Allowed. The funder lets applicants use AI, and applicants answer for everything they submit.
What the funder asks of applicants
If an applicant breaks the rule
- Unverified AI content can weaken the rigor and credibility of a proposal and can hurt its review. [1]
Rules for reviewers
- Reviewers may not use natural language processors, large language models, or other generative AI to analyze or write peer review critiques. The policy cites NIH notice NOT-OD-23-149. [1]
- Reviewers may not upload or share content or original concepts from an application or critique to online generative AI tools. This breaks confidentiality and integrity requirements. [1]
- Reviewers are told that AI tools often send data to third-party servers where it can be stored, reused, or analyzed. This risks data leakage and unauthorized disclosure of applicants' research. [1]
Where this comes from
The funder's own words, from its own pages.
CORE AI POLICY (opens in a new tab)
While the NIH does not have a definitive policy on the use of AI in grant application
creation, they strongly caution applicants against using AI as these tools can produce
inaccurate or fabricated information.
The responsibility of ensuring accurate and original
application content lies solely with the applicant.
Applicants should be aware that relying on AI-generated content without proper
verification can compromise the rigor and credibility of their proposals, which can
negatively impact their review.
Peer reviewers should be aware that AI tools often transmit data into third-party servers
where it can be stored, reused, or analyzed.
This is a reading of what the funder has published, and it is not legal advice. A solicitation can set its own rule, so read the funding announcement before a PI applies.