Concern 558 · Working draft · editorial review in progress

Grant-application ghostwriting

Grant-application ghostwriting becomes a concern when AI-generated work misrepresents the applicant's ideas, evidence or ability to carry out a project.

Understanding the concern

A funding application asks reviewers to trust a team with resources. Writing assistance can improve clarity, but a polished proposal may conceal that the team has not developed the plan or checked its claims. Reviewers then assess an appearance of readiness rather than the actual research.

Rules vary by funder. NIH states that applications or sections substantially developed by AI are not treated as the applicants' original ideas under its policy. That is a specific requirement, not a universal ban on all writing help. Applicants remain responsible for accuracy, originality and the rules of the program they are applying to.

An example

A proposal describes methods and preliminary findings that the named team cannot substantiate.

Illustrative unless identified as a documented case.

Words in plain English

AI
Software that learns patterns from examples or uses rules to perform tasks such as recognizing images or generating text. It can make mistakes and does not understand every situation as a person would.

Evidence and its limits

This entry cites NIH's policy effective for September 25, 2025 receipt dates onward. Other funders may apply different rules.

Explore these sources in the library →
Broader frameworks and background

These resources provide context. They do not establish every claim in this concern.

A question to discuss

What should applicants disclose so reviewers can judge the team's actual ideas and readiness?

Keep track of different views, what needs checking, and any next step in your own discussion notes.

Open discussion notes →
Principles for the conversation

Before you finish · reflect together

Virtues and principles to consider

Virtues are qualities we practice in how we treat people and make choices. They are not scores for judging someone. Use these ideas to explore what a thoughtful response could look like.

Courage

Courage means acting on a well-grounded responsibility even when it is uncomfortable. It can mean trying something useful, admitting a mistake, or challenging pressure to move too fast.

Make it possible for people to raise concerns without punishment. Support those who point out harm, and be willing to pause a popular project when evidence gives a good reason.

Ask together: What important action are we avoiding because it is difficult?

Stewardship

Stewardship means caring for resources and systems that others depend on, including people who will use them later. It looks beyond the benefit of a quick launch.

Plan for maintenance, energy use, data protection, and eventual shutdown. Ask who will look after the tool when the original team moves on and how future users can avoid inheriting hidden costs.

Ask together: What are we responsible for caring for over time?

Prudence

Prudence means using careful judgment before and during action. It balances worthwhile opportunities with the need to avoid harm that could have been anticipated.

Start with a limited trial, set stopping points, and prefer choices that can be undone when uncertainty is high. Review what happens rather than assuming the original plan remains sound.

Ask together: What is a careful next step, and when should we stop or change course?

Editorial ratings

These are editorial judgments from the register, not measured probabilities or predictions about your situation.

Severity
Catastrophic · 5/5
Likelihood
Widely observed · 4/5
Time horizon
Now
Register risk score
20
About the register and scoring →
More ways to explore

Search for more writing

For more specific or recent material, open a search below or ask for a web summary. AI-generated summaries can contain mistakes; open the original articles to check them.

Explore a proposed use of AI →