Background on U.S. Research Funding and International Ties

U.S. federal agencies like the National Institutes of Health and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration fund a significant portion of the nation's biomedical and space-related research. These grants often support collaborative projects that cross borders, bringing together expertise from around the world. For years, rules have required approval for certain international elements in funded work. Recent developments have introduced tighter scrutiny specifically around co-authorship in publications.

The core issue centers on what counts as a foreign component in a grant. Agencies define this as any significant scientific contribution involving researchers or institutions outside the United States. Historically, this focused on work performed abroad or direct funding transfers. Now, communications to individual grantees suggest an expansion to include any co-author affiliated with a foreign institution, regardless of where the experiments took place.

Details of the Emerging Restrictions at NIH

Grantees report receiving private directives from NIH units to seek advance permission before listing a foreign-affiliated co-author on a paper. In some instances, researchers have been instructed to remove already-published papers that include such co-authors from their annual progress reports to the agency. This applies even when all laboratory work occurred on U.S. soil and involved visiting scholars or students temporarily based in American labs.

The policy appears to treat co-authorship itself as evidence of a foreign component requiring prior approval. Examples cited include collaborations with scientists who later returned to their home countries or foreign researchers who contributed materials or data without receiving grant funds. Researchers describe the guidance as arriving through email or phone calls rather than formal notices, creating uncertainty about enforcement.

NASA's Approach and the Wolf Amendment

Parallel concerns have surfaced with NASA-funded projects. Some grantees have received warnings that papers co-authored with researchers in China could violate existing restrictions. The Wolf Amendment, enacted years ago, limits bilateral activities with Chinese entities using NASA appropriations. Officials appear to be applying this more stringently to publication outputs.

Unlike NIH communications, which focus on pre-approval processes, NASA messages have highlighted potential rule violations after the fact. This has prompted some teams to reconsider ongoing writing projects or seek clarification on whether certain international co-authors trigger compliance reviews.

Broader Context of Research Security Measures

These publishing-related steps fit into larger efforts to safeguard U.S. research from undue foreign influence. Agencies have increased emphasis on disclosure of all foreign affiliations, in-kind contributions, and talent recruitment program participation. Export control regulations under the Export Administration Regulations and International Traffic in Arms Regulations already govern the sharing of controlled technical data, while sanctions administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control restrict dealings with specific countries.

Changes to grant structures have also taken effect. Beginning in 2026, NIH introduced new mechanisms for international projects that replace traditional foreign subawards with separate components. This allows direct tracking of funds but adds administrative layers for collaborators abroad.

Photo by Krists Luhaers on Unsplash

Impacts on Researchers and Research Teams

Early effects include delays in manuscript submissions as teams navigate approval processes. Some principal investigators report spending additional time consulting with grants officers before finalizing author lists. Junior researchers and postdocs express concern that career progression tied to publication records could suffer if international networks become harder to maintain.

Global science relies on open exchange. Restrictions perceived as overly broad risk slowing progress in fields like infectious disease research, climate modeling, and materials science where cross-border data sharing accelerates discovery. U.S.-based scientists with strong international ties describe feeling isolated from long-standing partners.

Perspectives from the Research Community

University research administrators note that the shift from formal policy announcements to individualized communications leaves institutions without clear guidance for training faculty. Professional societies and advocacy groups have called for transparent, written directives that balance security with the benefits of collaboration.

Researchers emphasize the value of foreign co-authors in enhancing paper quality through diverse perspectives and access to unique datasets. Many stress that most international partnerships involve legitimate scientific exchange rather than security risks. They advocate for risk-based approaches that target genuine concerns without blanket limitations on co-authorship.

Compliance Strategies for Institutions and Individuals

Institutions are updating internal review processes to screen proposed author lists against foreign component definitions before submission. Training sessions now cover documentation of all international contributions, even informal ones like material donations or data analysis.

Individual researchers are advised to maintain detailed records of every collaborator's role and affiliation. Early consultation with sponsored programs offices helps clarify whether a particular co-authorship requires agency notification. Some teams are exploring domestic-only authorship options for sensitive projects while preserving international input through acknowledgments where appropriate.

• Review all ongoing manuscripts for potential foreign affiliations.
• Document the location and funding source of every contribution.
• Request written clarification from program officers when guidance is verbal.
• Monitor agency notices for updates to foreign component definitions.

Implications for Global Scientific Progress

Science advances through cumulative knowledge built across borders. Limitations on publishing with foreign colleagues could fragment research communities and reduce citation impact for U.S. papers. Fields dependent on large consortia, such as genomics or particle physics, may face particular challenges if co-authorship becomes administratively burdensome.

International partners may redirect collaborations toward European or Asian funding sources with fewer restrictions. This shift could diminish U.S. leadership in certain disciplines over time while accelerating innovation elsewhere.

Photo by Brett Jordan on Unsplash

Future Outlook and Potential Adjustments

Agency officials have not issued comprehensive public guidance, suggesting the current approach may evolve. Researchers and administrators anticipate further clarification or formal rulemaking in coming months. Discussions at professional meetings indicate growing interest in standardized templates for requesting co-authorship approvals.

Longer-term solutions could include streamlined review processes for low-risk collaborations or expanded definitions of fundamental research exempt from certain controls. Continued dialogue between funding agencies, universities, and the scientific community will shape whether these measures achieve security goals without unduly hindering discovery.

Resources for Staying Informed

University offices of research compliance provide the most immediate support for navigating specific grant situations. Agency websites post updates to grants policy statements, and professional associations track developments affecting international work. Proactive engagement with these channels helps researchers anticipate changes and maintain productive collaborations within regulatory boundaries.

Science Magazine coverage of the developments offers detailed accounts from affected researchers. Additional context appears in Inside Higher Ed reporting on agency communications.