program officers assemble panels only when they need help deciding whether to recommend funding.
• Rejection feedback shortened to 3-5 sentences. Unsuccessful applicants will receive substantially less detail on why their proposals were declined.
• Workshop and conference awards doubled from $100,000 to $200,000, with external review requirements eliminated for these categories.

The changes stem from a 35 percent staffing reduction — NSF currently has approximately 1,300 employees, down from roughly 2,000 in 2024. The biology directorate alone lost 40 percent of its program officers.

Why Grant Seekers Should Recalibrate

Fewer solicitations does not necessarily mean fewer awards, but it does change the math. Broader solicitations mean more applicants competing in each pool, and program officers — not external panels — will increasingly decide which proposals advance. That shifts power toward NSF staff and away from the academic peer reviewers who traditionally shaped funding decisions.

Some NSF insiders are alarmed. One program officer told Science the changes are "like a stick in the spokes of merit review." National Science Board member Dorota Grejner-Brzezinska raised concerns that fewer solicitations could particularly harm junior faculty seeking career-launching grants.

For researchers preparing spring submissions, the practical advice is clear: write for program officers, not just peer reviewers. With panels becoming optional, the program officer's initial assessment carries more weight than ever. Broader solicitations also mean proposals must clearly articulate fit without relying on a narrow program description to do the work.

Tools like Granted can help researchers identify which consolidated solicitations best match their work as NSF's funding landscape continues to shift.

In-depth analysis of NSF's restructuring and its impact on specific research disciplines is available on the Granted blog.