Responses to the AI grant flood must prioritize fairness as part of excellence

You have full access to this article via your institution. The agencies that disburse research funds must have clear rationales for rejecting grant proposals amid a surge in applications. Credit: Matt Cardy/Getty Last month, the European Research Council (ERC) announced a policy change for some of its grants: it extended the period in which some unsuccessful applicants would not be able to reapply . The ERC, Europe’s premier research funder with more than €16 billion (US$19 billion) to disburse in 2021–27, was responding to a surge in applications, which appear to be driven partly by the use of artificial-intelligence tools. Could agentic AI topple grant-funding systems? Last week, however, the funder adjusted that change following an outcry from researchers. Many said that it was unfair, too sudden, too blunt, that it would discourage bold proposals and make researchers less able to respond to new advances. The council was right to rethink — and in the process it showed others how to listen to the concerns of the community. But the problem of how to handle AI in grant funding remains. Solutions must have fairness at their core. As neuroscientist Geraint Rees and social scientist James Wilsdon wrote in Nature last week, funding bodies from Australia to the United Kingdom have seen a sharp rise in applications since 2022 ( G. Rees and J. Wilsdon Nature 652 , 1119–1121; 2026 ). …