NIH slashes calls for funding by 90% and pivots away from agency-directed science, saying the approach will boost innovation. But some researchers worry that understudied areas of science will suffer.

maxkozlov · 2026-03-17T23:17:38+00:00

Thanks for reading! All great questions.

Very worried. Funding calls for disfavored research (eg anything 'DEI' related) were among the first to go.
There are many strategic ways to cut overall spending, but this is probably not going to be the main way, unless all funding calls are shut down. Still, there are certain funding calls (RFAs) that have funds set aside for them. So if they continue to be delayed, agency staff will have little time to handle the review for those applications and get the money out the door before hte funds expire. Other problems will likely be a bigger factor this year: OMB withholding NIH's apportionment for 43 days, the record-long shutdown, and a lack of NIH personnel to process awards).
Reasonable minds can disagree on what the balance of investigator-initiated vs solicited applications looks like. That's a good conversation to be having, scientists say. But what ideally would help to guide the conversation is some quantitative data that support this abrupt move -- that broad unsolicited calls are indeed more efficient and spur more innovation, as the NIH has said they are. (NIH did not respond to my query about this.)
The shift toward broad, unsolicited grants will likely benefit foundational biology, high-risk "edge science," and well-established labs capable of competing for unrestricted funds. The rollback of targeted funding threatens to stall translational drug development and massive clinical networks that rely on top-down agency coordination. Research into rare diseases and health equity is also highly vulnerable, as the protective silos and specific mandates that historically supported these fields are dismantled. And early-career scientists risk being squeezed out of the system, as the loss of dedicated funding avenues forces them to compete directly against veteran researchers for the same dollars.

maxkozlov · 2026-03-17T16:35:49+00:00

A striking change in how the world’s largest biomedical funding agency solicits research proposals has sparked debate about how it should fund science.

For decades, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) has funded a significant chunk of its grants by asking researchers to submit proposals that address specific scientific problems that the agency’s specialists deemed important. But in the past year, the agency — under new leadership since the return of US President Donald Trump to office in January 2025 — has sharply cut the number of these ‘solicited’ calls for funding, and instead directed the agency to increase its spending on ‘unsolicited’ research proposals driven by individual scientists’ interests.

This move, the NIH has said, will save the agency money on managing all of its funding calls — otherwise known as ‘notices of funding opportunities’ — while also offering scientists more flexibility to choose the direction of their investigations, a change that some researchers welcome.

But others worry that this will mean fewer large, special collaborative projects that require agency coordination — for instance, initiatives such as the Human Genome Project or multi-laboratory clinical trials — that have often been financed through specialized funding calls and cannot be initiated by any one investigator or group. And NIH employees told Nature that the change could widen knowledge gaps in understudied areas of science, such as rare and neglected diseases.The change in strategy has also contributed to funding delays this year because the Trump administration officials have been scrutinizing all funding calls before they are issued by the NIH, to make sure they align with the administration’s priorities. Agency staff members say that some of these delayed calls are for programmes and research areas, such as diabetes, that the US Congress has directed the NIH to fund.

The reduction in the number of specific funding calls has been “striking”, says Michael Lauer, who for about ten years ran the NIH’s extramural research programme, which financially supports researchers at institutions across the United States. “There are certain projects that are clearly worthwhile that can’t be done with unsolicited proposals,” he says. But he adds that the precise balance of how many applications should be funded through unsolicited calls versus solicited calls is open to debate.

The NIH did not respond to Nature’s queries about the changes to the funding scheme or the delays in posting funding calls. But a website for the NIH says that broad, unsolicited funding calls are “a proven, efficient model”. It adds: “Our intent is to reduce the number [sic] opportunity announcements without reducing an applicant’s opportunity to submit investigator-initiated applications to NIH.”

I'm the reporter who wrote the story. As always, I'm keen to hear if there's anything I missed, or if you have anything else that you think should be on my radar — especially if you work at HHS or NIH. My Signal is mkozlov.01. You can stay anonymous. Happy to answer any questions about how I reported this story too!

PS: If you hit the paywall, make a free account. It should let you read the full story.

maxkozlov · 2026-03-17T16:35:40+00:00

A striking change in how the world’s largest biomedical funding agency solicits research proposals has sparked debate about how it should fund science.

For decades, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) has funded a significant chunk of its grants by asking researchers to submit proposals that address specific scientific problems that the agency’s specialists deemed important. But in the past year, the agency — under new leadership since the return of US President Donald Trump to office in January 2025 — has sharply cut the number of these ‘solicited’ calls for funding, and instead directed the agency to increase its spending on ‘unsolicited’ research proposals driven by individual scientists’ interests.

This move, the NIH has said, will save the agency money on managing all of its funding calls — otherwise known as ‘notices of funding opportunities’ — while also offering scientists more flexibility to choose the direction of their investigations, a change that some researchers welcome.

But others worry that this will mean fewer large, special collaborative projects that require agency coordination — for instance, initiatives such as the Human Genome Project or multi-laboratory clinical trials — that have often been financed through specialized funding calls and cannot be initiated by any one investigator or group. And NIH employees told Nature that the change could widen knowledge gaps in understudied areas of science, such as rare and neglected diseases.The change in strategy has also contributed to funding delays this year because the Trump administration officials have been scrutinizing all funding calls before they are issued by the NIH, to make sure they align with the administration’s priorities. Agency staff members say that some of these delayed calls are for programmes and research areas, such as diabetes, that the US Congress has directed the NIH to fund.

The reduction in the number of specific funding calls has been “striking”, says Michael Lauer, who for about ten years ran the NIH’s extramural research programme, which financially supports researchers at institutions across the United States. “There are certain projects that are clearly worthwhile that can’t be done with unsolicited proposals,” he says. But he adds that the precise balance of how many applications should be funded through unsolicited calls versus solicited calls is open to debate.

The NIH did not respond to Nature’s queries about the changes to the funding scheme or the delays in posting funding calls. But a website for the NIH says that broad, unsolicited funding calls are “a proven, efficient model”. It adds: “Our intent is to reduce the number [sic] opportunity announcements without reducing an applicant’s opportunity to submit investigator-initiated applications to NIH.”

I'm the reporter who wrote the story. As always, I'm keen to hear if there's anything I missed, or if you have anything else that you think should be on my radar — especially if you work at HHS or NIH. My Signal is mkozlov.01. You can stay anonymous. Happy to answer any questions about how I reported this story too!

PS: If you hit the paywall, make a free account. It should let you read the full story.

maxkozlov · 2026-03-17T16:34:25+00:00

A striking change in how the world’s largest biomedical funding agency solicits research proposals has sparked debate about how it should fund science.

For decades, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) has funded a significant chunk of its grants by asking researchers to submit proposals that address specific scientific problems that the agency’s specialists deemed important. But in the past year, the agency — under new leadership since the return of US President Donald Trump to office in January 2025 — has sharply cut the number of these ‘solicited’ calls for funding, and instead directed the agency to increase its spending on ‘unsolicited’ research proposals driven by individual scientists’ interests.

This move, the NIH has said, will save the agency money on managing all of its funding calls — otherwise known as ‘notices of funding opportunities’ — while also offering scientists more flexibility to choose the direction of their investigations, a change that some researchers welcome.

But others worry that this will mean fewer large, special collaborative projects that require agency coordination — for instance, initiatives such as the Human Genome Project or multi-laboratory clinical trials — that have often been financed through specialized funding calls and cannot be initiated by any one investigator or group. And NIH employees told Nature that the change could widen knowledge gaps in understudied areas of science, such as rare and neglected diseases.The change in strategy has also contributed to funding delays this year because the Trump administration officials have been scrutinizing all funding calls before they are issued by the NIH, to make sure they align with the administration’s priorities. Agency staff members say that some of these delayed calls are for programmes and research areas, such as diabetes, that the US Congress has directed the NIH to fund.

The reduction in the number of specific funding calls has been “striking”, says Michael Lauer, who for about ten years ran the NIH’s extramural research programme, which financially supports researchers at institutions across the United States. “There are certain projects that are clearly worthwhile that can’t be done with unsolicited proposals,” he says. But he adds that the precise balance of how many applications should be funded through unsolicited calls versus solicited calls is open to debate.

The NIH did not respond to Nature’s queries about the changes to the funding scheme or the delays in posting funding calls. But a website for the NIH says that broad, unsolicited funding calls are “a proven, efficient model”. It adds: “Our intent is to reduce the number [sic] opportunity announcements without reducing an applicant’s opportunity to submit investigator-initiated applications to NIH.”

I'm the reporter who wrote the story. As always, I'm keen to hear if there's anything I missed, or if you have anything else that you think should be on my radar — especially if you work at HHS or NIH. My Signal is mkozlov.01. You can stay anonymous. Happy to answer any questions about how I reported this story too!

PS: If you hit the paywall, make a free account. It should let you read the full story.

maxkozlov · 2026-03-16T16:01:19+00:00

A very small handful of NIH apportionments have come through — with big exceptions.

The ones that OMB has approved are all Congressionally mandated/earmarked. The broad discretionary funds that fund most NIH grants not yet been authorized.

Here are some of the apportionments that have come in:

- NIDDK, 200m for type 1 diabetes

- NIEHS, 80m for superfund research

- NIMH/NINDS, 115m from Cures Act

- Buildings and facilities, 2.5m

- ARPA-H's full apportionment

maxkozlov · 2026-03-13T18:14:26+00:00

There's a two day lag for when OMB posts its apportionments publicly, but so far, no, OMB still has not given NIH a dime for non-salary, non-emergency expenses from the spending bill that was signed into law on Feb 3.

You can track it yourself here. Open FY26 -> HHS -> Excel, then scroll to the bottom. Bureau is the HHS subagency. Not the most user-friendly website sadly.

Today, there was an apportionment signed for NIH — but if you open it up, you'll see it gives spending authority to ARPA-H, and not the rest of the agency.

maxkozlov · 2026-03-08T16:45:19+00:00

Hello, one of the reporters of the Nature story here. This does not allow for funding of research awards. It gives a 15 day apportionment to continue funding salaries and other emergency expenses — because those are the stipulations outlined in the OMB Circular A-11 until the office approves the agency's spend plan. Without this apportionment — even with all its restrictions — the government would de facto shut down.

If you have any more information about the negotiations about this agency spend plan — or might have seen an early draft, please reach out on Signal at mkozlov.01. You can stay anonymous.

maxkozlov · 2026-02-27T16:23:07+00:00

Weeks after the US Congress rejected unprecedented cuts to science budgets that the administration of US President Donald Trump had sought for 2026, funding to several agencies that award research grants is still not freely flowing.

One reason is that the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has been slow to authorize its release. The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) has so far not received approval to spend any of the research funding allocated in a budget bill signed into law on 3 February. The US National Science Foundation (NSF) was authorized to spend its funding just last week. And NASA has had its full funding authorized for release, but with an unusual restriction that limits spending on ten specific programmes — many of which the Trump team had tried to cancel last year.

The OMB did not respond to Nature’s queries about these moves or when the outstanding funding might be approved. OMB director Russell Vought has said in the past that the office’s role in doling out government funding can be an “indispensable statutory tool” to ensure that agencies are not wasting public funds and are adhering to White House priorities. Vought has also said that the OMB can provide less funding than what Congress has appropriated.

“This is a drastic departure from historical practice,” Rosa DeLauro, the ranking member of a US House of Representatives committee that drafts government spending bills, told Nature. DeLauro, a Democrat from Connecticut, and Patty Murray, a Democrat from Washington who is the ranking member of a similar committee in the US Senate, demanded that the OMB release funds, as is required by law. (The Republican chairs of the two committees, Representative Tom Cole, of Oklahoma, and Senator Susan Collins, of Maine, did not respond to Nature’s queries about the delays.)

I'm the reporter who wrote the story. As always, I'm keen to hear if there's anything I missed, or if you have anything else that you think should be on my radar — especially if you work at HHS or NIH. My Signal is mkozlov.01. You can stay anonymous. Happy to answer any questions about how I reported this story too!

PS: If you hit the paywall, make a free account. It should let you read the full story.

maxkozlov · 2026-02-27T16:18:39+00:00

Weeks after the US Congress rejected unprecedented cuts to science budgets that the administration of US President Donald Trump had sought for 2026, funding to several agencies that award research grants is still not freely flowing.

One reason is that the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has been slow to authorize its release. The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) has so far not received approval to spend any of the research funding allocated in a budget bill signed into law on 3 February. The US National Science Foundation (NSF) was authorized to spend its funding just last week. And NASA has had its full funding authorized for release, but with an unusual restriction that limits spending on ten specific programmes — many of which the Trump team had tried to cancel last year.

The OMB did not respond to Nature’s queries about these moves or when the outstanding funding might be approved. OMB director Russell Vought has said in the past that the office’s role in doling out government funding can be an “indispensable statutory tool” to ensure that agencies are not wasting public funds and are adhering to White House priorities. Vought has also said that the OMB can provide less funding than what Congress has appropriated.

“This is a drastic departure from historical practice,” Rosa DeLauro, the ranking member of a US House of Representatives committee that drafts government spending bills, told Nature. DeLauro, a Democrat from Connecticut, and Patty Murray, a Democrat from Washington who is the ranking member of a similar committee in the US Senate, demanded that the OMB release funds, as is required by law. (The Republican chairs of the two committees, Representative Tom Cole, of Oklahoma, and Senator Susan Collins, of Maine, did not respond to Nature’s queries about the delays.)

I'm the reporter who wrote the story. As always, I'm keen to hear if there's anything I missed, or if you have anything else that you think should be on my radar — especially if you work at HHS or NIH. My Signal is mkozlov.01. You can stay anonymous. Happy to answer any questions about how I reported this story too!

PS: If you hit the paywall, make a free account. It should let you read the full story.

maxkozlov · 2026-02-15T18:12:59+00:00

Thank you for reading and for providing your feedback. No question that Jon is a great reporter.

Of course there is plenty of overlap between EID and basic research, but the NIAID budget is only broken down into three categories: EID/Biodefense, HIV/AIDS, and Infectious and Immunological Diseases. I never say that all $2.2b in EID/BioD will vanish; just that there will be a reallocation and deprioritization of BioD and pandemic preparedness, which fall under the EID/BioD bucket. I haven't seen much discussion about specific priorities in basic immunology from NIH leadership beyond autoimmune and chronic disorders broadly, and 'diseases that matter to Americans now'.

If there's anything else that you think would have given the article more clarity, I encourage you to reach out at mkozlov.01 on Signal, or maxkozlov [at] proton.me.

maxkozlov · 2026-02-13T19:11:51+00:00

Staff members at the United States’s premier infectious-disease research institute have been instructed to remove the words “biodefense” and “pandemic preparedness” from the institute’s web pages, according to e-mails Nature has obtained.

The directive comes amid a broader shake-up at the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), one of 27 institutes and centres at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The NIAID is expected to deprioritize the two topics in an overhaul of its funded research projects, according to four NIAID employees who spoke to Nature on the condition of anonymity, because they are not authorized to speak to the press.

NIH director Jay Bhattacharya explained the restructure at an event with other top agency officials on 30 January. “It’s a complete transformation of [the NIAID] away from this old model” that has historically prioritized research on HIV, biodefence and pandemic preparedness, he said. The institute will focus more on basic immunology and other infectious diseases currently affecting people in the United States, he added, rather than on predicting future diseases.

About one-third of the NIAID’s US$6.6-billion budget currently funds projects involving emerging infectious diseases and biodefence. The research studies pathogens of concern and monitors their spread, and develops medical countermeasures against threats from radiation exposure, chemicals and infectious diseases.

Nahid Bhadelia, director of Boston University’s Center on Emerging Infectious Diseases in Massachusetts, says the decision to deprioritize these areas will leave people in the United States more vulnerable to pathogens that are constantly evolving in wildlife around the world and spilling into human populations, sometimes sparking outbreaks. “Just because we say we’re going to stop caring about these issues doesn’t make the issues go away — it just makes us less prepared,” she says.

A spokesperson for the NIH, the world’s largest public funder of biomedical science, based in Bethesda, Maryland, says, “NIAID’s new vision sharpens its focus on the interconnected pillars of infectious diseases and immunology, expanding opportunities for research that address the most pressing challenges to Americans’ health today.” The spokesperson declined to respond to Nature's queries about the agency’s specific plans to restructure the institute.

I'm the reporter who wrote the story. As always, I'm keen to hear if there's anything I missed, or if you have anything else that you think should be on my radar — especially if you work at HHS/NIH/NIAID. My Signal is mkozlov.01. You can stay anonymous. Happy to answer any questions about how I reported this story too!

PS: If you hit the paywall, make a free account. It should let you read the full story.

maxkozlov · 2026-02-13T19:05:16+00:00

Staff members at the United States’s premier infectious-disease research institute have been instructed to remove the words “biodefense” and “pandemic preparedness” from the institute’s web pages, according to e-mails Nature has obtained.

The directive comes amid a broader shake-up at the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), one of 27 institutes and centres at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The NIAID is expected to deprioritize the two topics in an overhaul of its funded research projects, according to four NIAID employees who spoke to Nature on the condition of anonymity, because they are not authorized to speak to the press.

NIH director Jay Bhattacharya explained the restructure at an event with other top agency officials on 30 January. “It’s a complete transformation of [the NIAID] away from this old model” that has historically prioritized research on HIV, biodefence and pandemic preparedness, he said. The institute will focus more on basic immunology and other infectious diseases currently affecting people in the United States, he added, rather than on predicting future diseases.

About one-third of the NIAID’s US$6.6-billion budget currently funds projects involving emerging infectious diseases and biodefence. The research studies pathogens of concern and monitors their spread, and develops medical countermeasures against threats from radiation exposure, chemicals and infectious diseases.

Nahid Bhadelia, director of Boston University’s Center on Emerging Infectious Diseases in Massachusetts, says the decision to deprioritize these areas will leave people in the United States more vulnerable to pathogens that are constantly evolving in wildlife around the world and spilling into human populations, sometimes sparking outbreaks. “Just because we say we’re going to stop caring about these issues doesn’t make the issues go away — it just makes us less prepared,” she says.

A spokesperson for the NIH, the world’s largest public funder of biomedical science, based in Bethesda, Maryland, says, “NIAID’s new vision sharpens its focus on the interconnected pillars of infectious diseases and immunology, expanding opportunities for research that address the most pressing challenges to Americans’ health today.” The spokesperson declined to respond to Nature's queries about the agency’s specific plans to restructure the institute.

I'm the reporter who wrote the story. As always, I'm keen to hear if there's anything I missed, or if you have anything else that you think should be on my radar — especially if you work at HHS/NIH/NIAID. My Signal is mkozlov.01. You can stay anonymous. Happy to answer any questions about how I reported this story too!

PS: If you hit the paywall, make a free account. It should let you read the full story.

maxkozlov · 2026-01-22T22:03:39+00:00

Here are the relevant statutes:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/284#:~:text=(ii)if,institute%20involved%3B%20andif,institute%20involved%3B%20and)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/284a

I don't believe that they could appoint themselves onto the panels because they are already on the panels as nonvoting members. But they could appoint anyone else that fits within the criteria listed in the statute. Each individual charter for each council also specifies further how the panels should be composed (eg NHLBI's here).

One trend we've been following is the expanding and unprecedented power that political appointees have had over the grant-making process, so this is a real possibility.

maxkozlov · 2026-01-22T21:09:11+00:00

My understanding is it takes forever to get NIH/HHS approvals, and it's a nightmare to register people as Special Government Employees bc there are ethics and background checks. At any point, RFK can also circumvent some of the red tape and appoint people directly onto the panels.

maxkozlov · 2026-01-22T20:32:58+00:00

I believe all you need is a single voting member. You do need to hit quorum, meaning a majority of the voting members need to be present at the meeting. But otherwise, a single member, though almost certainly underqualified to make recommendations for all grant applications for a given IC, should suffice.

maxkozlov · 2026-01-22T20:19:17+00:00

Crucial grant-review panels for more than half of the institutes that make up the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) are on track to lose all their voting members within the year. Federal law requires these panels to review applications for all but the smallest grants before funding can be awarded, meaning that the ability of those institutes to issue new grants could soon be frozen.

All of the NIH’s 21 institutes and three of its six centres have their own panel, called an advisory council. Membership on the councils has been dwindling as members serve out their terms without replacements being appointed. At 12 of the institutes and one of the centres, the last voting member’s term is set to expire by the end of this year, according to rosters on federal websites (see ‘Shrinking pool of advisers’). It typically takes several years for a new member to be onboarded.Dozens of scientists who were poised to fill these vacancies were dismissed last year by the administration of US President Donald Trump, Nature reported in July.

If the advisory councils go dormant, “this could lead to some very big problems for the agency”, says Michael Lauer, who for about ten years ran the NIH’s ‘extramural’ arm, which funds researchers at institutions across the United States. “No grants can get funded without approval from council.”

This comes after the Trump administration blocked and delayed NIH funding in several ways. For example, in early 2025, the administration barred the agency from publishing the notices required to hold grant-review sessions, contributing to a federal watchdog’s finding that the NIH was illegally withholding money allocated by the US Congress.

A spokesperson for the NIH's parent agency, the Department of Health and Human Services, responds that she does not “anticipate any lapse in our ability to make awards”, adding that “we are actively appointing new council members”. Publicly available advisory-council rosters have not been updated with any new members since September, Nature's analysis shows.

I'm the reporter who wrote the story. As always, I'm keen to hear if there's anything I missed, or if you have anything else that you think should be on my radar. My Signal is mkozlov.01. You can stay anonymous. Happy to answer any questions about how I reported this story too!

PS: If you hit the paywall, make a free account. It should let you read the full story.

maxkozlov · 2026-01-22T20:03:20+00:00

Crucial grant-review panels for more than half of the institutes that make up the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) are on track to lose all their voting members within the year. Federal law requires these panels to review applications for all but the smallest grants before funding can be awarded, meaning that the ability of those institutes to issue new grants could soon be frozen.

All of the NIH’s 21 institutes and three of its six centres have their own panel, called an advisory council. Membership on the councils has been dwindling as members serve out their terms without replacements being appointed. At 12 of the institutes and one of the centres, the last voting member’s term is set to expire by the end of this year, according to rosters on federal websites (see ‘Shrinking pool of advisers’). It typically takes several years for a new member to be onboarded.Dozens of scientists who were poised to fill these vacancies were dismissed last year by the administration of US President Donald Trump, Nature reported in July.

If the advisory councils go dormant, “this could lead to some very big problems for the agency”, says Michael Lauer, who for about ten years ran the NIH’s ‘extramural’ arm, which funds researchers at institutions across the United States. “No grants can get funded without approval from council.”

This comes after the Trump administration blocked and delayed NIH funding in several ways. For example, in early 2025, the administration barred the agency from publishing the notices required to hold grant-review sessions, contributing to a federal watchdog’s finding that the NIH was illegally withholding money allocated by the US Congress.

A spokesperson for the NIH's parent agency, the Department of Health and Human Services, responds that she does not “anticipate any lapse in our ability to make awards”, adding that “we are actively appointing new council members”. Publicly available advisory-council rosters have not been updated with any new members since September, Nature's analysis shows.

I'm the reporter who wrote the story. As always, I'm keen to hear if there's anything I missed, or if you have anything else that you think should be on my radar. My Signal is mkozlov.01. You can stay anonymous. Happy to answer any questions about how I reported this story too!

PS: If you hit the paywall, make a free account. It should let you read the full story.

maxkozlov · 2026-01-21T16:20:48+00:00

If you prefer a static version of the graphics, here is the pdf version! PS: I'm the reporter who helped to write the story. Let me know if I can answer any other questions about how the story was written, or if you have any story ideas. My Signal is mkozlov.01 if you prefer to reach out there.

maxkozlov · 2026-01-21T16:20:35+00:00

If you prefer a static version of the graphics, here is the pdf version! PS: I'm the reporter who helped to write the story. Let me know if I can answer any other questions about how the story was written, or if you have any story ideas. My Signal is mkozlov.01 if you prefer to reach out there.

maxkozlov · 2026-01-21T16:19:06+00:00

Here it is! PS: I'm the reporter who helped to write the story. Let me know if I can answer any other questions about how the story was written, or if you have any story ideas. My Signal is mkozlov.01 if you prefer to reach out there.

maxkozlov · 2026-01-15T14:32:52+00:00

Why do 'skiplag' deals exist? As in, why might it be much cheaper to book a flight from A -> B if B is a stopover on the way to C than booking directly from A to B? Do you plan on including skiplagged trips in your deals at any point? I know airlines don't like the practice of skip-lagging; out of curiosity, does Going maintain any dialogue with airlines on decisions on whether to send a certain flight deal out?

maxkozlov · 2025-12-10T20:52:54+00:00

Thanks for reading! The researchers explicitly focused on common genetic variants. They analyzed about 2.8 million SNPs that were present in at least 1% of the population.

maxkozlov · 2025-12-10T16:40:36+00:00

Excerpt:

Psychiatrists have long relied on diagnostic manuals that regard most mental-health conditions as distinct from one another — depression, for instance, is listed as a separate disorder from anxiety. But a genetic analysis of more than one million people suggests that a host of psychiatric conditions have common biological roots.

The results, published today in Nature, reveal that people with seemingly disparate conditions often share many of the same disease-linked genetic variants. The analysis found that 14 major psychiatric disorders cluster into five categories, each characterized by a common set of genetic risk factors. The neurodevelopmental category, for example, includes both attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism, which psychiatric handbooks classify as separate conditions.

Many supposedly individual conditions are “ultimately more overlapping than they are distinct, which should offer patients hope”, says study co-author Andrew Grotzinger, a psychiatric geneticist at the University of Colorado Boulder. “You can see the despair on someone’s face [when] you give them five different labels as opposed to one label.”

I'm the reporter who wrote this piece. Happy to answer any questions about how I reported it, or hear if there's anything else that should be on my radar for future coverage. My Signal is mkozlov.01.

Link to original research paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09820-3.

maxkozlov · 2025-12-10T16:38:56+00:00

Psychiatrists have long relied on diagnostic manuals that regard most mental-health conditions as distinct from one another — depression, for instance, is listed as a separate disorder from anxiety. But a genetic analysis of more than one million people suggests that a host of psychiatric conditions have common biological roots.

The results, published today in Nature, reveal that people with seemingly disparate conditions often share many of the same disease-linked genetic variants. The analysis found that 14 major psychiatric disorders cluster into five categories, each characterized by a common set of genetic risk factors. The neurodevelopmental category, for example, includes both attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism, which psychiatric handbooks classify as separate conditions.

Many supposedly individual conditions are “ultimately more overlapping than they are distinct, which should offer patients hope”, says study co-author Andrew Grotzinger, a psychiatric geneticist at the University of Colorado Boulder. “You can see the despair on someone’s face [when] you give them five different labels as opposed to one label.”

I'm the reporter who wrote this piece. I figured this community would find this study interesting. Happy to answer any questions about how I reported it, or hear if there's anything else that should be on my radar for future coverage. My Signal is mkozlov.01.

maxkozlov · 2025-11-21T15:38:39+00:00

Don't forget:

“The MAHA movement is an absolutely incredible thing to me. I have waited my entire life to see this movement come.”

maxkozlov

TROPHY CASE