The National Institutes of Health claims its being strained by an onslaught of AI-generated research applications and is capping the number of proposals researchers can submit in a year.In a new policy announcement on July 17, titled Supporting Fairness and Originality in NIH Research Applications, the NIH wrote that it has recently observed instances of Principal Investigators submitting large numbers of applications, some of which may have been generated with AI tools, and that this influx of submissions may unfairly strain NIHs application review process.The percentage of applications from Principal Investigators submitting an average of more than six applications per year is relatively low; however, there is evidence that the use of AI tools has enabled Principal Investigators to submit more than 40 distinct applications in a single application submission round, the NIH policy announcement says. NIH will not consider applications that are either substantially developed by AI, or contain sections substantially developed by AI, to be original ideas of applicants. If the detection of AI is identified post award, NIH may refer the matter to the Office of Research Integrity to determine whether there is research misconduct while simultaneously taking enforcement actions including but not limited to disallowing costs, withholding future awards, wholly or in part suspending the grant, and possible termination.Starting on September 25, NIH will only accept six new, renewal, resubmission, or revision applications from individual principal investigators or program directors in a calendar year.Earlier this year, 404 Media investigated AI used in published scientific papers by searching for the phrase as of my last knowledge update on Google Scholar, and found more than 100 resultsindicating that at least some of the papers relied on ChatGPT, which updates its knowledge base periodically. And in February, a journal published a paper with several clearly AI-generated images, including one of a rat with a giant penis. In 2023, Nature reported that academic journals retracted 10,000 "sham papers," and the Wiley-owned Hindawi journals retracted over 8,000 fraudulent paper-mill articles. Wiley discontinued the 19 journals overseen by Hindawi. AI-generated submissions affect non-research publications, too: The science fiction and fantasy magazine Clarkesworld stopped accepting new submissions in 2023 because editors were overwhelmed by AI-generated stories.According to an analysis published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, from February 28 to April 8, the Trump administration terminated $1.81 billion in NIH grants, in subjects including aging, cancer, child health, diabetes, mental health and neurological disorders, NBC reported.Just before the submission limit announcement, on July 14, Nature reported that the NIH would soon disinvite dozens of scientists who were about to take positions on advisory councils that make final decisions on grant applications for the agency, and that staff members have been instructed to nominate replacements who are aligned with the priorities of the administration of US President Donald Trumpand have been warned that political appointees might still override their suggestions and hand-pick alternative reviewers.The NIH Office of Science Policy did not immediately respond to a request for comment.