China’s National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) is reportedly preparing a long-duration funding approach for a selected group of exceptionally strong young scientists. The proposal would offer research grants lasting 15 years, according to South China Morning Post, which reported the account after remarks at an academic forum on September 19, 2026.
The reported initiative is significant because it would change the time horizon attached to early-career research support. Rather than judging selected researchers through short funding cycles, the approach would give them a longer period in which to develop a research agenda. The reporting does not establish that the proposal has been finalized, implemented, or paid out. Its eligibility, payment structure, and review arrangements therefore remain unsettled.
The account places the proposal within a broader discussion about how research institutions support scientists at the beginning of their careers. It is aimed at researchers under 35, according to the reporting, but it does not identify disciplines, universities, application deadlines, or an official program title. Those omissions matter because the available details describe a reported policy direction rather than a completed award scheme.
NSFC Proposal Sets a 15-Year Horizon for Researchers Under 35
Dou Xiankang, identified by SCMP as NSFC director, described the initiative at the September 19 forum. The reported design would cover a selected group of young researchers and extend support over 15 years. That timeline would reach well beyond the early stages of a typical research career, allowing scientists to pursue projects whose results may take years to emerge.
The proposal’s central idea is continuity. According to the reporting, selected researchers would not face short-term performance reviews during the 15-year period. The sole stated performance criterion would be whether they are physically present in the laboratory. That reported condition is narrower than a conventional review based on milestones, publications, or other periodic outputs. The available evidence does not establish how presence would be assessed or how the arrangement would operate in practice.
Sri Lanka Guardian separately reported that the NSFC selected 44 scientists in 2026, including nine from overseas and more than 30 from within China. Those figures are secondary reporting and should not be read as a confirmed official NSFC award list. The same report said support would increase progressively, doubling after the first five years and again after the following five years. The available material does not confirm whether that structure belongs to the final version of the September proposal.
The reported selection figures, if the account is ultimately formalized, would give the initiative a deliberately narrow reach. A limited group could receive unusually long support while the foundation tests whether a less frequent review model can sustain research over time. But the available evidence does not establish the size of any final cohort, the amount available to each scientist, or the fields that would qualify.
A separate EastFrontier report on China’s Academy of Sciences and its 2026–2030 research plan provides a useful point of context for readers tracking how Chinese research institutions set longer planning horizons. This NSFC proposal, however, should be assessed on its own terms and not treated as part of that separate plan.
Reported Funding Model Prioritizes Laboratory Continuity Over Rapid Reviews
The proposed review approach would place unusual weight on sustained laboratory presence. In the account described by SCMP, researchers would not be required to pass short-term performance reviews across the 15-year period. That does not mean the reporting confirms an absence of all oversight. It means only that the stated criterion in the proposal is physical presence in the laboratory.
This distinction is important for interpreting what the proposal does and does not promise. Long-duration support could reduce the pressure to produce immediate results, but the available evidence does not provide an assessment of scientific outcomes, publication expectations, or institutional supervision. It also does not say whether the criterion would apply throughout the period in exactly the same way.
Sri Lanka Guardian reported that the proposal builds on an NSFC emphasis on younger researchers and referred to an earlier plan announced in November 2023 for up to 28 million yuan, or US$4.17 million, over 15 years. That amount is historical secondary-source context, not a confirmed figure for the September 2026 proposal. Treating it as the value of the current initiative would go beyond the available evidence.
The same caution applies to the reported funding increases. A schedule that doubles support after five years and doubles it again after the following five years would make the structure progressively larger, but the reported account does not establish whether that schedule has been approved. It also does not specify whether every selected researcher would receive the same support or how the foundation would handle changes in research direction.
Another EastFrontier story has examined Baidu’s scholarship push in China’s AI talent race. The link offers historical context on the broader talent conversation, while the NSFC proposal concerns a reported public research-funding approach. The available facts do not show that this grant proposal names artificial intelligence as a priority, so it should not be presented as a program specifically focused on artificial intelligence.
Unresolved Details Will Determine Whether the Proposal Becomes Policy
The difference between a reported proposal and an operational grant program is central to this story. The NSFC is reported to be offering or preparing the 15-year grants, but the available evidence does not establish formal approval, launch, award, or payment. No primary NSFC release confirming the full structure is identified in the supplied material.
That leaves several practical questions open. The reporting does not name the scientists involved, identify their universities, or describe a formal application process. It does not state the disciplines covered, give a confirmed amount for the 2026 proposal, or explain how laboratory presence would be documented. It also does not confirm whether the reported 44-person selection is final.
The overseas figure reported by Sri Lanka Guardian is similarly qualified. The report said nine of the 44 scientists came from overseas and more than 30 came from within China, but those numbers were not stated in the navigated SCMP text and were not confirmed by a primary NSFC page. They therefore remain attributed secondary reporting rather than settled program facts.
For now, the clearest established point is the direction described at the September 19 forum: the NSFC is reported to be considering 15-year support for exceptional researchers under 35, with no short-term performance reviews and laboratory presence as the sole stated criterion. Whether that concept becomes a finalized initiative will depend on details the available reports do not yet provide.