Winning Your NIH Research Grants

Winning Your NIH
Research Grant
140 Pages of Expert Tips, Tactics, and Insider Advice
www.principalinvestigators.org
th e Editor
A Note from
l:
Dear Professiona and
0 Pa ge s of E xp er t Tips, Tactics,
rch Grant: 14 mpilation is
rin g “W in ni ng Your NIH Resea rc e Library. This co
k yo u fo r or de ia tio n R es ou
Than igators Assoc
e Principal Invest your awards.
Insider A dv ic e” fro m th
ap pl ic at io ns an d better manager
nger grant
you prepare stro
designed to help ges of
ite m s w hi ch ap peared in the pa
l grant-related ique
se le ct ed fo r yo u the most helpfu kl y ez in e du ring 2010. This un
ee
Our editors have thly newsletter an
d PI eAlert w terested in
l In ve st ig at or A dv is or m on
fo r an y in ve st ig ator seriously in
Principa s, and advice
is a tre as ur e ch est of tips, tactic
assembly funding.
d m an ag in g en hanced research
obtaining an
Best Regards,
D, PhD
Leslie Norins, M
Publisher n
ators Associatio
Principal Investig
Avenue
3606 Enterprise
3
Naples, FL 3410
vestigators.org
info@principalin
s Association
rce Librar y, P rincipal Investigator
e up the Resou e monthly
n to th e sp ec ial reports that mak to ry A ni m al W elfare & Complianc
PS.: In additio isor and Labora
Ale rts, P rin cipa l Investigator Adv
offers weekly e- ences.
ye ar-long se ries of audio confer
a
newsletters, and can be of ser-
se ar ch er ne ed s, and ways we
resting topics, re t hesitate
e al w ay s on th e lookout for inte ith yo ur co lle ag ues, please do no
PSS: We ar d like to share w
yo u ha ve a su ccess story you’
vice to you. If vestigators.org.
nt ac t m e at le slie@princiaplin
to co
Winning Your NIH Research Grant

Table of Contents
A Note from the Editor ...............................................................................................................................................................2
Grant Articles
8 Tips For Better Grant Writing...................................................................................................................................................5

Making Every Word Count in Your Grant Application..............................................................................................................7
Grant Applications Should Emphasize “Vision”, Not “Methods”, Expert Says...................................................................12
5 Common Mistakes That Will Sink Your Grant.......................................................................................................................14
The Most Important Grant in Your Career ..............................................................................................................................17
New NIH Short Grant Form: “Impact” Battles “Significance”................................................................................................19
9 NIH Short-Form Writing Tips ................................................................................................................................................21
NIH Guidance on What ‘Overall Impact’ Means.......................................................................................................................22
Is an SBIR the Right Grant for You?.........................................................................................................................................23
Factors in Choosing a Co-Investigator....................................................................................................................................26
Should You Use Co-Investigators or Consultants?................................................................................................................28
Does Your Location Influence Your Grant’s Funding Chances? ..........................................................................................29
Do Simultaneous Grant Submissions Raise Your Odds for Success?.................................................................................32
The Three Reviewers Critical to Your Grant’s Success .........................................................................................................36
How Can I Become an NIH Reviewer? . ..................................................................................................................................37
Review Emphasis Shifting from ‘Impact’ to ‘Innovation’ . .....................................................................................................40
12 Expenses You Can (or Can’t) Charge Against Your Sponsored Agreement...................................................................42
How to Stretch Grant Dollars — by Buying Smarter..............................................................................................................45
Awarded a Grant? Don’t Fall Into These 12 Management Traps............................................................................................46
NIH Plans Stricter Financial-Conflict Reporting Rules..........................................................................................................48
How 6 Scenarios Play Out Under NIH’s Proposed New Conflict-of-Interest Rules.............................................................49
Federal Agencies with SBIR Programs...................................................................................................................................51
continued

P.I. Questions With Expert Comments and Reader Responses
Certain Times of the Year When It’s More Advantageous to Submit Grant Proposal?........................................................53
When Is the Best Time to Apply for One’s First Grant?.........................................................................................................55
Mention Contradictory Data in Application?..........................................................................................................................58
What Are Pros, Cons of Seeking SBIR Grant vs. the RO1?...................................................................................................61
How Can I Preserve My Data When Re-Submitting a Rejected Grant?................................................................................68
Impact Score vs. Significance Score.......................................................................................................................................76
Grant Application Budget.........................................................................................................................................................81
Do Reviewers Look at ‘Other Support’ in Considering Proposals?......................................................................................85
Can Study Section Reviews be Appealed?.............................................................................................................................88
Was “Too Ambitious” to Blame for Non-Funding?.................................................................................................................95
Does Tenure Protect a PI Who Loses Project Funding?........................................................................................................99
Budgeting for Effort: A Delicate Task....................................................................................................................................112
Obligated to Hire Consultant?................................................................................................................................................115
Stab in the Back? Co-Investigator Now Wants Greater % of Effort than Agreed....................................................................120
Who Owns the Supplies Ordered Off of a Grant That Is Now Expired?.............................................................................125
Moving Grant to a New Institution.........................................................................................................................................129
I’m One of Two PIs on Project; Will My Move to New Institution Result in Loss of Direct Costs?...................................135
[DISCLAIMER]
© 2010 Principal Investigators Association. The entire contents of this publication are protected by Copyright, worldwide. All rights reserved.
Reproduction or further distribution by any means, beyond the paid customer, is strictly forbidden without written consent of Principal Inves-
tigators Association, including photocopying and digital, electronic, and/or Web distribution, dissemination, storage, or retrieval. This report
is an independent publication by Principal Investigators Association. It is not endorsed by nor has it any official connection with the National
Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, or any other entity.
Notice: While publisher believes the presented information is accurate, grant writing and managing is part science, part art, and interpreta-
tions and strategies differ, even among experts. Also, individual circumstances vary. Therefore, no warranty is made that the information will
apply in any particular case, or that any grant application will achieve acceptance and funding

8 Tips For Better Grant Writing
There are four basic elements to a grant: what you want to do, how you’re going to implement that, what need you plan to
fill, and why the grantor should give you the money.
But can other elements add a competitive edge?
1. Passion: P. Alan Lennon, PhD, MAEd, Assistant Professor in the Molecular Genetic Technology Program at the
University of Texas-MD Anderson Cancer Center (Houston, TX), has won a number of grants, including most recently one
totaling $14 million. He notes that there are a lot of hurdles to getting grants funded, so it needs to be something you feel
strongly about. “It’s always exciting at first, then at the very end there’s a whole lot of not-so-exciting. You have to be passionate
about it at the start so you have the excitement to finish it.”
2. Start small: Most researchers don’t start out as principal investigators, and most grant writers don’t start out winning
multi-million dollar grants. Lennon’s first grant was for $1,900. His second was for $10,000. He moved up to $56,000, then had
two that were each worth $250,000. From there, he won the $6.2 million education grant with a $7 million matching grant. “For
me, you learn by doing, that’s for sure. It’s a learning curve.”
3. Are you eligible for the grant?: It makes no sense to submit a grant to an organization that doesn’t fund the type
of work you do. Yet, some people do just that. Gail Vertz, GPC, Chief Executive Officer of the American Association of Grant
Professionals, says, “Find the appropriate funder to submit the grant to. In the proposal it will clearly state who the appropriate
applicants are. Some people take the trouble to write the grant, then find they’re not even eligible to submit.”
4. Know What They Need: Grant organizations’ priorities change. Stay on top of what’s going on in your field. Keep in
mind what a grant administrator needs and wants to find a high-quality project. It’s their job to give this money away. Deborah
W. Garnick, ScD, Professor at the Institute for Behavioral Health at the Schneider Institutes for Health Policy at Brandeis
University (Waltham, MA) says, “It’s entirely appropriate to send concept papers, and sometimes at NIH, even drafts of
proposals. It’s fine to work with project officers to mold your ideas to fit what the agency is looking for.”
5. Get To Know Project Officers: Most people prefer to do business with people they know, and project officers are no
different. Garnick says that senior researchers often should—and do—mentor junior people, bringing them to conferences,
introducing them to the project officers. “Grant people are dying to meet the junior people. They’re always whispering to us, ‘Is
this one of your star graduate students?’ ‘Are these the up-and- coming ones?’”
6. Get a Mentor And/Or A Team: Lennon notes that large grants often require multiple team players. Getting the right
people on your team can move you toward excellence in your proposal. “You have to get people who are very goal-oriented
and competent. They don’t necessarily have to have a particular skill, but are trustworthy. When you ask them to do something,
they’re going to do it.”
Garnick adds that a mentor or a co-investigator who is more senior in their career can also be helpful. “You can really
learn from them. Some grant writing—not all—is formulaic. Being a successful, prolific PI is to have a support group around so
you’re not reinventing the wheel constantly.”
7. Tell A Story: “You need to have the science embedded and be very valid, but also tell a story: here’s what I’m
proposing to do. Now I’m going to step back and go through why it’s important, why it hasn’t been done before, how we’re

going to approach it differently.” If you’re doing it the same as have others, what you’re adding. “Then you wrap it up with why
it’s really important, and this is what you’re going to do.”
8. Fill The Holes: Although grant organizations are looking for good grant proposals, grant officers are all too aware of
problem areas to look for. Your job as a grant writer is to eliminate as many of those as possible. Make the jargon appropriate,
the goals clear, complete all sections accurately, and submit to the appropriate grant organization.
Lennon describes it this way. “The granting agency looks at you as if you’re a basket. They want to know if the basket will
hold all the money they’re fixing to put into it. If you think of it like that and make sure you’ve covered all the holes they might
anticipate, I think they don’t mind filling you up because they’re looking to spend that money.” n

Reviewer Outlines Best Short Form Tactics
Making Every Word Count in Your Grant Application
The new NIH short-form grant applications are a lot easier to understand if you keep one point in mind from the start: Fed-
eral agencies simply are looking for more bang for their funding buck.
Reviewers aren’t particularly interested in the sparkling highlights of your research career. Rather, they want to know
two things:
(1) Will the research you’re proposing result in a clinically relevant product or a game-changing shift in your area of research?
(2) Are you the best researcher to make that happen?
That’s why 12-year-veteran NIH reviewer Karin Rodland, PhD, a fellow at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and
chief scientist-NIH programs, Biological Sciences Division, recommends using what she calls the “elevator speech” as a template
for the all-important first page of the new grant-application form, where principal investigators detail their specific aims.
“Imagine you’re in an elevator with Bill Gates and he has a billion dollars he wants to invest in research,” Rodland says.
“Even if you’re going from the penthouse to the parking garage, you have about three minutes to convince him that what you
want to do needs to be done and that you can do it.”
Rodland addressed more than 700 listeners about the intricacies of the new NIH short form during a March 31 audio
conference sponsored by Principal Investigators Association.
Most reviewers, she explains, essentially make up their minds about the fundability of your proposal as they peruse the
first page, then read the rest of the application looking for support for that original impression.
Tell a Story About Your Work
Write your proposal as if you’re telling a story, Rodland recommends. “You’re trying to get the reviewer emotionally
involved to the point where he or she really wants to see your project funded,” she explains.
“All good stories have a resolution. Your resolution is how the field will be changed as a result of your research and how
future research will be enabled by it. That’s the impact part.”
Rodland adds: “I strongly recommend that all grant proposals end with short paragraph that goes over the impact.
Something like: ‘At the end of the day, when this research is done, my field of research will be changed because we will know
[fill in the blank] and we will then be able to go on and do [fill in the blank]’. It’s where you tell reviewers what happens next.”
New Form Brings Changes
During the audio conference, Rodland discussed the thematic evolution of the application and specific points that have
changed. Here are some details:

• The Introduction section used to be three pages and is now limited to just one. “That’s where you address prior reviewer
comments if you’re resubmitting,” Rodland said. “The introduction should be a ‘big-picture’ view of what the major concerns of
the reviewers were and how you’ve addressed them.”
• Another change is in the section for the PI’s biographical outline. The NIH now requires that applicants add a personal
statement detailing why their experience and qualifications make them well suited for the project. It shouldn’t sound like
boasting, Rodland warned, but stick to relevant criteria such as past presentations, grants and publications.
If you’re an experienced researcher but have never had an NIH grant, the Biosketch section is your opportunity to
“make it clear that you’re ‘new’ but not an early-stage investigator,” Rodland advised.
It’s also where experienced researchers from the private sector can explain how their experience — likely not as familiar
to reviewers as academic experience — translates to the NIH model.
Make Clear Who’s Boss
• You’ll want to show clearly your independence from other researchers at your institution. Ideally, get a letter of support
from your department head stating the institution’s commitment to your success.
• It’s now suggested — but not required — that applicants limit their publications list to a total of 15. A good rule of thumb
is to provide the five most recent, the five most important to your general field of study, and the five most relevant to the
proposed research.
How do you choose? “Reviewers are always going to be interested (most) in what you’ve done lately,” Rodland pointed out.
“If they’re directly related to the topic of the proposal, then all three categories are covered with your 15 most recent publications.
But if those don’t demonstrate your strength as an investigator, go back to older ones and pull out five or six that do.”
Convince Them You’re Innovative
• The Research Strategy section has been restructured. The old categories of “background” and “preliminary
studies” no longer have designated sections. Instead, the restructured application has sections for Significance, Innovation,
and Approach.
Innovation can be an innovative idea, because you’re changing the paradigm, or it can be new instruments,
methodologies, or interventions. While you need to give reviewers some context, focus mostly on what the challenges are and
on what’s innovative about your approach.
• With the new form, applicants will continue to spend most of their time on Approach, Rodland said.

“You need to discuss specific problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success,” she said. “What they’re
(reviewers) really interested in … is your thought process. … How likely is it your plan will work? …And you have to tell them
what you’ll do if you get an unexpected result in aim No. 1. Convince them there is still a future to the proposal.”
‘Reliability’ Still Has a Place
• Of course, there’s still a place for what one caller, during Rodland’s question-and-answer session, termed “the critical
parts of science that are less fancy, like reliability.”
Said Rodland: “Ah, reliability. That should be clear in your Approach section because it really addresses the feasibility
issue. … I’d put it (reliability and standard operating procedures) into the Approach section and maybe also in the
Environment section, particularly if your environment has a history of good lab practices or good manufacturing practices
(GLP or GMP).”
Be extra careful about that if you’re applying for a competitive renewal and you’ve changed your specific aims. “You have
to tell the NIH why,” Rodland said.
• There’s a lot more focus on the “environment” criterion, which is now called “scientific environment and probability of
success” and is now found in the Facilities and other Resources section.
With the new form, the NIH requires an applicant to address “exactly how the scientific environment at his or her institution
will contribute to the probability of success.”
If “If you’re not at Harvard, Hopkins, or Stanford, it’s where you get to highlight the features of your specific institution that
make it a good place to do the research,” Rodland said.
That may include a unique set of technical capabilities, access to a specific patient population, the special interaction
between you and your colleagues, or a particular scientific emphasis at your school.
You should even ask for a supporting letter from your institution detailing its level of commitment, she said.
Show Broader Relevance
• In the Specific Aims section, it’s vital to make the logical flow of your proposal clear, Rodland said. The impact paragraph at
the end of that page is a good place to point out whether your work can be used for other purposes down the road.
• Don’t try to cram in more information than a 12-page application can comfortably hold. “There’s a temptation to use densely
written text — small fonts, small margins,” Rodland said during the audioconference. “Don’t. You will turn the reviewer off.”
• There’s a difference, in reviewers’ minds, between “goals,” “objectives” and “aims” — even though all three terms are
used in the Specific Aims section.

While noting that reviewers sometimes use them as though they’re synonyms, Rodland pointed out that “goals are
kind of high-level, like, ‘Our goal is to understand signal transduction in breast cancer.’ Objectives go down one more level
to something more specific. They are, in a sense, a restatement of your hypothesis. Aims are outlines of your tactics — the
specific steps you’ll take.
The Focus: Improving Reviews
It’s important to note that changes to the grant application are designed more for reviewers than for applicants.
Reviewers are much more limited in how to instruct applicants on improving future proposals. In fact, Rodland said,
they’ve “been specifically told not to give you instructions about how to change your proposal.”
Rather, there’s now a special box at end of the review template labeled Other Instructions to the Applicant, which is
where the reviewer can provide mentoring comments — like, “This would be better if you had a clinical collaborator.”
There are several subheads and bullets in the applicant’s guide, and some have asked whether the application itself
should address them one by one. Rodland’s response:
While those bullet points offer an excellent framework for an application, … they shouldn’t underpin the document. “Please
don’t write your application in bullets or subheads,” Rodland stressed. “Make it a narrative. And make it clear you’ve thought
about the significance of what you’re doing.”
All words and handouts from Karin Rodland’s audio conference are still available on CD, MP3 and print transcript. Visit
www.principalinvestigators.org for details. n
10 Winning Your NIH Research Grant

5 Tips to Strengthen Your Proposal
Here are Karin Rodland’s answers to some follow-up questions after her audio conference:
1. Should we try to sell our ability to recruit X number of study participants in the Environment section or in the
Approach section?
A: The ability to recruit adequate numbers of patients is so crucial to clinical studies that you really should do both. Use
one sentence in the Approach section to document annual patient accruals and/or past successes in recruiting patients, then
go into slightly more detail in the Environment section about why your institution is the right place for this study.
2. Do reviewers read the Budget Justification section carefully enough to merit giving more approach details there?
How much does that section matter? Would it be a good place to allay concerns about a large multi-national company
applying?
A: Yes, reviewers do read the Budget Justification section to make sure the budget is appropriate. But there can be
“budget envy” among some reviewers, especially if the salary structure looks high — as might be the case with a large
company or a national lab. Best to explain salary structure in the Justification section if you think it might be an issue.
3. It seems a “summary” is no longer required, only “specific aims.” Is that correct, or do we still need to submit a
summary of the proposal?
A: The summary, or “abstract” as we used to call it, is still required; it still has its own page within the electronic application
package — and is outside the page limits. Because it is used to assign the proposal to a specific Study Section and Institute,
it’s important to use the right key words in the summary to get the assignment you want.
4. In the Specific Aims section, would you recommend having specific hypotheses listed under each aim?
A: It is important to have a specific, falsifiable hypothesis. Whether it’s a general, overarching one that covers the entire
proposal or a hypothesis for each aim is a matter of personal style and what fits the science. But there should be a hypothesis in
there somewhere. One caution: Don’t be vague. Make it specific, such as, “We hypothesize that tumor tissue will display a gene
expression profile showing elevated inflammatory responses.”
5. How should we differentiate between “potential problems” and “high-risk aspects and management”?
A: Potential problems might be trivial and easily solved. (You will pool samples if you can’t get enough material for analysis
from individual animals or patients.) Or they might be major and pose a risk to completing the project. By asking you to identify
“high-risk aspects and management,” the NIH is asking you to demonstrate the quality of your thinking about risk and your ability
to develop alternate paths to achieve your goal. n
Winning Your NIH Research Grant 11

Grant Applications Should Emphasize “Vision”,
Not “Methods”, Expert Says
An experienced grant counselor encourages PIs to focus on their goals and visions, instead of methods. The emphasis,
says Charles Howard, Jr., PhD, should be on why you are conducting your research. “Plan first, then write. The questions you
need to ask are: What is my research about? What is my short-term and long-term vision? Vision is important. Once you have
your vision, everything flows from that.”
Estimating that fewer than 10 to 15% of proposals get read completely by reviewers, Howard presents what he calls the
12/12/12 Rule which says that at twelve o’clock midnight, grant proposal reviewers have already read twelve proposals and
yours is at the bottom of the pile. “They may be drinking coffee or wine. If you can get their attention at that point, you’re doing
good.” He expresses that most grant reviewers start with 100 points and start subtracting points for “stumbles,” which can be
typos, missing transitions, or inconsistencies throughout the proposal. “It is not the reviewer’s fault. It is you. You have to take
full responsibility.”
One way to get the reviewer’s attention—even at midnight—is to focus on three sentences. 1. What is the problem or
need? 2. What is the significance of your proposal? 3. Why are you the person or group who can resolve that need?
Within the context of a typical proposal, there are three primary initial components: goals, objectives, and outcomes. He
emphasizes that none of these refer to “methods,” which comes later. “Goals are overall plans for work and are generally not
measureable. They’re a mindset. However, objectives typically are measurable”
“Outcome is really where your aim is. You need to be thinking about this from the beginning. I consider a grant proposal
circular, not linear. When you write something in the opening sentence, it will appear throughout the proposal, in the budget,
outcomes, and it must all tie together.”
Howard urges PIs to not criticize colleagues and peers in the submission. Although you can point out similar research, you
should tell how you would approach it differently and why, not slam their approach. “Your colleagues may be reviewing your
proposal, so make sure you treat them well. Speak logically about how you can help advance your field as well as their field.”
And finally, after putting your vision down on paper, you can turn to the “how” aspect of the proposal, your procedures.
Howard suggests questions you should ask yourself: “Are you being innovative? Original scope of work? Have they been
tested and tried? If they’re new lab methods from other sources, are they working okay?”
At the very end, it’s time to write the abstract/summary. Howard says, “Write it after the whole process. It contains all the
elements of the proposal, which is why you write it last.”
He also emphasizes the budget narrative. “This is one of the most important parts of the proposal, because at this point
you are explaining and clarifying the direct costs in the budget. They must match those previously reported and mentioned in
the narrative.”
Further, he suggests getting to know project officers, “They want the facts and they want a well-written proposal. They are
highly intelligent and want to do the best they can in dispersing their monies to everyone else.”

Finally, he notes, from time to time, all researchers will get rejected. Howard says that you can learn from these
experiences. “A rejection is a chance to start over. Use that information to revamp the proposal. Talk to the project officer.”
Howard, GrantsCrafter Consultancy in Seattle, presented his remarks in a telephonic conference on January 26, 2010.
The lecture was recorded live, and is available – along with all handouts, in both MP3 and CD-ROM formats. Order at http://
principalinvestigators.org/audio_conference_0110.php. n

Study Section Insider
5 Common Mistakes That Will Sink Your Grant
by Christopher Francklyn, PhD
The challenge that all reviewers face as they try to separate the outstanding from the merely good is to convert their
intuitive, emotional response to a grant into a series of bullet points that encapsulate the proposal’s strengths and weaknesses.
Over the years I’ve been writing my own reviews and listening to other panelists at review meetings, I’ve come to appreciate
that grants that score poorly appear to share one or more of a common set of flaws. Avoiding these pitfalls, and appreciating
the issues that frequently diminish reviewer enthusiasm, should help you to write a better grant. Here, I will highlight 5 common
mistakes that recur among the grants of both first time and experienced PI’s. Some are inherent in the science itself, while
others are more a function of presentation. Obviously, the former require a greater degree of re-assessment and alteration of
the revised grant than the latter.
1. The reviewers did not find your central scientific question interesting.
Arguably the single most common reason for a grant receiving a low score is the perception by reviewers that your central
scientific question lacks significance. Grants that address significant questions provide reviewers with confidence that the
results will have commensurately high impact. Reviewer disinterest in your question could stem from a failure to communicate
its significance clearly, an overly narrow focus, or a lack of novelty and originality that suggests you are addressing a problem
already solved. A common pitfall is that the applicant is so enamored of a particular technology or set of new observations that
he or she fails to explain how the work will transform a field, or fails to highlight important links between the work in question
and other fields. In today’s “Omics”-driven scientific world, one may no longer be chained to the single over-arching hypothesis,
but it is still necessary to provide your readers with a clearly understandable strategy for organizing and interpreting that mass
of high-throughput data. One way to test the significance of your proposal is to provide a non-expert colleague with a three-
sentence description; if he or she can appreciate why you are doing the work, then you are on the right track.
2. The preliminary data are weak, and call into question the feasibility of the proposal
and the validity of your central hypothesis.
A second flaw that can doom your proposal is an overly large gap between your hypothesis and the actual data available
to be cited or displayed (as preliminary data). A highly provocative hypothesis might be just the thing your field needs but,
like a good murder mystery, your jury won’t be convinced without detailed evidence. For example, you may have an exciting
hypothesis around dinosaur physiology, but if proving your hypothesis requires the results of experiments on fresh dinosaur
tissue, you’ve got a problem. Thus, your reviewers must be convinced of the chain of logic that connects your elegant
hypothesis to the actual data presented in the grant, whether published or in preliminary form. Along these lines, a second
flaw that kills some applications is a gap between the hypotheses presented, and what the results are actually likely to show.

If reviewers perceive that the results will actually be quite a bit more mundane than what the central hypothesis is proposing,
their scores will reflect this accordingly.
3. The proverbial house of cards: the overall success of the grant is dependent on the
outcome of a key experiment, which has yet to be performed.
When one designs a complex research project, there is a natural tendency is to organize the experiments in a linear
and sequential fashion, such that the results of each forms the basis of the next in series. As a template for a research grant,
however, this strategy can be risky. If the succeeding aims all depend on a positive outcome of Aim One (whose outcome
is as yet unproven), then the fate of the whole grant depends on the success of that first experiment. Likewise, if you are
applying for a three-year grant, resist the temptation to anchor the grant to a question that will take 20 years before meaningful
tests of the hypothesis can be proposed. In general, reviewers have a much easier time advocating for a grant whose aims
are independent, but mutually supporting, with experiments that will provide useful information whether or not your starting
hypothesis is true.
4. The scope of the project is too ambitious, with multiple hypotheses or rationales that
full the grant in disparate directions.
Another common flaw of novice grant writers is the “spaghetti syndrome”, where every good hypothesis, experiment, or
reagent in the PI’s pantry is thrown at the problem. This approach rests on the assumption that reviewers will find at least a
few good ideas stuck on the proverbial wall, and this will raise their enthusiasm. In reality, these types of organizational flaws
generally diminish enthusiasm, because they signal a PI unable to prioritize among various facets of the project, which down
the road can lead to an inefficient deployment of people and resources. Your research plan should portray a realistic balance
between what you hope to accomplish, and the number of junior researchers that you will have available. A tricky scenario that
will typically generate a spirited discussion around the table is the grant that has three great aims, but also a fourth and final
aim that is less interesting or feasible. A good grant will generally try to strike the correct balance between the conservative/
feasible and the risky/adventurous: different reviewers may very well come down at different points along the spectrum.
5. The PI and or research team lacks the experience to carry out the proposed work.
Once reviewers have determined that the work is significant and the approach is valid, they have to answer the question, “Is
this the appropriate PI to carry out the work?” For first time and early investigators, the training and accomplishments during the
post-doctoral years will provide clues about the likelihood of success. For more senior investigators, past career experience and
productivity will be scrutinized carefully. Reviewers will generally accept any approach that you have previously published on, but
to move your field forward, you will typically have to display innovation and creativity in adapting and developing new approaches.
If a particular approach is unproven with respect to your lab, the most reliable strategies are 1) identifying and soliciting an outside

collaborator with a published track record in the method, or 2) devoting existing lab efforts to generate the preliminary data to
remove doubts about your ability. In general, this is arguably the most important use of “updates”, short progress reports that can
be sent to the SRA after the submission of your grant, but before the panel meets to discuss it.
[Dr. Francklyn is a former Study Section Chair and veteran reviewer for NIH and NSF study sections. He is a professor at
University of Vermont, where his scientific expertise is in protein synthesis and RNA-Protein interactions.] n

The Most Important Grant in Your Career
Ask most PIs about the most important grant in their career and they’re likely to chuckle and say, “the one I’m writing
right now. I need the money.” When pressed, however, experienced PIs may admit that it was not the first grant that made
the difference.
It was the second.
Paul Schimmel, my post-doctoral mentor, was the first senior scientist to share the first renewal’s significance with
me. Soon after I’d obtained my independent appointment and sought his advice on grant matters, he explained the critical
differences between the first grant and the first renewal:
“Provided you’ve had a productive post-doctoral experience, write a strong research plan and get strong letters, you’re
likely to get that first grant. But it’s the second one that provides the real test. In that grant, you really have to compete against
the field at large,” he told me.
To understand why the first renewal constitutes such a challenge, consider the likely context of the PI at these two
inflection points in his or her career. When you write your first application as a new investigator, you are flush with start-up
funds, students are banging on the door to get into your lab, your teaching and service commitments are still modest, and you
are full of the grant ideas that got you your job in the first place.
Moreover, once your grant is submitted, no progress report need be included (although you do need preliminary data),
and reviewers and NIH officials often give additional benefit of the doubt to first-time applicants with respect to scoring and the
capture of an award. (This is not to underestimate the challenges in getting that first award, which can now take several years
for new assistant professors to capture.)
For your first competing renewal, however, the hurdles are even higher, and the context in which you will submit
that second big grant application will be all the more challenging. Your start-up funds will likely be dwindling, if they have
not already been depleted. Your first set of graduate students likely will be on their way to their post-doctoral positions,
creating a need for you to start recruiting and training their replacements. Your chair will be expecting you to carry your full
load of teaching and service obligations, and will shortly (if he or she has not already) ask you to start assembling your
tenure package.
Worst of all, once your application hits the study section, there is no more “new investigator discount,” and the NIH
program officers are much less likely to reach up and fund your application at the 25 percentile. So what’s the solution?
As with any grant, the more preparation you can do upfront, the better your chances of success. There are several
strategies worth pursuing for different parts of the application. With the new, shorter 12-page format, there is high premium on
concise, but convincing, writing.
Keeping in mind that your application will be judged on the basis of your past progress, the significance and feasibility of
the new research plan, and your qualifications as PI, your preparations should focus on strengthening those aspects.

To maximize the impact of your progress report (now folded into the “Approach” section), use the yearly Non-Competing
Progress reports as “draft” opportunities to sharpen the explanation of your results, clarifying their significance to future and
probably disinterested reviewers.
Many reviewers of first competing renewals will look with particular care at what applicants have done with the first
batch of money they received; if the results are considerably more modest than what was originally conceived, the reviewers’
enthusiasm may flag. So you will need to sell them on this point before they can move on to your plan.
The cornerstone of the first competing renewal is, of course, the plan for the next four to five years. Reviewers must be
convinced that you have a vision extending beyond the initial plans and proposals that you generated as a post-doc on the job
market. How does your vision of where your field is headed compare to the leaders who have been at it for decades?
Your success may well depend on your ability to perceive the strengths and weaknesses of your field’s leaders so that you
can “go where they ain’t.” In a sense it’s really a form of scientific ecology: Can you carve out a niche where you can discover
important features of your system without being drowned out by scientific competitors?
In order to identify your optimal “research space” in the context of your field, the period of 12 months to six months before
your competing renewal application is due is one of the most critical for attendance at scientific meetings of your specific field (and
its relatives) in order to create an accurate snapshot of which questions, approaches, and issues are attracting the most attention.
These scientific meetings provide a critical opportunity for you test your vision of the field’s future and assess the degree
to which your competition is moving in the same direction.
• Can you generate a new hypothesis that explains previous observations that have, up to now, been unaccounted for?
• Can you identify connections between your systems and related problems that your competitors have overlooked?
These meetings also are critical opportunities to build relationships and collaborations with other scientists who will
become your allies. Those relationships should help you introduce new technology and approaches into your application,
leading to better innovation scores.
Your goal is create drama and excitement in the research plan, making reviewers feel they are partway through an exciting
story and are eager to know the outcome. If your competing renewal is nothing more than a more finely grained data-gathering
exercise on the same system with the same approaches, your reviewers may yawn and write “incremental.”
In a sense, the first competing renewal is the first time you will be evaluated as an independent investigator on the basis of
both past output (where you were the supervisor) and future vision. Both aspects must be reviewed favorably for you to succeed.
Building effective collaborations can help improve your scores as an individual PI and help alleviate perceived
weaknesses in your institutional environment.
At the end of the day, this first renewal should convince your reviewers that you are a creative, energetic investigator
whose continued support will pay big dividends to the field in the form of new and exciting discoveries. They need to feel that
you are a current leader — or are destined to become one.
Dr. Francklyn is a former study section chair and veteran reviewer for NIH and NSF study sections. He is a professor at the
University of Vermont, where his scientific expertise is in protein synthesis and RNA-protein interactions. n

New NIH Short Grant Form: “Impact” Battles “Significance”
Don’t be embarrassed, alarmed or exasperated if it seems that the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) new short-form
grant application – with its heightened emphasis on the “overall impact” of the research being proposed – makes the applica-
tion process more complex and the review process more random. For one thing, you’re not alone in feeling that way. The NIH
itself acknowledges there’s confusion surrounding the new form (see accompanying article, “9 NIH Short-Form Writing Tips”),
and some principal investigators who’ve tackled it admit they’re not sure if they provided the information reviewers need to
determine “impact.” One says he has no idea how the reviewers are going to judge his ability to highlight the impact of his
proposed research.
Of course, the shortened form isn’t designed to make PIs’ work easier. It’s designed to make reviewers’ work easier by
streamlining the verbiage included in most applications and by encouraging reviewers to weigh that elusive concept of “impact”
as a key determinant of a project’s fundability.
The scientific fabulousness of a proposal, according to reviewers, isn’t what makes it worth spending public dollars; rather,
the proposal’s likelihood of actually being carried out and of changing the game, research-wise, is what matters. But that can
be a good thing for PIs who make the effort to learn what little can be learned at this early stage about applying for grants
using the short form. And, despite the confusion, there also are some very specific things PIs can do when using the new ap-
plication to maximize the likelihood that reviewers will clearly see the overall impact of the research.

Let ‘impact’ shine through
There is not, it’s critical to note, a template for incorporating “overall impact” into the new NIH applications. There’s no
section called “Overall Impact,” for example, and there’s no incentive for PIs simply to add a paragraph labeled as such to their
proposals. PIs “seem to be looking for some set of magic words that make a strong proposal,” one insider quips. “If only it were
that easy!” Instead, the NIH Office of Extramural Research reports, PIs need to describe “impact” clearly in whatever words
are relevant to their proposed projects. And, NIH reviewer Karin D. Rodland, PhD, a fellow at the Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory and chief scientist - NIH programs in the Biological Sciences Division points out, “there shouldn’t be a section for
‘impact’ in the new forms. The impact should bubble up through the entire application. If you put it in a box labeled ‘impact,’
some lazy reviewer will cut and paste it into your review and you won’t get any real feedback.”
But focusing on impact in the new forms should improve the funding process. “Reviewers are humans and represent a va-
riety of personalities and outlooks,” Rodland says. “You could have written a technically perfect proposal under the old system
and reviewers could read it, yawn and say, ‘We already know how that works.’ You will never get funded, and there’s nothing
you can do to fix that proposal.” That, she emphasizes, is what the NIH is trying to stop with the new proposals: PIs resubmit-
ting the same proposal with tiny technical changes when the fact is it’s not an “exciting” project with real potential to make a
difference. That could keep some PIs from seeking government funds for their research.
Rodland notes that a compelling rationale on the part of the NIH is to persuade grant applicants to focus more on the
impact of their work than on technical details. However, reviewers will always differ in their individual perceptions of “impact.”

Some, Rodland says, “will give the best scores to risky but innovative ideas.” Over time, she adds, the new focus on impact
“will change the way PIs present their research and, perhaps someday, the way they choose their projects.”
An ‘integrated concept’
Experienced NIH reviewer Nita J. Maihle, PhD, a senior scientist and professor in the Departments of Ob/Gyn & Repro-
ductive Sciences and Pathology at the Yale University School of Medicine, notes that impact is “an integrated concept where
it’s clear that your experiments address what you state in your ‘Specific Aims’ section and that you’ll get useful information out
of the study because the experiments are cleverly designed. Reviewers want to see that, not only are you addressing a timely
and important problem, but that it actually can be accomplished in the period outlined with the resources requested — and that
the information gleaned will be useful in terms of the next generation of experiments or, potentially, will be translatable in the
near term.” Reviewers, she notes, “had a sense that ‘impact’ was there in the past. Now it’s clearly separated out.” The problem,
she adds, is “impact” for NIH reviewers may be something they can’t readily define, but know when they see it.
That’s pretty much the experience reported by Robert Gordon Kalb, MD, the Joseph Stokes Jr. Research Investigator in the
Abramson Research Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and an associate professor of neurology at the University
of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. He applied for a grant using the new form and found the process to be, well, challenging
because of the new emphasis on impact. “My sense is both sides of the equation are in the middle of a learning phase,” he tells PI
Advisor. “The proposers of research are trying to clearly write their proposals to focus on impact, and I think the reviewers are also
on a learning curve to sift through a shorter application and make determinations of impact. Right now it’s very unsettled, and I
imagine it will take several cycles of proposers getting rejected applications before the situation stabilizes.”
Part of the problem, he notes, is that “impact” is fairly nebulous as far as concepts go. Says Kalb: “My guess is, even
though the NIH wants us to focus on impact, reviewers are much more comfortable with feasibility and scientific design issues,
so it likely will take the next year — if not more — for both sides to reach some equilibrium. And I fear that the whole idea of
impact, while appropriate and good and honorable, will fall under the weight of people looking for feasibility.” Why? “There’s a
huge random factor,” he says. “Measures of impact are virtually completely subjective.”
Maybe, as Rodland speculates, fewer PIs should apply under the new rules because of the nebulous nature of “impact.”
Maybe not, Kalb says, citing a quote attributed to Sir Winston Churchill: “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of
government except all the others that have been tried.” Kalb explains: “The advantage of the NIH is it’s merit-driven and peer-
reviewed.” In any case, Kalb notes, “I really don’t think anybody is going to say, ‘My research doesn’t have a lot of impact so I
won’t send it to the NIH.’ If they do, they’re in the wrong business.” n

9 NIH Short-Form Writing Tips
There’s confusion surrounding the emphasis on impact in the new NIH short-form application, but there are steps PIs
can take to make sure reviewers see clearly the impact of their proposals. Here’s advice from seasoned NIH reviewer Karin
Rodland, PhD:
1. Start with a fresh sheet of paper. Don’t start with an old 25-page application that wasn’t funded and try to cut it down to 12
pages. Start over.
2. Pretend that you’ve got an hour to address an advanced biology class at an excellent high school or an especially
bright group of college freshmen. What would you tell them to give the flavor of your research, its impact and why they
should get excited?
3. Don’t be obsessed with showing off how much you know, and don’t go into great experimental detail or include a lot of
background on the history of the field.
4. Take the long view of “impact.” Reviewers want to know how the research you’re doing will change the field and translate
into an impact in human health. So if you’re doing a basic study of, say, DNA repair enzymes, you need to say, “Even
though this is basic research, it’s needed for new drug development.” Think that far ahead. Tell reviewers the ultimate utility
of your research — even if it’s five years down the road.
5. Make your train of thought crystal clear. You know the logical connections in your head. You know why you’re doing a
specific experiment. Don’t forget to tell the reviewers. Some of what they’re evaluating is your thought process — your
summary of the significance of your research and your summary of its impact.
6. Don’t use words you don’t need. A 12-page form, as opposed to a 25-page form, means there’s “incredible pressure,”
as Rodland puts it, on PIs to show their thought processes in a direct and architectural way. “Show that you know what’s
important and what’s superfluous,” she advises.
7. Get a complete draft done at least 10 days before it’s due and find someone who’s not involved in the project — so don’t
use a post-doc in your lab — to check it out. That’s the single most useful thing you can do to increase your probability of
getting funded, Rodland says. That person can find the logical holes and can help you outline the impact. “If you’ve got a
significant other,” Rodland suggests, “run the impact statement by that person.”
8. Use the word “impact” as needed. It shows you paid attention to the new criteria for grants.
9. End your grant with a paragraph that says what the government gets at the end of the day if it funds your research. That’s
exactly what “impact” is, Rodland says. “The difference between significance and impact is, in my opinion, that significance
is whether what you’re doing is worth doing and impact is what the NIH gets after it’s funded you.” You can be explicit: “At
the conclusion of this research program, we will have identified [fill in the blank] and we will have determined [fill in the
blank] and we will be on our way to developing [fill in the blank].” That’s impact. n

NIH Guidance on What ‘Overall Impact’ Means
Citing “some confusion regarding the distinction between significance and overall impact,” the National Institutes of Health
(NIH) is making an effort to explain what impact is and how PIs can make it clear in their applications that their work has it.
According to the NIH Office of Extramural Research: “Applicants are instructed to address the potential impact of the work
proposed in the Specific Aims section of the application. Specifically, they should ‘state concisely the goals of the proposed
research and summarize the expected outcome(s), including the impact that the results of the proposed research will exert on
the research field(s) involved.’”
But, the OER adds, because “reviewers are chosen largely because of their scientific and technical expertise and knowl-
edge of the research field involved, investigators should present their project and address each review criterion in a manner
that makes their work understandable to the reviewers.” There isn’t a fill-in-the-blanks way to do that.
There used to be an overall score for “priority,” but now the overall score is called “impact” and it reflects “the reviewer’s as-
sessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research fields involved,” the NIH says.
Specifically, the OER explains, “reviewers evaluate each review criterion and weigh each one as appropriate for the proposed
research when determining overall impact. What we call the ‘overall impact’ of the application is the compilation of the evalua-
tion of the review criteria. As reviewers assess overall impact, they take into account the individual review criteria and provide
an overall evaluation.”
There’s still a subcategory of review called “significance,” which is the source of much of the confusion over the new focus
on “impact.” Here’s the NIH’s effort to clarify the differences:
• Significance: “Does the project address an important problem or critical barrier to progress in the field? If the aims of
the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability and/or clinical practice be improved? How
will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services or preven-
tive interventions that drive the field?”
• Overall impact: “Reviewers will provide an overall impact score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the
project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research fields involved, in consideration of the five core review
criteria and additional review criteria — human subjects, animal welfare, renewal, resubmission and biohazards — as
applicable for the project proposed.”
It’s important to note, NIH documents also point out, that “overall impact is not a sixth review criterion” and it’s “not neces-
sarily the arithmetic mean of the scores for the scored review criteria.” Indeed, the NIH says, “an application does not need to
be strong in all five core review criteria to be judged likely to have a major scientific impact. Therefore it is possible for one or
more review criteria to overshadow the others — including significance — driving the overall impact score up or down.”
For details, visit http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/guidelines_general/impact_significance.pdf n

5 Advance Steps to Help You Decide
Is an SBIR the Right Grant for You?
Where to find money to support their research is always on the minds of principal investigators, so knowing that Small
Business Innovation Research (SBIR) contracts and grants totaling some $2.3 billion were funded during the federal fiscal
year 2009 sounds intriguing.
But these funds are not for every PI. Nor are they easy to win.
“This isn’t for academics. This is for researchers who are creating commercializable technology,’’ says John Davis, CEO
and general manager of SBIR Resource Center, which provides tools for and consults with researchers and entrepreneurs
who are working to get funding under the grant program at various federal agencies.
“This is not money to support your research habit,” Davis says. “SBIR and STTR (Small Business Technology Transfer)
both are economic development programs. You’re writing about creating jobs and tax revenues. And how your cool technology
and research, if it is successful, will result in jobs and tax revenues.’’
But there are plenty of PIs who started out as academics and are now part of ventures pursuing and/or receiving SBIR funding.
Lisa Kurek, managing partner of Biotechnology Business Consultants, leads seminars on SBIRs throughout the country.
Her firm, based in Ann Arbor, Mich., also offers one-on-one consulting to people trying to get the grants.
“I like it when I get PIs from academic institutions in my seminars,’’ says Kurek. “You explain to them that they can’t be a
virtual company and apply for these grants, and sometimes they bail.’’ And other times? “We try and help them find folks who
can help them,’’ such as a business incubator because, to win SBIR grants, “You need to bring together really compelling,
cutting-edge science technology with really great commercial thinking.’’
The SBIR program was set up by Congress in 1982 to stimulate technological innovation, particularly among small and
start-up businesses. Legislation in 2000 increased the program’s emphasis on commercial applications of SBIR project results.
There are three phases of the SBIR program. The fund threshold for Phase I, to investigate feasibility, is $150,000; for
Phase II, for testing and evaluation, it is $1 million; Phase III funding has no cap.
Government agencies can award amounts greater or lesser than the amount requested. PIs (having formed or joined a
business) cannot apply for Phase II unless they have had a Phase I application approved. The Phase III designation allows
recipients to extend SBIR restrictions on what the government can and can’t do with inventions and intellectual property
created. It also preserves, for life, eligibility to seek business advantages available only to SBIR awardees.
SBIR funds are awarded by 11 federal agencies. Competition is fierce, and Davis anticipates it getting more difficult
because, although award amounts have increased, the total pot of money has not. No unsolicited proposals are accepted;
all must be responsive to a formal solicitation. For instance, a recent search of www.sbir.gov showed solicitations including
bioengineering approaches to energy balance and obesity; new technology for proteomics and clycomics; image-guided
cancer interventions; detectors for smuggled currency; a helmet with embedded active display for emergency responders; and
bioengineering nanotechnology initiatives.
“Each department’s philosophy and culture are different’’ and vital to understand, but trying to keep up with those
differences “is like herding cats,’’ says Davis.

Kurek agrees. “Is it possible to navigate (the grant process) on your own? Sure. But help is always good.’’
There’s also funding for some of that help through some state programs. But each state is different. For instance, Michigan
has one central agency handling a single program; Ohio distributes its funding through regional institutions; and Virginia works
through a quasi-governmental corporation. Some provide direct funds to applicants, while others pay consultants to train and
support their local firms.
So how can a PI determine if an SBIR grant is a good fit for his or her work? Here are five important advance steps:
1. Go to a professional workshop
A Google search will turn up hundreds of workshops throughout the country. You can also go to www.sbir.gov and
click through to your state’s resources or use the www.zyn.com schedule of events page. Some state sites are easier to
navigate than others; calling listed state contacts might prove easier. Costs vary, depending on where you live and how much
developers and state or regional agencies are paying to underwrite the training sessions.
Davis offers some cautions, saying “there’s a lot of people out there who dabble’’ in SBIR consulting. Do some homework
about consultants and workshop presenters. And he cautions against deciding whether to pursue an SBIR based solely on
government-run workshops. “The government doesn’t write proposals to itself, the government doesn’t do business strategy.
SBIR project managers are, by and large, proposal recruiters. ... That (workshop) recruiter has nothing whatsoever to do with
whether you win or lose’’ in the proposal/grant application process.’’
2. Find a business partner
If you don’t already have a business partner for developing your technology, find one, because you can’t get an SBIR
without having or proposing to establish a small business. Not sure how to find a partner? Consultants and business
incubators can help. Not sure where to go in your area? Again, click through to your state’s resources from www.sbir.gov.
3. Prepare a commercialization strategy
Once you have that business partner, “don’t underestimate the importance of having a sound commercialization strategy,’’
says Kurek. Budgeting is a vital part of any SBIR grant development training she does. “You need to plan your project carefully,
plan your budget, and work within each agency’s requirements.’’
“You can’t be writing about your technology. You have to write about your business,’’ Davis says. He also points out that
all federal applicants, including SBIR grantees, are required by law to make the most exact cost estimates possible, and that
shouldn’t be taken lightly. “There have been people who did so and were charged with felonies, went to jail, and were required
to pay back funds to the government.’’

4. Don’t underestimate time needed
Don’t underestimate the amount of time needed to put together an SBIR grant request. “Don’t wait until the last minute.
Academics do it all the time. It’s a huge mistake,’’ says Kurek. “You should be starting your project no later than three months
prior to the grant deadline.’’ Davis stresses that point as well, saying that a winning proposal typically takes at least 200 hours
of work.
5. Ask someone to review
Obtain outside help — someone who fully understands the intricacies of this process — to review your proposal before
submission. “There are about 150 stupid mistakes you can make filling out forms that can cause your electronic proposal to
get rejected,’’ says Kurek, pointing out that most federal agencies do not allow you to resubmit a proposal once it is rejected,
regardless of the reason.
Above all, approach this process like an entrepreneur, looking at it to support research you’d be doing in any case.
“We often tell people that SBIR is not money, it’s a business strategy,’’ says Davis. Putting together a grant request can be
a difficult, time-consuming process, and there are far easier methods of getting money.
But the payoff goes beyond the SBIR grant itself. Davis says products and services developed under SBIR can be sold
sole-source to the federal government for life. “SBIR is the most advantageous entree to a serious federal contract there ever
has been,’’ he says. n

Grants
Factors in Choosing a Co-Investigator
by William Gerin, Ph.D.
Potential co-investigators can certainly offer particular areas of substantive expertise you will need. But they can also
bring procedural talents or access to subjects (animal or human), or necessary facilities (you don’t own yourself). They
may also have a publishing history that you lack but would like to co-opt in a particular area necessary to your proposal.
Mainly, put yourself in the mind of the reviewers and imagine what they might feel is missing – something necessary to the
science, and/or necessary to the likelihood that the proposed experiment will be carried out as promised. Always keep in
mind that the feasibility of accomplishment is every bit as important a consideration to the reviewers as is the quality of the
proposed science.
There are several obvious sets of colleagues to consider: (1) Your already-fellow collaborators and, often, friends; (2) If
you are less senior, you may have senior colleagues, division chiefs, head of the lab in which you work, etc. that must go on
the application, even for nominal coverage of their effort. [Political Tip: If you ignore this, you risk making a powerful enemy,
or, less dramatic, losing a possible ally. Or at the least, hurting someone’s feelings] (3) Famous guys. No joke - it never hurts
an application to have a well-known, well-liked, highly respected expert listed as a co-investigator. The reviewers on the study
sections are just as human as anyone, and a big name is not only impressive, it is reassuring, and that is a crucial quality to a
proposal. (4) Colleagues to whom you owe. (5) If you propose a complicated data analysis, consider having a statistician as a
co- investigator; impress on the reviewers that this person is integral to the design of the study, and a high-ranking part of the
team – as opposed to a nominal consulting relationship which suggests that the analysis of the data is not a primary concern.
The preceding people are enlisted because they fill a specific need. However, you also will need co-investigators who
have broader-ranging responsibilities, who are likely to be working closely with you as the PI to solve problems, will manage
some of the administrative stuff, will be your main partner(s) when you begin analyzing data and writing papers.
Choose wisely – your relationship with your partners will presumably last the duration of the grant. If the relationship goes
sour, it can spoil the fun, and certainly have an impact on the project. When considering colleagues at this level, it is tempting
to go to one’s pals and fit them in. But “friends” have advantages and disadvantages. As a sole criterion, friendship can be a
disaster for both the grant and for your friendship. But if you do engage a friend, I strongly urge you to have very clear up-front
agreements about what is expected of both of you, and how you will go about dealing with the frictions that will inevitably arise
over the course of the funding period.
On the other hand, your feelings of friendship with potential collaborators can be a major factor in the project’s success.
Assuming that by “friendship” we are also talking about mutual trust, a fact-based knowledge of the other’s dependability,
ability to function in a crisis, talent as a supervisor, etc. I have spoken to many senior investigators, and all agree that when
being invited to collaborate, they consider their relationship with the individual before considering the merits of the project.
Basically, their stance is: “I collaborate with people I like, not so much because of the project”. This is often an option open
only to more senior investigators, who have built up such relationships over time, and are at a stage in their careers where

spreading out from their own specialty is possible, and enhances their reputations. It’s why I myself enter collaborations, even
those out of my typical purview. [Note: less senior investigators can’t appear to be too spread out, though]
A final note: If the collaboration works out, you can be in it for the long haul. I am actively involved in several that go back
almost three decades. We know we can count on one another, that a least one of us will have the ability to fix any problem that
comes up, that we enjoy our interactions. Not a bad basis for a good research team.
[Dr. Gerin is P.I. e-Alert’s Chief Grants Consultant, Professor of Biobehavioral Health, Pennsylvania State University, and
Author, Writing the NIH Grant Proposal: A Step-by-Step Guide, SAGE Books (2006)] n

Grants
Should You Use Co-Investigators or Consultants?
by William Gerin, Ph.D.
There are two main ways you can hire people to work on your grant. They can either be (1) “Personnel” – that is, persons
at your institution who will be paid from the grant, whether they are co-investigators or research assistants. These people will
be paid their salaries and fringe from the grant, based on their institutional base salaries, in proportion to the amount of effort
they will allot.
You may also want to have co-investigators from other institutions. To accomplish this, your grants office sets up a sub-
contract between your institution and the institution of the new co-investigator (or other staff). Again, the persons listed here
are paid a portion of their salary and fringe – except this time, the fringe rate used is that of that person’s home institution.
Once you know you are planning a sub-contract, begin setting it up as soon as possible, as some grants offices are sluggish
on such arrangements.
When the target person is not employed at your institute, instead of enlisting him, you have the option to enlist him as
a consultant. (Remember, anyone you want to hire from your home institution must be considered “personnel”). Anyhow, a
co-investigator is considered to be someone who is key to the science and running of the study; a consultant is more limited in
scope, an expert in a focused area, such as designing a piece of equipment, or responsible for an exotic assay.
Now, let’s consider a peculiar quirk in how funding agencies (e.g. NIH) treat “consultants” pay. When you are “personnel”,
you are paid a percentage of your salary and fringe, based on your allotted effort. Let us say that a technician has been
budgeted 10% of her salary, the assumption being that person will put in around 4 hours a week on this project. One can only
earn up to 100% of one’s salary. Thus, if I am already 100% funded and yet get asked to play a role on a new project, for 10%
of my time, that means I have to “theoretically” reduce my effort commensurately on another project. And I probably don’t have
to remind you that in the “real” world this never means that now your workload is down 10% on that end! So you’re ending up
with more work to do, for no additional money.
For some reason, “consulting” money is considered differently. Even if you are already 100% funded on your campus,
you can still accept consulting payments from other people’s grants at other institutions. This is actual money into your pocket.
Doesn’t pay fringe benefits, of course. Another advantage is, no sub-contract necessary (but this really shouldn’t be a huge
consideration; setting one up is not so difficult).
So why choose one pathway but not the other? I suspect assumed “prestige” plays a role. If a person is not yet 100%
funded, then it’s obvious they would like their salary and fringe, and the prestige that goes along with being a co-investigator
on a NIH grant. But if the person already receives 100% of her funding on her own campus, then the choice boils down to a
bit more prestige (unpaid) by being co-investigator or a local colleague’s grant vs. the chance to receive an extra few thousand
dollars a year by serving as consultant to a grant at a different institution.
[Dr. Gerin is P.I. e-Alert’s Chief Grants Consultant, Professor of Biobehavioral Health, Pennsylvania State University, and
Author, Writing the NIH Grant Proposal: A Step-by-Step Guide, SAGE Books (2006)] n

Does Your Location Influence Your Grant’s Funding Chances?
In a perfect world, science, whether in the form of a grant or a paper, would be judged purely on the strengths of its ideas,
the quality of the data presented, and on the originality and novelty of its hypotheses. Taken to its logical extreme, the review
process would be truly double-blinded, neither reviewers nor authors being aware of each other’s identities.
But this is an imperfect world — one in which the judgment of editors and reviewers undoubtedly is colored by the names
and reputations of the submitters, and perhaps even by the identities of their home institutions. To hope otherwise is to be, at
the very least, naïve.
At the lunch table in my institution, we have a shorthand expression that rationalizes (and makes bearable) the heartbreak
of the sub-24-hour rejection by a prestigious journal. Colloquially, it’s called “the ZIP code effect (ZCE),” for the widely held
conviction that, absent a return address from Cambridge (Mass.), San Francisco, or Baltimore, your paper will be returned
swiftly — even before being sent out for review.
A legendary historical example of the ZCE is provided by the experience of Dr. Hans Krebs1. While a lecturer at the
University of Sheffield (England) in 1937, Krebs submitted the key manuscript describing the discovery of the cycle bearing
his name (aka, the citric acid cycle) to Nature. The editor at that time, clearly unaware that he had received one of the most
important papers in biochemistry in the 20th century, begged off consideration of the manuscript with the flimsy excuse that he
already had a backlog of letters and would be unable to consider the paper for months.
Krebs eventually published his masterwork in the Dutch journal Enzymologia, which eventually folded in 1972. One
wonders whether Nature would have been more receptive to Dr. Krebs’ manuscript had it been submitted later in his career,
after he had been appointed to a named professorship at Oxford, received a Nobel prize, been knighted, and received
countless other accolades.
Another example where the ZCE might have been lurking behind the scenes is detailed in the autobiography of Craig
Venter (A Life Decoded: My Genome), known for his high-risk but ultimately successful effort to produce the first complete
human genome sequence.
In Venter’s account, he describes how multiple grant proposals submitted to sequence the first bacterial genomes (by
what are now routine high-throughput rapid-sequencing technologies) were systematically rejected by NIH Study Sections
during the critical lead-in period to his ascent of the human-genome Everest.
While we should be careful not to cast aspersions on the motives of individual reviewers in the absence of details about
the grants and reviews, I think we can unequivocally agree that this was not peer review’s finest hour. Think what would have
happened had this first wave of the sequencing revolution lapped at the doors of NIH through the efforts of a big-name PI from
a highly prestigious institution, rather than a mere journeyman scientist not long out of the NIH intramural program.
If there is a lesson to be learned from these grand scientific oversights, it’s that, for better or worse, your scientific “brand”
counts for a lot — particularly where peer review is concerned.

In science, the concept of celebrity is not well defined, but people do build reputations, the height of which clearly has an
impact on the perceptions of editors and reviewers.
A not insignificant measure of that perceived reputation flows from the institution to which the PI’s name is attached. How
much? Based on my experience on review panels, it varies according to the individual reviewer and the application. I’ve never
seen the identity of a PI’s home institution pull a highly flawed application out of the triage pile, but I can’t say that it hasn’t
moved the needle a few points for a grant that sat “in the critical range.” On the flip side, grant applications from a number of
Nobel Prize winners have been considered by some of the panels I’ve served on, but even that luminous distinction does not
ensure automatic funding.
Knowing that the identity of your home institution can impact your score and that you can’t readily change that (unless you
move to a more prestigious institution), what should one do to mitigate the (potential) disadvantage associated with a less-
than-prestigious institution?
The first and most important step is not to lose sight of what reviewers are thinking about when they try to assign scores
to the review parameters in which we are most interested here, namely “investigator”
and “environment.”
The scores you receive on these criteria reflect the specific judgment of the reviewers about whether, given a significant
problem and a doable research plan, you can carry out successfully the research plan
you’ve proposed.
To assess that likelihood, they probably will weigh a number of important factors, including (a) your past productivity, (b)
your experience and familiarity with the approaches, (c) the availability of necessary equipment and collaborators, and (d) your
appreciation of potential problems and the availability of scientific work-arounds in case the primary strategy fails.
Your own background likely will provide clues about (a), (b), and (d), and your “environment” will provide metrics for (c).
Among criteria that will not be taken into account are the size of your institution’s endowment and the average earnings of your
graduates after 10 years in the marketplace.
It is a misconception that NIH chooses only reviewers from what are considered “distinguished” institutions. On an
average Study Section, you are much more likely than not to meet a geographically and scientific diverse panel. Many
reviewers either will work at, or certainly appreciate the constraints of, working at institutions lacking unlimited resources.
Ironically, one reason that accounts for the
success of many established investigators at
prestigious institutions is that they don’t take their reputations or their institution’s name for granted. Instead, they generally
have a strong appreciation of their own scientific limitations and work overtime either to display the appropriate critical pieces
of preliminary data and/or assemble an ideal team of consultants and collaborators to maintain the flow of novel approaches
and novel thinking into their programs. Thus, the characteristic feature of their grants and research programs is one of
momentum and constant forward pressure.
So with respect to the “ZIP code effect” and grant submissions, the most useful advice may to appreciate and accept that it
may exist, lurking in the background of a reviewer’s mind, but there are strategies for minimizing it. Chief among these is exhaustive
assessment of the specific factors that will increase the likelihood that you will be able carry out your proposed experiments.

This means turning a critical eye on what you know — and what others perceive you to know — and then identifying what
may be potential weaknesses. Over time, your success at building a “brand” may depend as much on your ability to build a rich
collaborative network as it does on name of the campus where you work.
1
Thanks to “The Scientist” (24(3): 88 [2010]) for updating this story with additional fresh details, including an image
capture of the original “Nature” rejection letter.
the University of Vermont, where his scientific expertise is in protein synthesis and RNA-protein interactions.] n

Do Simultaneous Grant Submissions Raise
Your Odds for Success?
A reader, whose proposal concerns cancer research, wonders whether applying simultaneously to the National Cancer
Institute (NCI), National Science Foundation (NSF), and the American Cancer Society (ACS) is a good strategy.
There actually are two related questions involved: 1) What specific policies by these agencies bear on the question? and
2) Is such a strategy likely to be effective?
The most important point to underscore is the PI’s obligation to disclose all pending funding in a submitted application.
Any grant you submit will contain your biosketch or CV, and this document always must contain information about current and
pending funding. Any budgetary or scientific overlap between the submitted application and other pending funding must be
clearly articulated — and will be scrutinized carefully by the relevant program officer(s) before any award letter is generated.
Should you be lucky enough to garner two awards simultaneously that cover overlapping areas, you almost certainly would
be expected to drop one of them. (This is a not uncommon scenario for highly qualified post-doctoral fellowship applicants.)
A second important point is that neither NIH nor NSF will, on their own, accept multiple simultaneous submissions of the
same proposal, sent in with the hopes of getting different reviews from different panels at the same time. That scenario is covered
by a specific policy in NSF’s Grant Proposal Guide. As plainly stated, NSF’s Biological Sciences directorate (where a cancer-re-
lated proposal would be most logically directed) will not accept proposals that have been submitted simultaneously to the NIH.
New investigators (i.e., not a PI on another federal grant award), however, are not subject to this rule, which means that
they have more flexibility than established PIs. New PIs, within the first six years of their independent position, have the
additional advantage that they are able to apply for Research Scholar grants from the American Cancer Society, for which
established investigators are ineligible.
This same exemption is in effect for many other programs sponsored by private foundations, likely as a consequence of
their desire to attract investigators to a particular disease or research area before the careers of the newcomers become fixed
by expertise and reputation. (One could argue that inducements ought to be extended to attract mid-career investigators to
enter new fields, but that philosophy appears not to have taken hold.)
In summary, the policy constraints indicate that it appears to be possible to submit identical proposals to multiple agen-
cies, but only if one is a new PI.
This takes us to the broader and arguably more interesting question of how, strategically, one can make the best use of
the myriad public and private funding agencies. In devising a funding strategy for a given project, it is always useful to consider
the specific subject area and its potential impact on various human diseases, as well as the maturity of the project (i.e., how
far along the experimental path you’ve traveled to amass data in support of your central hypothesis).
The first will dictate the likelihood of identifying private funding sources, while the second will be critical in the timing of your
application. Of course, early stage work is the most difficult for which to secure funding, and the best sources typically are internal

grant programs at your university or institute. Here, your potential pool of competitors will be vastly smaller than at a foundation or a
federal agency, and your immediate colleagues may have less stringent requirements for preliminary data than external reviewers.
If you are able to demonstrate a strong connection of your research problem to a human disease, than private foundations
with “idea” or “innovation” programs may be a good place to start. Space limitations preclude listing all of these, but a good
sponsored-programs officer at your institution may help you set up an efficient search. Cancer researchers enjoy the benefit of
numerous individual foundations targeting many organ- and tissue-specific cancers. Among such site-specific foundations are
the Susan G. Komen Foundation (breast), the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, the Prostate Cancer Research Foundation ,
and the Lung Cancer Research Foundation.
The Department of Defense also manages a number of programs (Congressionally Directed Medical Research Pro-
grams), particularly for those associated with cancer. While a number of these foundations more heavily target early-stage
investigators, several (including the DOD) accept applications from PIs at all stages in their careers. For all of these private and
public agencies, competition for funding still will be intense, but your chances of success will be enhanced if you can convince
the reviewers that your project is likely to have direct and significant impacts on the diagnosis and/or treatment of the particular
cancer. And your pool of competitors, naturally, will be restricted to those PIs who are addressing that particular disease.
What about work of a more fundamental nature that concerns mechanisms universal to many cancers and not a single
disease site? For these types of applications, it is worth considering the relative advantages/disadvantages of NSF vs. NIH.
Both agencies support basic science studies on cellular mechanisms with significant implications for cancer — but from differ-
ent perspectives.
Under the former directorship of Elias Zerhouni, the emphasis on “translational research” increased at NIH, and this philo-
sophical shift may continue under the leadership of the new director, Francis Collins. In principle, work that is relevant to cancer
could be funded by a number of institutes distinct from the NCI. For example, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences
(NIGMS) funds much basic science work with a cancer emphasis and has less of a translational overall mission. If your project
involves tissue from cancer patients or a direct animal model of cancer (e.g., a mouse xenograph), then it probably is better for
NCI; if it is focused on molecules and cells, it is likely to be more appropriate for NIGMS. NSF, by contrast, is more focused on
fundamental biological mechanisms, and applications with a direct clinical or disease focus should not be sent there.
If an application is suitable both for NIH and NSF, can your chances of funding be improved by targeting one agency or
the other? There is no simple answer, but it is axiomatic that, in this funding climate, only outstanding proposals are likely to
be funded. The review panels from both agencies are highly stringent, and all one knows for sure is that the two sets of review-
ers will both be expert but different.
While NSF awards are smaller in scope than NIH, the NSF process does encourage the creation of a dialogue between the
applicant and program officer, even before the application is submitted. This can be quite useful in better shaping your applica-
tion for NSF’s reviewing style and overall mission. NIH, by comparison, offers much less pre-review advice. While I don’t have any
statistics to demonstrate it directly, my sense is that making the investment to develop a career-long relationship with one of the
two major public funding agencies and its program officers is likely to improve your funding success over the long run.
the University of Vermont, where his scientific expertise is in protein synthesis and RNA-protein interactions.] n

7 Strategies for Getting Your Share of Funding
from Private Foundations
There’s $42.9 billion in private-foundation funding available. How can you get a piece of the pie?
Private-foundation fund-raising expert John Greenhoe, director of foundation relations and development communications
at Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Mich., says it’s an important question to ask in uncertain economic times.
“It’s wise to diversify if you can and not rely entirely on the federal government,” Greenhoe says. He addressed a
recent audio conference sponsored by Principal Investigators Association (recordings available for purchase at www.
principalinvestigators.org).
Here are Greenhoe’s seven keys to improving your level of funding from private foundations:
1. Talk in terms of benefits to the foundation’s mission, not your research. You’ll be dealing mostly with family
foundations, which require a different approach than public agencies.
“With federal agencies, it’s not a problem to submit highly technical proposals,” Greenhoe told conferees. “That’s not true
with family foundations. They often don’t have scientific backgrounds. You need to shift the dialogue.”
Weak approach: Research auditory neuropathy. Better: Help kids with hearing problems.
Key: Make sure your proposal fits their mission.
2. Use the relationship model. The key to family foundations is building relationships. They often are minimally staffed
and informally run. See if you can meet (through networking) and get to know the board members. Often they can offer advice
and suggestions you won’t find anywhere else.
3. Do your homework before the initial contact. You can target local and regional foundations, as well as ones suited to
your research. Check out GuideStar, the Foundation Center, and similar Web sites to find foundations whose missions line up
with your program.
4. Seek information only on the first phone call. Soliciting doesn’t work well on an initial phone call. Instead, dig for
information in a brief, focused way. (If the phone isn’t an option, consider the same approach via e-mail or formal letter.) You
want to obtain as much guidance as possible. Questions to consider:
• Baseline questions. What are the deadlines for proposals? When does the board meet and how often?
If the foundation says it accepts proposals year-round and doesn’t have deadlines, don’t believe it. That’s why you ask the
board meeting time — you want to be on the right side of the meeting.
• Odds-assessment questions. How many applications do you receive/did you receive this year? What percentage do you
fund? What is the typical grant amount? What are some favorite ideas that usually get serious consideration?
Note: Don’t give up if you’re out of their league, Greenhoe says. Some family foundations may not be used to working at
university budget levels, but may make an exception if they’re excited enough about the project.
Example: In an initial phone call, Greenhoe was told that the foundation never gives more than $10,000. His group asked
for $20,000. “They liked our proposal so much they gave us $50,000,” Greenhoe says.

• Open-ended questions. What are some recently funded initiatives? Pet peeves? Review criteria that would be helpful for
our organization to know?
This kind of information will help you guide the application process, knowing what to avoid and what to underscore.
“Try to get a personal meeting with a director or the board, but it’s OK if you can’t,” says Greenhoe. At this stage, you’re
just looking for information. If possible, set up a conference call with key decision-makers to get more information and build
relationships. The idea is to get them excited about what your research means to them.
5. Follow up. Write a targeted letter describing who you are, what your research is, how it fits with the foundation’s
objectives, and that you’re seeking funding. Limit it to two pages, but ask to be allowed to present a full proposal.
Then follow up again with a phone call. For small family foundations, make the call about two weeks after the expected
arrival of your letter. For larger foundations, give them three or four weeks. That’s enough to review the material.
“Foundations respond to people who are persistent, not pushy,” said Greenhoe.
6. Talk about publicity on projects. One terrific way to make your point about the value of your research:
Show how past projects have been publicized. Greenhoe recommends publicizing existing projects in your university
publications and, if possible, local press. Private foundations tend to respond to well to publicity; it helps them visualize the
results of your research.
7. Be a gatekeeper. This is controversial, Greenhoe says, but it helps solve a key problem with private-foundation fund
raising — uncoordinated or scattershot proposals from several principal investigators from the same institution. It may puzzle
the foundation board about your institution’s priorities.
Greenhoe says he offered to be the gatekeeper for any proposal out of WMU. The result is that, whenever that foundation
gets a call from WMU, it’s routed back to Greenhoe. That way, his institution can approach the foundation in a coordinated,
strategic way.
Note: As you might imagine, this can open a can of worms among PIs competing for different projects. But if it’s only a
question of working out details with a couple of other PIs, it might be worth doing.
Finally, PIs shouldn’t be discouraged by the economy, Greenhoe says. While giving is down this year, the overall trend
is upward.
“A lot of foundations are telling folks they aren’t taking on projects,” he says. But he expects the purse strings to loosen up
next year. “That’s why it’s key to build relationships now.”
To order a CD, MP3, or transcript of the full audioconference with Greenhoe, go to www.principalinvestigators.org. n

The Three Reviewers Critical to Your Grant’s Success
Many researchers submitting grant applications fail to understand that obtaining a fundable score depends heavily on the
reactions and roles of three key members of the Study Section which reviews their proposal.
To explain this, I shall examine some of the detailed workings within a typical National Institutes of Health (NIH) study
section. Not all such groups, nor funding agencies, act identically, but the commonalities are sufficient for this analysis.
First, let’s review how your grant winds up in the hands of certain reviewers. When you submit your proposal to NIH’s
Center for Scientific Review (CSR), staff will examine its title and abstract, and in light of those channel your application to the
Study Section (aka Initial Review Group; IRG) they feel appropriate. The administrator of the Study Section has previously
lined up a group of scientists from academia he/she feels are qualified to review grant proposals on themes related to yours.
There is no set number of such prospective reviewers, but typically there are between eighteen and twenty, which are divided
among “permanent” members and “ad hoc” members. From this panel, the Scientific Review Administrator (SRA) will select a
minimum of three to examine your proposal, and to report on it to the rest of the group. It is crucial you know and appreciate the
roles of these “reviewers”, as they will be highly influential in how the Study Section, as a whole, “grades” your application.
These three are not unlike attorneys appointed to represent you in court, except they feel free to detect and
present both positive and negative facets of your proposal. For your grant to score well, all three must become enthusiastic
advocates of your submission.
Reviewer Number 1 will be the most familiar with your work, and will take the lead in presenting your grant to the panel.
Reviewer Number 2 will be nearly as familiar, having published in the same field or a related one. These two reviewers will
scrutinize all aspects of your research plan carefully, taking into account significance, feasibility, and innovation, as well as
your qualifications to perform the work. With their expertise, they are positioned to decide whether your planned studies will
significantly advance the field, rather than just provide incremental progress on an already well-characterized system.
Reviewer 3, termed “The Discussant”, is different. He or she will not be an expert in your field, but will have a general
knowledge of it – perhaps gleaned by teaching aspects of it in a survey course. For this person, the crucial part of your
proposal will often be the “Background and Significance” section. He or she looks for enumeration of specific ways
your research, if successful, will illuminate fields outside of your own. Thus, the better you can establish that your findings will
have important implications at large, the easier it will be for the Discussant to appreciate the significance of your work and
convey this to the Study Section.
In summary, your one application has to contain precise elements sufficient to convince experts in your field, but at the
same time engender excitement, and even passion, among researchers who love science but whose detailed knowledge
lies elsewhere.
University of Vermont, where his scientific expertise is in protein synthesis and RNA-Protein interactions.] n

How Can I Become an NIH Reviewer?
Peer review, the reciprocal experience of both reviewing and being reviewed by your colleagues, is a distinguishing
characteristic of science. It sets academia apart from the business world, where one is accountable to one’s corporate superior
but he or she usually is not accountable to you.
This creates in academia a culture of responsibility — or at least an aspiration to the tenets of the Golden Rule: Review
the work of others with high levels of objectivity and professionalism in the hope that they will bring the same to their review of
your work.
Newly minted independent PIs are not expected to develop the knowledge and perspective of experienced reviewers
overnight, but are expected to grow into that role as their careers develop. This raises a few obvious questions, such as:
• When will I start reviewing the work of others?
• What are the criteria for becoming a reviewer, especially of research grants?
Let’s address some of these issues, particularly for newcomers:

Serving as a reviewer of grants and papers is viewed by most scientists as a natural progression in the arc of one’s scientific
career. Essentially, as you demonstrate proficiency in writing and publishing papers, you develop credibility as a scientific brand,
and editors of the journals in which you publish inevitably will turn to you for scientific advice (i.e.,reviewing requests).
Furthermore, in these days where the Internet rules, sooner or later your name will begin to be associated with scientific
key words. As editors and review-panel administrators conduct searches with these terms, the search engines will drive
reviewing requests to your e-mail inbox— slowly at first, but increasing as your career takes flight.
The process of becoming an NIH reviewer is more formalized. My personal odyssey as an NIH reviewer began with
an invitation — in a process that resembled being “tapped” to join a secret college fraternity. Years ago, while attending the
Enzymes Gordon Conference at Proctor Academy, I found myself on an after-lunch walk with a number of conferees, tramping
up and down the tree-covered New Hampshire hillsides.
Among my fellow mountaineers was Chanda Ganguly, then serving as the Scientific Review Officer for the Biochemistry
Study Section. During the course of our walk, Chanda quietly took me aside asked me whether I would be willing to come
down as an ad hoc reviewer for the biochemistry panel, which I eagerly accepted.
At the time, I was a funded assistant professor, and this would be my first excursion as a reviewer. Shortly thereafter, I
received a formal e-mail request, a box of grants to review, and I was off to Washington to my first study-section meeting.
The process of becoming a reviewer starts with the Scientific Review officer (SRO), who oversees all of the review
meetings for a particular study section. One of the chief responsibilities of the SRO is to maintain a stable of expert reviewers.
Reviewers on a given study section fall into two groups, the ad hoc members and the permanent members, and there are
different selection processes and criteria for each.

The SROs will pick individuals from a variety of disciplines so that their collective expertise covers all the grants the panel
is likely to review. Thus, the most important qualification for any panelist, either ad hoc or permanent, is to be a recognized as
an expert in your field.
To find new ad hoc reviewers, SROs often scan the list of previous high-scoring awardees with a good match in scientific
background to the study section. (To the best of my knowledge, the National Science Foundation operates in a similar fashion.)
Thus, these ad hoc reviewers need not have tenure, but will be funded early-stage investigators. (Also chosen are some ad
hoc reviewers who are veteran reviewers and experienced investigators, and they are recruited because their specialized
expertise is required for a particular group of applications.)
Broad knowledge base helps
This means that your likelihood of being called as a reviewer does depend on the scope of your scientific expertise, including
both the scientific problem or subject and the techniques needed to study that problem. An individual with a narrow or limited field
of expertise, even though quite competent in that field, might not be chosen as readily as a person with a broad knowledge base.
The first trip to a study section made by an ad hoc reviewer represents an “audition” of sorts. During the review process,
the SRO will pay particularly close attention to the performance of the new ad hoc reviewers.
Is each of them accurate, fair, and concise in his or her reviews? Can they defend their positions when challenged
by permanent members? If the answer is Yes, then the ad hoc reviewer will be invited back, and the SRO will share the
individual’s name and expertise with other SROs. Part of the post-review discussion between the SRO and the Chair of the
panel is a discussion of the performance of the ad hoc reviewers.
Provided the PI successfully navigates the experience of serving as an ad hoc, he or she may then be placed in
consideration as a permanent study-section member. Here, a reviewer’s effectiveness in areas outside his or her immediate
expertise will be a critical attribute: It is not a given that your specialized subject area will draw applications for every meeting.
In addition to all of the previous criteria (i.e., subject expertise, competency in review, and continued NIH funding), other
attributes will come into play. To become a new permanent member, at least two recommendations are required. During the
nomination process for permanent members, the SRO is also obligated to consider the gender, ethnicity, and geographic
composition of the panel, as well as the proportion of untenured assistant professors.
The formal nomination process involves the SRO compiling a nomination package for the individual with details
concerning their record of grant support, evidence of stature in the field of study, and validation (e.g, testimonials from other
experts) from exterior sources. The review of the package is a long process (12 weeks), requiring the eventual signatures of
the Directors of the Center for Scientific Review and the NIH itself.
Serve 4 years; 3 meetings a year
Once you are a permanent member of a study section, you can look forward to three meetings a year, which typically
take place in a hotel in Washington, DC. The term of service is typically four years. Later-stage investigators with even more
experience and stature in a given field can be nominated to serve as the section chair (a topic for a future column).

In summary, remember that service as a reviewer is not only of key importance to your career but also to the progress of
your field. Would you want to leave open any decisions regarding its future direction to those working outside of it? If only for
that reason, it is important that you step up to the plate when you are called upon.
Dr. Francklyn is a former study section chair and veteran reviewer for NIH and NSF study sections. He is a professor at
the University of Vermont, where his scientific expertise is in protein synthesis and RNA-protein interactions. He would like to
acknowledge the assistance of Dr. Michael Sveda, Center for Scientific Review, in researching this column. n

Review Emphasis Shifting from ‘Impact’ to ‘Innovation’
At some point recently, the prime directive for grant reviewing transitioned from funding “good science” to “high-impact”
science. That’s not an entirely positive development.
What is positive is that the National Institutes of Health (NIH), through several new grant mechanisms and in other ways
described below, seems to be opening doors to creative and novel proposals, so “innovation” soon may come into greater favor.
For many, “impact” is inextricably linked to “impact factor,” the ubiquitous journal-ranking parameter that often is a prime
metric for university officials, government administrators, and other bureaucrats to assess individual and collective scientific
quality in rapid fashion.
To illustrate the potential flaws of this approach, it should be noted that Martin Fleischmann, co-author of the Pons-
Fleischmann cold fusion paper (551 citations) was for a time the most highly cited chemist in England. Jan Hendrik Shön, the
Bell Labs physicist whose work was entirely discredited (and PhD revoked), regularly published in über-impact Science and
Nature before seeing the bulk of this work retracted .
While controversial findings and overly aggressive scientists may be good for magazine circulation and journal publicity
offices, they invariably serve science poorly in the long run.
Is there a more useful way of thinking about scientific impact? One simple approach is to consider impact as the product
of (scientific Innovation) x (scientific Feasibility/Success Likelihood) x (Investigator/Environment).
Of these, review panels generally have the easiest time with the latter two, namely Scientific Feasibility/Success
Likelihood and Investigator/Environment.
In contrast, reviewer response to Scientific Innovation is much more variable. It typically involves how deeply the reviewer
has read in his/her own field, how broadly their knowledge extends to other fields, and how much novelty and risk he or she is
willing to tolerate. Where the members of a given panel fall on such a continuum likely will have a huge impact on whether they
are able to spot emerging research areas and key discoveries before they are fully formed.
Why innovation has lacked support
It has been my experience as a reviewer on biochemistry and related grant panels that reviewers are, by and large,
conservative. They often do not support work at the earlier, potentially more innovative stages.
Their experiences as both applicants and as members of review panels where group dynamics are in effect tend to
reinforce this tendency. Science that is truly revolutionary threatens the existing order, putting at risk the significance and
validity of current dogma. If members of a given panel have vested interest in sustaining the current view, and the grants of
their peers who subscribe to it, they will be reluctant to support the heretical ideas of newcomers.
Junior reviewers may be less wedded to established theories, but are unlikely to put their own credibility on the line in
support of unpopular ideas.

Secondly, reviewers often are seduced by the conventional wisdom around “ripeness,” and the belief that a grant must fall
in the “sweet spot” between having enough preliminary data to eliminate significant uncertainty about the central hypothesis,
and yet not so much that further investment won’t yield additional high-impact papers.
Thirdly, the enthusiasm of a given reviewer for a particular grant is often directly proportional to the distance of the subject
matter of his/her particular field. The less one knows about a particular area, the less likely one is to champion that research in
front of a group of peers, particularly when there are other grants in one’s pile that one are more conventionally defended.
Owing to these reviewer tendencies, I have never seen R21 grants (Exploratory/Developmental) reviewed according to the
stated philosophy of their original Request for Applications (RFA). Reviewers just look at them as two-year RO1s, with all the
same burdens of preliminary data requirements, etc.
NIH moving toward innovation
To its credit, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has taken some important steps to address these problems head-on,
largely through new grant mechanisms designed under the NIH Road Map Initiative (http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/), which is run
out of the director’s office.
Many PIs were skeptical of the Road Map Initiative at the outset, because it had the potential to drain resources from
current Institutes, whose rules of operation are more familiar to PIs. The director’s office appears to be committed to the
effort, so that it appears it will continue past Dr. Zerhouni’s tenure. Three important programs are the “Pioneer Award,” (http://
nihroadmap.nih.gov/pioneer/), the Transformational RO1 (T-RO1) (http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/T-R01/recipients09.asp) and the
“Eureka” programs (http://www.nigms.nih.gov/Research/Application/EurekaFAQs.htm). Because the “Pioneer Award” is the
flagship program of this NIH effort, it is worth highlighting several of its main attributes.
I do not yet have any personal experience with any of the specific Road Map mechanisms, either as applicant or reviewer,
but certain features appear to me to address some of the concerns raised above.
First, rather than a specialized RFA designed with a particular investigator or group of investigators in mind, all the
mechanisms are open competitions with clearly articulated guidelines. NIH’s stated emphasis is on bold work that is
substantially different from both ongoing work in the PI’s lab and from work carried on elsewhere.
The application and review processes are different from those of normal RO1s. The applications for both the Pioneer
Award and the T-RO1 are considerably shorter than an RO1, with no requirement for preliminary data or detailed project plans.
The Biosketch requirements are different, with an emphasis on the PI’s top 10 publications, and a description of the
applicant’s most significant research accomplishment. The Pioneer Award application includes letters of reference. The
reviewing process for these awards takes place outside the standard study-section framework, employing multiple tiers of
review, special panels of eminent scientists and, in the case of the Pioneer program, face-to-face interviews at NIH.
While these programs have not been in existence long to enough to judge their impact on science, they appear to provide
a new forum for PIs to present their most revolutionary ideas. Should they prove successful, then perhaps changes to favor
more innovation in standard RO1s might be forthcoming.
Dr. Francklyn is a former study section chair and veteran reviewer for NIH and NSF study sections. He is a professor at the
University of Vermont, where his scientific expertise is in protein synthesis and RNA-protein interactions. n

Round Up
12 Expenses You Can (or Can’t) Charge Against Your
Sponsored Agreement
Can you charge that pizza pie for lab staff against a federally sponsored agreement or not?
“The guiding principle rests on whether an expense directly benefits a project,” responds Gunta Liders, Director of
University of Rochester’s Office of Research and Project Administration. “The answer is fact/case specific.”
Here’s a list of 12 expenses PIs often wonder about – and when you can charge them, and when you can’t.
1. Sending out for pizza for the lab.
When you can charge it: You can charge meals when it’s necessary for lab personnel to work through the normal meal
time in order to complete a time-sensitive test or analysis.
When you can’t: Meals are normally considered entertainment, unless necessary for the conduct of the research itself. So
a pizza party to celebrate the completion of a project wouldn’t be allowable.
Comment: “There are IRS rules governing employee meals (e.g., it’s needed for the employer’s convenience to achieve
certain work goals); otherwise, it’s a taxable benefit to the employee,” said Liders.
2. Flying first class.
When you can charge it: You can charge first-class travel if your institution’s policies permit it in certain cases and coach
travel would create hardships, e.g., forcing travelers into unusual hours of travel, greatly prolong the flight time, or put someone in
medical danger.
When you can’t: Pretty much in any other case. Air travel itself is allowable, as long as tickets are the lowest discount price
available. That means coach.
Comment: “First class air travel has to be in line with institutional requirements, which may be more specific than
federal ones,” said Liders. “Agencies will always defer to institutional policies, and will insist that charges to federal grants
be treated consistently.”
3. Paying for parking.
When you can charge it: You can charge parking fees if they’re a project-related travel expense, such as airport
parking fees.
When you can’t: Parking fees incurred every day in the faculty parking lot.

4. Purchasing cell phones and monthly charges.
When you can charge it: You can expense the monthly fees and purchase of a cell phone only if the phone is crucial to the
project itself, such as working at a remote location and survey work. Caveat: Purchase of the cell phone itself depends on your
institution’s policies.
When you can’t: If the cell phone is used for business purposes only to call the lab.
Comment: “IRS rules come into play here as well,” said Liders. “The employee needs to demonstrate that the phone is
not used for personal calls; otherwise the value of the phone and/or monthly service would be at least partially considered
personal compensation.”
5. Hiring an administrative assistant.
When you can charge it: If a large or complex project requires an administration assistant to coordinate the details of a
project and travel, you can hire one. However, you may not be able to allocate 100% of an AA’s time to a project, even if that
person spends all their time on it. Some agencies and institutions require a minimum effort first – usually about 25 percent – of
the AA’s time before you can directly expense the remaining 75 percent.
When you can’t: Usually, administrative costs are not allowable.
Comment: “There needs to be contemporaneous documentation of how the project and AA’s activities satisfy the
exceptions to federal rules,” said Liders. “If the documentation isn’t there, agencies will disallow direct costing of the AA’s time.”
6. Sending a package overnight to a research partner.
When you can charge it: If technical reports and materials are necessary for a project, institutions will typically allow
postage charges to your partners in a sponsored agreement. This includes overnight shipments.
When you can’t: In general, postage and mailing are not allowable as direct charges.
7. Managing an extensive scientific database.
When you can charge it: If an IT person’s or admin’s salary is reasonable and the database is extensive.
When you can’t: If the database is small enough to be handled by existing staff.
8. Subscriptions to technical publications.
When you can charge them: If the subscription is directly necessary for a specific research project, you can charge it. But
that’s usually a rare case. It’s more common for the institution to indirectly charge subscriptions in its own name.

When you can’t: Finance-related or business-related subscriptions (such as the Wall Street Journal) are not allowable as direct
costs, but check with your organization’s policies to determine if the institution can indirectly charge a subscription in its name.
9. Repair the lab’s electrical system.
When you can charge it: You can’t charge repairs and maintenance as a direct cost. However, you can charge them
in the facilities & administration pool. But make sure your repair or maintenance of equipment doesn’t greatly prolong the
equipment’s intended life or add permanent value to the property. Building alteration costs are sometimes allowable as direct
costs, but need to be approved by the agency.
When you can’t: If you upgrade the system and don’t get prior agency approval.
10. Hiring a headhunter.
When you can charge it: As long as recruitment is directly related to the project and you pay standard commercial rates,
you can hire a headhunter to find the perfect candidate.
When you can’t: If the recruit won’t be on the project long enough to justify the expense of the headhunter.
Comment: “This one is a bit tricky,” explains Liders. “If the headhunter recruits a research professor and that person only
works on the project for a month, most agencies would regard this as unallowable.”
11. Moving expenses for a postdoc.
When you can charge it: You can pay for moving expenses if the postdoctoral scholar works 100 percent on a project and your
institution’s policy allows you to reimburse this class of employee. Most agencies require that the postdoc work on a project for a
minimum of one year.
When you can’t: If your institution’s policies don’t allow moving-expenses reimbursement or the postdoc’s project role is
short term.
12. Visa costs for a researcher.
When you can charge it: If the foreign visitor is hired to work 100 percent on a specific project and works for a significant
amount of time (i.e., one year), you can pay for the visa.
When you can’t: Expedited visa charges aren’t allowable.
Editor’s Note: The preceding information is general in nature and may not apply to every case, obtain professional advice
for your particular situation. n

How to Stretch Grant Dollars — by Buying Smarter
Even before the crippling global recession forced everyone to find new ways to save, smart principal investigators were
pinching their grant pennies wisely, cutting corners anywhere they could — without, of course, sacrificing the quality of their work.
That hasn’t changed. Smart PI’s still make the most of every grant dollar — often just by taking the same common-sense
approach to making lab purchases they use in managing their home budgets.
Derek Smith, managing director in Huron Consulting Group’s Higher Education Practice in Chicago, advises research
institutions to look both at what, where and how they’re buying.
“When PI’s send things via FedEx or UPS or other overnight delivery methods, they often check the ‘priority next day’ box
when regular next-day delivery or even second-day delivery would do the trick — for 20% to 30% less,” he says.
Why pay more, right? A recent issue of TheScientist.com also noted that high-volume labs can save a bundle by hiring a
shipping service that can coordinate the best shipping methods and offer volume discounts to boot.
When you look at computers — at the mix of laptops and desktops and functionality you may need in your lab — “you really
should look at the configurations,” Smith says. “You need to make sure you don’t inhibit the work, but do you really need the high
end for every work station?” Sometimes you do, he notes, such as when you must process a great deal of data. “But for day-to-
day administrative use,” Smith asks, “do you need the high-end, fully loaded model? Or could you get by with a lower-end model?
That’s a lot of money you could save.”
PI’s also can look into acquiring equipment online through a discount exchange service like eBay. The same goes for big-
ticket lab equipment such as flow hoods, CO2 incubators, robotics, centrifuges, PCR machines, freezers, and chemicals.
PI’s can save a lot on lab supplies as well, Smith says, by re-evaluating supplier arrangements. “You all have your favorite
suppliers,” he says, “but you should also take advantage of the supply agreements your institution has in place if an equivalent
product is available from one of its contracted vendors.”
There may be times when that makes no sense, such as with highly specialized equipment or with customized items
needed for a specific experiment. “But when you’re buying gloves,” Smith explains, “you should find out if your institution buys
a core list of items from a different vendor at a better price.” Some institutions, of course, have better vendor contracts than
others, “but any negotiated price should be a big improvement over list price, Smith says.
It’s a good idea to re-examine your basic philosophy to buying, Smith says. “Many institutions have advanced e-
procurement solutions,” he notes. “There’s a cost to shopping around, to chasing things down and shopping multiple Web
sites. Before you know it, you’ve spent two or three hours pursuing a single item. You can use that time much better on other
tasks by doing your purchasing through a campus-wide e-procurement system.” If your school doesn’t have anything to
support e-procurement, he adds, “you should be lobbying to get a solution in place. I have seen firsthand the positive impact
e-procurement can have on ordering efficiencies and reducing the time required on purchasing.” n

Awarded a Grant? Don’t Fall Into These
12 Management Traps
You’ve received notice of a grant award: Now what? According to grant-management expert Stacy Abate, director of
grants, Georgian Court College, Lakewood, N.J., the next steps are crucial.
“As principal investigator, you are responsible for everything,” said Abate during a May 27 audio conference for Principal
Investigators Association. “You get the credit if everything goes right and get the blame if anything goes wrong.”
Managing the grant contains many traps, Abate warned. Among them:
1. Signing a partial grant award. If you’ve only received some of the money you’ve asked for, you’ll need to renegotiate
the amount of work you’ll perform. “You must call the program officer now before your institution signs the grant acceptance
letter,” said Abate. “Otherwise you are responsible for all the work.”
2. Skipping overhead-cost negotiations. Your institution will take a big percentage of the grant funds off the top for
overhead. “Bigger institutions take 65 percent off the top for indirect costs,” said Abate. “Typically a percentage of that money
will go back either to your grant or your department. You need to personally negotiate this. Be friends with the people who take
the indirect costs.”
3. Neglecting to coordinate compensation with Human Resources Dept. You have to talk to HR about your
institutional compensation policies. The last thing you want is to make compensation promises to a post-doc you can’t
keep. And if you need to break out of the comp structure, HR will have to sign off. “HR may require you pay people more or
less,” said Abate. “Typically, you will not be allowed to pay grant-funded staff at dramatically different rates than what your
organization pays regular staff.”
4. Failure to keep your own records. This is probably the most arduous and painful part. You can’t fully delegate the time
and money spent to your institution’s bookkeepers. Your own records will give you much better credibility if you must justify
expenditures. “Substantiate dollars spent on salaries,” said Abate. “I know it’s hard to keep track of how much time you spent
on one project vs. another, but you have to do it.”
5. Forgetting to lock in subcontractor roles. Lock in your role and subcontractor’s roles during the application process. “You
can’t decide later that you took on too much and you want to subcontract something,” Abate said. “You needed to do that upfront.”
6. Ignoring need for outside evaluator. Outside evaluators will give added credibility to your reports and findings,
particularly on larger and more complex projects. “It’s eight to 10 percent, but money well spent,” Abate said.
7. Overspending on one area. “If you overspend in one area, your institution will probably seek that money from your
department if the grant disallows it,” said Abate. Carefully work your own accounting department to make sure you’ve correctly
budgeted. If you need to make changes — and you probably will — talk to your program officer. In many cases, they will work
with you, particularly if you’ve kept them informed of your progress along the way.
8. Innocent errors that result in a conflict of interest. Watch out for spending money on people and supplies that won’t
look good to an independent source. “Don’t buy supplies from a vendor for whom you serve on the board or in which you have
any personal stake,” said Abate. “Don’t hire relatives, no matter how qualified.”

9. Lack of planning for the unexpected. You may have delays either in producing data or reporting your findings. “Any
time you anticipate a delay, call your research administrator, who will call your program officer,” said Abate. “The funder usually
grants the delay.”
10. Being unprepared for an audit. Spend only allowable expenses and, if you have a question, ask your program
officer. “Plan for an audit,” said Abate. “Funder may file a motion for disallowance … disallowed costs may not be transferred to
any other grant.”
11. Assuming a five-year federal grant means a five-year federal grant. “Remember that Congress must
reauthorize every year,” said Abate. “If your goals are being met, it’s more likely to happen. But remember some things are
out of your control.”
12. Failure to file timely reports. “You must file your reports, and you must file them on time,” said Abate. “PIs need to
ensure reports are completed and submitted in a timely manner.
Copies of the audio conference are available on compact disk, MP3 and PDF format. To order, visit
www.principalinvestigators.org. n

NIH Plans Stricter Financial-Conflict Reporting Rules
The National Institutes of Health proposed sweeping changes to how PIs must report potential conflicts of interest
— requiring institutions to set up formal review processes of principal investigators’ financial ties to industry and publicly
disclose these to the public, NIH director Francis Collins announced. The proposed rules apply to universities, institutes and
small businesses being supported by NIH funds.
Collins said he doesn’t think conflicts of interest are a widespread problem, but added, “there have been a few
examples in the past few years where investigators were involved in financial conflicts that could at least be perceived as
coloring their judgment.”
The four biggest proposed changes:
• Lower threshold for reporting. The minimum threshold for reporting would drop from $10,000 to $5,000.
• Institutional review process required. Under the regulations in place since 1995, PIs themselves were allowed to
decide whether a financial relationship was a potential conflict. Now, the institution would issue the final decision.
“The institution would be required to set up a process to review such potential conflicts, to identify those that may need an
intervention, and to report its actions to NIH,” said Collins.
• Small business applications included. Small business innovation research (SBIR) and small business technology
transfer (SBTT) Phase 1 applications were not covered under previous regulations, but under the proposed rules any potential
financial conflicts must be disclosed along with the application.
Note: Reporting requirements would exclude income from seminars, lectures, teaching, and service on advisory or review
panels for government agencies or institutions of higher education.
• Web disclosure required. Institutions would now be required to develop a publicly accessible Web site to display
“significant financial interests of their faculty” and other institution members. Collins said this will give “the public … a clear
pathway toward identifying what kinds of arrangements have been made.” The goal is to increase transparency.
Collins admitted the proposed rules would increase the regulatory burden on PIs.
“[E]ven though these proposed new rules may provide some burden to the investigator and to the institutions in terms of
additional reporting requirements, we believe that it is essential to tighten up the situation [and] be sure that we are obtaining
and maintaining the public trust and the integrity of the scientific enterprise,” said Collins.
Info: “Responsibility of Applicants for Promoting Objectivity in Research for which PHS Funding is Sought and
Responsible Prospective Contractors,” was published in the Federal Register of May 21. Public comments last until July 21.
Proposed rule is here: http://www.federalregister.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2010-11885_PI.pdf. Submit comments here: http://
www.regulations.gov. n

How 6 Scenarios Play Out Under NIH’s Proposed
New Conflict-of-Interest Rules
As the National Institutes of Health (NIH) moves toward tougher new regulations for disclosing PIs’ conflicts of interest
(COI), how would those rules apply in typical situations?
Among the proposed changes:
• lowering the threshold of reporting
• changing the timing of reporting, and
• making the institution, not the PI, responsible for disclosing conflicts of interest to the NIH and requiring each institution
to develop a publicly accessible Web site to display significant financial interests of faculty.
Here are six common scenarios and how they would play out under these new rules:
1. Small equity state in start-up
A biomedical research PI gets a small-equity stake in a venture-capital-funded, high-tech start-up, based on the
intellectual property (IP) he or she has provided. The company estimates three to five years of research and development
(R&D) is required before it can bring a product to market. Will the PI have to disclose this to her institution as a significant
financial interest under the proposed regulations?
Yes. Under the new rules, any equity stake whatsoever in a privately held company must be disclosed to the PI’s institution,
assuming that the start-up’s R&D is related to the PI’s institutional duties. The threshold for reporting is zero, said Dr. Sally
Rockey, NIH deputy director for extramural research, in a recent press briefing.
Note: Although this financial interest must be disclosed, the institution, under the new regulations, may choose not to
disclose it publicly. However, that decision is subject to NIH review.
2. Publicly traded stock plus consulting
A chemistry PI receives $3,000 in consulting fees from a chemical company, and her husband has $2,500 worth of
publicly traded stock in the same company (valued from date of disclosure). Assuming her consulting is related to her
institutional duties, will she have to disclose this to her institution under the proposed regulations?
Yes. The threshold for reporting significant financial interests is $5,000, covering PIs and spouses (in this case, $3,000
in consulting + $2,500 stock = $5,500.). The threshold was $10,000 under the old regulations. Note: If the PI’s spouse had no
stock, then the PI wouldn’t have to disclose this info because her consulting work falls short of the $5,000 threshold.

3. Expected cutbacks in consulting fees
A computer-science PI received $12,000 during the previous 12 months in consulting fees for a software company but,
because of the economic downturn, he expects those fees to drop substantially in the next 12 months — perhaps to $4,000.
Under the proposed regulations, will he have to disclose this?
Yes. The timing now concerns the previous 12 months of actual payment, not the expected payments over the next 12
months as under the current rules. He can revisit his disclosure in the following year if his financial interest changes.
4. Privately sponsored lectures at universities
A biotech PI is asked to give a lecture at another university and will be paid $5,000 to prepare and deliver a presentation.
It’s part of a lecture series sponsored by a biomedical-device manufacturer. The PI’s institution is assisting the manufacturer in
clinical trials. Will this have to be disclosed under the proposed rules?
Yes, the PI must disclose it to the institution, which will have to decide whether this constitutes a financial COI. The new
rules have exemptions for lectures, seminars, or teaching on advisory or review panels for government or universities. If the
lecture is sponsored by anyone else — say a private company or nonprofit — that triggers disclosure requirements. The PI is
responsible for knowing if a lecture is privately sponsored, said Rockey.
Note: Institutional policy and state law may have even lower thresholds for reporting. California, for example, has a $500
threshold for honoria.
5. Commercialization of research
An experimental gene-therapy PI forms a company to commercialize his university research. The NIH is funding a study at
the university in which patients can receive his experimental gene treatment as a last-ditch hope at survival. Does he need to
disclose this under the new rules?
Yes. He has an equity stake (even if it has no value at the moment of disclosure) in a privately held company related to his
institutional duties. Thus, he must disclose his interests, both to the patients and to his institution. And even under the existing
rules, he’d have to disclose it to both because he expects to profit commercially from his research.
6. Consulting, disclosed to university
A physics PI consults for a green-energy nonprofit funded partially with NIH money and receives regular payments
that add up to more than $5,000 per year. The PI’s institution is working on experiments that may have significant value
– someday – to the green energy industry. The PI discloses his consulting arrangement to his university, which determines
that the research is at such an early stage that it presents no real conflict this year. Is the PI at risk under the new rules if
the institution decides not to disclose this interest to the NIH?
No. Under the new rules, the institution, not the PI, is responsible for disclosing potential conflicts of interest. The PI met his
responsibilities by disclosing the arrangement, accurately, to his institution. His university will have to document its rationale and
present that info if the NIH decides to review its records. If NIH disagrees, it may withhold funding until the matter is cleared up. n

Federal Agencies with SBIR Programs
Department of Agriculture: http://www.csrees.usda.gov/funding/sbir/sbir.html
Department of Defense: http://www.acq.osd.mil/osbp/sbir/
Department of Education: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sbir/index.html
Department of Energy: http://www.science.doe.gov/sbir/
Department of Health and Human Services (NIH, CDC, FDA, AHRQ, NCI): http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/sbir.htm
Department of Homeland Security: https://www.sbir.dhs.gov/
Department of Transportation: http://www.volpe.dot.gov/sbir/
Environmental Protection Agency: http://www.epa.gov/ncerqa/sbir/
NASA: http://sbir.gsfc.nasa.gov/SBIR/SBIR.html
National Science Foundation: http://www.nsf.gov/eng/iip/sbir/ n

P.I. Questions With Expert Comments and Reader Responses
Principal Investigators Association has received hundreds of Reader Questions from researchers in all fields of science concerning
grant or funding dilemmas frequently faced by PIs. We arranged for these to be answered or commented upon by national experts.
Then, additional comments are posted by respondents from our wide audience to enhance the value of the exchange. Our editors
have selected from our 2010 archive the most-helpful grant related submissions, expert comments, and responders’ posts.
Principal Investigators Association does not endorse or guarantee accuracy of the comments.

Certain Times of the Year When It’s More Advantageous to
Submit Grant Proposal?
Expert Comments by Christopher Francklyn, PhD
Reader Question
I’m about ready to submit my first grant application, and I’m concerned about the fierce competition. A colleague tells me
I might have a better chance if I wait until right before the coming holidays because there are fewer applications then. Is she
correct? Are one’s chances of success really better at certain times of the year?
Expert Comments
The stock answer from the National Institutes of Health and other granting agencies is that the timing of the submission
of your proposal should be driven by the quality of the science — by perceived differences in the success rate as a function of
the grant cycle.
An outstanding proposal will always attract strong consideration for funding no matter what time of the year it is received,
while a fundamentally weak one likely will go unfunded, regardless of its submit time in the cycle.
So you should submit your application as soon as your ideas are fully developed, capable of being clearly presented, and
well supported by convincing preliminary data.
That being said, for grants that score near the percentile cutoff between funded and non-funded, timing can make a
difference. One is unlikely to achieve a substantially better success rate by trying to “game the system,” but it can be helpful
to understand how the budget and grant submission cycles relate, particularly with regard to understanding that different
submission dates might be associated with different time intervals to a final decision for funding from a given institute.
All principal investigators should be aware that there are three distinct NIH submission and review cycles in a given fiscal
year: Cycle I (new RO1 due Feb. 5), Cycle II (new RO1 due date June 5), and Cycle III (new RO1 due date Oct. 5). Scientific
review typically occurs four to five months after the receipt date, with Advisory Council review occurring approximately three
months after the initial review group.
Awards take another few months to process once council has met. Against the backdrop of the Submission and Review
cycle is the NIH fiscal year, which formally starts Oct. 1.
However, Congress rarely completes the appropriation process on time, meaning that NIH and other government
agencies often are compelled to operate into the next calendar year under a “continuing resolution,” which constitutes the stop-
gap measure of using the previous year’s budget as an estimate.
Until the various institutes receive their actual year’s budget, they may operate using “provisional” paylines, funding only
the very best grants and holding many good grants in the “fundable” pile until the budget is approved.
Accordingly, if your grant receives a score that is near the payline, your decisions about whether a revised proposal should be
submitted could be influenced by which cycle you are in, and whether the institute has an authorized budget for the fiscal year.

The National Institutes for Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) has a nice table at http://funding.niaid.nih.gov/
researchfunding/grant/pages/default.aspx that explains how timing issues impact funding and resubmission decisions. (While
this applies to NIAID, I think it may be generalized to other institutes.)
Applications submitted in Cycle 1 have the disadvantage that they make it through Initial Review and Council before
the fiscal year starts in Oct. 1, so if your score is less than stellar you will likely have to wait until the following spring to get a
clear funding decision. One advantage of this cycle is that you will get your reviews in time for a submission in Cycle 3 (Oct. 5
deadline), which means that your revised grant has the opportunity to get funded in the same fiscal year.
If your grant is submitted in Cycle 2, you may have a shorter time interval to a firm funding decision because a budget will
be in place by the time council review occurs. However, if a resubmission is necessary, you’ll have to go in at Cycle 1 of the
next fiscal year (see above).
Cycle 3 has the clear advantage that, once you get the score, the institute payline (unless you are in the National Institute
of General Medical Science) may have been established, giving you a clear picture on likely success. If the grant has to be
resubmitted, it would go in at Cycle 2 of the following fiscal year.
As noted above, any decisions about resubmissions should be driven by the science, and the time required to generate
a significantly improved application. With the limited number of resubmissions now available, every grant submitted should be
the best you can produce: there is really no leeway anymore, and sending in a half-developed idea merely to solicit feedback
from reviewers is really counterproductive.
Christopher Francklyn, PhD, is a former study section chair and veteran reviewer for NIH and NSF study sections. He is
a professor at the University of Vermont.
Reader’s responses
Associate Professor — written by ml

If you have a high-quality proposal, it will get strong consideration whenever it’s submitted, and one that is flawed or weak likely
will not be funded regardless of when submitted. However, timing might make some difference for those applications that score
just above the cutoff point. The funding process follows three cycles, for apps received by Feb. 5, June 5, and Oct. 5. If you visit the
National Institute for Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Web site, there’s a table that explains how timing can affect some
funding and resubmission decisions. Similar scenarios probably work for other agencies within the National Institutes of Health.
Associate Professor — written by Observer

I would ignore the issue of timing...lots of other factors play MUCH bigger roles in getting funded than which cycle you
submit your proposal in. I would anticipate the best time is when your publications relating to the proposal are available as
“advance online publications” for the reviewers such that you can cite your latest results before they’ve become “stale” and
build your proposal from there. The new R01 page limits also will force many to submit grants AFTER their preliminary data is
published, or at least available online. In my opinion this favors established investigators relative to new investigators. n

The Rookie PI
When Is the Best Time to Apply for One’s First Grant?
Expert Comments by Morgan Giddings, PhD
Reader Question
I have been told by my university that I need to apply for a grant to fund my research, but how do I know when I am ready
to to do so? How much preliminary data do I need?
Expert Comments
Some claim that you need to have already “done the work” before you can write a grant proposal. Others counsel
submitting the preliminary research first. While the latter approach has been used successfully, it is quite problematic for a new
faculty member, since they won’t have access to a lot of preliminary data.
My first successful R01 proposal as an independent investigator was one for which I already had one paper in the area
as an independent scientist, and I had obtained some additional preliminary data subsequent to that. Having the publication in
a high-profile journal added to my credibility. Subsequently, I’ve had proposals funded without as much preliminary data, but
I already had a track record in the field, which to some extent substituted for data. From these experiences, I can boil it down
to a fairly simple rule: Either you should have one or more publications worth of preliminary data, or you should have been
working in the field long enough to establish a clear track record.
Most new investigators will be in the first category. If so, do you submit your proposal before having a publication, or
do you wait until your article is accepted for a journal? This will depend on your budgetary situation. But if you have the
time, the latter course gives you the extra credibility of being an independent investigator. The new NIH rules allow only one
resubmission of a proposal that fails to get funded the first time. Therefore you will want to maximize your chances of initial
success. Having an accepted paper helps.
If you are in a situation where you have budgetary pressures causing you to apply for funding before having a published
paper, then you should tell a very strong story in the required sections on your background and training, along with what
preliminary data you’ve already acquired.
I estimate that the typical timing on this will be 1.5 to two years from starting up an independent lab, though that will
vary. Young investigators often think they can get going quickly (I did!), but just obtaining all the supplies and recruiting
good personnel can take six months. Then it often takes six months to a year or more to produce worthwhile data. And
for many journals, the publication cycle takes at least another six months after submission, review, revision, re-review,
acceptance, and proofing.
It is important to keep this long timetable in mind in planning whether and when to apply for funding. If you are getting to
within six to eight months of when funding will run out, you may have to go ahead and apply without a publication, as long as
you have enough preliminary data that you’ll be submitting something soon.

For NIH proposals, the new format may assist young investigators. There is no longer an explicit “preliminary results”
section into which senior investigators can put reams of data. Instead, the preliminaries are directly incorporated into the
“Approach” section, along with the research you will be doing. I suggest that that you clearly state each aim, convey what
you’ve already done to prove its feasibility, then present what you will do.
Bottom line: All investigators — rookies and veterans — must market their science and their capabilities very effectively in
a grant proposal in order to get funding.
Comments by Morgan Giddings, PhD, associate professor of microbiology & immunology, biomedical engineering, and
computer science at the University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill. She also advises young scientists on maximizing their career,
along with providing a free report on five tips to a successful science career on her blog at http://morganonscience.com.
When to apply for an R01 — written by Newbie

Thank you, as junior faculty myself I have been puzzling over this question recently. I was given advice somewhat vague
advice from a mentor to just go for it asap. Thank you for the clarity on what feels like a rather opaque process to those of us
who haven’t obtained that first R01 yet. It is nice to have some guidelines in terms of how to proceed.
New PhD — written by Ambitious

Love the advice. But I’ve also been told “off the record” that it’s a good idea to get to know the Program Officer or similar
official at the granting agency. This is fine for the “old guard” who probably has been meeting these folks at conventions, etc.
But how does a neophyte break into this “circle” and get his/her name and face known as an enthusiastic entrant to the field?
Getting to know program officers and R-21 — written by Kim Wallen

The advice given is appropriate for an R01, but young faculty need a foot in the door. That’s the purpose of an R-21 which
explicitly does not require preliminary data. It can provide significant funding for two years and gives the new faculty a chance
to prove themselves. Don’t feel that an R01 is the only grant that counts as funding, the R-21 is a great door opener.
As for getting to know program officers, my advice is to do it. When one is considering an R-21 proposal, contact program
officers in different programs to see whether your ideas fit with that program. Program officers are a great resource to tailor
your work to better fit the program interests in research. Remember that the success of the program officer is the quality of
their portfolio. They have a vested interest in identifying the best talent who pursue projects that fit with the program. They want
to talk to you and help shape your proposal to fit their program’s goals. I have found in the last couple of years that there has
been a sea change in NIH and program officers are more responsive than ever. They are a great resource for new faculty.
R-21 — written by Newbie

I recently submitted an R-21 and the reviewers asked for preliminary data. I am now collecting pilot data for my
submission of a pilot application. I was told not to believe that you don’t need preliminary data for an R-21 by both the program
officer and my colleagues.
written by Kim Wallen

This issue concerning R21s came up on a recent review panel I was on. Reviewing practices, unfortunately, change
slowly. One reviewer requested preliminary data, but others pointed out that it was not required. The reviewer’s score didn’t
change after this as pointed out, but the panel’s scores differed substantially from that reviewer’s score after the discussion.
I think reality is that if one is proposing something technically extremely difficult to achieve, then one will have to provide
evidence that they can do that technical feat. I am disappointed to hear that program officers are counseling that pilot data are
needed for pilot projects. That sort of defeats the purpose of the R21 mechanism. Locally, I have seen an R-21 funded without
pilot data, but I have also seen others that have had pilot data.
What qualifies as pilot data does seem to be different in R21 applications. It is often any evidence that one can do what
they claim to be able to do and not necessarily completed research findings.
Prof — written by Bill

I want to reiterate the importance of talking with POs on the phone before writing. They are an invaluable source of
information. I am amazed as a reviewer how much stuff comes in that is simply not responsive to the program announcement
(PA) -- if this comes from some hotshot senior guy than sometimes they get away with it but if not ...
In a recent successful submission that I did along with a new investigator (who is PI on it), we heard back informally that
we were the only really responsive group and noted that the other groups were all headed by senior people.
In this context note that it will be important to at some point give up the dream of always doing whatever you want to
(unless you’re a Galileo) and become more aware of what the institutes want (i.e. the PAs)
Thanks again — written by Newbie

This has been quite helpful. My area is technology heavy and the reviewer wanted to see a pub or two published that
used the specific method I had proposed for the study, so this may explain their response.

written by Another junior researcher
I too have heard of expectations for pilot work for R-21s. If not required, at least recommended to demonstrate some initial
work related to the aims. However, we have the 6 pages limit - how do you write all the required elements with enough detail
AND add a short summary of pilot work? n

Grant Clinic
Mention Contradictory Data in Application?
Expert Comments by William Gerin, PhD
Reader Question
We are in the process of applying for a grant to extend promising preliminary results. But should we also include mention of
some contradictory data we found? This would demonstrate we did extra hours of work, but will it undercut our chances for funding?
Expert Comments
As to the “extra” hours of work you put in, nobody cares. Only results count.
The first purpose in presenting preliminary data is to demonstrate feasibility and that you have the necessary expertise
to carry out the procedures you propose in the Research Methods section. I believe it doesn’t matter if you have some
contradictory results, or even that the data you are describing were collected for other purposes in a different study. The focus
in this section is not on the results per se, but on the fact that you were successfully able to collect and analyze the data.
But pilot data, showing positive results, are potent evidence. They indicate that you are on the right track. The reviewers will
weight this heavily. There are subtleties to reporting these, however. The possible variations involve (1) primacy of the outcomes;
(2) positive/null/negative results; and (3) statistical power of your pilot study to detect effects. Here are the possibilities:
Implications of preliminary results

Positive/Null/
Statistical
Negative Implications
Power
Results
Reviewer may wonder why you need to conduct the proposed study
Positive Adequate
since you already have strong support
The biggest potential problem. You failed to detect effects although
Null/ Negative Adequate
had adequate power to do so
Your most desirable pilot outcome. Because power was not adequate
to detect effects, presumably your statistical test for this outcome was
Positive Inadequate
not significant (if it is, one must suspect chance); thus, you are on the
right track: The results bear the replication you propose
A problem, but can be addressed. Inadequate power implies that
Null/ Negative Inadequate difference between means is not to be believed, probable result of
chance. However, don’t overstate, is certainly not a positive.

The main problem is the null result in your primary outcome. If your sample size was small, and power inadequate, this
isn’t necessarily fatal - but it will require careful wording when you write the section.
One would not necessarily mention the statistical power in pilot data; the reviewer will get a hint of it from the sample size.
Remember that in a small sample, even a single outlier will kill your significance.
Next scenario: Null results. One can never prove the null hypothesis, so it doesn’t matter how big the sample size may
be, there could always be other reasons for the null results. However, the reviewer is probably going to believe that result and
penalize you for it.
Another strategy would be to run a new, quick-and-dirty pilot. The limitation is whether you have the time and resources
(and inclination) to do so. And, do you have any reason to think your results will turn out differently?
Let me close on a controversial note. You decide what to report - and what not to. In circumstances like yours, some will
bend the rules (note I do not say “break”). A common strategy is to design the study to address several outcomes, in hopes
that at least a few will work out (known as “fishing”, not a compliment). Further, you may simply omit mention of null results.
However, don’t underestimate the intelligence of your reviewers for spotting such maneuvers.
Expert comments by William Gerin, Ph.D., Professor of Biobehavioral Health, Pennsylvania State University.
Author, Writing the NIH Grant Proposal: A Step-by-Step Guide, SAGE Books (2006)
written by Bryan Dickerson

While the author makes many good points about statistics and the perception of results by a reviewer, I dissagree with
the suggestion to omit contradictory results. At Luna, we have found it very important to maintain long-term relationships of
trust with our sponsors and with reviewers, and this includes showing or mentioning key problematic results. If I am aware
of potential problems with our proposed approach, I prefer to present this data as well as the supporting results. Of course
it is then prudent to discuss how we plan to design experiments and research to address the potential problems with a new
technology, and to get to the truth of the situation. Careful experiments should be able to isolate variables to determine under
what conditions the proposed technology can be successful. This effort towards unbiased communication builds trust and
helps to mitigate unrealistic expectations from a sponsor. Then if problems arise during a project, there was informed consent
and a forewarning of potential risks. In summary, I believe that addressing problematic results has a better long-term effect
than hiding them.
written by Grant Veteran

Be careful. Too many contradictory results piled upon each other confuses what is contradiction and what is supposedly
being contradicted.


written by Dr. Sue
Suggest clarify those contradictory results before applying for the grant. May improve chances for being funded. Or even
lead to a better discovery instead of your “encouraging results”.
written by Laurel Cooley, November 05, 2009
These implications of preliminary results seem to only apply to studies using statistical analysis. It does not address
preliminary results in qualitative research, which the NSF program officers state is encouraged as well.
written by Dr. Ledbetter

One of the main problems facing science is the lack of discussion of negative/null results. This often leads to others repeating
work that fails, wasted resources and deters scientific progression. I believe it is fine to introduce the contradictory data to start the
section and then lead into what you had done to generate the confirmatory data that supports your hypothesis. n

Grant Clinic
What Are Pros, Cons of Seeking SBIR Grant vs. the RO1?
Reader Question
I have been told that a research project I would like to submit is appropriate for the Small Business Innovative Research
grant mechanism. What are the advantages and disadvantages to submitting an SBIR application rather than an R01?
Expert Comments
Most of us who seek grants are asking for funding to study one or more basic scientific questions that may or may not
have direct implications for translation. Translation is the current expression that is used for what used to be called “bench-to-
bedside” or “technology transfer”. These areas are sometimes termed “applied research” or “industrial research”.
SBIR funding can be utilized for many fields and specialties of research, but to focus our discussion I will consider here
the “health and medicine” area with emphasis on National Health Institute (NIH) as funder.
Keep in mind that all proposals are about public-health concerns, no matter how basic they may be: If they don’t address
a health problem that is of concern in the United States, Congress has no interest in funding it, and the NIH is quite sensitive
to the wishes of Congress, as you might imagine.
Thus, all science, from the bottom up, is useful to the extent that it eventually leads to an intervention, whether
pharmaceutical, surgical, device-driven, or behavioral.
Translation is the watchword at NIH these days, and with excellent reason: If there is no intervention that is sustainable
(i.e., that outlasts the funding period), there isn’t much point to any of it. So, NIH is very concerned about sustainable
interventions and holds the attitude, correctly in my opinion, that if nobody’s making money there’s no intervention.
The SBIR and STTR (Small Business Technology Transfer) mechanisms address this issue. The focus of these awards is
slightly different from that of the research mechanisms such as R01 or R21 or Program Projects in that, with the SBIR and STTR
mechanisms, the researcher is interested in testing a particular product for the purpose of marketing it. Thus, if one developed a
new blood-pressure monitor, physicians would want to know that the monitors had been validated in a patient population.
The product may be a medical device, a patentable animal model, or a behavioral intervention that can be packaged, but the
essence of the SBIR and STTR award mechanisms is that they are expected to lead to something useful, marketable and profitable.
Most researchers tend not to think this way (although in some fields, such as the hunt for the magic gene that will cure
a particular illness, that isn’t the case, by a large margin). But you can see that, in the interests of an intervention that is
sustainable, one that is available to the public for its intended purpose (and presumably has been validated by the science for
which you are requesting funds), capitalism is on the side of the angels.
A project that is suitable for a research grant — say, an R01 — may differ only slightly from one that is appropriate for the
SBIR/STTR awards. Here is an example: Several years ago, I was funded with an RO1 to study the effect of controlled breathing.

We were using a particular device — call it “RR” (respiration reducer) — but we were not testing the effects of the RR
in particular, but rather the scientific question. RR just happened to be one of several devices we were using; the focus was
decidedly not on that particular one.
If a researcher wanted to work with the company that manufactures the device, that is a slightly different focus, and is thus
suitable for an SBIR or STTR. (The differences between the SBIR and STTR are very subtle (see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/
funding/sbir.htm).
One caution: start up a company, submit the grant application, get funded, go into business, and retire a whole lot better
off financially than your university or hospital pension is going to leave you sounds easy. But know that the business part is
problematic. Most of us are in scientific research for a reason, and running a business is a very different proposition than
devising and conducting experiments. I have ideas I’d like to commercialize, but have realized that I would be no good at the
business end. Plus, I like what I’m doing.
Finding a business person who wants to partner up with you is a possibility, but I have found this to be difficult as well,
although not impossible.
If you decide to pursue the SBIR route, I wish you good fortune. Without these efforts, we lose the benefit of all the good
work that came before.
Comments by William Gerin, PhD, P.I. e-Alert’s chief grants consultant, professor of biobehavioral health, Pennsylvania
State University, and author of Writing the NIH Grant Proposal: A Step-by-Step Process (SAGE Books, 2006)
The preceding information is of necessity general in nature and may not apply to every case: obtain professional advice
for your particular situation.
Collegiate Professor — written by G. Dressler

One thing to know also is that SBIR grants are significantly less money and are usually only 2 years compared to the
4-5 year R01. At least when I was reviewing for NIH the SBIR were not percentiled among with R01s so the funding rate may
be higher. It all depends on the amount of money the institutes have laying around. SBIRs also require a business plan and
market review, something that we as PIs are not used to doing. As an academic, your institutions almost always prefer the
R01s because they come with the indirect costs attached. That is a big plus for your Department and School.
VP Research, William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, MI; Assoc Dean Research, Oakland Univ. William Beaumont School of
Medicine — written by David Felten
In my experience, there is a HUGE difference between an RO1 and an SBIR. While both types of grants may seek scientific
information, the former is an academic exercise, peer reviewed almost entirely by academics who have very little business
experience, and the latter is peer reviewed by entrepreneurs with scientific expertise. The SBIR is not a grant to expand our

scientific knowledge- it is a mechanism for launching a serious business- the business plan is more important than the scientific
mechanistic discussions. Unfortunately, most academics are virtually clueless when it comes to setting up a business or seeking
funding, but are reluctant to let go of their IP idea to anyone other than themselves. The SBIR needs to lead to a viable product
(not just an idea or a journal publication) that can quickly enter the marketplace (hence the translational aspect) and make a
profit. The RO1 is subject to very intense scrutiny (and criticism) for a variety of perceived flaws, usually along the lines of typical
academic nay saying and “why don’t you- yet but”, while the SBIR is subject to intense scrutiny (and criticism) for having every
i dotted and t crossed in establishing the business plan and executing it. This comparative topic would make an excellent round
table discussion from people who have been successful in each, and from some who have been successful in both.
CETO, Bishanti Corporation, An advance Technology Company, Portland, OR, Formerly Professor, Center Director & Head of
School — written by Ashutosh Sharma “Bhraguvanshi”
Professors Gerin, Dressler and Felton have provided excellent explanation as to the difference between the RO1 and
SBIR grant mechanisms. I would add a little more to it as RO1 and SBIR/STTR are two entirely different mechanisms of
funding and are designed to target unique audience: academic and commercial entrepreneurial. SBIR addresses a well
defined need of the agency supporting it while as the ROI uses the broad scope of the agencies mission. Both mechanisms
must respect the congressional wish - like it or not. As an academic RO1 will be a collaboration lead by you whereas the SBIR/
STTR projects must be led by commercial researchers. RO1 almost certainly will not deliver any product while as a successful
SBIR or STTR must develop a marketable product/piece of information, etc, which is of use to the funding agency.
In my experience, statement by Professor Felton is a bit misleading as the SBIR is not a mechanism for launching
business; rather it is a mechanism to support/encourage business or individuals to use their base and expertise to solve
agency specific problems in technology and product need. Strictly speaking you do not have to be a scientist/engineer to write,
bid and win a SBIR grant while as for applying for the RO1 one must have a university position. RO1 on the other end simply
supports the curiosity of human mind to explore and understand new concepts and applications of existing ones, and develop
almost nothing as a commercially viable product. RO1 time frame of work delivery is flexible and is decided by the project.
SBIR and STTR program work schedules are time bound and must follow the Phase 1, Phase II and Phase III approach
which are well defined and documented (visit www.sbir.gov for details). With right product and agency SBIR/STTR can be very
rewarding experience. It can allow several million dollars support, in multiple stages, as research and product supply contracts.
President — written by Marcy Harris

Collegiate Professor--Our company has received a number of SBIR grants. They also allow overhead expenses in SBIR’s
and the rates are determined, in our case, by DCAA and contracts since we are Defense Contractors.
Will someone please fill me in on what an RO1 or R 21 is? We are currently working on a very large project with University
involvement. Perhaps it might be appropriate to look to one of the above for funding. The needs exceed the SBIR/STTR likely limits.

Direct approps from Congress also can work out very well for either a University or Business if the project has implications
that will benefit Americans as a whole. Check it out with your local Representatives and Senators.

CETO--We’ve had a number of SBIR’s and have yet to submit a business plan beyond just a short statement regarding
a problem the agency is having, what is wrong with the current approach and how our approach might be better to solve
the problem. Then a budget is submitted showing how the money will be spent. A little info on the technical team is usually
requested but virtually none on the management team nor on the ways we intend to commercialize. This might be different in
other agencies. Our work has been with DOE and DOD.

I think I answered my own question. Seems R01’s and R-21’s are only available to those seeking NIH funding and that
would not be us. If you have other information please advise.
President and CEO, MetaMedia Training International, Inc. — written by Thomas Held
We have received a number of SBIR Phase I, Phase II, and Fast track grants through NIH. Commercialization is a major
factor and a strong business plan is required to obtain Phase II funding. We’re in the process of commercializing/marketing two
products and that is a difficult undertaking. We have found that the key to a successful grant application is to concentrate on
the significance of the problem, strong principle investigator(s), and a true innovative approach to the problem. Peer reviewed
publications do not appear to be a factor since they contribute little to the bottom line (note-profits) of small businesses.
I would also like more information about R01 and R21 since we are not familiar with those programs. My understanding
about the STTR program is a requirement to team with an academic institution for content and subject matter expertise. I
believe that eventual ownership of the final program would pose an issue.
CEO & CSO — written by Joel MacAuslan

We have had several SBIR & STTR projects, and a few others, almost all from NIH. A few comments that might be helpful:
(1) The contrasts in this article are quite specific to NIH. NIH supports work through grants, even for SBIRs/STTRs. It does
not expect to procure products from these projects (very much UNlike DoD).
(2) The STTR mechanism can be a good solution to some of the personality-type/career choices here. Specifically, it
allows the PI to be an academic even while the small business receives & administers the grant and has the commercialization
responsibility. (From our own experience, which has been mostly successful & productive, with a few academics working with
us over many grants, I think of STTRs as “Rent-a-PI”! ;-)

(3) The NIH funding limits for SBIRs/STTRs have been substantially raised, although they are still -- usually -- somewhat
smaller than R01s, and the time interval is still usually 3-5 years for both Phase 1 & Phase 2 combined.
(4) The funding rate for Phase 1’s is usually 20-30%, about 2x that of R01’s, although this varies by Institute and
somewhat by year. The rate for the Phase 2’s that follow them is typically 40-50%. (Thus, a small-budget entry to the SBIR
world is easier than for R01’s, although the overall probability of funding for all 3-5 years is similar to that for a full 5-year R01,
or perhaps a little less.
(5) Universities have normally collected full overhead (indirect costs) from subcontracts/consortium agreements on our
grants. Recently, however, some have taken to subsidizing Phase 1’s by collecting no overhead on them. (I do not know if this
reflect pressure from NIH.) They still expect to get the overhead for the much larger Phase 2’s. The big difference for them is
that they only administer -- and collect overhead on -- say, 1/3 of the total budget for a single SBIR/STTR, whereas they would
typically handle the entire budget for a single R01.
(6) Some for-profit companies do get R01 funding, though I do not know the details. (We have never tried.) The NIH party
line is that they support this; however, I do not know if the external peer reviewers, who are overwhelmingly academics and
who act as gatekeepers, hold companies to higher standards than universities when it comes to R01s.
Professor of Biomaterials at a University Health Science Center — written by Barry K. Norling

I’d like to add a couple of clarification to the previous comments. SBIRs and STTRs are commercial enterprise based
grants. The differences are usually boiled down into one consideration for an academic. An SBIR PI must be at least a 51%
employee of the company. This limitation can present severe roadblocks for academics who may wish to work with a company
on an SBIR. The primary problem is usually the university’s policy on retention of tenure when one goes part-time. For the
STTR, a faculty member may be the PI.
Second point: unlike RO1 and R21 grants SBIR and STTR grants have three phases. Phase 1 -- with a limited time period
and smaller funding limits -- is usually a “proof of concept” period. Thus it is remote from considerations of commercialization
although there needs to be clear evidence that success would lead in that direction. Phase 2 involves a longer time period
and substantially higher funding limits. This is the development phase when the proven concept is refined to the point that it is
commercializable. Phase 3 is the commercialization phase and --somewhat paradoxically -- involves no federal funding.
Research Director, Abratech Corp; Prof. Emeritus, UCSF — written by Don L. Jewett
Here are some ideas not mentioned so far:
1. Check with the Program Officers about funding rates for R01, and SBIR. A small Institute may have committed in prior
cycles to several large Phase II’s, and thus might not be able to fund a Phase I.
2. The SBIR application length is now 6 pages. R01 is twice this.
3. The Phase I SBIR allows “proof of principle” which will NOT get funded as an R01, since the Study Section only
supports “sure things”.

4. The Phase I does not need an extensive business plan, but the plan for a Phase II can be several pages.
5. An SBIR award allows for preferential purchases from Govt. Agencies.
6. Commercialization of an idea may spread the technique FASTER than waiting for others to cite and then start using a
really good idea.
Professor, Vanderbilt University — written by Mark Boothby

“Thus, all science, from the bottom up, is useful to the extent that it eventually leads to an intervention, whether
pharmaceutical, surgical, device-driven, or behavioral.”
Good heavens, in seeing this line written by a PhD in relation to the overall scope of NIH funding, I am reminded of
the old line from Pogo: “We have met the enemy and they is us.” Sadly, some in the NIH are leaning too strongly toward the
mistaken notion embedded in this sentence, but oddly enough even Congress tends to recognize the essential need for basic
investigations that, individually, might not lead to an intervention. [A recent report from the Majority Staff of the Joint Economic
Committee of Congress is a good point of reference on this front.]
At the time of inception from basic curiosity, the aggregate of research has proven to lead to most of our biggest
interventional breakthroughs, and the government is far more open to funding such curiosity-driven research that leads either
to our biggest breakthroughs, or nowhere other than training further scientists.
The R01 (and exploratory / developmental R21) represent investigator-initiated, non-programmatic grants the reflect the
insight that central directorates of science (or industry) simply can’t predict what the breakthrough ideas will be, or even the
key next steps in solidifying fundamental insights.
The SBIR/STTR set-aside program (5% of NIH, NSF, etc research budgets by law) exists to catalyze cases where a
concept could be taken to the step of generating a product or service that a company could sell, in those cases (far far less
common in medical arena, where the costs of clinical trials, FDA regulatory oversight, etc are so high) where tech transfer
mechanisms & partnership with biotech companies or pharma / device manufacturers won’t work or seems less desirable.
CEO & General Manager, SBIR Resource Center® * — written by John Davis
Wow! I hardly know where to begin considering all the misinformation being presented on this one.
OK. Let’s just start with the original question: “What Are Pros, Cons of Seeking SBIR Grant vs. the RO1”
ANSWER: The RO1 is an NIH-peculiar designation for one class of grant usually focused on investigator-initiated basic
research projects to advance medical, bio-science or human services technologies. There is no requirement for, or expectation
of, presenting a business plan or pathway to market for these grants as they presuppose (but are not limited to) applicants
from academia and non-profit research organizations.
The SBIR Phase I/II carries the R43/R44 designation and STTR the R41/R42 designation. These classes of grant are
intended to fund investigator-initiated applications research which, if successful, SHOULD, and are EXPECTED TO, lead to
commercialized products or services in the medical and/or socials services markets. Winning these requires, or should require,

convincing the application reviewers of the likely commercialization of the funded research. If one has no such intention,
propensity or capability, then they clearly should not apply under these designations.
More generally at the heart of the matter, SBIR and its poorer cousin STTR, are not really “research “ programs but
“economic development “ programs beginning with research which are intended to create jobs, wealth and tax revenues.
If all one wishes to do is feed their research habit, but not form/expand and operate a business, then they really have no
business “playing” with SBIR/STTR and should stick to R01, R21; and a few of the other designations available depending
on their situation. To date, NIH still has not fully come to grips with this commercialization issue, but is steadily moving toward
embracing it properly. Thus, if you are a good researcher but not in possession of strong entrepreneurial tendencies, SBIR and
STTR awards should be quite hard to win.
In recognition of the economic development goals of SBIR/STTR, the authorizing law imbues the awardees with many
very valuable incentives, in the form of business advantages, to induce them to commercialize. Among these are the conferring
of sole-source marketing advantages, in every corner (not just the awarding agency) of the federal government, for life, no
dollar, time or size limits – ever. We even see SBIR “down-select” (sole source) awards in the hundreds of millions of dollars to
SBIR firms years after their original SBIR work. Such advantages are available from no other pathway, not even 8(a) Service
Disable Veterans, Woman-Owned enterprises and certainly not via R01/R21.
Further, SBIR offers more that $2 billion in awards annually via 11 federal agencies while STTR offers about $500 million
at just 6 agencies. STTR requires significant collaboration with a nonprofit research institution, while SBIR merely allows
such collaboration. These numbers are far in excess of those awarded via the R01/R21, but Phase I/II of SBIR/STTRs are
limited to $150,000/$1,000,000 and 6/24 months per project (some exceptions apply), while R01/R21 have no such limitations
(individual RFA’s may impose limits as NIH sees fit).
These are still not all of the differences between R01/R21 and SBIR/STTR but covers the major ones, from our
perspective. I hope this helps you, not only at NIH, but with a better understanding of the larger SBIR/STTR programs in
general. I would be happy to discuss additional information with you off-line at 410-315-8101 or SBIR@sbir.us.
* The SBIR Center has been America’s leading provider of business development (award capture) resources -- tools,
training and personal services -- to the SBIR ans STTR communities since 1993. John Davis provides SBIR training seminars
to hundreds of potential applicants via at least 25 seminars across America annually. The SBIR Center can be found at sbir.us
on the Web.
Associate Vice President for Research and Economic Development, University of Maryland — written by Brian Darmody
I agree with John Davis on the fundamental differences between R01 and SBIR opportunities. It would be unusual for a
principal investigator to be given a choice between filing for one or the other since they have very different missions.
However, one new pilot NIH program that might be relevant is the SHIFT (Small Businesses Helping Investigators to Fuel
the Translation of Scientific Discoveries), which allows PIs to file for an SBIR and work through an existing company, and only
transition to the for profit company upon SBIR award. SHIFT also increases the SBIR award amount. See this link for more
details. Good luck.
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-10-122.html n

Grant Clinic
How Can I Preserve My Data When Re-Submitting a
Rejected Grant?
Reader Question
My RO1 grant was rejected, not because the experiments were flawed but because the topic didn’t “click” with some study
section reviewers. I will submit it to a different study section, but because the rejected grant is already the A2 version it must be
greatly revised and submitted as a new grant. What can I do to “rescue” these experiments?
Expert Comments
When one receives less than a laudatory score for an application, it is easy to conclude that the panelists “didn’t get it.” If
that is indeed true, it follows that all one needs to do is move the application to a review panel or a different funding agency.
Despite the limited number of times when this has worked (even for this author on one occasion), there are many more
when it doesn’t.
In order to plan your next move, you should read the roster sheet for the panel that reviewed your grant and do a Medline
search on the panelists to determine their specific research areas. If none has published in your area, then it is possible that
they might not have the expertise to appreciate the significance of your work.
Typically, the study section’s Scientific Review Officer will work hard to ensure that every application gets at least one and
perhaps two expert reviewers. If there truly are no experts, and you can identify another study section that has more specific
expertise, then specifically requesting that alternative panel when you resubmit might be advantageous.
However, it is also possible that, if your topic didn’t “click” with the reviewers, they might have detailed knowledge of your
field but have been unconvinced about the significance of either your central question or hypothesis. This can lead to good
scores for approach and investigator but low scores for significance and overall impact.
Read the comments carefully and discuss with your program officer to confirm whether that scenario applies. An analysis
of the comments also may help to determine whether the readers understood what you were trying to do.
To “rescue” this project, consider holding on to the experiments and data that you’ve collected. If it’s novel, accurate, and
informative, it still might form the basis of a new application. Then go back and challenge all the assumptions that went into the
initial question and hypothesis: Are they still appropriate and timely through all the revisions? Has your field moved on since
your first submission? Consider significant revisions to your central question and hypotheses, and then use these to re-craft
your title and aims (additional experiments might be required).
Float it by a disinterested (but friendly) colleague to see if they find it intriguing. These changes will certainly constitute a
new application.
Splitting your original grant into pieces and then submitting each as a new grant brings significant risk of diluted impact. (It
might make sense if the reviewers felt your original grant too broad and sweeping.)

At the end of the day, what matters most is building a case that your question and hypothesis are truly at the leading edge
of the field: Anything less, and you are likely to fall short of a successful application.
Comments by Christopher Francklyn, PhD, a former study section chair and veteran reviewer for NIH and NSF study
sections. He is a professor at the University of Vermont.
Wrong info — written by Old Techie

To try and decrease workload, I thought NIH no longer allows one to resubmit an application after its last review (formerly
A2, now A1). There may be ways to get special dispensation, but I think this requires having a program officer call CSR. I may
be wrong, but if I am not, this advice is wrong and should get corrected.
Old Techie wrong info — written by anonymous

It is true that you cannot resubmit more than once. That is not with this questioner was asking. The questioner was asking
about how to submit a new grant that is sufficiently different from the original rejected grant to be considered a new grant but
that includes the same preliminary data that was included in the original grant.
Adjunct Professor, President, REB Research — written by Robert E. Buxbaum, PhD

The standard of research proposal writing is incredibly high. It is not enough to show that your project is interesting, or
worthwhile, it must be more interesting and more worthwhile than the others. Similarly, it is not enough to show that your data
“isn’t flawed”, it must be very good, and you must be lucky. That is your data must support your position better than the data
of other researchers. And it must show-case your experimental approach so well that reviewers believe your experiments
will succeed more than the others. Proposals are competitions where only the top 10% or so succeed. The average batting
average is lower than that of an American League pitcher.
If your topic is uninteresting, or the area is considered unimportant, no amount of new data will help your application, I’m
sorry to say. If your topic is interesting, and worthwhile, and your current data shows your approach is likely to work, you’re on
much firmer ground; you’re now in the region of luck and finesse. You should tweak your proposed experiments to highlight
the logic, and you should add more data, if only to show that you have not left the field. Still, the fact that most of your data
is old should not be a killer problem. To show that you work well with the intellectual community, you may want to publish the
data you showed in your previous proposal, and you may want to include in your article, your argument for future work. For
the new proposal, I’d present that published data (probably with the reference marked as “in press”) and I’d add enough new
“preliminary results” to take care of any minor reviewer questions. Good luck, and don’t get discouraged. There are few batters
with lifetime averages above 300, and even Nobel-laureates get their proposals rejected.

written by Observer
I’ve been on study section several times. Regretfully, I feel that the process of getting funded is a bit of a crapshoot and
it’s going to get worse because of the new review process. I believe this to be true because although one gets a score from
the whole study section, it is very heavily reliant on the louder of the two (primary and secondary) reviewers that do almost
all of the reviewing of that one specific grant. The third reviewer rarely makes a contribution that deflects the final score.
The remainder of the study section is voting typically on a grant they have not even seen so they basically go along with the
average of the primary and secondary reviewer scores. My advice: There is possibly nothing wrong with your grant- getting
funded is based in large part on luck, assuming your grant is well written and addresses important questions in your field.
Amending the grant based on the reviews is not likely to change the outcome of such a process, i.e. you are still entering a
crapshoot competition. So why is it going to get worse? The reviewers now have to cut down on the length of the part of the
review that addresses their reasons why they didn’t like it so as a grant applicant you will have even less information than
before on the reason for the grant being turned down. Perhaps I’m contradicting myself a little here but I really don’t think there
is that much difference between the top 10 to 30% of grants being reviewed, the reviewers are just splitting hairs. The increase
in the number of applications is going to further negatively impact the situation. Is there a solution? No. The NIH review system
is probably the best there is for nations that invest so heavily in research. I have had well above average success as a grant
applicant but don’t for one minute believe it wasn’t in part based on luck.
PI — written by Maverick
Based on the above comments, all submissions that receive a certain designated minimum score should be placed in a
pool and the proposals funded should be chosen at random from that pool. The minimum score should be weighted so that 30-
50% of all submitted applications are included in the pool and from 1/2 or 1/5 of all submitted proposals are funded. Proposals
are selected from the pool at random until the funds available in that round are depleted. To prevent over funding of specific
proposals, fixed proposal funding limits should be designated and mandatory.
Professor — written by deanlet

Maverick certainly has a point. The problem is that universities have yet to catch on to the fact that the crapshoot aspect of
applying for grants has left many investigators on an endless treadmill of grant seeking that leaves not enough time for actually
doing research, writing papers, etc. Were it not for the university administration’s belief that the purpose of research is bring in
money, the crush of new applications would not perhaps be quite so large and the pay lines not so draconian. As a long time
reviewer, I find it extraordinarily difficult to distinguish among the relative merits of the high quality applications we see these
days. However, success at getting grants is still regarded as the measure of a scientist’s ability, success, quality of research
etc. There’s got to be a limit to this at some point, before all but a few are driven out of academic research altogether.

written by Fan of the Observer
Unfortunately, after almost 30 years in science, I have to agree with everything what the Observer stated. There is though,
one notable exception. I do believe that the process can be reformed. There are at least three recommendations that would, in
my opinion, make the system tiny bit less capricious.
1) Double blind review. That takes away the advantage of knowing the authors but removes a lot of biases. Let the
bureaucrats check the competence level.
2) More reviewers. New technology makes it possible to have 5 or 7 reviewers.
3) Elimination of panels. Leave a job of distributing money to bureaucrats. They are less competent but much easier to
move around.
Once a panel establishes a circle of mutual adoration to change its dynamics is awfully hard (not even to say expensive).
There is a beautiful illusion of competence. In modern science familiarity with an individual technique is make or break. Very
few people on the panels are that savvy to have sufficiently broad view.
Many of those are inexperienced young friends of powerful panelists. I have seen people on the panels with less than 5
publications. I have a friend with more than 500 publications routinely not invited to participate in the panels.
The biggest problem is that a lot of proposals are just simply not read at all. Involving much more people in a review
process over the web will be the solution. Reviewers do not need to be from a particular field. There should be three primary
reviewers from a given field and the rest can be random. Good science will float to the surface no matter what. In a present
system interesting science can be kept out by a few gatekeepers.
Associate — written by Smokeless one

I disagree with the random selection suggestion, but believe in the crapshoot hypothesis, and agree that the top quarter
or so of applicants have practically indistinguishable scores. I would suggest that the peer review nominate high quality
applications, potentially capable of providing taxpayers with good value for their funding largesse. However, I would leave final
funding decisions to the agency staff who should be (and in most cases probably already are) directed to think of their funded
grants as a portfolio that needs to be diversified within the boundaries set by their superiors. If the agency staff is not to be so
encumbered for some reason, then perhaps some subset of the review panel could contemplate the portfolio problem. It may
still feel like random selection from the investigator perspective, but it would be reassuring to know that a large pool of good
applications is entering a portfolio management process, and that that process has a bigger picture in mind.
Principal Engineer — written by Soft Money Researcher

I agree with all of the comments: even a good proposal is not likely to get funded, and an excellent proposal faces the crapshoot
method of selection. Thus, one must always submit an excellent proposal (exceedingly clear, concise, relevant, and innovative yet
demonstrated to succeed), just to get into the group of fundable grants, but once in that group the rationale for support is often

dependent on the distribution of other proposals (and applicants) in that group and is heavily weighted by the primary reviewer’s
expertise and bias. Most of the problem is a direct consequence of two factors: the large pool of applicants, spurred by research
university metrics for tenure and promotion and by the very low pay lines at NIH and NSF. Something has to give, and I believe that
both attrition and absolute increases in funding for research are going to be part of the transition to sustainability.
I have heard that the UK is considering putting a cap on the number of proposals submitted per year (e.g. 3) and such
a method would both accelerate convergence to the sustainable level of researchers, and increase research productivity by
eliminating the proposal mill. The US is unlikely to accept such approaches (on a cultural basis, if nothing else, since this
would be anti-entrepreneurial) but other than increasing funds for research from the tax base, the result of doing nothing is
simply prolonging the inevitable decline in the number of applicants while maintaining very low efficiency and productivity in
US research and higher education.
Other deleterious consequences of the lack of will to balance grant funding with available resources are the stress
on faculty (not to mention non-tenured researchers) and the clear disincentive for students in the US to pursue careers in
academia. Thus the increasing proportion of foreign students in our graduate programs, and the flight of US science and
engineering students to business, law and finance.
I’m not entirely off-topic here. I plan to stretch the rules as much as possible, submitting excellent applications based on related
topics to as many different study sections and funding agencies as possible, as frequently as possible. Do the math: a full time salary
that also supports student RAs and experimental work requires three simultaneous grants, and even assuming 5 year projects, each
requiring 2 submissions, with an overall probability of success of 5% (including non-scored applications...let’s be realistic), I need
to submit an average of one proposal per month. There is no way to survive in the long term unless one does some research and
publishes too, so that means stretching the value of each independent idea by multiple simultaneous submissions.
If one is a fisherman (with a family) and the fishing is lousy, one has to fish a lot ... or find a new career. Those who stay
are going to become very competitive indeed.
written by Observer
I would like to add something else I’ve seen happening during the previous 4+ years which I think is as a consequence
of the funding crunch. Reviewers for ‘private foundation’ grants are increasing their political grip on the flow of funds: the same
groups of people or their associates/collaborators are the ones consistently getting funded. These reviewers can get away
with this activity more easily at small private foundation meetings than at a NIH study section where they risk being branded.
Heaven forbid the day that activity takes a grip of study section outcomes (although to some extent I’m sure it happens but
there are far more opportunities for grant applicants at NIH than at private foundations). If such politics become the norm also
at NIH, then I will know it’s time for a career change.
Watching all this has attracted me to exploring funding opportunities which I had ignored in the past: industry
collaborations. I ignored them previously because of the lack of scientific freedom associated with such funding but I’m getting
my ducks in a row now for such funding in anticipation of funding problems in the near future. I believe my output in terms of
quality and quantity has never been better but the funding future never looked so uncertain.

Without getting too much off topic, advice to individual with original question: do not put too much emphasis on the
reviews of your grant as they may not accurately reflect the actual quality of the document you submitted. For practical
purposes, repackage the ideas to reflect what you believe is the best science and cross your fingers.
staff — written by indentured servant

Very interesting stream of thought.
With respect to both the Observer and Fan of Observers’ comments, what is the argument against a “transparent” review
(where the reviewer is also identified by name), instead of a double blind review process (which is difficult to really implement
in an ever increasing specialized world of focused researchers).
I think that over the long run, it is likely to bring both civility and humility to the review process.
written by Observer
Given that the vast majority of successful grant applications (e.g. R01s) are those that contain preliminary data (preferably
data already published in peer reviewed journals), it’s virtually impossible in my opinion to submit a strong grant as an anonymous
applicant. One way to do so would be to reference one’s prior work as a third party but what is the good in that ? Reviewers should
give credit to the current applicant for prior data he/she has published in that field and the current applicant deserves the credit
over their competitors if the key data in the field is their own. I like the idea of a transparent review but I wonder whether there are
too many potential social problems with that. Am I more or less likely to end up disliking a scientist for their professional opinion
on my grant application if it is turned down for funding? Am I likely to even want to take the risk of being disliked by my peers by
serving on study sections that aren’t to some extent anonymous? These are practical issues that can’t be easily solved. That’s why
despite all the problems with the NIH review system, I think it’s one of the best in the world. I agree with Fan of the Observer (I’m
flattered by the way, thanks!) that more reviewers for a single application would reduce the randomness of reviewer scores. This
may work well with the new shortened grant applications but definitely would have been difficult with the old 25 page R01s where
it would be difficult to serve as primary or secondary reviewer on too many applications. Recruiting reviewers is already difficult
(I for example, turned down the last request) simply because they have to write more grants now to stay afloat (as success rates
have gone down). I know my colleagues are in the same boat. I just hope it’s not sinking !!!!
staff — written by indentured servant

Dr Observer;
After all, we are all pretty collegial, are we not?
Some might argue that the needs of applicants, especially newly independent applicants, are not being well represented
in a single blind system. If criticisms are well thought out and valid, then why would you or other reviewers be afraid to voice
them, and ascribe a numerical score that is associated with the reviews?

An advantage to the applicant/respondent would be that the reviewer-perspective/bias would become evident to the
applicant-who could then respond in a more directed manner than trying to guess what the reviewer is asking for.
written by dtt
In my opinion, the present review process is almost missing the scientific component. One apparent reason for this is
that there are no any objective scientific criteria in evaluation. The only solid criteria of scientific productivity known to me is
a publication record. It, however, can easily be bypassed by the reviewers and, therefore, does not really work in the present
“credit” system when one requests funding for future studies. A quite simple solution to this major problem seems to convert
the “credit” line of funding in the “reimbursement” one, i.e. when the PI “sells” the finished (published) work to the funding
agency. The money he/she gains (if any) may be then used for future studies with no specific application, proposals, etc.. In
such path the University who hires a new, junior faculty should probably support his/her research for the first 2-4 years that to
my knowledge happens anyway.
the real reason for poor NIH RO1 funding lines — written by experienced reviewer
I have been a regular ad hoc and permanent study section member for many years now. The most obvious reason for NIH
not having enough money to fund all meritorious proposals is the policy to pay most if not all of a PI’s salary for investigators
in soft money positions. This has led universities and research foundations to grow a large cadre of “faculty” who are actually
unpaid entrepreneurs. This allows these universities to milk the cash cow of NIH indirect costs without putting much in the
way of real resources into the mix (investigators in these institutions will tell you how little of this money comes back towards
research infrastructure). The consequences to NIH budgets have become very obvious in the past few years as a very large
proportion of grant budgets are in the 400,000 plus range, 190,000 of which is just the PI’s salary. In contrast, faculty at
institutions that have a financial stake in their faculty (i.e. actually pay them and have real tenure) still typically submit modular
budgets for 250,000/year or less. The most infuriating part of this is when two grants with similar needs for staff and reagents
(and priority scores) come up for discussion by the study section in regard to budget. The 450,000/year grant from the
investigator at the soft money institution is recommended for full funding since the PI “needs” to pay themselves 190,000/year
(since why should the soft money institution care about paying reasonable salaries since they have no financial stake in the
process) while the grant from the hard money institution is cut a module since the perception is that they don’t need this much
money (and honestly that hard money PI is unlikely to make such a salary if their employer actually has to pay the investigator.
I have discussed this with NIH program officers who say that NIH policies tie their hands about this. The budget “needed”
to do the work is largely assessed by the study section. Thus, every one of these “soft money” grants leads to much less
scientific productivity for the same financial outlay per dollar spent as well as pressure for these investigators to have 2, 3 or
more grants each to make the finances work out. While as study section members we are supposed to assess productivity
from the prior grant period, with the new guidelines, we are not supposed to look at productivity per dollar, just productivity per
grant. This just makes the entire thing further perpetuated.

If the system is going to be sustainable long term, NIH needs to start thinking about moving to at least a “partial” NSF model
which limits what percentage of a PI’s salary can be charged to grants. This needs to be instituted over several years of course to
minimize impact on individual investigators but the long term consequence would be to build a more stable funding structure.
“NIH policies tie their hands” — written by Dr. Fred

I completely agree with experienced reviewer regarding the impact of cadres of soft money faculty members on NIH
support. I began my academic career in 1960 as an assistant professor and filed my first RO1 in September of that year.
The result was a telephone call from the NIH liaison with helpful comments (a) on suggested alterations in the research plan
and (b)a recommendation to carve out a second application from the first for submission to a different Institute. I made the
suggested changes and both grants were funded. That was the situation in 1960, partly because Congress was frightened
by the success of the Soviet space program which had put the world’s first artificial satellite in orbit, and responded by
handsomely supporting American science. But matters are very different today, in an era of a broad variety of other priorities
for funds at all levels of Government. NIH needs to recognize this and understand that the support of soft money faculty,
attendance at scientific meetings in Sicily, etc., may have been reasonable in better funded times but it has to be curtailed in
view of the effects of years of inflation unaccompanied by commensurate levels of increased funding by Congress.
Professor of Biochemistry — written by Chris Francklyn

A tip of the hat to all of the folks who posted...there is some good discussion here that will be great material for future
columns. In particular, “is there a better way of organizing study sections and review process?” At the end of the day, the
comments by “experienced reviewer” are particularly salient, because they emphasize that a lot of the current angst is the
result of Institutions viewing the NIH Doubling as a Great Opportunity to leverage their research activities. The increased funds
during the years of the doubling were over-matched by an increase in the number of applications. And now all those newly
minted PIs are trying to re-compete those grants.”Experienced Reviewer” is also correct that the size of the budget, or more
accurately, the amount of science/$$$ awarded is not used in the scoring. Will that persist? We’ll see. n

Grant Clinic
Impact Score vs. Significance Score
Expert Comments by Karen Rodland, PhD
Reader Question
I just received the summary statement for a grant proposal I submitted to NIH, and I can’t figure it out. I got a really good
score for Significance, but my Overall Impact score was mediocre. Isn’t Impact the same as Significance?
Expert Comments
It’s not surprising that you are confused about the difference between the “Impact” and “Significance” categories. Many
NIH reviewers have asked the same question since the review format was changed. In fact, the Center for Scientific Review
even put out a pdf explaining the difference.
In the NIH’s words, “Significance” is how important the research project would be if everything worked perfectly. “Impact” is
the likelihood that the project, as written, will change the relevant field of research and make a difference in human health. Put
another way: “Significance” is whether the project is worth doing, while “Impact” is what NIH gets for its money at the end of
the project.
It can’t have impact if it isn’t worth doing, so high scores in these two areas are important. But if the research plan is
seriously flawed, or if the reviewers don’t think the research team has the necessary experience and resources to complete
the proposed experiments, then the research is unlikely to have much impact even if the topic has high significance.
So the “Impact” score really is a combination of all the review criteria: Significance, Innovation, Investigators, Approach
and Environment.
Comments by Karin Rodland, PhD, Laboratory Fellow, Biological Sciences Division, Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory (PNNL), Richland, Wash.
The preceding information is of necessity general in nature and may not apply to every case: obtain professional advice
for your particular situation.
written by random reviewer

I’m still confused by Dr. Rodland’s explanation. As a reviewer myself, I interpret “significance” as the significance of the
topic being studied. e.g., I might consider breast cancer as a highly significant topic worth investigating. On the other hand, the
overall impact score reflects how well the proposed experiments would make a dent on the topic of breast cancer. If there are
flaws or deficiencies perceived in the proposed research, environment or PI, then the overall impact score would be low even if
the topic was highly significant.

written by LPS
Random reviewer and Dr Rodland said exactly the same thing. I am confused as to why random reviewer would remain
confused!
written by wwlytton
I review frequently and have interpreted ‘significance’ as follows in light of what I have been told by SROs and chairs. It is
of course typical for PIs to mention e.g. cancer, AIDS or schizophrenia as the area of focus. However, to be significant, a study
must at least aim for a major, exciting central issue. To get the highest significance score, a proposal should be what the NSF
calls ‘transformative’ -- able to change or at least bend the dominant paradigm. The discussion of impact above seems to me
quite complete. In practice it is the summary score yet it is definitely NOT an average of the other scores since some aspect
may be of greater import (impact) for a particular proposal. Sorry to perhaps muddy the waters further.
written by jaderesearch
I have a slightly different perspective, and less arcane. Rather than the impact of the research team’s experience, my
understanding was that “impact” means roughly the same as broader impacts for NSF and relevance from grants.gov, in
which the benefit of the work must be important in a broader sense in addition to the scientific merit. I am not generally an NIH
person, however. I think the funding agencies have been trying to “harmonize” some of their terminology and processes, much
as the E.U. has tried to “harmonize” some of the varied laws and regulations of the individual EU states, apparently, in light of
the confusion, with about the same degree of success!
written by long-time reviewer

These comments illustrate the broken state of the study section system at NIH. Reviewers are left to interpret the standards
as they will and are led to believe they are the experts. The new criteria and shorter grant forms were a valiant effort to improve
the review system, but the CSR has failed to adequately choose, vet, train, or monitor the quality of reviewers. The result is the
wide-spread perception that applying for a grant these days is like a craps shoot. Approval and funding are very nearly random.
written by Bioscientist101
Just an observation about Long-time reviewer’s “craps shoot” comment. Your analogy with a dice game caused me to
consider the relative probabilities of success. In a fair game of dice, with a single unbiased die, you have a one-sixth or 16.6 %
chance of being successful (i.e., getting the number/score you want). Some of my colleagues argue that this is a better chance
than we have with an NIH R01 proposal. But is it the review process that is the hold-up or the lack of adequate funding for

R&D? In other words, would the vagaries of the proposal review process be as much of an issue if one third of all scientifically
valid proposals were funded?
written by Brainy Joy Woman

Unfortunately, we are in the middle of an experiment that is probably failing. Someone, somewhere, failed to appreciate
the role of NIH reviewers as mentors for grant applicants. Thus, the bullet point idea. The result is certainly that this is more
of a crapshoot than ever. This was probably not the best time to also implement the 2-strikes rule although the shorter
applications, I think, are a success. I also struggle, as a reviewer, with the distinction between impact and significance and find
myself rereading the definition when I score a grant. Having said that, the truly great grants get funded, at least in my study
section. It is at the almost-great level that things get very dicey.
written by NIH Panel Member

It is clear that this can be a bit of a problem in distinction between the two. One should remember that Significance, as
others have stated, is importance. Significance doesn’t = Importance or Interesting, however. The lethal dose of a drub is
important, but not significant in terms of grant personship. Similarly, why we yawn, why we can make others yawn just by
thinking of yawning (including reading this), is interesting, but likely not important or significant (even though it can be done
between species). Impact is how the work would move the field forward if it all worked out...will it propel it forward and far, or
just inch it along.
written by From Both Sides Now

Reviewers are being asked to make macro domain judgments about each application relative to many other applications,
not to score discrete micro criteria. Judgment does involve measurement (e.g., to what extent does this applicant seem to
have taken into account the most important relevant literature?), but it cannot be reduced to measurement (this app has 87
references). So it should neither surprise nor discomfit that there can be various good ways to describe how different reviewers
reach those judgments. My two-cents-worth is: Significance of the proposed problem (or questions, or hypotheses being
tested) versus Impact of the solution (or method of answering, or adequacy and strength of the tests). The NIH and NSF
criteria don’t match up exactly, but why must they? These agencies have different missions.

written by High Roller
I have to agree with long-time reviewer that the major reason that submitting grants have become a crap shoot is that
CSR has failed to adequately choose, vet, train, or monitor the quality of reviewers. I’ve seen this on review panels and in

reviews of my own grants. In the latter, I’ve seen wildly different scores and completely contradictory opinions among reviews
in the same panel and across panels. CSR reviewers seem to have much less expertise than RFA reviewers - sometimes
applying an understanding of my field (posttraumatic stress disorder) that seems to be based on T.V. and movie depictions
rather than knowledge of mental disorders. Also see reviewers ignoring the scoring guidelines, giving a score that means
“strong, but with numerous minor weaknesses” and writing “no weaknesses” in the review bullet.
written by SBIR Center

If think it was bad in the past, just wait until you get the next round of reviews back. CSR has decoupled the scored criteria
from the Overall/Priority scores. It may not make any difference whether you get good or bad scores on the main criteria; the score
used to place your grant request into the “WIN” or “LOSE” columns is that Priority score. We have actually had to develop innovative
strategies to deal with this issue, and the very difficult 6-page limit on Research Strategy (for the SBIR/STTR crowd), for our How
To Win SBIR Awards(SM) workshops and NIH/PHS SBIR-Toolkit (TM)s. John Davis, General Manager, SBIR Resource Center(R)
written by Moon Song

I agree 100% with the comments made by the long-time reviewer. The current reviewing system is indeed flawed. CSRs
mostly do not know who are the experts in the field. Due to the inability to recruit the experts, they assign the proposals to
young investigators who are not familiar with the studies and does not have knowledge to comment on the proposal. Thus
they comment anything they want to say which are not proper. The ability to recruit more experienced reviewers with high
integrity and expertise is highly desirable. The NIH staff explanations explaining significance and approaches are not proper.
Approaches are many ways to assess the proposed study and most know the methods. However, significances are different
which should be regarded most highly.
written by Analageezer
This confusion is most easily cleared up by considering an analogy: If your postdoc wears an attractive red dress to the
department cocktail reception, she will have an IMPACT on everybody. But the SIGNIFICANCE of the outfit depends on how
far her relationship has already developed with each different person in the room, and what she is now signaling to each
separate person. Grant proposals work exactly the same way.
written by frequent reviewer

To clarify a point raised. The Impact is NOT the average of all of the individual scores, but reflects the overall evaluation of
the reviewer based on the composite proposal.

written by Anonymous
One further concern with the changes, as I understand them, is that still fewer applications will be discussed at study
section. These compounds the problem because a proposal can be triaged based on a fundamental misunderstanding of one
reviewer. Without discussion, there is little or no opportunity to save what might be a good and even ground-breaking proposal
sunk by the inexperience or in careful reviewing of one person. That’s unfair, but is more importantly a potential serious
hindrance to progress overall and risks loss of very solid talent from the biomedical research field (the reference to loss of
mentoring in the process mentioned earlier is relevant here). n

Grant Clinic
Grant Application Budget
Reader Question
Do the reviewers look at the grant application budget, and is it taken into account as a review criterion? How does one
ensure that a budget will be viewed as realistic?
Expert Comments
In theory, the reviewers are not supposed to take the budget into consideration – that is for the council, which meets
several months after the study section. The study section reviewers’ job is to evaluate, and assign, a priority score, to the
science and feasibility (at the broadest level).
However, the budget is there if the reviewers want to take a look at it – I do – and may be factored into their scores, albeit
unnamed as such. After all, it is one measure of the PI’s experience and judgment.
If the budget is deemed inadequate, you may be told that your proposal is an “ambitious” one. Although excellent science
is necessary to receive a good score, it is not sufficient: The reviewers are equally concerned with the question of whether you
are likely to accomplish the goals and milestones you have laid out. Less experienced investigators often will try to show that
they are a “bargain”, thinking that the more “bang for its buck” NIH is receiving, the more impressed will be the reviewers. Not a
good calculation. Reviewers don’t care about a bargain; they care about you successfully completing the proposed study.
Moreover, less experienced investigators often hold the attitude “I’ll say what I have to in the application to get the funding;
I’ll worry about actually carrying out the work after I have the money”. I offer a bit of advice: Be careful what you wish for.
Years ago I held this attitude myself, and then, blessedly (so I thought!) I did get funded. Then I spent a miserable five
years trying to fulfill my commitments with inadequate resources. One place that is easy to cut in the budget is the amount
of effort you, and/or co-investigators, and/or staff is allocated; you then will be overwhelmed, because no matter what your
percent effort is listed as, you still have to do all the work, or end with a poorly run grant.
You may not regard the above comments as very useful if you are in the position where your contract will not be renewed
if you do not get funded for your K (career) or R (research grant) award. You may even be booted out of the tenure track.
So getting the grant is all you care about, consequences be damned. There is no good response to this: You are correct, no
funding, no job. Many are very ego-invested in getting NIH awards – let’s face it, this is a pretty exclusive club, and having such
awards marks one as a player. Maintaining that self-image may be more important to those individuals than worrying about the
management of the grant. Just remember by “low-balling”, you make it difficult for yourself once funded, and you run the risk of
failing to honor your commitments to NIH, which may cost you in the long run.
On the other hand, be careful about padding your budget to gain extra funds. Do it where it is unnoticeable. But
experienced investigators/reviewers can look at a project and get a pretty good notion of what the direct costs should be.
Comments by William Gerin, Ph.D., Professor of Biobehavioral Health, Pennsylvania State University. Author, Writing the
NIH Grant Proposal: A Step-by-Step Guide SAGE Books (2006)

written by duffy
Budget is listed under “Additional Review Considerations” and is not scored individually and is not considered in the
overall score. The SRO can make an administrative note on the budget if he/she so desires. That being said, reviewers do at
least glance at the budget and are asked to comment if it seems excessive. One ensures that a budget is realistic by being
honest about the needs of a project. For a modular budget, if you are doing cell culture with one person and you have other
funding then asking for the maximal amount may seem excessive. On the other hand, if you are testing a wildly expensive
compound it may be okay. You can put that information in the grant itself if you really feel you need that information out there.
If you do a detailed budget please remember that the reviewers are scientists. They will know that a single wild type mouse
experiment that does not require long housing stays cannot possibly cost 5K a mouse. Break down the costs honestly and this
won’t be an issue.
written by netsailer
Duffy is correct. Reviewers look at the budget -- AFTER the application is scored. As I recall, the new template has you
indicate whether the budget is appropriate. There is a forced choice rating, plus room for comments. So essentially it is for
administrator guidance in the event that the grant is funded and they need to work with the grantee.
written by goldfish
It depends in part on the reviewer and his/her preference, and in part on the funding agency and the program person.
One hopes that the reviewer at least is a professional in the area and can evaluate the proposed budget objectively. As a
former program person, I always appreciated comments on the budget as it was my ‘call’ (assuming the proposal was to be
recommended for funding) to make the decision as to the size of the award. As a reviewer, I do examine the budget and not
infrequently am of the opinion that the budget proposed is significantly inflated.
written by prez
Who’s kidding whom? In today’s tight economic climate of course the budget is looked at and considered. If not by peering
at a sheet of actual numbers, then by the reviewer having years of experience knowing roughly what various quantities of
supplies and labor will cost--explicitly revealed and tabulated or not.

The PI across the hall “low balled” his budget. He thus got “funded”, but guess where he now must get part of his
supplies? My lab! His tech makes two “visits” a day to my staff asking if she can “borrow” some reagents, buffers etc. If you are
reading this, you know who you are. Please budget realistically next time! I’m getting tired of being your supply cupboard.
written by JBT
Using the new NIH (CSR) grant application process, we always discuss the budget after the contents are discussed but
before the final scoring is done. The budget is not scored but is commented upon in the reviews by the primary and secondary
reviewers. It is factored into the final score. Primarily, it must be reasonable, feasible and without excess padding. With the
modular budgets, categories are considered only in the justification.
written by DVN
The budget is a key place for the applicant to show their stuff. A detailed budget and justification shows that the PI has really
thought through the project. It should match the proposed work. Conversely a poorly thought out budget can sink a proposal. That
$10,000 item for travel and $8,000 for new laptops for three investigators shows a clear lack of thought. Conversely if every mouse
to be used is priced to the penny and every interview is carefully costed out, this should impress a reviewer.
written by RBH
I too “factor” the budget into my review of NIH grants. There are often many quite fundable grants and an “off” budget is a
red flag when compared to another strong proposal with an on-target budget.
written by Anon
Under-budgeting could cause problems on NSF-funded projects. I planned a budget very carefully (it would have easily
covered all the work), and the NSF decided to fund the research, but they asked that about 15% be chopped out of the budget
because the total money they allocated (to all funded projects) exceeded the amount they were allowed to spend in that area! I
felt like I was in a Dilbert cartoon.
written by Price Witterhouse

Thank God Tom Edison, Alexander Bell, and Alex Fleming were never asked to budget to the penny. Where would we be
today? Green eyeshade CPA’s have their place, but how many discoveries have they ever made?

written by Tom@NIH
Of course, reviewers look at budgets. Some commenters make it sound as if they only peek with one eye or something;
and maybe a few actually do that. Budgets are not supposed to affect NIH scores, but once in awhile, a reviewer might point
out a budget so far out of line with the project proposed as to impact their judgment of feasibility. After applications are scored,
NIH reviewers are asked for any budget concerns. Budget concerns become part of the official summary, and thus, budgets
can affect award decisions. POs can recommend cuts to a fat budget, and still advance a meritorious scored application
toward award. Agencies cannot award above request, so a puny budget can derail an application.
written by Dr Deek
…The budget; reasonable and appropriate. Deviations from this require a stellar advance; perhaps a new item
of equipment. Loading the budget with postdocs and techs is fatal, as is partitioning effort between many established
investigators. Reviewers like to see starting investigators “go it alone”, basically, with a reasonable budget, innovative yet
realistic aims, an excellent environment. Of course the budget is taken into account; but only after all the other items fall into
place. Here, an extraordinary budget can be lethal, whereas a reasonable one can only be consistent with an otherwise good
review. Unless you’ve made a stellar discovery, don’t ask for an unreasonable amount. The bottom line is that all categories
overlap/ An unreasonable budget request can and does diminish enthusiasm for the rest of the proposal. n

Grant Clinic
Do Reviewers Look at ‘Other Support’ in
Considering Proposals?
Reader Question
Is ‘Other Support’ truly taken into consideration when a proposal is reviewed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) or
other funding agencies or foundations? I ask because I have a principal investigator who manages more than 30 clinical trials
and research projects concurrently. Granted, many are at only 1 percent effort, but if I were a reviewer I would have difficulty
believing that a PI could possibly commit the proper effort to any new project in light of so many active ones. How do reviewers
look at this — or do they?
Expert comments
This superficially simple question actually demands a complex, multipart answer. Let’s try to break it down into sections.
As to the first question — Is “other support” taken into consideration when reviewed? —the answer is unequivocally
Yes, at multiple levels. Information about “Other Support” appears in the review process in two formats. (For NIH’s definition
of “Other Support,” go here: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/glossary.htm) The first is in your Biosketch, where it is referred to as
“Research Support,” or “Research Ongoing and/or completed in last three years.” This is what reviewers will see when they
review your application.
In the Biosketch, each current and past grant is described in terms of sponsor, title of project, dates, role on project, and
major goals. Significantly, percent effort, direct costs, and pending projects are not included in the Biosketch information.
How do reviewers weigh this information? In a typical study section, panelists will be asked to score applications based
on the impact of the grant in front of them, without considering the influence of other awards a PI may be holding at that time.
However, reviewers also must assess whether the budget is reasonable, and here is where they look at the Biosketch page
with “Research Ongoing.” For the vast majority of cases, there is no perceived overlap, and the budget is assessed as to its
appropriateness for the proposed work.
However, (in my experience), one will see in every meeting one or more examples where there is enough similarity
between the reviewed application and the Ongoing awards that a reviewer comments on it during the discussion. (Center for
Scientific Review policy on Overlap is here: http://cms.csr.nih.gov/ResourcesforApplicants/OverlapEvaluation.htm)
Under these circumstances, the Scientific Review Administrator (SRA) will ask that an Administrative Note be written to
accompany the review about the potential scientific or budgetary overlap. In theory, the note is not supposed to influence scoring.
Once a grant has made its way through the study-section process, the potential influence of “Other Support” will
depend on whether it is within a “competitive” or “outside a fundable range.” Keeping in mind that the cutoff may vary from
institute to institute, we will use the 20th percentile as rough dividing line. (e.g., for National Institute of General Medical

Sciences (NIGMS: http://www.nigms.nih.gov/Research/Application/LetterApplicants.htm). Above that line, your grant will be
non-competitive, and you will be unlikely to receive a request for “Just in Time” (JIT) information. Below the line, then NIH
Commons will post a JIT request. A key part of this JIT request is information about your ”Other Support.” The “Other Support”
document you upload is a more detailed version of the information provided on the Biosketch, and allows NIH program officers
a clearer picture of the extent of any scientific or budgetary overlap between the new pending grant and any existing grants.
Information on this “Other Support” request includes Project Number and Code; Source of Funds; Major Goals (i.e.,
the specific aims); Annual Direct Costs; % of Effort; Overlap. Here, the nature of any real or perceived overlaps between the
application and awarded grants will almost certainly have an impact on the likelihood of funding, and different institutes and
program officers may weigh Other Support to different extents.
As a general rule, if there is overlap of a scientific or budgetary nature, then there is a potential negative impact on the
funding decision. I can’t really comment any more about internal program deliberations because these are a black box as far
as PIs are concerned.
The second part of this complex question concerns how a hypothetical PI would be reviewed who has a large number of
funded activities, and how his/her effort could broken down into 0.3 calendar months or less increments.
One could imagine different situations with very different types of PIs: 1) a “basic science” PI with multiple RO1s; 2) a
physician-scientist running multiple clinical trials; or 3) a “core director” PI who runs a large lab that performs large-scale
analytical services.
The first type of PI would have his/her effort broken into fairly large chunks, built around grants that the PI had personally
initiated. A clinical physician/scientist might be engaged in many different clinical trials simultaneously, some initiated directly
by the PI, and some where the PI serves merely at one of multiple independent sites accruing patients. (One should also
appreciate that there are different types of clinical trials, requiring different extents of investigator direct management, etc.)
Finally, a PI who runs a research “core activity” or center could very well have his/her effort distributed into upward of 20
different small pieces, and manage hundreds of employees.
Clearly, each of these different scenarios requires a different type of review, and the peer reviewers would possess very
specific expertise. At the end of the day, the review process requires skilled experts to assess whether the applicant PIs are
able to take on the additional activity without compromising ongoing research, clinical trials, or bioanalytical service.
Thus, one should not assume that having one’s efforts separated into many components constitutes automatic
disqualification for further funding.
Comments by Christopher Francklyn, PhD, a former study section chair and veteran reviewer for NIH and NSF study
sections. He is a professor at the University of Vermont.
written by NJ
This response is correct in the information provided; however, it does not reveal the more subtle information that is
revealed through ‘other support’ during the review process: How effectively has past funding been used (i.e., are there

publications documenting the results of recent funding?)? How diverse is the scope of this investigator’s program (more than
one research ‘focus’, and if so, does this person have the ‘bandwidth’, among other resources, to direct diverse projects
simultaneously?)? Finally, while reviewers are instructed to ignore how much funding a given investigator has (if it shares
no overlap w/the project in question - as detailed above), it’s naive in this funding climate to assume that reviewers are not
somewhat persuaded by the overall amount of funding of the applicant as well as the potential impact of a given award on any
given investigator’s position, particularly if it’s a ‘final review’ of the application. n

Grant Clinic
Can Study Section Reviews be Appealed?
Reader Question
Can study section reviews and scores be appealed? How does an appeal work? How often are such appeals successful?
Expert Comments
There are many government agencies and foundations which award grants. Each has its own peculiarities as to “appeals”,
and that would be too much to detail for a column like this. But, let me select NIH as a typical large donor, and consider them.
Scientific Review Officers (SROs) expend considerable effort to ensure that their panels are stocked with individuals with
substantial expertise in the Study Section’s focus area, and that the applications are carefully matched to the reviewers. Before
reviewing begins, all reviewers sign a Non-Conflict affidavit covering the applications they are reviewing. During the review
process, SROs are carefully attuned to any procedural irregularities that would contaminate an unbiased review, and can
terminate the review of an application any such are detected.
NIH expects appeals to be relatively rare, and focused largely along procedural grounds. These could include a biased
review, an unrevealed conflict of interest, or a review in which the score was derived from errors of scientific fact. NIH makes
a clear distinction between review procedural errors, and disputes with a reviewer centering on differences of scientific
opinion. Procedural errors may constitute a basis for submitting an appeal, but differences in scientific opinion are not.
If you are considering an appeal, you should first discuss your review in detail with your Program Administrator. This
conversation may clarify the reasons for the score obtained. Program officials frequently attend the Study Section meetings
where applications in their portfolio are discussed, and can thus provide contextual information lacking in a written review.
Should you believe that grounds exist for an appeal, than you must submit a formal letter, detailing the specific flaws in the
review process. Debating the validity of a reviewer’s opinion with regard to the science is not likely to be persuasive; specific
errors with regard to process must be articulated.
If you, the Program Administrator, and the SRO are unable to come to agreement, than the appeal falls under the purview
of the Institute’s Appeal Officer. This individual will review the file, and then bring it to the attention of the Institute’s Scientific
Council. Upon this further layer of review, Council will either recommend that the appeal be dismissed, or that the application
be re-reviewed (in its original form without update by the applicant) by a body other than the original Study Section.
In light of the lengthy nature of the appeal process, and the fact that re-review of the application is the best outcome that
can be achieved, it is probably wisest to reserve the appeal process for only the most egregious errors in the review process.
In the most cases, a faster route to funding likely involves a careful revision and re-submission of your original application.
We could not find any firm statistics on number of appeals made in the most recent five or ten years, and how successful those
were. However, informal checking with several experts revealed they have never heard of even one successful appeal. Hence, if
there are any successes, they must be rare. Bottom line advice: don’t count on an appeal to save your grant application.

Disclaimer- As an ordinary scientist, I can’t formally speak for NIH, so my comments are personal and unofficial. (The
formal NIH polices are at: http://www.grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-ﬁles/not97-232.html)
Comments by Christopher Francklyn, Ph.D. Dr. Francklyn is a former Study Section Chair and veteran reviewer for NIH
and NSF study sections. He is a professor at University of Vermont, where his scientific expertise is in protein synthesis and
RNA-Protein interactions.
Dr. Francklyn provides a regular column, Study Section Insider, in Principal Investigator Advisor monthly newsletter.
written by Politico
Some years ago, in a Study Section we gave a low, unfundable score to what we considered a very weak application. The
upset researcher responded by complaining to the U.S. Senator who represented his state. Well, believe me, the NIH moves fast
when queried by a Senator (Congress controls NIH funding). Likety split, the application was brought back for re-review at the very
next meeting. The Program Officer went “off the record” to explain the situation and asked us to reconsider carefully, but he also
made clear NIH would not overrule a Study Section final verdict. In the discussion, we all grasped for overlooked crumbs of merit
which could boost the application, but there were none. Again our vote was strong negative. So somebody in the top echelon of
NIH had to send the Senator an artful letter. Just relaying this incident to show “appeals” can take many forms.

written by anon
Just appealed my RO1 scored biased on obvious reviewer bias. SRO agreed and allowed a new “first submission” of the
grant. Very important in this environment of only 2 submissions. The reviewer stated the reason for putting the grant in the “not
discussed” category was based on the PI being a poor investigator with no publications in the field and only one publication
5 years ago. Being that I have extensive publications (more than 20) in the field including one that came out in a high impact
journal (Impact 9.7) a month before my application was submitted, there was obviously a bias. This, with the fact that the other
2 reviewers scored the application highly (but didn’t rescue, unfortunately) gave the SRO a reason to allow the appeal. So,
while appeals should be only sparingly considered and used, when there is real reason for it-there can be a positive outcome.
written by OldTechie
Don’t appeal!! I have a 30 year record of funding. My only experience was a “successful appeal” 20 years ago on an
egregious error. A committee was formed that considered the appeal and granted it, and I then got a re-review. I sensed,
however, that rather than feeling the system had kept its integrity, I was labeled for a time as a troublemaker. The lesson I
learned was swallow hard, and try to correct the error tactfully. Sometimes, you’ll get reviewers who are ashamed of having
made a mistake, and will give you a little boost in return. Other times, the re-review will be met by “Facts be damned, how dare
you disagree with me?” Unfortunately, for all of the teaching of scientific ethics demanded by NIH, people are still people.

written by Adriana
First off the person that you talk to after the review is not the person that runs the study section. The program
administrators are rarely at the meeting and I have never been able to get useful information from them about the discussion of
a grant. It seems like a big disconnect to have to talk to someone about the grant who was not at the discussion but that is the
way it is set up. Second, I have been at many study sections where clear conflict of interest exists. It is left to each individual to
claim the conflict and many people do not do that. I pointed out a conflict to the SRO at a study section once and she told me
that there was not conflict because the reviewer said there was not conflict even though the reviewer and applicant had several
co-authored publications.
written by Genejock
Around a decade ago I submitted an application that I felt would really move my field of research forward. To my dismay,
my first application for funding by NIH was returned unscored. However, the real surprise arrived with the ‘pink sheets’. The
primary reviewer wrote less than 200 words concerning my grant. The review was summarized with a dismissive statement
revealing that he/she had not actually read it. On contacting my Program Officer I was told that the process of appeal was
too lengthy and cumbersome to be effective. He said that I was better off addressing whatever criticisms I could prior to re-
submitting it to the same study section. This I did, only to be unscored again with a nearly identical review in the next round!
Preliminary data from the grant was eventually published in one of the Nature journals. And- perseverance paid off when a
re-worked proposal was eventually funded with an outstanding score by another study section.
written by Dabs
A few years ago, I should have appealed a review that had major flaws. One reviewer misrepresented the proposal and
the state of knowledge in ways that could be shown quite clearly, and this reviewer also used a mocking tone told us we made
ourselves look “ridiculous”. I sensed quickly from talking with my program officer that this behavior is perfectly OK with NIH,
and that she was going to circle the wagons and refuse to question anything in the review no matter how egregious. Everything
I have heard indicates that the appeal process is biased against claimants, who are just considered as troublemakers.
My advice is never to appeal for the purpose of getting your proposal reconsidered, but only for the sake of weeding out
emotionally unstable reviewers and teaching program officers and review officers a lesson in how the review process can go
badly wrong. Ultimately you might be helping to reform a deeply flawed system If you appeal for the purpose of saving your
proposal, the best that can happen is that you will get a re-review after a length delay. Your proposal will be out of date and
you will have lost the opportunity to make revisions. If I ever choose to appeal in the future, I will extract the best parts of my
research plan and submit them to a different agency while the review is in process.

written by Jake
In our judicial system, we never allow the person(s) who made a decision to rule on an appeal, because bias toward defending
the original decision is too obvious. Federal funding agencies cannot grasp this basic idea. I agree with the opinions above -- don’t
bother appealing, ever. Dabs’ idea that you may improve “the system” is optimistic; you probably can’t change human nature.
written by RKS
I’ve been at both ends of the problem, i.e. had clearly unfair reviews of my own applications and been on study sections
where there is apparent evidence of reviewer bias. Reviewers on study sections have a lot of power and can easily wield it
without detection: it’s never difficult to find at least some faults in any application, no matter how brilliant it is. If a reviewer
wants’ to sink your proposal, that’s simply tough luck for the applicant... I really don’t think there is anything that can be done
about it. Any reviewer who is out to sink a proposal will not likely make factual errors but more likely nitpick. The best proposal
that I ever wrote was unscored and most likely reviewed by my competitor who happened to be on the panel that day and the
only one qualified to review it so most likely did review it. I have had substantially weaker proposals funded previously. The
reviewer focused on the limitations of the study without acknowledging that there are no better alternatives. Factually he/she
was correct so no real basis for me to make a strong appeal. Basically, you need an advocate on the panel to rescue your
application from a reviewer who wants to sink it but it’s a rare coincidence that one has one on the day it matters. My only
recommendation is to request that a certain study section member not review your application next time you resubmit. I don’t
know if the NIH really pays much attention to such requests though. Bottom line, keep submitting your grants into a system
that is seriously flawed but probably still the best in the world. The only exceptions I can think of easily are where a reviewer
makes factual errors...and that is most likely because they didn’t understand or make an effort to understand and their
intention was probably not focused on sinking the application in the first place.
written by Neo
It’s rather plain that the NIH system is biased against appeals. I appealed once after receiving a review of an unscored
application in which text that had identical phrasing (but only in some sections) was used by two different reviewers to critique
the proposal. Now, because this proposal was unscored the two reviewers were supposedly not to have the opportunity to
be influenced by one another, so this was at best a procedural error and at worst an ethical lapse. My reasoned appeal was
dismissed with an explanation that a “computer error” had occurred. Nice. My “faith” in the system remains damaged.
written by Oldreviewer
My research has been funded by NIH and other federal agencies for nearly 50 years, and I have served on various review
panels for NIH and NSF. I have to agree with the practical advice of those who recommend against appealing bad reviews,

since the process is strongly rigged against their success. On the other hand, I suspect that the number of worthwhile, even
outstanding, new ideas that are rejected constitutes a significant loss to the agencies and to the people who ultimately pay the
research bills. I am convinced that a better screening process could identify appeals that, if their claims are valid, should not
only return those proposals for FAST reconsideration, but also result in some loss of points (in some form) for the reviewers
that did the sloppy job. Judges are careful because they do not like being overturned, why not reviewers? An ombudsman’s
office with some real authority might help to reduce the number of reviewers who make casual errors (or clearly biased
statements) simply because no one ever calls them on that behavior. The assumption that all those who gripe about bad
reviews are merely whiners is nonsense. I have seen many examples of bad reviewer’s judgments in reviews I and others have
received. On the average reviewers’ scientific evaluations correlate positively with what a more valid system could achieve, but
there is a great deal of room for improvement...and improving that correlation by even a modest amount would result in a lot
more good science being done for the same total bill.
written by ANON
NIH reviews are nothing but the actions of street gangs. As the gangster gets challenged, first reaction is to find
technicality to reject and steal ideas. We must have a class of reviewers that can never in their life interact with other scientists
for this to be truly without bias. One cannot do that, so this type of favoritism in science and revolving door mentality that
originates in selfishness and greed will go on! There need to be a judiciary review to judge conflicts of interest and actions
of reviewers, with huge liability [$ awards as fines] attached to agency and reviewer’s behavior, so that the biased person
looses heavily to a level where the reviewer looses ability to earn even a penny! Such punishments are must, and need to be
incorporated in the process of reviews!
written by Mousedoc
Anon, you are obviously as ignorant as they come. Anyways, there are very few people that enjoy being on study section.
Most do it out of a sense of duty and they try to do their best job. Why would anybody keep doing this painful chore that really
does not do anything for you if you make it a “huge liability” with “$awards as fines” as an added “benefit”. The real problem is that
there is not enough money to support all the good research that is being done. Now if you would find a better way getting rid of
terrorists that would be another matter altogether. For you I suggest think before you speak, or better yet, don’t speak at all.
written by kai
There are always conflicts of interest (easy to spot, too) and personal bias at every study section. Nonetheless I have been
impressed by the overall competence, decency and hard work of the reviewers. Much better than in Europe or anywhere else.

written by Sinner?
This old reviewer can now confess that late at night, shortly before deadline, faced with a pile of applications-- I engaged
in a kind of triage. Sorry for those of you who slaved over the dull, almost routine parts of your forms. If you didn’t catch my
interest fast with your mission and approach, you were toast. Do you remember a movie where the female lead said “You had
me at ‘Hello” Well it was like that.
written by half empty

I believe that overall the NIH review process works. Nonetheless, I have personally seen enough examples of egregious
errors of ignorance, laziness, or malicious conflict of interest to know that it could be done better, and to know that there is
rarely any justice available to wronged applicants. But WHO is going to fix it? Where are appeals panels gong to come from
when NIH struggles to fill its regular study sections with competent reviewers? Who will take the place of the bad eggs who get
banned from reviewing? I think part of the problem is that the function of scientists as individuals has become so dependent on
obtaining external funding that the function of scientists as a community is beginning to break down. We are judged so heavily
by the number and size of our grants, that other service is regarded as a handicap, taken on only at the peril of falling behind
in the funding competition. The very best can do it all well, and the most noble one’s actually serve. But many of us can’t or
don’t, despite better intentions. Teaching also suffers enormously from this. If the value of such non-monetary components of
science continues to depreciate, the review process will only get worse.
written by The Orwellian Philosophy

The appeal to a bureaucratically run process that is nothing more than an expensive exercise in censorship is futile.
“Procedural errors may constitute a basis for submitting an appeal, but differences in scientific opinion are not.”--Procedural
errors are rarely the flaw. The intrinsic flaw is the myopic knowledge base of a single reviewer and the ability to express
arrogant myopic opinion behind the dark cloak of anonymity with no feedback or penalty.
written by buggirl
I am on review panel and one reviewer advocated for a grant that was, literally, unfinished (no kidding, it actually stopped
in mid-sentence, and not very close to the end, either!) We have another guy who gives 30% of his reviews a “1”! However,
I suggest that if you have someone who will tank you no matter what you send in, (and we all know there are such people),
include their name and institution in the cover letter and be as specific as you can be about why there is a conflict even if it
means including specific information.

written by alcoholpolicy
I know of one successful appeal in relatively recent years, but it was one that an attending IC staff (not SRO) invited
because he perceived a major scientific error in the primary reviewer’s critique and in the discussion that swayed other section
members. In the special review that followed our investigator prevailed. The lesson would seem to be to encourage PO’s to
attend and hope they have the conviction and integrity to want to set matters straight--also have a good relationship with IC
staff so that they actually value and know [your] competencies. Small technicalities do not seem to tip the balance. n

Grant Clinic
Was “Too Ambitious” to Blame for Non-Funding?
Reader Question
I recently received the reviewers’ summary sheets for my first R01 research grant submission. The score was
encouraging, but not fundable. The reviewers’ criticisms, however, were all mild and addressable, and did not represent
specific flaws in the work itself. Two reviewers commented that the program is an ambitious one, and that perhaps I need to cut
back on at least two of the proposed studies. I could easily do that, so why didn’t I get the funding? What am I missing?
Expert Comments
Interpreting the thoughts of the reviewers is a road to madness, but I might be able to read between the lines here. First,
you got hit with the dreaded “A” word – ambitious. This is code for “your inexperience is showing.” Reviewers want to see
originality and novel ideas or methods to some extent, but they do not want to see a proposal for a project that is so unusual
or aggressive that it may not be doable. You are sure you can do it and maybe you can. But, um, “stuff happens”, and all of
a sudden recruitment becomes sparse, a reagent was contaminated, something else goes wrong, and you’re behind. The
reviewers want to be reassured that whatever you do promise, you will be able to carry out.
Perhaps your submission emphasized the wrong thing. I have observed many less senior investigators trying to show
that their proposal is a bargain for the sum requested – lots of studies, lots of subjects, lots of outcome measures. But the
reviewers don’t want or respect a bargain. They want to know that the work you propose absolutely will be done on the
agreed schedule.
You may think that your project has none of these problems, but with an R01 submission, the issue is always the
perception of the reviewer. With some grant applications, the problem is not any one major element but the accumulation
of small issues. As the reviewers begin to read, a couple of details emerge that make them feel a bit uneasy, causing them
to develop a negative feeling about the manuscript. In your case, perhaps it was the unrealistic schedule of the work to be
accomplished that colored those perceptions.
Once reviewers are unfavorably disposed, it may be difficult to reverse the feeling. Many of them are unwilling to simply
say “I didn’t like the proposal, no particular reason.”So, you get general statements or criticism of small points that don’t seem
significant enough to prevent funding.
Comments by William Gerin, Ph.D., P.I. e-Alert’s Chief Grants Consultant, Professor of Biobehavioral Health,
Pennsylvania State University, and Author, Writing the NIH Grant Proposal: A Step-by-Step Guide, SAGE Books (2006)

written by Duffy
The new NIH scoring system from 1-9 is as follows 1-Exceptionally strong with no weaknesses 2-Extremely strong with
negligible weaknesses 3-Very strong with only minor weaknesses 4-Strong but with numerous minor weaknesses 5-Strong
but with at least one moderate weakness etc. My guess is that an over ambitious proposal, particularly if you are a new/early
stage investigator was seen as a 4 or 5 giving you good comments but out of funding range. My advice is to rewrite with a less
ambitious plan and resubmit. With funding pay lines so low, you need a 2-3 depending on the study section/institute. Good
luck, Ad Hoc NIH reviewer
written by Namor
What advantage does “”New Investigator”” Status give you if your inexperience is punished as stated in the comments? I
received the A word for an R01 submission, so I revised with a less ambitious plan and the same reviewers said the scope is
narrow and recommended cutting the funding period to 3 years.

written by JMM
If you personally knew one of the reviewers “overambitious” would have DEFINITELY been overlooked. Can anyone spell
“cronyism”?
written by Sandy Seattle

Sounds like the reviewer was scared you might outshine what he/she could do with equal money in equal time. So of
course you had to be executed.
written by Sujsun
The difficulties we young researchers have to face just because of our enthusiasm is very discouraging. I had submitted to
Wellcome Trust and I received the same response. It is not fair to judge a person’s capabilities by the number of people he/she
knows (or not knows )in the review committee!

written by X-Reviewer
If you could have seen some of the ridiculous and far-fetched grant proposals we received during my term, you would
understand this applicant got off lightly.
written by groland
Having done many a study section I can tell you that these ambiguous comments often reflect a real lack of enthusiasm
for the project. Significance and innovation are critical. If your grant is technically sound but unexciting, you will often get these
types of comments. Also, the written comments are almost always softer than the discussion in the room. Very few reviewer
are likely to write that this project is unfundable no matter what the PI does to fix the details. You need to be careful here.
New PIs will try to address the comments thinking that the next round will be better. Often times it is no better or even
worse, depending on what else is in the pile. Remember, this is a relative judgment and depends in large part on how good
the other grants are at the time. Another possibility is that the resubmissions from previous rounds dominated the funded
grants. The NIH is trying to get away from this by limiting to one resubmission. Still, you need to read between the lines. There
must be clear evidence of enthusiasm; otherwise it is not competitive regardless of the score. I would not put much weight on
Cronyisms as suggested by another comment. Study sections are dominated by young and mid-career PIs from all over the
country. Very few high profile and influential PIs actually do study sections these days, which is in itself a problem as some of
the members lack real competence.
written by been there

Groland makes many apt comments! What I’d add is that while some applications are truly uninspired, others might be
perceived as “”unexciting”” only because the reviewers were not conversant enough with your field, and other applications in
their stack were closer to their field of interest. This is one of the serious problems with peer review. If there really is nothing
substantially wrong with the application (and of course you’d need to get some input from colleagues on that) then you might
need to try to get the application reviewed by a different panel.
written by anonymous newbie

Have you called your program officer for insight? He/she will often tell you about what the general opinions were of your
proposal during the session.
Here’s what typically happens in my field (math). Out of the 10 proposals, about 7 are really good and clearly have good
ideas. About 2 or 3 of those can be funded. So you have about 4 or 5 proposals that you want to fund, but can’t fund. This

means that a good proposal will only get funded if the reviewers are completely sure that it is good. Any doubts, unanswered
questions, etc, can lead to you not getting funding, even if the ideas in the proposal were very good. Look at your own proposal
and ask yourself this: If due to budget restrictions I had to reject this proposal, what can I find in the proposal to justify this
decision? The best advice I can give you is to ask others to read your proposal. Ideally one expert and one non-expert would
read it (both could be on the panel, the proposal has to convince both). n

Career Coach
Does Tenure Protect a PI Who Loses Project Funding?
Expert Comments by Dr. Gregory Ball
Reader Question
I’ve heard that if a tenured PI loses funding, he or she can face a salary cut, lab shutdown or similar measures. Is this
true? If so, of what value is tenure to a PI?
Expert Comments
This is a common and important question. I will restrict my answer to a discussion of universities and colleges in North America.
Tenure was established to insure academic freedom. There are several famous cases in the late 18th and early 19th
centuries where faculty members were dismissed based on objections raised by powerful members of the board of trustees
or other benefactors of the university who were unhappy with the claims about controversial issues being articulated by a
particular faculty member.
Tenure thus meant that a faculty member had job security that was independent of any intellectual stance he or she adopted.
The principles of tenure now generally accepted by most institutions in North America were laid down by the American
Association of University Professors (AAUP) in the early 20th century. Most academic institutions that adopted these policies had,
as part of their mission, the teaching of undergraduates. These schools therefore had a reliable source of income from student
tuition (along with endowment income and/or state support) to support a faculty of a particular size that would teach these students.
At institutions of this sort, unless there is a state of financial exigency due to, for example, an inability to attract a sufficient
number of tuition-paying students or a faculty member engaging in egregious unethical behavior, a tenured faculty member
can assume that he/she can adopt a wide range of scholarly positions based on the results of their research without a concern
that their position might be terminated because they have offended a powerful person connected to the university.
The problem with the meaning of tenure raised by the person asking the current question is probably based on the fact
that they are at an institution or academic unit where salary support is linked primarily to grant support rather than to another
revenue stream such as tuition or endowment income.
Tenure therefore means that the faculty member in question cannot be dismissed based on a particular intellectual
position he/she takes on any issue and that he/she has job security — as long as the revenue stream needed for salary
support is present.
However, if this academic unit does not have sufficient endowment income or other revenue streams to cover a PI’s salary
in the absence of outside grants, then these institutions may well have a policy to reduce salary and take other cost-saving
measures if grant support decreases.
This kind of policy ideally should be clearly explained to faculty members at the time they are appointed.
Expert comments by Dr. Gregory Ball, Dean of Research and Graduate Education, Johns Hopkins University.

Prof Emeritus — written by Lee Smith

It was my understanding that a person could not be singled out based on financial exigency, but rather a whole unit would
have to be eliminated, e.g. a department.
Associate Professor — written by RKS

I am a researcher in a medical school affiliated with a private university. The majority of research here is paid for through
NIH dollars: a model similar to most universities. In my opinion, for all practical purposes tenure means very little these days,
except perhaps when a researcher is closing in on retirement and unable to compete successfully for grants. The majority of
researchers are paying a significant portion of their salary from NIH grants. When these grants disappear, there is a greater
burden on the university to maintain the salary...they can only do this for a limited period. Hence, the university generally
reduces the salary to a base figure which the researcher can live on. However, the university will inevitably take away the lab
space and perhaps even the office. The researcher is forced to spend much more time teaching and performing administrative
duties etc. Basically, the researcher is now doing something they don’t have as much interest in doing--at least this is not what
they had in mind when they signed up to be scientists. The only time the researcher is going to accept this is when there is
no option, i.e. close to retirement and too late to start a new career. I for one, would prefer to start a new career if the granting
gods make it clear that I should not be a scientist....I will not wait for the university to take away my lab space and start
delegating jobs to me that nobody else wishes to do. So what good is tenure?
professor — written by Joan Engebretson

I think that the teaching mission is still very important in tenure. Thus, the faculty still has a role and is of value to the
university even if their grant is not funded. Thus, they are still teaching, so are not “dead wood”. Many universities allow
for advancement to associate and professor on clinical or research tracks. These are good for faculty who do not have a
significant teaching role. Tenure is reserved for those who exhibit good scholarship according to Boyer’s model which includes
teaching, publications and discovery. So a tenured person who is currently not funded can still add to scholarship of teaching
and perhaps one of the other areas of scholarship.
When did tenure come to be about celebrity status? — written by Anonymous

Given the description in this article about the history and purpose of tenure, I am wondering when the tenure evaluation
process came to be more about celebrity status than science or scholarship. That is, it seems to me that many Universities
use the tenure review process to get rid of faculty who have not achieved minor (or major) celebrity status in their field, despite
solid empirical or theoretical work that contributes to the advancement of the field.

Professor w tenure — written by jbb
In our research-based institution, tenure is a guarantee of a position and a minimal salary but neither current salary,
job description nor space. Agree w RKS above. However it would be virtually unheard of that loss of a single grant would be
the cause for immediate draconian measures. It generally would be an impetus for detailed discussion and planning with a
department chair or section chief.
Professor — written by BKN

The ability of universities to effectively fire tenured faculty members by gross reduction in salary has been addressed
many times in federal courts. It basically comes down to the tie between salary and academic roles being clearly defined in the
faculty member’s letter of appointment. If 70% of salary is indicated as being sourced from grant income, that much may be
taken away when grants are not renewed.
With no such clear definition of the sources of salary, then major changes in salary are still permissible in private institutions
but are considered to be “constructive discharge” (firing without going through the prescribed procedures for firing tenured faculty
members) in public institutions. An example of the former occurred at Northwestern University several years ago when salary was
reduced to zero, and space, including office space, was taken away, yet the university claimed that the faculty member still had
tenure and the court agreed. Similar cases in public institutions have been decided in favor of the faculty member.
I am not a lawyer, but play one on television.
Contribution = Job Security — written by Just one more opinion

Tenure is an antiquated idea that served it’s purpose in the days before labor laws were put into effect. Now, intitial
employment and continued employment is based upon mission contribution. The limited resources available to institutions
should be used to support those who are willing to contribute to the mission of education, service and research. It’s no secret
going in that if you want to work in research, you’d better be able to secure grant funding. That’s the harsh reality. If you are
unsure about funding, you’d better find yourself another mission-related role that will add value to your continued presence,
should you have a gap in research funding. A salary is what you earn, not an entitlement because you happened to be on the
good side of the academic hierarchy when your turn for review came around. Assurance of academic freedom of opinion is a
good thing, entitlement to an unearned salary when institutions are struggling financially isn’t.
tenure issues — written by abc

It depends on the department. Some (e.g. med-schools, teaching institutions) expect you to bring much of your salary
from grants. Others require you to only bring in summer support, so that grant-lessens means you lose 3 months’ salary but
you can take time off during those 3 months, or consult elsewhere.

tenure is like social security for incompetent professors — written by Dr. Professor
The question no one seems to want to address is, why should the most educated in our society be guaranteed a job for
life? What other job (other than the 9 Supreme Court justices) is like that. The most educated should be the smartest and most
able to find a job, so why should this group be so insulated from the rest of society that needs such job security that much
more? As one with tenure, I know it won’t protect me if the admins decide to cut my salary. I may have a title, but no salary,
and maybe that’s what tenure should mean for all faculty in the future.
Professor — written by Soon to be full professor

Tenure is absolutely a medieval term. It has no significance and thus I am not sure what the difference is between
tenured and non-tenured stream faculty. Both are valued equally because all are independent contractors; and, independent
contractors must secure their salaries from (grants) and contracts. Contracts can mean different revenue streams in different
schools of higher learning. Teaching, caring for patients can provide revenue streams as well as falling into an endowed chair
from a rich friend or grateful alum or patient.
I wouldn’t have so much trouble with the current system if the Deans, Chairs, and the huge bureaucracy of faculty who
come to work in such offices (and do NOT generate a dime of revenue) were not the foxes watching the hen house. This
seems a bit hypocritical. Furthermore, I am not sure why people have to push so much paper through so many committees
today to attain (as one writer said--’celebrity status’ when tenure is essentially meaningless and the ranks of faculties vary
even within schools of the same institution and even within the same school of the same institution!
When the prestige research universities get all the funding and slam the feds with enormous indirect costs to support their
own bureaucracy and return next to NO indirect costs back to faculty members the contracts that faculty sign are meaningless
and are not legal documents. Grant funding should be attained by productive faculty but making productive faculty whose grant
falls in the wrong hands on occasion be nailed to the wall doing more service, teaching, and in some cases more clinical work-
-is solely an act of greed by universities. It’s time we face facts: high-powered research universities are giant corporations, the
only difference there is no regulation and faculties have been undergoing a slow death-of-academic-empowerment by overpaid
directors, deans, and chairs who are very comfortable feeding at the trough!
Odds against us? — written by female physician-scientist with two toddlers

Is there any hope for a young woman with young family and young career on a tenure-track position for “making it?” The
challenges are many (for men and women), but the odds seem against “us” and wonder if it’s possible to be a successful grant-based
scientist and mother and clinician. Very few of that kind of phenotype out there. Antiquated or unrealistic phenotype to aspire to?

professor of 30 yrs ready to retire — written by microbiologist
dear odds against us---
your husband needs to step up to the plate. as a female you should not be more than 50% responsible for your children’s’
upbringing. I am a male and ‘sacrificed some portion’ of my career to be a good dad and make sure my kids made it
successfully to adulthood. My wife on the other hand was too busy becoming a celebrity to be bothered. She knew I would do
it. Maybe like your situation? I got tenure and became a ‘low level celebrity’ but certainly could have gone farther if I did not
consider parenting as job 1. so it’s not female/male---it’s about good parent or not.
Anonymous — written by Anonymous

The Dean did not answer the question. Yes, a tenured PI can face lab shutdown due to loss of funding. Additionally, he can
face lab shutdown on a whim, with or without loss of funding (A nominal excuse could be “we need the space for other higher
priority activities”). Other measures that can be imposed on a faculty member who loses funding, or else who is simply on
the losing side of a political fight, include (a) lousy teaching assignments, (b) downgraded office space, (c) no salary raises. (I
don’t know about salary cuts: someone else will have to answer that.)
Professor — written by anonymous

A few years ago my university instituted “post-tenure review”. The criterion for dismissal was changed from “professional
incompetence” to “unsatisfactory performance”. In short, tenure was abolished except in name. So be careful of generalizations.
Faculty in medicine, law, business, and some areas of engineering and social sciences may well be able to compete for
jobs outside of academia. But why would an intelligent person choose to pursue an academic career in the humanities without
some assurance that he/she will not be fired by caprice at age 50 by the dean of the moment?
Women faculty with children — written by Professor

Dear Odds against us,
It can be done. I know, I’ve got three children, I’m tenured, and my husband is also faculty. However, you always have to know
that you are competing against people who really do this 24/7 -- and that is what you are being compared to. Add that to the fact
that tenure decisions come about when your children are little, and my non-tenured time was the most stressful time of my life. I
never want to live through that again. Before anyone says it’s because I’ve slacked off: I have more grants and put out more papers
now than I did before getting tenure. But add small children and fierce competition for tenure together and it’s not surprising that
none of my female grad students have any desire to go into academia -- they all say they never want to be as stressed as I am. This
is with my husband who really achieves close to a 50/50 with child rearing -- I don’t know what I would do without him.
Just keep your family #1 in your life. Remember that they actually need you, unlike your administrators, who may like you
but don’t really care about you as a person, just your ability to keep bringing in grants, writing papers, etc. Yep, you may not go

as far in the academic arena as someone else, but believe me, as someone sitting at a university that just fired multiple tenured
faculty for no real reason other than they felt like it, it’s not worth draining all of the good things in your life for. Hang in there.
Women faculty with children — written by Associate Professor w tenure

Dear Professor and Odds against us,
I completely understand your predicament. I’m a female faculty member with one child, but it’s still a lot of work even with
one child. You’re absolutely right that you are always competing against those who do this 24/7, so it’s imperative to have a
husband or partner to help so that you can pursue your career. So I work three times as hard as many of my colleagues when
at work. I learned to type really fast, read papers quickly (skim unless you need to really know the paper), and get the lab or
clinical work done fast and efficiently. I try to take as many coffee and lunch breaks as possible. Sometimes I just tell myself, I
have to slow down because I can’t keep this up. I’m now 47 years old and wonder if my health, and the health of my family, will
still be good in 10 years’ time.
I know that it’s very important to keep your family #1 in your life, but sometimes I feel that people at work are your family
too, in a once- removed kind of way. Your work colleagues really need you. I’m thinking of all the administrators, faculty
members, students that I have had the privilege of interacting with over the years. All of them are very important, and very
dependent on you for your contributions - whether it’s teaching in classes, attending committee meetings, or publishing papers
to enhance the status of your department and institution. And when you rise up and meet that challenge, you are satisfying
the requirements for tenure. Every little bit that you contribute makes it easier for your institution to justify maintaining your
tenure. Tenure is actually very important at our institution, based in Canada. It dictates where your salary will come from (in
our case, an endowment fund) when your salary support runs out. It is a financial and physical endorsement of your previous
contributions to the university in the hopes that you will continue to work in this manner in the future. I think that tenure (or
whatever term is used) should be deeply respected for what it does to maintain the knowledge base and experience of faculty
members at universities.
As for the tenured faculty that face a lab shutdown, this is extremely rare and usually there is some form of negotiation
between the faculty member and the department to determine a compromise in space sharing. If you work in an institution
where a tenured faculty member has had all space removed from him or her with no reasonable justification for it (e.g., they
stopped teaching, writing grants, and publishing), then maybe you need to lodge a protest at the highest level in the institution,
or look somewhere else for a position. It is unacceptable for institutions to simply force out tenured faculty members without
real reason. So make sure to resist this kind of activity. Keep up the good work and effort!
Tenured professor of 17 year at private med school — written by Anonymous

I am disappointed to see that many of the comments ignore the fact that tenure still has a generally accepted meaning,
as defined by the AAUP. One can argue about the merits of tenure for academic scientists, but that’s not the essence of the

problem. The problem is that some institutions have chosen to change the meaning arbitrarily from the conventional one,
signifying a permanent position, to an honorific, a title that can be bestowed or removed based on extramural income. If the
latter is the way an institution uses the awarding of tenure, the institution is being intellectually dishonest and unprofessional.
It should use a different term so there are no misconceptions. Additionally, a medical school that uses tenure as an honorific
puts its medical student teaching responsibilities at risk. Why should a PhD at a medical school teach when extramural grant
support is the only thing that insures continued employment?
written by Female Professor

I just received “tenure” at a major medical school university. None of your comments thus far reflect the reality of the
flat-lining of the NIH budget in the last 8-10 years, the well-known problem of NIH being much more likely to fund grants from
“older” established PI’s than early investigators, and the host of other discriminatory practices in grant funding (including
gender biases). I would never recommend academia to a grad student - male or female. The university mission these days,
at least at large schools, appears to be making money. And that do it by the largely unpaid labor of their faculty - who receive
no compensation strictly for teaching or community service from the university despite those being two of three fundamental
requirements of tenure. Let’s get real folks. Academia as we once knew it, is dead.
To be or not to be - that’s the question (for those still in the tenure track) — written by Just recently tenured at UConn
Tenure is pretty much meaningless once you are tenured. The real meaning is BEFORE you get tenure. Then it means
to be fired immediately (more or less) in case you shouldn’t get tenure. For someone who has spent years (decades) on
his/her career development and usually parents of young families this means a lot. In the present funding crisis there are many
excellent new faculty that are simply not able to get grant funding and will face the “firing experience” soon. Reading through
these responses, I get the impression that many of the tenured faculty seem to have forgotten their pre-tenure days.
Associate professor with tenure — written by Underpaid

The premise of tenure was/is a good idea; however, there is a downside to having tenure as well as an upside. The
downside is that I could be making two to two and a half times the salary in private industry for the research work I do. Why do
I stay in academia? I often wonder. I love my students, teaching, and research and have been relatively successful in obtaining
grant money. I now have two little children under the age of three and have decided to take advantage of my tenure and stay
home one to two days a week with the children while my wife works (in part to keep her job). Do I feel guilty? Somewhat.
However, if I had accepted the industry offer rather than my institution’s offer, then I could be retired by now. So no, I don’t
feel guilty (at least too guilty). The tenure system artificially depresses the salaries that colleges and universities need to pay
faculty. Thus, I figure while my children are at home, I will cash in on my permanent status, and then when they are in school

full time, I will become more productive. If I did not take this attitude, then I would prefer tenure being abolished and my salary
be made more competitive with the private sector.
Professor Emeritus — written by Susan Tripp

Tenure must exist independent of grants because it has to protect professors of history, which can be controversial, and of
classics, which does not bring in grants.
Professor — written by Anonymous

I’m a “tenured” faculty member who has lost NIH grants due to the extremely competitive funding climate. I’m still working
very hard but have lost salary and lab space while my institution continues to recruit many new faculty, all of which need
multiple grants to pay their own salaries. I agree that tenure shouldn’t support complacency, but I don’t think it’s fair when
administrators collect large raises for hiring more faculty than the institution can support. Senior and junior faculty both get
squeezed when tenure is only a hunting license for grant dollars. Lodging a protest is not feasible when the institution’s
business plan is to use faculty indirect costs to recruit ever more faculty, all of whom must generate their own salaries plus
ever more indirect costs. The root of the current problem with academia is institutional greed.
Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus (a former Dept Chair and a Provost — written by J.D. Roberts
This matter should be discussed and written down in the initial appointment or listed in a faculty handbook available to
all faculty, Alternatively, tenure appointments should not made when the appointment requires outside funding of salary and
research support as a condition of continued appointment.
I favor the last option.
Dean — written by Sonny Ramaswamy

I appreciate Dean Ball’s response.
In addition to what he said, this is what happens at the large land grant universities I have been associated with during the
last several years.
Tenured faculty are seeking higher percentages of their salaries as direct costs on grants. At some land grant institutions,
this has become a way of substituting for diminishing state dollars.
Today faculty on 9-month positions can seek summer salary supplements from grants or in many cases, have converted
from a 12-month appointment to a 9-month appointment, keeping their original salary, and can seek grant support to supplement
their salaries, thus giving them the chance to enhance their salaries. In a few cases around the US, faculty have been forced,
because of recent budget cuts, to convert to 0.75 FTE positions, and so have to seek grants to supplement salaries.

If the grants do not get funded, then they lose the supplemental salary. That’s basically the only consequence, as far as I
know. I have not heard of one, single case where a tenured professor was let go because they did not get their grant funded.
In and of itself the inability to get a grant does not result in loss of lab space, etc. at land grant universities, but if indeed
if there are years of inability to seek extramural support, then the reason for having a large lab is not there, and indeed they
might be reassigned to smaller space - this is only fair.
However, the individual, if already tenured, does not lose tenure, unless performance is below expectations for a number
of years in all of their areas of responsibility, and only gets worse, despite help offered to remediate. At most land grant
institutions in America, one really does not lose tenure per se for not getting grants, other than at institutions that do have very
strong post-tenure review. The one institution with a strong post-tenure review that I was associated with was Kansas State
University. Even there, just low performance in grants could be offset by better performance in other areas, including teaching,
and thus the individual is protected.
Ex-assistant Professor — written by Anonymous

I was recently denied tenure b/c the tenure review committee thought my publication record was too low to “...be assured
of future funding.” the committee commented that the quality of my research was “...unusually high” and that my teaching
was strong (in fact, I frequently receive some of the highest ratings on my department). Thus, the tenure decision came down
to whether my colleagues thought I would be able to get more grants. It turned out that they were wrong, and less than two
months after being denied tenure I was awarded a new grant (2 years, $100,000). But, there was no provision in the tenure
review procedures for admitting their mistake, and I am now out of a job.
What does this have to do with academic freedom?
For “Odds Against Us” — written by Duffy

Just to help you know that it is possible, I’ve been a single parent for most of my career. I am now a tenure track assistant
professor at “that major place in the northeast”. How did I do it???? By ASKING FOR HELP. Even if it means eating rice/beans
for the month, get a housekeeper, a reliable child transportation person and get your husband to help.
If you want it, you can do it...............
VPR — written by David

Tenure is, and should be, a completely separate issue from salary. In many medical schools, tenured (and untenured)
faculty members have a total authorized salary, and a portion of that salary which is guaranteed, usually based upon teaching
activities and other contributions to the university. That guaranteed percentage may be as low as 20-25%. The remainder of the
salary must be raised either from clinical revenues or from grant support. If a PI loses funding, and a component of soft money

salary disappears, then that professor earns less for the period in question. Tenure SHOULD NOT be a guaranteed full salary
for life. In my opinion, tenure is an outmoded concept, and should only apply to protection from unpopular opinions that are
not necessarily in sync with high level administrators who might want to fire the person. It should not allow a faculty member to
rest on his/her laurels, never again seek any outside support, show up from 11AM to 3PM, and teach only what he/she wants
to. The criteria for continuing after tenure should be just as demanding as the criteria for obtaining it in the first place. In every
other responsible professional position, the person either has a contract with fixed terms and expectations (metrics), or is an
“at will” employee who can be dismissed at any time. It is time for academia to modernize their medieval thinking and adjust to
the realities of the economy we now face.
changes — written by established prof

Over a 30 year career at several major “land grant” universities, I have seen a dramatic shift. When I started a grant was
an “input” variable - merely something to get your research done, and it was the research that was the all important, evaluated
“output” variable. Now grants are more like the “output” variable, something on which your evaluation rests (with the corollary
that the papers produced carry less weight and some scholarship output -”books,” “conceptual pieces” simply do not count).
Indeed, I know more than a few professors who are professional grant getters and produce little scholarship. Universities love
them while almost despising those who try to remain scholars. I know. I have lots of grant money and resist pressure from
deans etc. to get more (yes they see me only as a cash cow)because I insist on getting good, and lots of, papers out regarding
the research. Deans etc don’t like this and are making threatening noises even though I am by far the most productive
grantsman and scholar in the college! What have our universities become?
written by Anonymous2
I think tenure is still important for the reasons it was initially instated (and not necessarily to protect faculty on essentially
soft money). Being in faculty governance where often contentious discussion ensues with administration I have always felt
secure in the protection provided by tenure. So the tenure system does not just protect those from being fired based on
unpopular beliefs or political positions; with a confidence of protection from capriciousness, it encourages activism for the
greater good.
assistant professor — written by early career

As an MD assistant professor on the tenure track, tenure has value to me because (1)I will get fired or switched to
a clinician educator track if I don’t get it (2) it means the university and I agree on what my job is -- primarily research as
opposed to lots of patient care and (3)researchers on the tenure track get priority for bridge funding and other research
resources.

Professor — written by BS
Universities, particularly medical schools, use tenure as a carrot to attract high caliber researchers to the faculty, yet they
purposely obfuscate what the meaning of tenure is. I have been a tenured professor at a major medical school for over 15 years.
At my school, tenure is linked to a “a sufficient degree of economic security to make the profession of teaching attractive to
men and women of ability”. If one receives continuous and adequate grant funding, then tenure is never “used” as salaries are
adequately covered. It is when a faculty member loses funding that he/she needs to take advantage of tenure to ensure that they
have financial security to stay on and continue to compete for funding. Those who look at this as nothing more than a handout
are dead wrong. Remember that during all the years that the faculty member was funded, he/she covered a good percentage of
his/her salary/fringe benefits and, moreover, supported the school through indirect costs. In most cases, at least in my experience,
medical schools make money with their research faculty, despite the nonsense you hear from administrators. Why then shouldn’t a
productive researcher receive some financial security when times get tough? It is the job of administrators to maintain the financial
integrity of their schools while still maintaining its mission. I would think that the mission would be better served by cutting the
relatively high salaries of administrators than those of the faculty. Finally, I think that all those faculty members who have written
here against the idea of tenure should voluntarily give up if they have it or decline it if it is ever offered.
assistant professor — written by Drew

Those who eschew tenure sometimes forget the risks of taking/teaching an unpopular position on the road to discovery that
a PI may take. Consider mentioning any position as a matter of discussion or debate, particularly in a today’s politically charged
environment, that may even slightly influence your ability to get promoted or garner external funding (let alone a paycheck). Would
you be more inclined to risk your promotion/paycheck if you didn’t have tenure versus if you did? I would wager that, in the main,
non-tenured faculty are reluctant to weigh-in on even the most innocuous debates if it poses a risk to their growth/retention.
Having said that I will quote a frequently used contractor’s saying “You can do anything if you’ve got the money”. Sadly so,
with or without tenure”
“tenured” full professor — written by recently fired

Great set of comments, colleagues!
As one of a couple dozen recently fired tenured faculty I would like to inform you that the comments “changes”, “written by
established prof” are compelling.
At this university the Curricular Review criteria for firing tenured faculty in response to the almost 7% reduction in the state
portion of our university’s total funding appear to have been exactly the same as the criteria FOR promotion and tenure. That
is, the tenured faculty who were fired have the best refereed journal article publication records as well as excellent teaching
and good extramural funding productivity. We have been told to ‘leave our grants with the U or send the money back.’ Huh?
Meanwhile, faculty who teach but neither publish nor do research were retained. Faculty with extramural funding who do not

publish were also retained. As the “changes” author notes, true scholars seem to be despised. Why? Firing the best scholars
is neither good for students, stakeholders, society at large; nor is it a profitable business move. So--why?? Quantity trumps
quality? I have to agree: “What have our universities become?”
Tenured Professor — written by Anonymous

I think it is ridicules that nobody is commenting on the fact that those who bring NIH dollars for their research bring more
than 50% of that dollar amount to their universities (private) as Indirect Costs. I am not sure who exactly is enjoying this money
-- I do not. But this money, or part of it, should be kept to support the PI’s FULL salary on rainy days.
Retired Tenured Professor and Department Chairman — written by Fred

Grant Overhead funds are necessary to defray the costs of laboratory space (construction, maintenance, heating and cooling,
etc., etc.), library services, campus police etc., required for space and services utilized for and by grant supported research. That’s
who is “enjoying this money”. Only a single message in this series refers to the cutbacks in public funds for public universities.
These reductions in funding are huge. They have resulted in major increases in tuition costs for students to the point where
students incur debts of more than $100K as they graduate. Non-tenure track faculty supported by grant funds are becoming a
luxury that Universities can no longer afford at the same levels that became routine during the last decades of the twentieth century.
Tenured Associate Professor — written by K.A.S.

If indirect costs pay for facilities, library services, and campus police, what exactly does tuition pay for? There has never been
any maintenance of my lab in 7 years; I couldn’t even get new carpet when I moved in even though the existing carpet was badly
ripped and stained. I also highly doubt that the cost of heating and cooling requires the ~$46,000 in indirect costs I have brought
in each year for the past 5 years. I also know that a very small portion of tuition dollars is going to pay my salary. A standard size
class at my private university generates $112,116 in tuition dollars (35 students, 5 credit class, $640 per credit hour), of which I
receive ~$12,000 to teach it (adjunct faculty, by comparison, receive $3,800 to teach the same or even larger classes). Perhaps I
am naive, but this seems to leave an awful lot of money left over to pay for things like facilities, library services, and campus police.
Perhaps some of that money is paying the salaries of administrators? At my institution, the department chair neither teaches,
applies for grants, or publishes papers. Same for our Dean. Why are these folks never considered when there are budget cuts?
PhD who went back to clinical practice after graduation — written by Anonymous
The comments posted here are very enlightening and confirm the suspicions and “baby” insights that I learned by
graduation. I’m glad I returned to clinical practice and am self employed. I don’t regret having earned the PhD, but it is a shame

I’ll never use it for research. When I started graduate school I was very energetic and was enrolled in an institute that had not
gone R1 NIH dollars yet. By the time I graduated I could see that the research world was the most ugly hateful competitive
backstabbing bone grinding work that ever existed that was also whimsically based on government ideas of what was
important. Government rarely gets anything right and certainly hasn’t a clue as to what knowledge building and exploration is
about. My dissertation was “seminal work” and it received no government funding because it did not fit into their agenda. As
for the person who posted about job security of the brightest and most well educated. Well, I hate to tell you this but I was told
I was “overqualified” in all my job interviews after graduation when I sought work outside the academic setting---so unless you
lie about your credentials or become your own boss, I can understand why PhD need some job security.
I consider myself lucky to have landed on my feet after earning the PhD. I’m not in an ugly work place forfeiting my health
in my older years and I am happy that I had the experience of earning a terminal degree. It made me a better thinker, even
though it cost me $75,000.
Old Professor — written by ALS

One aspect that hasn’t been addressed is the incompatibility of career-long tenure with US law that prevents forced
retirement at any age. A major reason that universities are seeking to reduce their commitments to tenured faculty is that
they cannot predict the magnitude of their future financial commitments. I think that tenure is worth preserving because of its
academic freedom provision. If a set retirement age were reinstituted for university professors or if tenure were to be granted
for a limited number of years (e.g., 30 years), there would be less pressure to reduce salaries or get rid of “unproductive” (in
the university’s view) faculty members in their 50’s and 60’s. Once the tenured period ends, faculty members and universities
would be free to negotiate contracts for set terms (e.g., 5 years). In fact, some schools use rolling 5-year contracts for all their
faculty. These lead to a surprisingly stable faculty.
Do you have a contract? — written by Been There

I went through this. My tenure is contractual. my salary is N dollars guaranteed by the university. Although I am expected
to contribute to that salary via grants, nowhere does it say that I lose that portion of my salary and my position if my
funding dries up. We had go through a legal process, and to the university’s chagrin, my contract is valid and enforceable.
Unfortunately the new hires no longer get such a contract, yet they are offered “tenure”.
Non-tenure faculty, an academic orphans — written by Seasoned

I was a non tenure track research assistant professor in a research university. What I faced was to get support from in
house research support provided to PIs so that they can generate crucial preliminary data for big external grant application. I
was told to my face that preference is given to tenure-track faculty because university considers them as an assets (!). Some of
them were denied for the tenure, left the university, and almost $200 K start up money is GONE !.... n

Grant Clinic
Budgeting for Effort: A Delicate Task
Reader Question
How do I know how much effort to allot to co-investigators and how much to pay consultants?
Expert Comments
Again, we find ourselves in subtle territory.

Let’s start with consultants. When you budget for a consultant, you will describe, in the budget justification section, not only
what he or she will do, but for how many days per year — this often will vary — and at what fee per day. The cost may be broken
down by days or number of hours. The fee, of course, varies with the specialty, the consultant’s seniority, and the letters behind
the consultant’s name. A lower-level consultant might be, say, a person (at another institution) with an M.A. in psychology who will
score your heart rate variability data. Such a person might be budgeted at $30/hour, or around $250/day. A more senior consultant
could be paid $500 to $1,000/day, depending on his or her seniority and fame. I suggest not paying any one consultant too much
per day; it sticks out a bit. Instead, if you must, pay them a lower per diem but for more days per year.
Now for the co-investigators. Begin with the pragmatic analysis: How much time will the target investigator need to
allocate to accomplishing his project-related duties? Think of this: There are 40 hours in a standard work week (don’t snicker).
Twenty percent effort would mean that person would in theory work on the project one full day a week. Try not to skimp here.
Everything takes more time than you think.* But this gives you a starting point.
However, as always, there are more subtle considerations. Say you plan to list a senior colleague as a co-investigator. He
frankly is not expected to actually do anything, but his well-known name will be useful, perhaps politically expedient, and you
might feel awkward if you left him out. So, there he is — in for 5 percent or 10 percent (10 percent of a senior-level salary could
run, with fringe, around $25,000).
As to the co-investigators who are expected to do the work, you have to find the balance between what they have to do, how
much you can afford, and what would appear questionable to a reviewer. The reviewer might wonder why a co-investigator in charge
of, say, all the lab work, has been budgeted only 3 percent of her salary; or, they might wonder why 20 percent a year, for all five years
of a grant, has been budgeted to a co-investigator whose main job is to help with data analysis that doesn’t really begin until Year
4? So, the effort allotments have to be determined by (1) actual effort as matched to the anticipated level of work; (2) political and
personal considerations; (3) the funds that are available; and (4) the appropriateness of the level of effort as perceived by reviewers.
* When you start to trim the budget, cutting effort is always a favorite target because you can free up a great deal of
money very quickly — the more so because of the fringe, and especially in more senior people who draw higher salaries. I
caution you to be careful about going too far with this, or you can end up with a problem that lasts as long as the grant does.
Comments by William Gerin, PhD, P.I. e-Alert’s Chief Grants Consultant, Professor of Biobehavioral Health, Pennsylvania
State University, and author of “Writing the NIH Grant Proposal: A Step-by-Step Guide,” SAGE Books (2006)

“However, as always, there are more subtle considerations. Say you plan to list a senior colleague as a co-investigator.
He’s FRANKLY IS NOT EXPECTED TO ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING, but his well-known name will be useful, perhaps politically
expedient, and you might feel awkward if you left him out. So, there he is in for 5 percent or 10 percent (10 percent of a senior-
level salary could run, with fringe, around $25,000).” I am SURPRISED by this statement from a group that I have learned to
expect the MOST ethical principles. How can it be ethical to request funding “TO NOT ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING”!!! In addition,
the statement assumes that the senior and successful colleague is a male such as in “his well-known name”.
written by administrator
And I would add that you should always make sure that every PI/CO-PI listed is comfortable certifying to the effort they are
paid on the grant. You do-nothing big name will have to legally certify that he ‘worked’ for the funds compensated for him time and
any auditor will tell you that there are HUGE fines and potential fraud charges for anyone who is paid and doesn’t put in effort.
written by Streetwise
I cannot believe the naiveté of the prior writer. When millions of dollars are at stake in grants, every angle, back scratch,
“political debt” etc finds a crevice. We even had a grant with a horrible five-percenter (effort) who tried to take over the grant.
We actually “bought him off” (sorry, “diverted him”) by helping him corral a new grant for himself. Kudos to Dr. Gerin for daring
to be frank about stuff we all know happens now and then. Thanks to ezine for having the guts to publish reality instead of just
“political correctness!
Streetwise, please don’t get bent out of shape at Anonymous’ comment regarding the wisdom of including a do-nothing
big name in your project/budget in hopes of increasing the probability of funding. I wondered about the very same thing!
Other than that, I thought Dr. Gerin’s response was very well done. Putting “names” on proposals is akin to putting “names” on
manuscripts. Yes, it is done. Should it be? I’d say no. We all know it happens. Just because it happens doesn’t make it right.
Really, now! Can any PI or auditor honestly discern the difference between 5% effort and 6%? 12%? The whole “gradation
of effort” scale is well meant but is a farce.

written by Numerologist
The NIH and NSF could tabulate out of their thousands of grant applications what percent effort (or the range) typically
promised by PI, by the asst PI, by the consultant etc. (I hope there are no “weird numbers” floating about falsely trying to
indicate precision in effort--which simply isn’t there--e.g. 11.7% .When the tabulation was published, we could have mean and
standard deviation of percent effort by title of investigator. And this “norm” could then become expected--unless otherwise
explained as a special case. Hello! Anybody awake in OER?
written by Idealistic realist

Overall, I thought the information was good. After one has done enough grants in life, it is realized that the official budget
is not the real budget, but rather translates the realistic needs of the project to meet the constraints of the budget guidelines.
For example, as a senior investigator who helps especially in the front and end of a grant application, I contribute most of
what I have of value to the grant application before it is submitted, and then again after funds have run out but analyses
and publications are just beginning. During the official period of the grant I do much less. During the initial phase, study
implementation I am helpful. Once the data collection process begins I exert a weak quality assurance control. When we finally
get to data analysis (in the one year no cost extension and beyond) my level of effort increases significantly. Bottom line: where
I put my effort in most is before the grant gets funded and after funding has run out. Therefore to compensate me for my time
(as a consultant)the number of hours I put in while the grant is funded are inflated to balance the time I put in on the study
before and after it gets funded. Provided the PI and I have integrity in arriving at a reasonable estimate of what the value of my
contribution to the study is, pumping up hours during the period of the grant appears to me to approximate “distributive justice”.
If level of effort appears to be significantly out of whack, a reviewer will pick up on this and it will be reflected in the priority
score (even though it is officially incorrect to do so). Bottom line: the PI has to work through in her/his own mind what is “fair”.
written by whp
“Say you plan to list a senior colleague as a co-investigator. He frankly is not expected to actually do anything, but his
well-known name will be useful, perhaps politically expedient, and you might feel awkward if you left him out. So, there he is
in for 5 percent or 10 percent (10 percent of a senior-level salary could run, with fringe, around $25,000).” There has been an
alternative solution to this issue for several years now. Name the senior colleague as an “other significant contributor” at no
effort with no salary. This approach provides the colleague with “credit” for participating and leaves the budget untouched.
From the NIH Guide 4.2.4 Other Significant Contributors: This category identifies individuals who have committed to
contribute to the scientific development or execution of the project, but are not committing any specified measurable effort
(i.e., person months) to the project. These individuals are typically presented at “effort of zero person months or “as needed.”
Individuals with measurable effort may not be listed as Other Significant Contributors (OSCs). Consultants should be included
if they meet this definition. n

Grant Clinic
Obligated to Hire Consultant?
Expert Comments by Charles F. Howard, Jr., PhD
Reader Question
A grant proposal names a particular individual as “consultant” and lists their credentials to perform consulting work.
The grant is awarded. To what extent is the PI obligated to hire that individual? Could another consultant be retained without
repercussion? Does the proposal constitute a contract between the institution and the consultant? What if the would-be
consultant becomes seriously ill, or has a “falling out” with the PI before the grant work starts?
Expert Comments
The award of grant funds by a funding agency to a PI is essentially a contract between the funding agency and the PI to
carry out the proposed research. Usually the answer to “change of consultant” is yes. The funding agency approved the PI’s
budget, which contained the consultancy position. The agency does not normally approve each individual listed in the budget,
other than the PI. If the budgetary position had not been approved, the PI could not use any of those grant funds for hiring a
consultant. The PI generally has options about which personnel are to be supported on the grant, including any necessary
changes to accomplish the research.
The PI did not offer the reason for the change, but it would be well to consider at least two aspects.
1) Review all correspondence and conversations between the PI and the initial consultant to determine to what extent
the consultant may have been “promised” the position. If there were obligations made or implied, to what extent would they be
legally binding if brought to court?
2) Gather all pertinent material about the replacement consultant and then contact the Project Officer of the funding
agency. Cite the reasons for the change, the expertise of the new consultant, and offer to send on further documentation.
Assure the Project Officer that the research can/will be carried out under the terms of the award with the new consultant.
Comments by Charles F. Howard, Jr., Ph.D, established GrantsCrafter Consultancy, is a Trainer for The Grantsmanship
Center, co-teaching a workshop on Writing Research Proposals, and is also a Senior Grantwriter for Campbell and Co.
written by meisels@csl.usf.edu
Notify the granting agency’s program officer explaining why the change has to be made.

written by ShadyLady
I have heard that a certain well-known consultant “loans out” his name for grant proposal submissions--for a fee--but
somehow always get sick or otherwise indisposed by the time of research beginning, so the PI has to substitute one of this
fellow’s “junior” people. Doesn’t this sound like a racket somehow? Do the grant officers, or ORI, ever check up on possible
shenanigans like this?
written by aeroeng
Two instances I have personal knowledge of, one an Air Force proposal, the other a NASA proposal. In the first case, the
Air Force grant was won by Company A with the Principal Investigator B. “”B”” went to start his own company, the customer
went crazy, demanded a written statement that “”B”” was giving the time he promised to the project. In the 2nd case, the NASA
proposal required the explicit statement something like “”I, the principal investigator, promise to devote the time and resources
I have promised to this project.”” In other cases, we have proposed various subcontractors, won the grant, and then dumped
the subcontractor, but not because we were deceiving anyone, we merely had learned some things about the subcontractor’s
capabilities that caused us to dump him. We didn’t even tell the technical adviser, and not a peep out of him--of course, we
might have more latitude to change the project (an SBIR) then we do with other project funding sources.
written by vpeguero
The PI is not obligated to hire the individual that has been identified in the proposal submission. As the consultant is not
a “Key personnel” the PI has the liberty to replace the consultant without obtaining approval from the sponsoring agency. The
PI has to be diligent and find an individual who can perform the consulting work required for the project. The proposal does
not constitute a contract for service between the institution and the consultant. The PI has the discretion on whether he will
use, or not use, the consultant when the award is made whether the consultant has become ill or they’ve had a falling out. The
key point is the consultant is not an individual whose effort on the project has been identified as being crucial to meeting the
project milestones or completing the project.
written by LooseyGoosey
The way I am reading most of the comments is that ANYBODY can be named as a consultant but has no legal or ethical
duty to actually perform. Miraculously, neither is your grant penalized if the “all star consultants” who impressed the Study
Section don’t actually show up. My unfunded prior grant applications were obviously short on “Consultants”. OK. My next
submission will feature as Programmatic Consultant “Barack Obama”, and as my budget consultant “Tim Geitner”. Let’s hope
Sen. Grassley doesn’t get wind of any of this. PS: Is here any requirement the named consultant need actually still be alive?
Because I think Ben Franklin would be fantastic for our application’s prestige in electrical engineering.

written by Treasurer
We would like a certain consultant, but he wants a high fee. Must he--or we--adhere to some official fee scale, or can he
charge “whatever the traffic will bear”? Could we bridge any money gap by letting him use our “summer cabin at the lake” free
of charge for a week?
written by IowaSciEd
A grant score is based in part on the track record of the personnel - that is - whether or not the team assembled has the
required skills and is likely to complete the work. Thus, there is an expectation that the person named will perform the work.
However, granting agencies are normally flexible and if there is a valid reason for changing people there is no problem. FYI- I
once cancelled a subcontract in mid grant when it turned out the technique the subcontractor was using would not yield the
information I needed. I was able to use the funds to test the hypothesis using a different technique, but only with funding
agency approval. The sub contractor was not happy but the funding agency would have been even unhappier if I told them I
was funding someone to do nothing.
written by Used
Prior to the “multiple PI” option, I was included as a co-PI on an NIH grant that was funded. Within a few weeks after the
award, I was removed from the grant for no other reason given than “the project is going in another direction” and I lost a major
chunk of salary support. The PI hired a post-doc instead. When I later encountered one of the grant reviewers, he told me that
without my name on the grant as a co-PI, it would not have been funded. Basically, my name was used to obtain the grant. I
contacted NIH at the time and was told that I had no recourse. Fun times.
written by John Davis

Basically, there are two major lines of responsibility here: 1) The organization has responsibility to its customer to get
the job done right, the PI having single-point responsibility to accomplish that using whatever legal means are available);
and 2) The organization’s responsibility to be a good citizen (stay legal, be fair, meet obligations, etc.), the PI being just
one of it’s points of interface for this. So long as: 1) the original consultant/subcontractor was offered in good faith; 2) the
replacement resource is both qualified and capable (not necessarily as good as the original); 3) the project outcomes
(quality, budget and schedule) actually meet goals, and 4) the replaced consultant does not bring legal action against the
customer, then the contracting officers have no standing to interfere with the organization’s business - including who is hired
for what. On the other hand, consultants who allow their name to be used fraudulently (PIs and firms are actually doing this
when there is no written agreement, even if both intend to follow through) when no legal recourse exists to make it happen.
Worse, you are courting trouble with the customer if you boot someone who has access to cheap legal help (brother

in law???) and also has the stones to name the customer in a legal action along with your organization. That gives the
customer standing to interfere and actually threatens his/her career. In any monetary/employment relationship between two
entities it is imperative that there be some paperwork to manage expectations. We have long taught our clients: “”Don’t do
the deal if you need paper to trust the other party, but at the same time, don’t do the deal unless there is paperwork between
you to help manage expectations.”” Any firm and subcontractor/consultant who plans to work with each other absolutely
need such paperwork -- just to be legal (avoid charges of “”fraud””), if for no other reason - and there are plenty of other
reasons. So, play it smart - do the paperwork (rarely is an attorney needed to do this -- legally-binding letters of intent will
usually suffice) to manage expectations and keep your “”t..”” out of the wringer. HINT: Being able to make your application
reviewers comfortable by informing them that you use this practice should also help you win more competitive awards (you’ll
look more reliable and business-like than those who just “”wing it””). ----------------- John Davis, CEO and General Manager,
SBIR Resource Center®, 410-315-8101 / sbir@sbir.us / www.sbir.us .
written by gibbsphaserule
Contractually, there is usually no real difference between a consultant and subcontractor. Both are Other Direct Cost items
loaded with the same Indirect Cost rates. In my community, prime contractors that try to dump subcontractors or consultants
are regarded as something almost as despicable as child molesters. My experience is that the real motive for dumping is
almost always greed and other stated reasons are smokescreens. By some interpretations, dumping of subcontractors or
consultants can be the basis for a protest and/or contract cancellation on the basis that the proposal contained falsehoods and
misrepresentations.
written by Real Expert

A grant is a grant. A contract is a contract. A grant is not a contract. With a grant you are not obligated to do
anything. However, note that a 5 year NIH grant is actually a series of 1 year grants. The agency has every right to not
renew at any point.
written by gibbsphaserule
I stand corrected by Real Expert. If the funding agreement is literally a grant with no specific (or minimal) Statement of
Work or Terms and Conditions, then I assume that the recipient is free to tell any or all proposed team members, “We decided
not to use you after all.” However, in my opinion this is slime-ball behavior, and it may make it difficult to find team members
(including consultants) for future grant applications.

written by terri52
It would seem important that the consultant, i.e. person whose name may have been beneficial in obtaining a grant,
should have a binding agreement with the company seeking the grant award, that in the event the grant is awarded, he /
she would be on board. These kinds of shenanigans described, are unprofessional and unfair to the person or company
subcontractor whose name is being used!
written by Glad I’m No Longer a Research Administrator

Real Expert, if you think that a grant is not a contract, how do you explain the mountains of regulatory documents,
and terms and conditions that apply to federal grants? While it is true that grants typically have far more flexibility than
contracts, there is an explicit expectation that grants be conducted in accordance with the objectives, specific aims, and
general budgetary parameters outlined in the grant proposal; as well as the various regulatory conditions imposed on their
performance and administration. When an organization starts to spend grant funds, that organization essentially enters into
a contract with the funding agency, which promises that the organization will perform the work proposed, and in accordance
with the rules associated with that grant. Can a PI use a grant to pursue similar, closely-related objectives without the funding
agency’s prior approval? In most cases the answer is yes. However, some federal agencies are as picky with grants as they
are with contracts, with respect to the scope of work that can be pursued. Is it necessary to get an agency’s prior approval to
use a different contractor than the one outlined in the proposal? It depends! Some agencies are pickier than others over such
issues, and one should never assume that private funding organizations behave the same way that the feds do. n

Grant Clinic
Stab in the Back?
Co-Investigator Now Wants Greater % of Effort than Agreed
Expert Comments by Morgan Giddings, PhD
Reader Question:
I plan to apply for an R21 exploratory grant with a two-year budget of $100,000. A co-investigator I expected to include
at 5% effort now tells me the 5% is insufficient for the amount of work she will do. How can I resolve this amicably, so that the
helper either is happy with 5% or declines to participate so that I can choose someone else?
Expert Comments
First, step back and try to remove anger from the equation. Bringing anger into it rarely will resolve this kind of problem. It
is important to realize that her request can be boiled down to a conflict between her perceived needs and your own perceived
needs. Sometimes such conflicts can readily be resolved, and sometimes they can’t.
When you asked your colleague to join your proposal at 5% effort, are you sure she was aware exactly what and how
much effort and output you expected from her? Typically a 5% role is small (e.g., simply acting as a consultant). In order to
expect a real role with significant inputs of time and effort, one usually puts the collaborator on for 10% effort or more. If you
expect a significant contribution from her, that may be why she is asking for more effort.
It is easy in the rush of grant preparation to overlook the need to be crystal clear about expectations. A scenario that I’ve
encountered more than once is a PI making a short phone call or e-mailing a colleague and simply asking, “Hey, do you want
to be on this project? I’ll put you on for 5%,” followed by a quick description of the project. Said colleague replies, “Sure, sounds
like an interesting project, and I have 5% time to spare.” While that is a common occurrence, it also commonly produces
misunderstandings like this one.
At the outset, your colleague may not have carefully considered what was being asked of her. Often it is after some
reflection that a collaborator fully realizes the amount of time and resources they will need to commit. Your colleague may
finally have realized that she could not do all the work entailed with only 5% effort. If that is the case, it is an honest mistake
that arose from a lack of adequate communication and planning by both parties. Your responsibility was to spell out exactly
what you expected, and hers was to think more carefully before agreeing to it.
Differing expectations arising from lack of adequate communication often cause misunderstandings. Therefore, if you want
to fix this, you should have a clear and honest discussion with her about your expectations and her reason for asking for more
salary coverage. If you do that with the intention of making things work (rather than with anger), you are likely to find a mutually
acceptable solution.
You may want to tell her that this project will lead to larger future projects and that, although you don’t have additional
money to offer now, you intend to increase her effort on any future grant awarded.

If that doesn’t work, then you’ll need to revisit your budget. Budgets are based on projections — and projections are not as
inflexible as you might think. While it may seem the budget is too tight to change, you could shorten the project by one month,
resulting in a considerable savings. Then you could ask for your colleague to work on an accelerated schedule to get her results to
you. Another possibility is to approach your department for supplementary funds. Or you could scale back an experiment.
While an R21 budget is tight, there is almost always a way to make things work out — if you have the will to do so.
You should ask yourself, “Do I want a long-term relationship with this collaborator?” If you put her on the grant simply to
improve the chances of success, then maybe it is not quite so vital to keep her as a collaborator — though you should still try
to defuse this amicably. But if you need her skills and expertise, it becomes more important to try to make the collaboration
work, using one of these approaches.
Because you’re both scientists, you probably like solving problems. Therefore, think of this as a scientific challenge — to
find a solution that maximizes the future benefit for both you and your collaborator. Those solutions are always the best kind.
Comments by Morgan Giddings, PhD, is an associate professor of microbiology & immunology, biomedical engineering, and
computer science at the University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill. She also advises young scientists on maximizing their career,
along with providing a free report on five tips to a successful science career on her blog at http://morganonscience.com.
written by anon
As a long time grant reviewer I agree that 5% effort is just a consultant. Anyone that is listed as doing experiments
but is only getting 5% can sometimes raise a red flag to reviewers. If want a few experiments done, 10-15% is more
reasonable. If you want a chunk of the studies done by that collaborator 25% is about right. Any less makes it seem to the
reviewers that you have that collaborator on as “the expert” to make you look better but that you won’t really get any help
from them. Hope this helps
written by anonymous
With 5%, the most work you can expect is either 2 1/2 weeks concentrated effort or alternatively about 2 hours per
week. Unless the co-investigator is highly invested in the project and it advances their own research program, a higher %
time is likely needed to get that person to invest more time than that. The PI could ask the co-investigator to only put in the
time agreed to, and if that isn’t enough to complete the work envisioned for him/her, the PI or a research assistant will do the
remainder. Given that R21 limits are substantially higher than $100,000, and the question is stated as if it is a proposal still
at the planning stage, I am confused as to why the PI wouldn’t just add another $25,000 module to the proposal to allow a
greater time commitment, if that is what the Co-Investigator would need to complete his/her portion of the work.

written by Adriana
I disagree with anon. I have been reviewing grants for over 10 years and I do not recall ever hearing a red flag raised over
the percent effort of a collaborator because the effort was too small. Usually it is the other way around. As the PI of the grant I
usually put myself on for 20 to 25% so a collaborator at that level is rarely justified. I am on a lot of grants as a collaborator for
5% or even less. I am also a consultant on a lot of grants at 0 effort. Consulting is hardly an effort. I have had statisticians try
to get on my grants for 10% each year for analyzing one set of data in one year of the grant! I would prefer to pay this sort of
thing on a fee for use basis but they have to cover their salaries somehow. You haven’t even written the grant yet so you have
no obligation to put that person on it if you don’t want to.
written by Gazzelle
I’ve been reviewing grants and serving on panels (mostly NSF) for 18 years and have never seen % effort raise any red
flags. I think that may be because the interpretation of “% effort” is interpreted in a wide variety of ways. Since my co-PIs and
I all teach (and receive academic-year salaries from our faculty lines), our listed effort comprises some percentage of the
summer months and is tied to our summer funding (up to 2 months, but often taken as 1 month or less since money has been
so tight in many of NSF’s programs). Our projects often include PIs from Psychology, Computer Science, and Linguistics,
and since the salaries are so different across these fields, we often agree to take the same dollar amount of summer funding
(resulting in different %s of effort listed) even though we plan to put in equal effort in our collaboration.
written by Eye
One other possibility to consider is that your collaborator is in financial difficulty of some kind. Is she on soft money and
dependent on grant support for salary? If so, the situation may have changed since the original discussion and additional
salary support (if justified) may be critical for maintaining salary, benefits, etc.
written by duje
How does one calculate what 5% or 10% effort is? Is the calculation based on an academic year or a 40 hour week?
written by anon 2
I agree with the first “anon.” If the author is using the co-investigator’s resume as an expert to build up the proposal, then
the co-investigator is sharing responsibility for the results, and 5% is insufficient. Several consultants consider 40 hours as
the bare minimum for including their name in a proposal - they will accept smaller jobs, but not ones that use their reputation
to win the grant. If the collaborator is providing a job-shop service rather than really being a collaborator, then the task and its
cost should be carefully defined.

written by jane
Perhaps a review of ALL expected time and energy commitments are in order, coupled with a formalized justification of
what 5% means in each job line allocation? I’ve written funded grants when my % was less than others, even though I was the
PI, because of what the grant entailed and the focus on purpose or desired outcomes. No easy answer, but a great time for
reflection and “truth in advertisement”.
written by RKS
This problem is best solved by making a detailed list of the experiments and figuring out who is doing what. Then it’s easier to
come to an agreement. If the argument is only between 5% or 10% (i.e. a delta of 5%), I would not bother to risk a disagreement,
just agree for the higher figure and make your collaborator feel obligated to participate wholeheartedly in the study.
written by Dr Deek
Every reviewer knows that on R-21s, the budget is so tight that the % effort usually has nothing to do with the % of effort
the individual is actually going to devote to the project, Often, an individual listed at 5% is so only to get his or her name into
the budget, as this is (or was) the lowest % allowed by some institutes. In the instant case, it appears that the five % must have
lost a grant and needs to make up the funds. The investigator is thus wisely and ethically informing collaborators to up the ante
or delete the proposed participation. It also seems that the 5 % is a well recognized scientist whose collaboration is sought
by many at this applicant institution. If that is in fact the case, I would encourage the R-21 applicant to do everything that can
be done to accommodate the participation of this individual since the participation of this individual seems to be key to the
success of this application. ---- Denis English, Ph.D.
written by Vanderbot
From perspective of regular member of NIH study section, I agree that it would be rare indeed for concerns to be raised
about a co-investigator or collaborator ‘only’ devoting 5% effort, especially on an R21. The bigger issue is a fundamental (and
largely unresolved) problem raised by the collision of historical practices regarding ‘% effort’ (and inattention to the issue),
ambiguities created by the DHHS Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and varying interpretations of how things should
be done, and an approximation of ‘the rules’. The proposed % effort (now “calendar months of effort”) OUGHT to represent
a realistic and good-faith appraisal of the total hours of job-based, professional time that is spent working on the project in
question divided by the total hours of job-related professional time (per month, per year, whatever). What is put in the proposal
should, in principle, only be a starting point. Regardless what went in on the application, if the PI were to expect the co-
investigator to spend more (or less) time than originally anticipated in order to achieve project goals, then adjustments in the
% effort ought to be made even AFTER an award was made. [If the co-investigator works on average 60 hr per week on the

job - net of time in external consultancies, etc, etc - and is simply providing guidance to experiments, meetings to help interpret
results, and whatnot, they might only work 3 hr per week on average, ergo 5%.]
written by NH
R-21 is usually issued only when the reviewer are fully satisfied that they get more for their buck nay way! The PI has to
supplement R-21 these days that is the norm at least a few year or say a decade! PI must anticipate this and talk up front with
collaborators about this and sell programs only if collaborator is aware of such situations. Supplementing R-21 is art and few
institutions are aware of the nonsense of the selfish reviewers, and arm their PI ways to supplement R-21. You need also a
good business development professional advising you!
written by Mack the Knife

Get your noses out of “percentages” and the other lint PIs love to play with. You’re overlooking the real problem! It not the
percent presented. It’s that your “friend” agreed to help you under one set of terms, and now he/she wants to pull a switcheroo
and is demanding more money (i.e. effort). PIs not “as good as their word” have no place in a lab. Suggest boot this guy out
of your circle of friends, and never again ask him to do anything collaboratively. You’ve got to show such people their ransom
shtick won’t be tolerated.
written by Dr P
Denis English, would you please communicate that to the study section that reviewed my last R21? ;) I agree, though.
The budget on these apps is so restricted that it’s hard to judge from percent effort. And Mack, you’re jumping to conclusions.
The description didn’t say the Co-I has agreed to 5% -- just that s/he agreed to collaborate. I’ve been there--agree to work
on a project only to discover that your role is viewed as peripheral. In fact, I’ve asked collaborators to take me OFF budgets
because the percent effort was so low that I didn’t think it was either believable or worth my investment of energy. One last
question, though: Why an R21 with 2-year limit of $100k? The standard is $275k over 2 years. Was this a special RFA? n

Who Owns the Supplies Ordered Off of a Grant
That Is Now Expired?
Reader Question
I understand that equipment ordered off a grant that has expired is owned by the institution responsible for administering
the grant, but is the same true for supplies? For example, could I sell my old unused zip drives on eBay? Should the proceeds
from that sale go back to the institution? Or back to the funding agency?
Expert Comment
Whose grant is it? Go ask that of your grants administrator or your dean of research and you will be told, “It’s our grant”
(along with the implied, “...and don’t you forget it!”). Yes, your institution owns every bit of it, down to the last pencil you bought
with the direct-costs funding. It all belongs to them.
Specifically, the institution owns the equipment (items costing $5,000 or more and have an estimated two-year life)
purchased by a federal grant. (Items costing less than $5,000 are considered “supplies.”)
When the grant period ends, the institution can give the equipment to another PI to do research or use the equipment
for educational purposes. Of course, if a PI moves during the life of the grant, the equipment can be transferred to the new
institution with the approval of both institutions. In either event, it will be logged in and tagged with a unique identifier that goes
into the institute’s data base of inventory. The organization can lend it to another researcher or let it remain on a shelf, unused,
which is very often what happens.
As for the supplies, they should not be sold for profit. If they are still usable after the grant ends, they stay with the
institution. With approval from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), you can sell some items, but the monies must be put
back into the grant as “program income” and the monies must be used for grant research purposes.
The best practice is to keep the supplies with the originating institution.
(I thank Jerome Itinger, director of grants and contracts at the College of Health and Human Development, Pennsylvania
State University, for helping to clarify this point).
written by Observer
When dealing with federal funds, best not to do anything at all out of the ordinary, even if it makes sense from a financial
perspective- it can land one on the wrong side of the law even if your intentions are good. Equally important, it can bring

trouble to the institution and impact many more people than just you. I definitely wouldn’t sell stuff that was paid for by any
research grants on e-Bay. Most likely you’ll use a personal e-Bay account and not a university one and that just looks bad. It’s
easier to donate the equipment to the university and let them dispose of it. Many universities have a store house where other
faculty can purchase items very cheaply, especially computers, peripherals, furniture etc. Your old zip drives are not worth
much....why take the risk of jeopardizing entire programs.
Director, Research Administration, University of Pennsylvania Dept. of Medicine — written by Glen Lafferty
Supplies purchased with grant funds clearly belong to the institution, but the Grants Policy Statement contains the
following clarification regarding supplies with an aggregate value in excess of $5,000 at project termination:
“If there is a residual inventory of unused supplies exceeding $5,000 in aggregate fair market value upon termination or
completion of the grant, and if the supplies are not needed for other federally sponsored programs or projects, the grantee
may either retain them for use on other than federally sponsored activities or sell them, but, in either case, the grantee shall
compensate the NIH awarding office for its share as a credit to the grant.”
written by nm
some foundations (AHA used to, not sure now) have a rules that equip must remain available to the PI after a grant
ends(much as endowed gifts to universities can have strings attached that limit what they can do) and some even state that
equip is transferable if the PI moves to another bona fide research institution.
Never heard of anyone quibbling over supplies - most places do not even have systems in place to track supplies
written by PI in London
If I were you I’d throw the zip drives away no one uses them anymore.... or if you can sell them on eBay go ahead! It might
end up in enough money for a beer or two!
Regarding who owns the leftovers, strictly speaking I guess it’s the institution but I don’t think I’ve ever heard of organizations
squabbling over small items like zip drives.
written by som
What about books purchased of the grant? Can the PI take them if he moves after the expiration of the grant?

written by LN, Director Sponsored Programs, private institution
The institution owns anything purchased with the grant funds; the grant is to the institution. That said, I would let faculty
take books if they left if they were specific for their own research - we don’t keep inventories of those. I certainly would frown
on a faculty member selling supplies on e-bay - those should be used by the department. I would not let them take equipment.
At another institution in which I worked we required a faculty member to return equipment such as a computer and phone that
had been purchased with a federal grant after he left the institution and took the equipment with him.
written by Eli Rabett

Some universities take used equipment that the PI is finished with back into central stores, offer it to others and if there
are no takers sell it on eBay. To make this work they can offer a partial credit to the PI if it is sold
VC for Research — written by RGE

To reduce the pervasive confusion on this topic, “grantee”, and grant “recipient” refer to the institution and not the PI. Make
sure you read the above comments with this in mind
Administrative Manager — written by rhp

Pencils????? We are not allowed to charge any general office supplies to a grant unless we can prove that the pencil (or
other supplies) is used ONLY for work on that grant.
written by a grants administrator

To the above commenter, I used to feel the same way about pencils and paper, etc when I worked in a purely bench
research facility, but I moved to a place where they have a lot of federal education grants, and pencils and paper ARE
allowable expenses, as are administrative salaries. Still, all federal dollars belong to the institution, not the PI, so the PI could
not sell any residuals.
Program income is a nightmare, I’ve been down that road and would avoid it all costs in the future.
Reciprocal loans — written by College Professor

We have sometimes used long term loans to effectively transfer unused equipment between investigators at different
institutions. If you need my old unused laser, I loan it to you. The equipment remains property of my institution, and we can get

it back if we need it - but in practice we might never do this. In return, you might loan me something I need. Does this meet the
smell test?
- a Professor
Professor of Reproductive Biology in Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington U School of Medicine-St. Louis — written by
Frederick Sweet
I completely agree with the expert opinion, but with an added proviso having to do with academic community standards.
Nine out of 10 institutions will allow a PI to transfer his lab lock-stock-and-barrel to another custodial (not for profit) institution
-- provided major pieces of equipment were not substantially funded by the first institution. Sometimes even then the lab will be
allowed to be transferred -- either to another department or another university or research institute. But you cannot be at war
with the administration and expect them to cooperate. n

Grant Clinic
Moving Grant to a New Institution
Expert Comments by Tina Shinkovich, BA
Reader Question
I am moving to another institution. Am I able to move my grant to this new organization? If so, what steps do I need to take?
Expert Comments
Yes, the grant can be moved, and here is the procedure:

Because the grant is awarded to your institution and not to you as PI, the grants-management officer, program officer, and
institutional representatives must agree on where the grant will reside ultimately.
If the grant fits best at the current institution, assigning it to a co-investigator may be necessary for completion of project
goals. The sponsoring agency (NIH, NSF, DOD) must be notified as soon as possible. This paperwork takes time, so allow four
to six weeks for the transfer. You may need to request a re-budget for you to subcontract at your new institution for continued
work and collaboration on the project.
If you want the grant moved to the new institution, you must initiate the transfer. The first step is obtaining approval from your
current institution to relinquish the grant. Each institution and its sponsored-programs unit will have specific individuals designated
to approve grant transfers. These likely will include the dean and department chair, but also may include individuals at a higher
level, perhaps in the administration. Of course, all co-investigators and grant-related individuals also must be notified.
Once the transfer is approved internally, your current sponsored-programs unit will:
1. determine the exact amount of unspent funds,
2. decide whether the cost-sharing commitment has been met,
3. review any subcontracts to determine their completion status and notify the subcontractors of the intent to move the grant,
4. review any agreements for equipment purchases to determine whether any capitalized equipment should be
transferred,
5. determine ownership of technology developments or intellectual property (IP), and
6. review personnel commitments to determine whether a subcontract needs to be set up back at the original institution to
allow them to continue their work on the grant.
Next, you must begin the application process with the new institution’s sponsored-programs office by providing:
1. a copy of the initial proposal,
2. initial award notice,
3. progress reports,
4. an outline of the new scope of work once the grant is transferred,
5. a detailed budget with the fringe and indirect rates of the new institution and any cost-share commitments.

The sponsored-programs office then submits the required documents to the funding agency along with the letter of
relinquishment from the original granting agency. Once approved, the grant is re-awarded to the new institution.
Comments by Tina Shinkovich, BA, a grants director with more than 20 years’ experience with pre- and post-award
grant processes in both academic and nonprofit organizations. She currently is grants manager at the Blanchette Rockefeller
Neurosciences Institute at West Virginia University.
Here are agency Web sites offering specific information for transferring a grant/change of PI:
NSF – http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf08_1/aag_index.jsp
NIH - http://grants2.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/NIHGPS_Part7.htm#_Toc54600127
NIAID - http://funding.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/sop/changepi.htm
When the PI in the lab neighboring ours left for his new post in a neighboring state, he loaded up a U-Haul trailer and
stripped his old place clean. I mean he carted off everything-all glassware, half-filled bottles of reagents, all the office supplies
from his desk, etc. Oh, and this was about 10PM on the weekend.. (But he took nothing “big”, like a fume hood or an electron
microscope.) Still, it seemed to me he must be violating some legal or societal etiquette. Should I have called the campus
police? I confess I just kept my head down and my mouth shut.
written by Richard Zhao

The accurate answer should be “It depends upon the decision from the institution”, i.e., it is “Yes” if the institution agrees; or
“No” otherwise. If the grant will stay, the institution has to sign another PI, not co-investigator” upon approval of the funding agency.
I have just completed this process. It took me over a year to transfer my grant to my new institution! In theory, transferring
an award should be easy and the steps outlined are accurate. Frankly, this is the first time I have ever seen the process
outlined in such a straightforward manner. Trust me, I have looked. Thank you Tina. Administratively and in practice this
process can be a nightmare. This is especially problematic if you are moving from a research institution / school to one less
familiar with and/or skilled in grant award administration (which is a true skill). Lessons I learned? 1) This is much more work
than it appears, so be prepared, 2) Don’t assume everyone knows how to do this, make sure you are following the steps,
3) get as much done as you can before you move, and, most importantly, 4) KNOW YOUR NEW INSTITUTIONS GRANT
ADMINISTRATION PROCESSES, POLICIES, AND PEOPLE. I would recommend staying in constant contact with your new
institutions officials to make sure things are happening. Remember, they do not know you and you do not know them or their

systems, protocols, and procedures. Once your former institution officials have signed off on your transfer that it, they are
done. Now it is up to you to make sure the money gets to your new institution. This can be an extremely frustrating. I hope to
never have to do this again.
A related question, in case any readers have insight on this. Who owns the equipment that was purchased from the grant,
particularly computers and software, and can these be taken to the new institution? Can the current institution claim any rights
to such equipment?
written by Experienced
1. The procedure described above is only accurate with respect to Investigator-Initiated NIH awards (R01, R21, etc.) and not
to multi-investigator awards (P01, P30, P50, etc.) which because they are dependent on the institutional context are not movable.
2. NIH, at least, also must approve the transfer of the award and the new host institution must agree to accept it. As noted above,
the first step is to get approval of the transfer from the current awardees institution. 3. Any institution that has not established the
policy that it owns all equipment, furnishings, etc. purchased with external grant or contract funds is not living up to its fiduciary
responsibility or its responsibility to protect and maintain institutional integrity. 4. If the U-Haul, or in my case semi-trailer, is in
the process of being loaded, call the Sheriff to report a theft in progress. If the load is in transit or in another location, the Sheriff
should bring it back at the thieves’ expense. 5. Institutions have a responsibility to make good policy, publicize it to their faculty
investigators, and enforce it. How will you explain to an NIH auditor that equipment, etc., purchased with grant/contract funds is
missing? A tradition of “institutional generosity” is not likely to be an acceptable answer. 6. Does anyone know how to spell “FBI?”
I think in general Ms. Shinkovich has provided very useful information for PI’s, who may have plans to move. However,
based on my experience, the transfer of a grant to another Institution needs to be planned very carefully. Things, which need to
be considered before the transfer include move of researchers, who are supported by the grant, purchase of major equipments,
and other laboratory purchases. In reality, everything, which was purchased from the grant funds and are needed to continue
the proposed research work, can be justified for the transfer. In case, postdocs (or a staff) are not able to move and are not
able to find another position, their salary support may be charged to grant for some period (there is a limit). Additionally, the
parent institution would wait for few weeks (up to 90-days) to make sure that no payments are due for the purchases that were
made in the recent past. In reality, it may take at least 3-6 months to transfer a grant to new Institution. Therefore, the PI needs
to be prepared for an interruption in research. Sometimes, this interruption results in reduced research productivity. Therefore,
experiments and publications need to be planned at least a year before the transfer to maintain the research productivity.

We have just been through this where a grant was transferred to another institution. How much is transferred (i.e. lab
reagents, equipment etc) depends on the contract between the institution and the granting agency. In our case the first
institution where the grant was being transferred from owned all of the equipment (by contractual agreement) that was
purchased by the granting agency. So legally the transferring institution makes the decision about what will be transferred. In
our case the only equipment that was approved for transfer was equipment not being used by other faculty for research and
teaching, which was not very much. Also, samples were not transferred unless the faculty member that was leaving could
provide signed informed consents from each participant that their samples would be transferred which the PI was unable to
do. So, very little equipment and very few samples were transferred. I would suggest to “ashamed” that the person who backed
up a U-haul and moved equipment at 10 PM certainly violated ethics and possibly the law if the transfer was not approved
through formal channels. In our situation the chair, dean, provost, general counsel and vice provost for research were a part of
the approval process for transfer. Another wrinkle was the faculty member that was leaving has some ethical challenges and a
challenging personality too, so it was not an enjoyable process. It took about 18 months to complete the transfer.
written by Anonymous Too!

I performed my first and only move a few years ago. It was definitely the most stress I’ve ever experienced in my life so far.
On the other hand, once you have experience in the matter, you realize looking back that it does not have to be that way next
time, as most parties involved just have a bigger bark than a bite. According to the rules, the university/ academic institution owns
absolutely everything. However, it is rare for them to reassign an R01 type grant to another PI locally because most R01’s are
heavily connected with the expertise of the PI who is moving. And yes, there is a tradition to let the funds move because there are
as many funds moving out as there are moving in. However, this is all at the discretion of the institution so the PI has play nice.
The problem is that some institutions/ departments (cannot name them!) try to hold hostage one’s R01 funds by forcing the PI to
relinquish other funds or equipment from private sources such as private funding agencies or private donors. The university owns
all the equipment etc. from those too but has an easier time justifying (through creative accounting) keeping that equipment or
funds for their own use or that of other investigators in the department. They may in some cases want to negotiate that equipment
or funds for you to get their signatures on the forms to move your R01 funds. I’m hoping this is not a widespread practice but be
warned that the whole process can be ridiculously stressful if the participants want it to be. The PI of the grant is completely at the
mercy of the institution he/she is leaving and that is why it is very stressful. It’s extremely difficult obtaining NIH funding in the first
place and the prospect of losing it during a move can be very stressful. Any equipment purchased through departmental start up
funds is typically non negotiable (i.e. it stays) unless it has no value whatsoever to other investigators in the department. Under no
circumstances can any equipment be moved without proper authorization (the story of a 10pm move sounds surreal to me) unless
the PI wants to risk jail time. It would amount to theft. I suspect in that case the lab was very small, I can’t imagine moving any
decent size lab without professional movers and co operation of facilities staff. My final advice, negotiate a good start-up package
at the new institution in consideration of all the stress, downtime and risk to your research funds you will no doubt experience.

Next time I move, I will request an even heftier start up to compensate for the stress- it’s definitely one of the big reasons I’m in no
rush to make a move ever again. Good luck.
written by koi
@ashamed: taking the glassware & office supplies while cheesy doesn’t seem to be that big of a deal. I moved my grant
between two big institutions with highly professional & experienced staff that did most of the work. They already had the list
of the equipment and let me take most everything. I paid for the equipment bought with dept. funds (at depreciated rates).
Overall, it was a positive experience. I do know people whose chairpersons/colleagues were greedy and reluctant to grant
them their equipment as they changed institutions. I personally find this unethical (while legal) and petty - an institutional theft
of resources a PI needs to do his job. Did they spends months writing that RO1?
written by moving out

My institution traditionally tosses out phenomenal quantities of glassware, bench top items, and even fridges, floor-
standing centrifuges, etc. when labs close or move. It makes more sense to recycle internally, or to allow the PI to transfer
many items elsewhere if they’ll otherwise be trashed. Some sponsors (non-NIH) specify that the work is to be performed by a
particular PI, and will withdraw the funding from the original institution if the PI moves.
written by Curious
What about indirect costs? What if your current institution only has 55% indirect costs for your R01 grant, but the place
you are moving to has a 100% indirect cost. I heard NIH will not change the total money awarded. Then it means you suffer a
huge loss in your direct cost.
written by Molly Greene

To the excellent list in the article, I would add: If using humans and/or animals in your grant, contact the new IRB/IACUC
as soon as you begin making plans to move. They should be able to smooth the process so approvals are in place shortly after
your arrival, if not upon arrival.
written by Interesting
Well, these comments from PIs are quite pessimistic about moving a grant. Is this the typical risk-aversion attitude that all
of us academics suffer from (I guess it stems from having to please our PI as a graduate student and then appease everyone

else until we are finally tenured) or it valid concern. I am currently a PI on three NIH grants and have considered a move
recently. A colleague of mine recently moved - and it was messy - but I think he took all of his money. If it so difficult how do so
many people make the moves? It seems to me that if the parent institutions do indeed have so much control that they would
exercise this option frequently.
written by MAL
Well, I guess the question is really what ethically should be done? The purpose of the government issuing the grant is for
the public good, not to make Universities wealthier. A university that is more interested in asset collection than in the public
interest is not a University you want to work for. So, I believe there is no question that ethically the equipment should travel with
the PI and an Ethical university would put this in writing. Also, remember that the function of the legal system is not to enforce
ethics, nor morality or any of that. It is solely up to individuals and institutions to be ethical. The best time to address these
issues is when one accepts a job at any University. You cannot effectively negotiate when you are walking out the door.
I would say the purpose of the government issuing the grant is not for the enrichment of the faculty member either. I think
it is a hard case to make that it should always default to the faculty member. There are other issues to think about as well...is
the equipment that has been purchased used by other faculty for classroom teaching and research? Has the faculty member
acted ethically in their use of the funds? Does the institution or department have a vested interest in a viable lab that continues
beyond the faculty members tenure?...
As a PI departing soon for another institution, I discussed these issues with my chair. Generally, all supplies and
equipment purchased from grants belong to the university (unless the grant is moved and the items are required to complete
the project). However, my chair also tells me that there is a tradition of generosity here, in which the departing PI is often
wished well and allowed to take essentially everything (barring furniture and equipment that other department members have
come to rely on). n

Grant Clinic
I’m One of Two PIs on Project; Will My Move to
New Institution Result in Loss of Direct Costs?
Reader Question
I have a new RO1 grant starting next month in which I am one of the two (multiple) PIs. I will be moving to another
institution, and so this grant will need to be re-budgeted as a consortium. Will we lose direct costs for the project as a result of
needing to cover the indirect costs for the subcontractee institution out of the direct costs to the grantee institution?
Expert Comments
You will lose direct costs under one particular circumstance only, explained as follows:
As a rule, indirect costs do not come out of the subcontract. However, the following exception exists: I quote here from my
book, Writing the NIH Grant Proposal: A Step-by-Step Process (Page 185): “Although the National Institutes of Health (NIH)
does not wish to pay facilities and administration (F&A) costs twice, your home institution does want some money as a fee for
administering the sub-award. To this end, NIH allows the home institution to charge its indirect rate on the first $25,000 of the
sub-awards’ direct costs.”
That is, the office in the home institution that administers the grant — the budgets, the signatures, etc. — wants some
money to do this because the grant you are bringing in is going to cause them additional work.
There a couple of scenarios that might emerge:
First, there are sub-awards whose direct costs total at least $25,000 in Year 1. In that event, someone — either the
subcontractor or the parent grant — must pay the home institution’s F&A rate on that $25K. So if, for example, the rate were 50
percent, then $12,500 must be allocated for that purpose, which comes out of the direct-costs budget in that first year. (Note
that not all institutions do this, but many do, certainly large academic hospitals).
Second scenario: The direct costs of the subcontract do not total to at least $25,000 in Year 1. Say they total $15,000.
Then the direct costs would be levied on that $15,000 in Year 1, and on the remaining $10,000 in Year 2.
So, Yes, it is going to cost someone, in this example, $12,500. Who? That’s up to negotiation. Often it will come out of the
home institution’s budget, because those dollars usually don’t exist in the sub-awards.
Because of this, it is sometimes useful to hire consultants, rather than having co-investigators or other “personnel” at
the sub-award institution(s). Consultants don’t require sub-awards (nor do they require fringe benefits; they are just paid as
contractors from the direct costs). No sub-awards, no fee.
Of course, often there are other reasons that the individuals at the sub-award institutions might prefer, and/or the principal
investigators might prefer, to remain as co-investigators. That is an individual decision.

Associate VP/Research — written by Gina

There are rules governing whether a budget appropriately uses the consultant or a subcontract mechanism when utilizing
the services of individuals not employed at the prime grant recipient’s institution. Those rules supersede desire on anyone’s
part to “save” money on a grant, and will determine which mechanism legitimately can be used. Also, as the writer indicates,
most sub recipient institutions likely would want a faculty member who has a substantial portion of the SOW to perform at their
institution to receive a subcontract, fully loaded to recover all applicable costs (both direct and indirect), rather than have their
employee conduct work as a consultant while likely using their intuition’s resources and facilities. n

Other Helpful Resources from Principal Investigators Association
Audio & Web

B
M ECO
EM M
BE E A
Resources
R
Membership Avoid the hassles and expenses of traveling to

seminars, stay in the comforts of your office.
Listen by yourself or as a group for the same
Access invaluable resources for every non-science challenge, low tuition.
including grant assistance, compliance, mentoring, budgets,
and time management to human resource issues. t(SBOUTBOE'VOEJOH
Membership Benefits:
t3FTFBSDI$PNQMJBODF
t1SJODJQBM*OWFTUJHBUPS"EWJTPSNPOUIMZOFXTMFUUFS t-BC.BOBHFNFOU
t1*F"MFSU t*OUFMMFDUVBM1SPQFSUZ
t%JTDPVOUFE"VEJP$POGFSFODFT t.BOZNPSF
t (VBSBOUFF/026&45*0/4"4,&%
Visit our Audio and Web Library
For a complete listing of upcoming audio conferences, webinars, and other educational
resources visit www.PrincipalInvestigators.org or call 1-800-303-0129.
Executive Report: NIH’s Short Form Grant Application 54
Winning Your NIH Research Grant www.PrincipalInvestigators.org 137


Winning Your NIH Research Grants

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Winning Your NIH Research Grants

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Winning Your NIH

 Winning Your NIH Research Grant

A Note from the Editor ...............................................................................................................................................................2

8 Tips For Better Grant Writing...................................................................................................................................................5

Winning Your NIH Research Grant 

 Winning Your NIH Research Grant

Winning Your NIH Research Grant 

 Winning Your NIH Research Grant

Tell a Story About Your Work

New Form Brings Changes

Winning Your NIH Research Grant 

Make Clear Who’s Boss

Convince Them You’re Innovative

 Winning Your NIH Research Grant

‘Reliability’ Still Has a Place

Show Broader Relevance

Winning Your NIH Research Grant 

The Focus: Improving Reviews

10 Winning Your NIH Research Grant

Winning Your NIH Research Grant 11

12 Winning Your NIH Research Grant

Winning Your NIH Research Grant 13

14 Winning Your NIH Research Grant

Winning Your NIH Research Grant 15

16 Winning Your NIH Research Grant

Winning Your NIH Research Grant 17

18 Winning Your NIH Research Grant

Winning Your NIH Research Grant 19

20 Winning Your NIH Research Grant

Winning Your NIH Research Grant 21

22 Winning Your NIH Research Grant

Winning Your NIH Research Grant 23

2. Find a business partner

3. Prepare a commercialization strategy

24 Winning Your NIH Research Grant

5. Ask someone to review

Winning Your NIH Research Grant 25

26 Winning Your NIH Research Grant

Winning Your NIH Research Grant 27

28 Winning Your NIH Research Grant

Winning Your NIH Research Grant 29

30 Winning Your NIH Research Grant

Winning Your NIH Research Grant 31

32 Winning Your NIH Research Grant

Winning Your NIH Research Grant 33

34 Winning Your NIH Research Grant

Winning Your NIH Research Grant 35

36 Winning Your NIH Research Grant

Let’s address some of these issues, particularly for newcomers:

Winning Your NIH Research Grant 37

Broad knowledge base helps

Serve 4 years; 3 meetings a year

38 Winning Your NIH Research Grant

Winning Your NIH Research Grant 39

Why innovation has lacked support

40 Winning Your NIH Research Grant

NIH moving toward innovation

Winning Your NIH Research Grant 41

1. Sending out for pizza for the lab.

2. Flying first class.

3. Paying for parking.

42 Winning Your NIH Research Grant

5. Hiring an administrative assistant.

Winning Your NIH Research Grant

Winning Your NIH Research Grant

Winning Your NIH Research Grant

Winning Your NIH Research Grant

Winning Your NIH Research Grant

Winning Your NIH Research Grant

Winning Your NIH Research Grant

Winning Your NIH Research Grant