Allowed with disclosure. The funder lets applicants use AI and requires or asks them to say where they used it.
What the funder asks of applicants
- Researchers should identify any generative AI tools used in research and in manuscript and grant preparation, and explain how the tools were used. Disclosure can protect against misconduct allegations. [1][2]
- Researchers should verify all results, including those derived from processes involving generative AI. [1]
- Researchers should check whether text or ideas from generative AI tools were copied from another person's work, and cite those works appropriately. [1]
If an applicant breaks the rule
- Disclosure does not rule out a misconduct finding. Use that is inconsistent with accepted practice of the research community may still be evidence of misconduct. Undisclosed or inaccurately described AI data processing may be evidence of fabrication or falsification. [1]
- Fabricated or hallucinated citations in grant applications may not be fabricated data or results. In cases like literature reviews, where references are data, they could be the subject of misconduct allegations. [1]
- The guidance is nonbinding. PHS funding agencies have their own generative AI policies that may inform accepted practices, so check those too. [1][2]
Rules for reviewers
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health has published no rules for reviewers.
Where this comes from
The funder's own words, from its own pages.
Researchers should disclose any generative AI tools used during research and manuscript and grant preparation.
Researchers should identify any generative AI tools used during their research and manuscript and grant preparation and explain how these tools were used.
Researchers should verify all results, including those derived from processes involving generative AI.
Similarly, undisclosed or inaccurately described data generation or processing with AI tools may be evidence of data fabrication or falsification.
However, disclosing generative AI tool use does not necessarily preclude a research misconduct finding.
Therefore, researchers should determine whether text or ideas they use from generative AI tools have been copied from another person’s work and cite those works appropriately.
Additionally, PHS funding agencies also maintain and are continuing to develop generative AI use policies.
However, in some cases, such as literature reviews, references are data because they arise from scientific inquiry.
ORI's Guidance on Generative Artificial Intelligence Released (opens in a new tab)
Disclosing the use of generative AI to promote transparency in methods in papers and grant applications
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.