+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **A    | **Comments on Linked Awards**                               |
| ffilia |                                                             |
| tion** |                                                             |
+========+=============================================================+
|        | Overall, I am very much in favor of multiple PI\'s because  |
|        | there are often times when two people both play critical    |
|        | roles. A dual PI grant with a junior and a senior PI will   |
|        | help advance the research career of a more junior awardee,  |
|        | who may otherwise do all the work but get less credit (as   |
|        | the more senior person may be named PI to help at           |
|        | review/council).                                            |
|        |                                                             |
|        | Dual PI\'s (or more than 2) across multiple institutions    |
|        | may be appropriate, but would not want to give \"PI\"       |
|        | designation in the traditional sense to someone who is      |
|        | merely acting as site PI, and who did not contribute to the |
|        | intelluctual development of the idea.                       |
|        |                                                             |
|        | On the other hand, having multiple PI\'s (one PI per site)  |
|        | might lead to a very beneficial style of writing and        |
|        | administration\--a true group effort, although someone will |
|        | need to lead.                                               |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **C    | We particularly like the idea of linked awards, and feel    |
| ollege | that it would stimulate cross-institution collaboration \-- |
| of St. | especially for primarily undergraduate institutions.        |
| Cathe  |                                                             |
| rine** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **I    | Linked awards would have the benefit of better recognizing  |
| ndiana | the contributions of PI\'s at subcontracted institutions as |
| Univer | opposed to the current system. In addition, it would        |
| sity** | significantly reduce the administrative burden of           |
|        | subcontracts for the sponsored programs office.             |
|        | Nonetheless, having a lead PI and institutions helps build  |
|        | a leadership paradigm that would not be effectively         |
|        | replaced with linked awards. The best solution is to retain |
|        | subcontracting as opposed to linked awards but for NIH to   |
|        | find a way to allocate credit to these researchers.         |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **IU   | Linked awards would have the benefit of improving           |
| School | recognition for contributions to collaborative projects as  |
| of     | well as improve the timing of funding for those currently   |
| Medi   | receiveing subcontracts. However, the overall impact would  |
| cine** | probably be neutral. Collaborators with a history of        |
|        | publishing together would probably work well under either   |
|        | mechanism. Where there are difficulties in the              |
|        | collaboration, having one institution charged with making   |
|        | the project successful could be an advantage. This          |
|        | determination might have to be made on a case-by-case basis |
|        | based on the leadership plan put forth by the               |
|        | investigators.                                              |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **The  | Offering linked awards would provide institutional credit   |
| Univ   | and facilitate management more effectively for research     |
| ersity | projects were significant collaboration is required. Other  |
| of     | federal agencies already use the concept of linked awards   |
| Chi    | with much success. The overall management would be          |
| cago** | facilitated, as one major obstacle in large collaborative,  |
|        | multi-institutional awards are the (sometimes) significant  |
|        | delays the administration of the subawards. Additionally,   |
|        | allowing different mechanisms to facilitate the different   |
|        | types of collaborations will provide the administrative     |
|        | options to best support the diverse population of projects  |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **     | I have been involved in numerous subcontracts, in either    |
| Boston | role. In every case, they fostered administrative           |
| Univ   | inequities and inefficiencies as well as a financial burden |
| School | on the research. In several cases, the science suffered as  |
| of     | a result and in at least one case, the investigators        |
| Medi   | decided not to continue the joint project simply because    |
| cine** | the subcontract experience was so negative                  |
|        | administratively. At my institution, \"credit\" for         |
|        | bringing in research support is not given to faculty unless |
|        | they are PIs. One BUSM administrator explained to me that   |
|        | subcontracts are not taken seriously because the PI at the  |
|        | other institution has ultimate control over the finances.   |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Pa   | We endorse the comments of the Council on Governmental      |
| rtners | Relations (COGR).                                           |
| Heal   |                                                             |
| thCare |                                                             |
| S      |                                                             |
| ystem, |                                                             |
| Inc.** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| *      | 9a: Sometimes it is best to fund personnel jointly between  |
| *Tufts | institutions or at the secondary instead of primary and     |
| Unive  | vice versa, but subcontracts make this difficult.           |
| rsity, |                                                             |
| Med    | 9b. The subcontract PI is given substantially less          |
| ford** | recognition and credit for obtaining the grant than the     |
|        | primary PI. While this does not matter for a senior PI, it  |
|        | can be a disadvantage for junior PIs.                       |
|        |                                                             |
|        | 9b. So-called \'ghost-writing\' by post-docs and junior     |
|        | faculty with senior faculty as the grant PI may become less |
|        | prevalent (they are quite prevalent currently) with the     |
|        | possibility of multi-institution PIs.                       |
|        |                                                             |
|        | 9d. This will depend upon the strength of the relationship  |
|        | between the PIs involved.                                   |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | In circumstances in which a PI moves among institutions or  |
| ersity | other unexpected changes, one would naturally expect        |
| of     | increasing complexity in re-factoring linked awards among   |
| Chi    | institutions. Realistically, in a situation where there are |
| cago** | multiple PIs and one moves or other major changes occur,    |
|        | the project needs to be taken apart and put back together.  |
|        | This, it seems, can be done most effectively with fewest    |
|        | regulations by NIH. While it is understandable that         |
|        | institutions claim the awards, research is more dependant   |
|        | upon the teams than the infrastructure - linked awards      |
|        | would likely make it more difficult for the team to stay    |
|        | together if one PI left to an uninvolved institution.       |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **The  | The current mechanism to prime and subawardees works well.  |
| Child  | It acknowledges the leadership and coordinating role of an  |
| ren\'s | individual and of an institution. It places responsibility  |
| Ho     | and accountability is a single place. While we would not    |
| spital | argue that it is a complex system with multiple challenges, |
| of     | the system allows for oversight of the entire project.      |
| Ph     |                                                             |
| iladel | The NSF has provided for (at least) two types of awards for |
| phia** | many years -- the traditional prime and subcontract         |
|        | relationship and linked awards. The number of linked awards |
|        | has been and continues to be very small as compared to      |
|        | those set up as primes with subcontracts. NIH has also      |
|        | supported the notion of "linked" or "group" awards, but     |
|        | with limited success. It has been challenging to determine  |
|        | when and how to utilize this concept. Parellel awards       |
|        | remove the "leverage" that PI's currently have to direct    |
|        | projects and to demand participation, sharing of resources, |
|        | data, and results between participants. This may, however,  |
|        | be a mechanism that NIH wishes to offer on a limited basis. |
|        | We can appreciate that there may be occasional projects     |
|        | where researchers are conducting distinct but complementary |
|        | experiments for whom the linked award might be appropriate  |
|        | in instances where these investigators are at different     |
|        | institutions.                                               |
|        |                                                             |
|        | The vast majority of projects do not have totally equal     |
|        | contributions from the participating individuals. While     |
|        | this may be less true in a program project, where           |
|        | individual projects are expected to stand on their own      |
|        | merit, it is exquisitely true in the case of a multi-site   |
|        | clinical trial or study, where multiple PI's at multiple    |
|        | sites play critical but not leadership roles. Moreover, in  |
|        | these situations, the funds flowing to the sites relies on  |
|        | the number of subjects recruited and completed and is not   |
|        | known in advance.                                           |
|        |                                                             |
|        | We recognize that an issue with the system of               |
|        | prime/subcontracts is that the current federal data systems |
|        | do not recognize the dollars that are awarded to "flow" to  |
|        | the subcontracting institutions. At our institution, some   |
|        | 15% or more of our NIH dollars come to us via subcontract.  |
|        | Our actual NIH funding is considerably higher than what the |
|        | NIH award tables would indicate.                            |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | The allocation of an award to one prime grantee with        |
| ersity | multiple sub-awards to investigators at other institutions  |
| of     | is appropriate where one Principal Investigator is          |
| Califo | ultimately in charge of the proposed scope of work and has  |
| rnia** | selected others to carry out parts of the proposed project  |
|        | or, for example, in a large clinical study involving        |
|        | several clinics. While such an arrangement requires more    |
|        | administrative work on the part of the prime grantee it may |
|        | best suit the needs of particular projects. On the other    |
|        | hand, multiple grants made to different institutions may be |
|        | less administratively burdensome for grantees and might     |
|        | represent a more appropriate arrangement for a consortium   |
|        | project.                                                    |
|        |                                                             |
|        | Indeed, a number of allocation models merit consideration:  |
|        | different projects often require different methods of       |
|        | allocation. Agencies should therefore consider offering a   |
|        | number of allocation models, with principal investigators   |
|        | bearing the responsibility of selecting an appropriate      |
|        | model for individual projects. Among models which should be |
|        | offered, "linked awards" and consortium agreements deserve  |
|        | particular consideration; linked awards avoid the           |
|        | administrative burden associated with prime and sub-awards  |
|        | and there may be an advantage to their increased use.       |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **     | 11a. Subcontract arrangements are often the optimal way to  |
| Northw | manage the technical, administrative, and budgetary aspects |
| estern | of large multi- and inter-disciplinary grants. The NIH      |
| Univer | Grants Policy Statement and the Office of Management and    |
| sity** | Budget circulars prescribe the oversight role of the prime  |
|        | institution. These would have to be substantially modified  |
|        | to allow linked awards in place of subcontracts,            |
|        | particularly if NIH allows the option of either linked or   |
|        | subcontract awards.                                         |
|        |                                                             |
|        | 11b. The PI at the subcontracting institution is treated as |
|        | the PI of the subcontract at the subcontracting institution |
|        | under the current arrangement of a single award to the      |
|        | prime with issuance of subcontracts. These PIs have the     |
|        | same level of control over their project as the lead PI.    |
|        |                                                             |
|        | 11c. Linked awards could complicate the coordination of the |
|        | technical and administrative aspects of a large award and   |
|        | would remove budgetary flexibility that now exists between  |
|        | the prime awards and subcontracts under expanded            |
|        | authorities. In terms of credit, there would be no          |
|        | advantage of linked awards over a single award as all PIs   |
|        | on awards with subcontracts would receive recognition.      |
|        | Linkage of separately awarded grants would create           |
|        | difficulties during the peer review process, would make     |
|        | equal access to summary statements difficult, and would be  |
|        | difficult to represent in the CRISP database.               |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
|        | We lead multi-institutional, multi-disciplinary research    |
|        | teams. Based on our experience, assigning funds directly to |
|        | multiple institutions will undermine coordination within    |
|        | the team and result in researchers pursuing their pieces of |
|        | a project independently. We recommend a system that allows  |
|        | subcontracting insitutions to report funds in their         |
|        | departmental \"scores,\" but retaining the present          |
|        | subcontracting system that gives the principal investigator |
|        | financial control needed to effectively manage an           |
|        | inter-organizational team.                                  |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | The Notice appropriately indicates that there are a variety |
| ersity | of ways to structure complex awards. The award mechanism    |
| at     | should reflect the nature of the project. Subcontract       |
| A      | agreements provide a tool to allow parts of the work to be  |
| lbany, | conducted at a different institution. Perhaps it is just    |
| SUNY** | human nature to prefer being a prime, than being a sub, but |
|        | this is a mechanism that basically works well. The issue of |
|        | "priority" should balance out over time. Those who are      |
|        | prime in some awards are subs in other awards. Institutions |
|        | keep track of their flow-through dollars so that funds for  |
|        | research can be reported. The subcontract mechanism also    |
|        | provides a tool to articulate the responsibilities. A prime |
|        | and sub awardee structure would seem most reasonable for a  |
|        | broad-based clinical trial using multiple clinic sites. On  |
|        | the other hand, there may be times when a linked award is   |
|        | preferable. For example, a basic research project with      |
|        | researchers conducting distinct but complementary           |
|        | experiments may benefit from a linked awards structure. For |
|        | still others, a grant to a single institution with          |
|        | consultants assisting in project activities may be the most |
|        | appropriate award instrument. Achieving the scientific      |
|        | goals should dictate the type of mechanism used for         |
|        | identifying participants and awarding the funds. It is      |
|        | unlikely that there is one ideal mechanism for supporting   |
|        | team activities and a full toolbox of approaches would be   |
|        | best.                                                       |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Dir  | As long as the accountable PI takes responsibility for      |
| ector, | distributing information and funding in a manner consistent |
| Office | with the spirit of these new regulations, and as long as    |
| for    | agencies are able to recognize all PIs as responsible for   |
| Spo    | the project, we do not believe significant inequities will  |
| nsored | be established between PIs at the awardee institution and   |
| Prog   | PIs at the sub-contract institution.                        |
| rams** |                                                             |
|        | With respect to linked awards: while we can see the value   |
|        | of offering linked awards to multiple PIs across multiple   |
|        | institutions, the administrative requirements associated    |
|        | with such awards would greatly interfere with efficient     |
|        | project management. We believe existing subcontracting      |
|        | relationships could continue to work effectively and        |
|        | efficiently in the new model.                               |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **     | Linked awards allow individual PIs at secondary sites a     |
| Boston | great deal of autonomy, which may not be in the best        |
| Univ   | interests of quality monitoring or compliance with an       |
| ersity | overall protocol.                                           |
| School |                                                             |
| of     |                                                             |
| Me     |                                                             |
| dicine |                                                             |
| and    |                                                             |
| School |                                                             |
| of     |                                                             |
| Public |                                                             |
| He     |                                                             |
| alth** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Mi   | I think linked awards may facilitate the investigators      |
| chigan | working together immediately; the contracts office does not |
| State  | need to be involved.                                        |
| Univer |                                                             |
| sity** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | One has to be careful with answers to this question. Giving |
| ersity | credit is not the same as having a linked award vs. a       |
| of     | subcontract. I am given full credit in my institution as a  |
| De     | \"PI\" even though one of my grants is a subcontract to     |
| nver** | another university. If coordination of a project is         |
|        | important, the subcontract is probably a good way to        |
|        | implement it. If two independent investigators will         |
|        | collaborate in an important way - e.g., one person makes    |
|        | the proteins and one does X-ray, then maybe linked awards   |
|        | are useful, but then in the review process I assume that    |
|        | both are awarded or declined together. We tried this with   |
|        | the NSF system, but it was not evident that the review      |
|        | process could adapt to the nature of the linked proposals.  |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | I feel that there is much potential for linked awards as it |
| ersity | may lead to increased collaboration between investigators   |
| of     | at different organizations. One challenge would be          |
| Pittsb | effective management of the project since rather then       |
| urgh** | having one overall project goal, there could not be         |
|        | divisions. For linked awards to function as designed, each  |
|        | investigator would need to put aside their own ambition and |
|        | still view it as a team project not 2 individual yet linked |
|        | projects. I feel that that issue may make it wiser to       |
|        | maintain the current system of sub-contracts even though it |
|        | favors the primary awardee institution and P.I.             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **M    | Because of the varied nature of scientific research,        |
| assach | several award mechanisms should be available to agencies.   |
| usetts | Agencies should have the discretion to make the             |
| Ins    | determination as to the most effective award structure in   |
| titute | consultation with the institutions conducting the research. |
| of     | Although in many instances the standard prime/subawardee    |
| Techno | relationship is appropriate, there are many collaborations  |
| logy** | that would benefit from a more equitable structure. In      |
|        | cases where each institution has essentially the same level |
|        | of invovlement in the project, linked awards not only       |
|        | reflect the distribution of work, but also are more         |
|        | streamlined administratively. The need for subrecipient     |
|        | monitoring is eliminated with separate awards, and each     |
|        | institution is responsible for the submission of reports.   |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Co   | Your RFI appropriately indicates that there are a variety   |
| lumbia | of ways to structure complex awards. The award mechanism    |
| Univer | should reflect the nature of the project. Subcontracts      |
| sity** | provide a tool to allow parts of the work to be conducted   |
|        | at a different institution. This is a mechanism that        |
|        | generally works well; any "inequalities" balance out over   |
|        | time. Those who are prime in some awards are subs in other  |
|        | awards.                                                     |
|        |                                                             |
|        | The subcontract mechanism also provides a tool to           |
|        | articulate the institutions' various responsibilities. A    |
|        | prime and subawardee structure would seem most reasonable   |
|        | for a broad-based clinical trial using multiple clinic      |
|        | sites. On the other hand, there may be times when a linked  |
|        | award is preferable (we note this mechanism has been used   |
|        | successfully by the National Science Foundation for many    |
|        | years now). A basic research project with researchers       |
|        | conducting distinct but complementary experiments may       |
|        | benefit from a linked awards structure. Achieving the       |
|        | scientific goals should dictate the type of mechanism used  |
|        | for identifying participants and awarding the funds. A wide |
|        | range of award options should be available; the one used    |
|        | should best fit the proposed project. We do not believe     |
|        | this is the case of a "one size fits all" approach.         |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| *      | The AAMC believes that offering linked awards in the case   |
| *Assoc | of multiple PIs located across multiple institutions is at  |
| iation | least as important, and arguably more important, than the   |
| of     | apportionment of the budget among PIs in a single           |
| Am     | institutional award. Linked awards would result not only in |
| erican | fairer crediting for the PIs, but for their institutions as |
| M      | well. Instead of receiving the award as a subcontract from  |
| edical | another institution, the award would be received from the   |
| Coll   | NIH, and the institution would receive credit in the awards |
| eges** | database, although we recognize that this could add some    |
|        | complexity and cost to the NIH's administration of awards.  |
|        | Again, AAMC expects that allocation and leadership plans    |
|        | will be forged prior to the receipt of award and will not   |
|        | hinder effective project management. Lastly, AAMC would     |
|        | like to recognize that there are many instances where a     |
|        | consortium or sub-contract arrangement will continue to be  |
|        | appropriate for those projects where the secondary          |
|        | institution carries out a defined task(s), but does not     |
|        | make a significant intellectual contribution to the design  |
|        | and direction of the project.                               |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **C    | The Notice appropriately indicates that there are a variety |
| ouncil | of ways to structure complex awards. The award mechanism    |
| on     | should reflect the nature of the project. Subcontract       |
| Govern | agreements provide a tool to allow parts of the work to be  |
| mental | conducted at a different institution. Perhaps it is just    |
| Rel    | human nature to prefer being a prime, than being a sub, but |
| ations | this is a mechanism that basically works well. The issue of |
| (C     | "priority" should balance out over time. Those who are      |
| OGR)** | prime in some awards are subs in other awards. Institutions |
|        | keep track of their flow-through dollars so that funds for  |
|        | research can be reported. The subcontract mechanism also    |
|        | provides a tool to articulate the responsibilities. A prime |
|        | and sub awardee structure would seem most reasonable for a  |
|        | broad-based clinical trial using multiple clinic sites. On  |
|        | the other hand, there may be times when a linked award is   |
|        | preferable. For example, a basic research project with      |
|        | researchers conducting distinct but complementary           |
|        | experiments may benefit from a linked awards structure. For |
|        | still others, a grant to a single institution with          |
|        | consultants assisting in project activities may be the most |
|        | appropriate award instrument. Achieving the scientific      |
|        | goals should dictate the type of mechanism used for         |
|        | identifying participants and awarding the funds. It is      |
|        | unlikely that there is one ideal mechanism for supporting   |
|        | team activities and a full toolbox of approaches would be   |
|        | best.                                                       |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | The perceived inequity is that the subcontract PI\'s do not |
| ersity | get credit for the grant (on NIH ranking lists etc).        |
| of     |                                                             |
| Pittsb |                                                             |
| urgh** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **     | It is very important to have multiple PIs listed on a grant |
| Walter |                                                             |
| Reed   |                                                             |
| Army   |                                                             |
| Inst.  |                                                             |
| Res**  |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | I have had a linked award from NSF in the past and it       |
| ersity | worked very well, but only because my external collaborator |
| of     | and I were close colleagues who worked well together even   |
| Mary   | before the award. I would favor NIH making such awards, but |
| land** | only in limited circumstances - where the PIs had a clear   |
|        | past record of collaboration.                               |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Fox  | The main problem to be addressed is how reapportionment     |
| Chase  | might occur if required by changing demands during a        |
| Cancer | project, since administrative goals at each institution     |
| Ce     | would be to maintain maximum funding locally.               |
| nter** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Case | The current contract arrangement seems cumbersome, but on   |
| W      | the surface seems sufficient. NIH should require that the   |
| estern | PI and Co-PI\'s from other institutions meet face-to-face   |
| R      | at least one per year.                                      |
| eserve |                                                             |
| Univer | Under the new proposal, this could be made easier by NIH    |
| sity** | dealing directly with the secondary institutions, as if     |
|        | these were independent grants.                              |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **     | I strongly encourage that AREA R15 awards have the          |
| Ferris | capability to involve more than one P.I. at another         |
| State  | undergraduate/graduate institution to work together on a    |
| Univer | research project. This is especially important for          |
| sity** | undergraduate institutions where P.I.\'s are often isolated |
|        | in their field at their institution. This will faciliate    |
|        | exchange of undergraduates between labs during the summer   |
|        | or academic year. It will serve to multiply the benefits of |
|        | the AREA award in terms of professional development. It     |
|        | will also bridge undergraduate research training with       |
|        | graduate research training.                                 |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **The  | I think the impact of sub-contract awards (as opposed to    |
| J      | Linked Awards) will vary with the project. In cases where   |
| ackson | there is co-management and direction of a project with PIs  |
| Labora | at multiple institutions then Linked Awards would work      |
| tory** | better. In some cases there is truly a single PI and the    |
|        | work at a different institution is truly contract work. In  |
|        | other words, the contractee does not contribute to the      |
|        | scientific vision or direction of the work. The             |
|        | contribution of the investigators in a multi-investigator   |
|        | project to the scientific vision and direction of the       |
|        | research is, to me, the primary factor in deciding between  |
|        | a subcontract award and a linked award strategy.            |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Geor | Both the sub contract and link approach work; the           |
| getown | sub-contract approach works because that is what is         |
| Univ   | currently used. I am and have been involved as a contractor |
| ersity | and contractee. I think t hat it makes sense to permit both |
| School | of these types of relationships between campuses. For       |
| of     | example there would be no reason for a linked award when    |
| Medi   | what I want from another campus consists only of data entry |
| cine** | or even data collection. However, if I worked closely with  |
|        | an investigator at another campus, and s/he will be         |
|        | collecting data there in support of our research, a linked  |
|        | award makes sense.                                          |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | Linked awards that recognize PI\'s at different locations   |
| ersity | or heading different sub-projects sound like an excellent   |
| of     | solution to inequities of current single PI for large       |
| Califo | project with sub-contract to large additional parts of      |
| rnia** | project.                                                    |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **univ | There are a number of award mechanisms that may be applied  |
| ersity | to different situations. That is fine, and none of them in  |
| of     | inherently problematic, it depends on the circumstances of  |
| Kent   | the project.                                                |
| ucky** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **     | A few years ago NIH had a grant category for linked grants  |
| Temple | from two geographically disparate institutions. As I        |
| Univ   | understand it, the program was dropped due to lack of       |
| ersity | applicants.                                                 |
| School |                                                             |
| of     |                                                             |
| Medi   |                                                             |
| cine** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| *      | Linked award arrangements would foster a greater sense of   |
| *North | accountability, ownership and initiative amongst the        |
| Shore  | collaborating sites / PI\'s. It should facilitate not       |
| Univ   | interfere with site-specific project management, which in   |
| ersity | turn should improve overall project management              |
| Hosp   | effectiveness.                                              |
| ital** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Ohio | Questions 11b-d are only a part of the question, and in my  |
| State  | opinion do not really reflect the politics. Because the     |
| U      | faculty at another institution on a subcontract of, for     |
| niv.** | example, a P01 are not part of the main research group,     |
|        | they will undoubtedly feel somewhat out of the mainstream   |
|        | of the group. The group meets regularly, they may have a    |
|        | telephone conference, but that is not the same. People      |
|        | within the main group interact all the time by phone and in |
|        | person making it inevitable that the faculty in the         |
|        | institution with the subcontract are not as involved. I     |
|        | think this is the most important issue in addressing this   |
|        | question.                                                   |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| *      | The institutions involved should be offered the opportunity |
| *Emory | to decide whether or not linking or subcontract is          |
| Univer | appropriate in a particiular situation. Both options should |
| sity** | be available.                                               |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **u of | the bureaucracy of subcontracts is the most maddening thing |
| co**   | i encounter in my small and occasionally funded world.      |
|        | moreover the administrations of each institution involved   |
|        | are like vultures at the feeding trough. they forget that   |
|        | there would be nothing to talk about if it wasn\'t for the  |
|        | PI\'s who write the grants and reach out to involve         |
|        | collaborators.                                              |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| *      | There are pluses and minuses to this. On one hand, having a |
| *Texas | direct award would eliminate the need to re-negociate       |
| Tech   | subcontracts with the PI each year of a grant. In our       |
| Health | experience, this has taken a lot of time and involved the   |
| Sc     | bureaucracy of two competing sponsored projects depts. The  |
| iences | downside is that it would make it harder to move money      |
| Ce     | around if tasks had to be modified.                         |
| nter** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **M    | This is a test                                              |
| asiMax |                                                             |
| Univer |                                                             |
| sity** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | See earlier comments, if the project can be divided into    |
| of     | stand alone pieces and various investigators take full      |
| Mich   | responsibility of his/her piece, linked award arrangement   |
| igan** | is more fair and gives each PI full credit                  |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | Again the idea that sub-contract sites could share in the   |
| ersity | academic credit through the ranking inclusion would be      |
| of     | inspirational for young investigators.                      |
| Cincin |                                                             |
| nati** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | A consortial or a sub-contract arrangement is to provide    |
| ersity | technique service to the proposed research project.         |
| of     | Usually, the researchers in the secondary institution do    |
| South  | not contribute significantly to a proposal. If the          |
| Caro   | researchers in secondary institutes participate in the      |
| lina** | design of a project and have intellectual contribution to a |
|        | proposal, they should be considered as Co-PIs instead       |
|        | contractors.                                                |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | I think that the availability of cross institutional awards |
| ersity | could lead to major advances in research. The major issue   |
| of     | will be how to specifically arrange projects. Several       |
| Texas  | issues are important. The first will be the financial       |
| at     | arrangement. This should be relatively simple so long as    |
| So     | the PI\'s agree to allocations at the outset. A more        |
| uthwes | difficult issue will be authorship. But, again, this should |
| tern** | work so long as the parties involved agree at the outset    |
|        | about expectations.                                         |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| *      | This type of arrangement will better reflect major          |
| *Wayne | contributions by senior investigators.                      |
| State  |                                                             |
| Univer |                                                             |
| sity** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| *      | It will facilitate effective management. Most importantly,  |
| *Wayne | it will remove an important disincentive for                |
| State  | cross-institutional collaboration.                          |
| Univer |                                                             |
| sity** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | \"Collaborative R01s\" were promulgated about 10 years ago, |
| ersity | but never got off the ground. Is this a reinvention of that |
| at     | failed idea?                                                |
| B      |                                                             |
| uffalo |                                                             |
| (S     |                                                             |
| UNY)** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Cali | It\'s hard to understand how \"linked awards\" will be any  |
| fornia | easier to manage than either single awards with subawards   |
| Ins    | or multiple awards to multiple grantees. Where is the       |
| titute | benefit?                                                    |
| of     |                                                             |
| Techno |                                                             |
| logy** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | Our experience with Linked Awards (sponsored by agencies    |
| ersity | other than NIH) is that they allow for quite effective      |
| of     | project management since, by having separate awards, the    |
| Pittsb | culture of one institution is not imposed on the other      |
| urgh** | institution.                                                |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | Particularly if this approach minimized the costs involved, |
| ersity | this approach would be very similar to the approach already |
| of     | in place but simplify management of funds.                  |
| Washin |                                                             |
| gton** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | A linked award would facilitate research within our network |
| ersity | (PECARN)                                                    |
| of     |                                                             |
| Mich   |                                                             |
| igan** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| *      | I think that this might decrease administrative burden on   |
| *Dept. | the \'primary\' PI and their institution, in terms of       |
| of     | setting up subcontracts each year, while insuring the       |
| Ve     | preservation of funds meant for the second institution.     |
| terans |                                                             |
| Af     |                                                             |
| fairs, |                                                             |
| Boston |                                                             |
| Univer |                                                             |
| sity** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **     | No it will facilitate                                       |
| Purdue |                                                             |
| Univer |                                                             |
| sity** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | It could possibly affect the outcome of the entire project  |
| ersity | if one institution does not follow through on their         |
| of New | committment. Again, I believe there ultimately has to be an |
| M      | \"overseer\" for the multisite consortial agreement who has |
| exico, | the authority and responsibility to \"force\" the           |
| Health | nonproductive institution back into a productive mode.      |
| Sc     |                                                             |
| iences |                                                             |
| Ce     |                                                             |
| nter** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **U of | It\'s sometimes hard enought to have sub-contractors to     |
| Washi  | perform a satisfactory work. The PI could choose to         |
| ngton, | discontinue the subcontract if things don\'t work out. It   |
| Sea    | might be much harder to coordinate and to ensure            |
| ttle** | accountability when the subcontractors have total           |
|        | independence of their own awards.                           |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | while the linked award mechanism will not interfere with    |
| ersity | effective project management it will certainly cause        |
| of     | changes and challenges in project managements               |
| W      |                                                             |
| iscons |                                                             |
| in-Mad |                                                             |
| ison** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Mayo | This makes greatest sense and affords greater               |
| Cl     | accountability for the work that is performed by the        |
| inic** | sub-contracted group.                                       |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Mi   | sub-contract arrangements may create inequities but that is |
| chigan | okay if the primary site is responsible for coordination of |
| State  | multiple nodes or sites.                                    |
| Univer |                                                             |
| sity** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | These details appropriately describe the increasing         |
| ersity | complexity in research funding and must be accounted for    |
| of     | with clear methods.                                         |
| A      |                                                             |
| labama |                                                             |
| at     |                                                             |
| Birmin |                                                             |
| gham** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| *      | Linked awards would seem to more likely encourage each PI   |
| *Emory | working for a common good of the project (Neither site      |
| Univer | would survive without the other).                           |
| sity** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **     | Linked awards would eliminate a lot of paperwork across     |
| Loyola | institutions.                                               |
| Univ   |                                                             |
| ersity |                                                             |
| Med    |                                                             |
| Ctr**  |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
|        | In the case of a project proposed by a researcher starting  |
|        | his career whom enlisted a senior researcher for a part of  |
|        | his grant application, the youngest researcher is lousing   |
|        | the ability to stop the use of funds for other projects     |
|        | that are not related to the original proposal. This would   |
|        | imply to involve NIH in the process, and the young          |
|        | investigator may loose more often for political reason,     |
|        | even if the scientific needs are present. This would        |
|        | reinforce the \"Mandarin\" attitude in this time of budget  |
|        | cut, and eliminate the young independant crop.              |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **UNIV | My fear is that linked awards will eliminate some of the    |
| ERSITY | control that I as PI for my awards in ensuring that the     |
| OF     | work is done. I am a physician who works with social        |
| MA     | scientists; I need some leverage to ensure that the work is |
| SSACHU | done according to the project timeline.                     |
| SETTS; |                                                             |
| HAVARD |                                                             |
| M      |                                                             |
| EDICAL |                                                             |
| SC     |                                                             |
| HOOL** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Ins  | We currently negotiate to divide the money across our       |
| titute | institutions before we submit a proposal. Work is done      |
| for    | separately, and we prepare our reports separately for later |
| M      | integration. Coordination meetings keep everybody in sync.  |
| edical | We do not believe linked awards or partitioned awards would |
| I      | make any real difference in the way we work.                |
| nforma |                                                             |
| tics** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **     | Much remains to be seen. At this time, the key issue is     |
| Oregon | that the current award mechanism impairs interdisciplinary  |
| Health | and multi-institutional research and something needs to be  |
| &      | changed.                                                    |
| S      |                                                             |
| cience |                                                             |
| Univer |                                                             |
| sity** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| *      | Based on what I know, including my own experience, the      |
| *Mass. | sub-contract mechanism works just fine. In fact I believe   |
| G      | the best way of establishing multi-PI projects is through   |
| eneral | allowing intra-institutional subcontracts.                  |
| Ho     |                                                             |
| spital |                                                             |
| &      |                                                             |
| H      |                                                             |
| arvard |                                                             |
| M      |                                                             |
| edical |                                                             |
| Sc     |                                                             |
| hool** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **We   | Again, increasing the compllexity of the process interferes |
| llspan | with the goal of performing good research. All forms and    |
| Health | paperwork require time (and aspirin!).                      |
| Sy     |                                                             |
| stem** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **U of | The exact responsibility of each must be spelled out and    |
| Illi   | audited as such. If PI \'A\' succeeds in their work and PI  |
| nois** | \'B\' fails it should be clear to the NIH that PI \'B\' was |
|        | at fault.                                                   |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **M    | A linked award recognizes the different needs and resources |
| edical | required to implement a research protocol at each site.     |
| C      |                                                             |
| ollege |                                                             |
| of     |                                                             |
| Wisco  |                                                             |
| nsin** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Buck | It is our belief that linked awards will be more equitable  |
| Ins    | and afford better use of the NIH funds, as well as allowing |
| titute | more autonomy to do the research. It is especially          |
| for    | beneficial in terms of the administrative and financial     |
| Age    | reporting issues involved. Again, our comment would be if   |
| Rese   | NIH would recongnize one PI to take on the primary role for |
| arch** | scientific and administrative leadership?                   |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **geor | Our institution (and many others) do not consider being PI  |
| getown | on a subcontract to be equivalent to OPI on a fulll R01.    |
| univer | This is particularly difficult for young investigators      |
| sity** | (where a sub may be their first grant) and for all          |
|        | investigators when it somes to promotopn and tenure. This   |
|        | could be addressed by adopting the linked awards with equal |
|        | status for coPIs or subcontract PIs.                        |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Geor | I currently prefer to work with those in other institutions |
| getown | so that we can each be a PI at our home institution. This   |
| Univ   | counts more than staying in my own institution              |
| ersity |                                                             |
| M      |                                                             |
| edical |                                                             |
| Ce     |                                                             |
| nter** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **H    | the linked awards however, are likely to foster rather than |
| arvard | deter collaboration between interdisciplinary groups        |
| M      |                                                             |
| edical |                                                             |
| Sc     |                                                             |
| hool** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
|        | The \"linked awards\" concept needs clarification. Is a     |
|        | \"linked award\" the result of two separately written       |
|        | proposals? Or is a \"linked award\" the result of a single  |
|        | proposal with multiple PIs?                                 |
|        |                                                             |
|        | A single award that has more than one PI and PIs at         |
|        | different institutions can be administered very much like   |
|        | the administration of an award with multiple PIs at a       |
|        | single institution. Does \"linked award\" refer solely to   |
|        | the involvement of PIs different institutions? Other than   |
|        | the involvement of PIs at different institutions, is a      |
|        | \"linked award\" the same as the award envisioned in Part   |
|        | 9?                                                          |
|        |                                                             |
|        | Several levels of organization for multiple PIs are         |
|        | feasible. For example,                                      |
|        |                                                             |
|        | 1.) Multiple PIs at the same institution on one award.      |
|        |                                                             |
|        | 2.) Multiple PIs at different institutions on one award.    |
|        |                                                             |
|        | 3.) Multiple PIs at different institutions on linked but    |
|        | individual awards.                                          |
|        |                                                             |
|        | The \"linked award\" responds to the need for an award      |
|        | mechanism that is similar to a P01 or U01 but is smaller in |
|        | scope.                                                      |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
|        | The current situation with linked R01s has not worked       |
|        | because of separate reviews. If the application is reviewed |
|        | as a whole, then linked awards made to PIs from multiple    |
|        | institutions, this would potentially work.                  |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
|        | Subcontracts are fine for smaller contributions to a        |
|        | multidisciplinary project. Linked awards will be a useful   |
|        | tool for more ambitious, complex multiinstitution projects  |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | Applied for a grant as sub with another institution and     |
| ersity | though we were equal partners in all academic senses, the   |
| of New | PI institution gets essentially all of the benefit in the   |
| Mexico | form of credit, etc.                                        |
| HSC**  |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | Whereas problems always could arise, we already have        |
| Cinc   | multi-institutional consortia (performing large genomics    |
| innati | and population-based studies) that are funded by federal    |
| Med    | monies and in which the administrative matters across       |
| Ce     | institutions DO work.                                       |
| nter** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| *      | I have answered \"don\'t know\" on questions about          |
| *Univ. | sub-contract arrangements because I do know that different  |
| Tenn.  | institutions and even different colleges and departments    |
| C      | within my own institution treat these subcontracts          |
| ollege | differently. The linked award arrangement would at least    |
| of     | stabilize and standardize this situation.                   |
| Medi   |                                                             |
| cine** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| *      | Linked awards are better than Subcontracts. For one thing,  |
| *Univ. | the Indirect Costs of a Subcontract are added in to the     |
| of     | P.I.\'s grant as part of the Direct Costs. This makes it    |
| Ten    | harder to keep within the limits of the Modular Budget      |
| nessee | system. Also, Linked Awards allows both P.I.\'s to get      |
| Health | credit at their institutions.                               |
| S      |                                                             |
| cience | I have been part of a large Consortium where each project   |
| Ce     | head is a P.I. but there are Conference calls and           |
| nter** | semi-annual retreats. With a smaller consortium, or these   |
|        | Linked Awards, occasional phone calls and a number of       |
|        | emails can keep the project going, while clearly            |
|        | delineating responsibility yet awarding appropriate         |
|        | \'credit\' for the accomplishments.                         |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Wash | Even my institution doesn\'t know how to report             |
| ington | subcontract/consortial awards. Given that the               |
| Univ   | subcontracting PI will be managing and running their own,   |
| ersity | independent, research effort, it seems reasonable to        |
| M      | provide equal status to that effort and name then as a      |
| edical | co-PI on a linked award. The financial and administrative   |
| Sc     | components of such grants need not be changed to accomplish |
| hool** | this end.                                                   |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Dana | I think it using linked awards makes for a more equitable   |
| Farber | allocation that more accurately reflects this in realities. |
| Cancer |                                                             |
| Insti  |                                                             |
| tute** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | Although this concept carries certain merit, final outcome  |
| ersity | will be depend on the specific implementation of this       |
| of     | proposal, and if it will be implemented inadequately, it    |
| Virg   | may create inequities between single-PI and multiple-PI     |
| inia** | awards                                                      |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **TAMU | I believe offering the option of a Linked Award is          |
| HSC**  | advantageous in addition to contractual agreements.         |
|        | Allowing full control of a grant by two individuals. But if |
|        | the institutions agree to a Linked Award the applicant      |
|        | institutions would agree on a detailed plan for remediating |
|        | potential conflicts between the PI\'s and be legally bound  |
|        | to said statements. In the event of allowing linked awards  |
|        | there should be a third party that can remediate any        |
|        | conflicts that might arise during the proposal period. This |
|        | might be a committee at another institution or a committee  |
|        | set up at NIH for such occurrences.                         |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Co   | Either form of collaboration across institutions can work   |
| lumbia | (subcontract,                                               |
| Univer |                                                             |
| sity** | or linked). I have been involved in both previously with    |
|        | NSF grants and grants from DARPA. The subcontract           |
|        | arrangement is the most usual and I have never had any      |
|        | problems with it.                                           |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | This is definitely needed to facilitate multi-site research |
| ersity |                                                             |
| of     |                                                             |
| Minne  |                                                             |
| sota** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | I think subcontracts are fine as long as the subcontractee  |
| ersity | can still claim to be PI on the grant, i.e., the two        |
| of     | questions are separate.                                     |
| Utah,  |                                                             |
| Depar  |                                                             |
| tments |                                                             |
| of     |                                                             |
| Bi     |                                                             |
| oengin |                                                             |
| eering |                                                             |
| and    |                                                             |
| In     |                                                             |
| ternal |                                                             |
| Medi   |                                                             |
| cine** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | The subcontract is too inflexible. Even minor changes       |
| ersity | require NIH approval which causes lots of hassles.          |
| of     |                                                             |
| Cincin |                                                             |
| nati** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| *      | This would tend to freeze budgets according to the original |
| *Univ. | conception of the project and tend to reduce flexibility to |
| Co     | allocate resources according to the needs and outcomes of   |
| lorado | the experiments.                                            |
| Health |                                                             |
| Sci.   |                                                             |
| Ctr.** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | Even if the linked award creates some barriers to effective |
| ersity | project management, it does create a more equitable         |
| of New | environment and will foster more collaboration between      |
| Me     | institutions.                                               |
| xico** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
|        | This would help with promotion and tenure issues. A         |
|        | subcontract often isn\'t viewed as a \"real\" grant.        |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | I beleive that in a consortium or contract arrangement the  |
| ersity | PI of the grant gets more credit than the PI of the         |
| at     | consortium. Often times consortiums or contracts are        |
| Bu     | considered as more of a specific methodology or technique   |
| ffalo, | that can not be performed b y the PI. In a linked aware     |
| State  | with multiple PI\'s it would appear that all the PI\'s are  |
| Univ   | equally involved in all aspects of the proposal.            |
| ersity |                                                             |
| of New |                                                             |
| York** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **S    | They should be easier and simpler and more flexible for the |
| eattle | PIs.                                                        |
| Biom   |                                                             |
| edical |                                                             |
| Re     |                                                             |
| search |                                                             |
| Ins    |                                                             |
| titute |                                                             |
| and    |                                                             |
| Univ   |                                                             |
| ersity |                                                             |
| of     |                                                             |
| Washin |                                                             |
| gton** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
|        | The subcontract system is an administrative nightmare, but  |
|        | has no effective impact on the science. Linked awards would |
|        | make things a lot easier, and by easing the burden allow a  |
|        | better focus on the research.                               |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Acad | Linked awards should not be the norm, but rather the        |
| emic - | exception.. The synergy should be very strongly justified.  |
| Univ.  |                                                             |
| of MD  |                                                             |
| School |                                                             |
| of     |                                                             |
| Medi   |                                                             |
| cine** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **u    | As in our relationships with the other University in town.  |
| mdnj** | If the awards are linked then this will greatly increase    |
|        | the politics and deminshe the science and outcome of the    |
|        | funding period                                              |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Med  | This proposition is difficult to assess. It will require    |
| icine, | some PIs to try this arrangement before it can be fully     |
| Co     | evaluated.                                                  |
| lumbia |                                                             |
| Univer |                                                             |
| sity** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **G    | Linked awards is an interesting concept and the option to   |
| eorgia | submit under this mechanism might work for some projects. I |
| Ins    | think the option might cause organizational problems for    |
| titute | some potential projects before they ever get off the ground |
| of     | and become applications. I also think that linked awards    |
| Techno | will lead to less collaboration on multi-institutional      |
| logy** | awards and hand-cuff lead PI\'s on projects requiring       |
|        | rebudgeting (again for many potential reasons). In short, I |
|        | think the linked awards will cause more harm than good.     |
|        | Projects need a lead PI. Multiple PI\'s can receive credit  |
|        | for their sub-awards without the adminstrative power to     |
|        | control their portion of the funding year-to-year over the  |
|        | entire grant period.                                        |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| *      | It may, but as with multiple PIs, if the peer review        |
| *Johns | includes an evaluation of the reasonableness of the plan,   |
| H      | over time the linked award option will only be used when it |
| opkins | is beneficial.                                              |
| Blo    |                                                             |
| omberg |                                                             |
| SPH**  |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | Ideally this kind of an award could greatly facilitate      |
| ersity | multi-collaborator projects. My laboratory has a specialty  |
| of     | which is unique in the US, in specific the ability to       |
| North  | visualize DNA and DNA-protein complexes by electron         |
| Caro   | microscopy. We are involved in many collaborations in which |
| lina** | we apply this expertise to questions related to DNA         |
|        | replication and repair. If it was possible to recognize     |
|        | these long standing collaborations via an award in which    |
|        | funds would go to both our laboratory to support our        |
|        | efforts and those of our collaborators to support their     |
|        | biochemical studies, this would be an attractive vehicle    |
|        | for promoting multi-investigator studies.                   |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | The autonomy questions would have to be clear. All parties  |
| ersity | would have to be held accountable for the final product.    |
| of     | The current situation is a disincentive for collaboration   |
| Alaska | between institutions and discriminates against small        |
| Ancho  | institutions where all the components of a research project |
| rage** | might not be in house.                                      |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | If the PI\'s are committed to the team effort, all of these |
| Virg   | scenarios should work                                       |
| inia** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un   | Linked awards will fix a distribution of funds among the    |
| iv     | collaborators at the beginning of the award and create a    |
| ersity | barrier to changing that distribution during the project.   |
| of     | Although the subcontract procedure involves some extra      |
| South  | paperwork, it enourages a flexible approach to dividing     |
| Car    | funds and requires active consideration of the division of  |
| oina** | funds at least yearly.                                      |
|        |                                                             |
|        | The primary disadvantage of the subcontract system is the   |
|        | double F&A on the first \$25K. This system discourages      |
|        | small but significant collaborative efforts, e.g., a        |
|        | student from another lab devoting a year to making a        |
|        | specialized measurement needed for the project.             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **O    | The key is that the team has to be strong and have a common |
| akland | goal. The linked award can be good to boost the team        |
| Univer | spirit. However, if one group is slow, it can affect the    |
| sity** | whole project. Sometimes there are multi-supervisers for    |
|        | students and postdocs, this can be confusing for the        |
|        | students and postdocs if each of the supervisors have       |
|        | various opinions for how to pursue the study.               |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **     | public versus private, research versus academic, industrial |
| UNCW** | versus non-industrial. All of these concerns put too much   |
|        | emphasis on fiscal rather than scientific issues.           |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **univ | There could be problems if the funds are split 50;50 with   |
| ersity | split responsibilites-                                      |
| of     |                                                             |
| Texas  |                                                             |
| at     |                                                             |
| Au     |                                                             |
| stin** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | Recognition that a collaborative project is usually         |
| ersity | directed by more than one Principal Scientist is long       |
| of     | overdue. Given the interest of the NIH in fostering         |
| Loui   | interdisciplinary collaborations both within an Institution |
| sville | and between Institutions, it is imperative to institute a   |
| School | mechanism whereby all Principal Scientists that direct      |
| of     | aspects of the Project receive equal recognition.           |
| Denti  |                                                             |
| stry** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | I support this concept                                      |
| Kent   |                                                             |
| ucky** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Ok   | Multidisciplinary research is here to stay, obviously. The  |
| lahoma | question is, what\'s the best way to implement it? I think  |
| Univ   | that the \"multiple PIs\" concept will only going to work   |
| ersity | if the responsibilities of each \"PI\" are clearly          |
| Health | delineated, such that there are no \"power-sharing\"        |
| Sc     | problems that arise. The reality is, most PIs are control   |
| iences | freaks, and being responsible for a grant where I would     |
| Ce     | have to share responsibility with another individual on a   |
| nter** | completely equal footing might be a problem. Either there   |
|        | could be a constant struggle for control, or one PI would   |
|        | simply acquiesce to the other. So, while the \"multiple     |
|        | PI\" idea is a good idea in theory, it might be difficult   |
|        | in practice unless there was some way to focus each set of  |
|        | responsibilities, so that the responsibility (i.e., read    |
|        | \"control\") was clearly spelled out.                       |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| *      | The PI is the conceptual leader of the project, who         |
| *Stony | contacts the secondary institution to arrange a             |
| Brook  | subcontract. The secondary institutions, in turn, may be    |
| Univer | the primary on other projects of which they are the         |
| sity** | conceptual leader on, and can enlist other secondary        |
|        | institutions. TO break up this system is a mistake          |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | The Captain has ultimate authority and bears ultimate       |
| ersity | responsibility\--the Navy does it right.                    |
| of     |                                                             |
| Pe     | Strongly recommend you maintain the Navy model\--it has     |
| nnsylv | been good for both the NIH and the Navy over the years\--it |
| ania** | will make your job easier.                                  |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | In certain circumstances, I think that a linked award may   |
| ersity | make sense although I am concerned about accountabilitiy    |
| of     | and effective project management. In a sub-contract, the PI |
| Wisco  | at least has some ability to hold other sites accountable   |
| nsin** | for the deliverables.                                       |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| *      | I think that allowing multiple PIs on a grant is a terrific |
| *emory | idea that I fully and enthusiastically support! It\'s a     |
| univer | relatively simple change that will nonetheless have many    |
| sity** | important benefits, such as fostering inter-laboratory and  |
|        | inter-institution collaborations (a form of \"joining       |
|        | forces\" that contemporary science needs desperately),      |
|        | promoting interdisciplinary and more                        |
|        |                                                             |
|        | creative approaches to challenging questions, allowing for  |
|        | a better                                                    |
|        |                                                             |
|        | appreciation of collaborative research (that is now pretty  |
|        | much ignored                                                |
|        |                                                             |
|        | every time a CV is \"officially\" evaluated), and favoring  |
|        | the career                                                  |
|        |                                                             |
|        | development of young scientists.                            |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | Linked (but separate) awards would allow individual         |
| ersity | researchers to get benefit of PI status and negate the need |
| of     | for multiple PIs on the same award.                         |
| Washin |                                                             |
| gton** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | Much adinistrative time and effort devoted to setting up    |
| ersity | and monitoring sub-contracts could be eliminated by the     |
| of     | institutions, cutting down F and A. Also, site PIs on a     |
| Roche  | large project, even if not equal in authority to the PI\'s  |
| ster** | of the project, ought to be able to show that their         |
|        | institutions are receiving NIH funding. The total amount    |
|        | shoud not be arttributed to the lead site.                  |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | It is very important to allow linked awards. It will make   |
| ersity | it more worthwhile to give PIs \"credit\" for their         |
| of     | research; otherwise many good PIs will not bother to        |
| Texas  | participate in collaborative research.                      |
| at     |                                                             |
| Au     |                                                             |
| stin** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **H    | I believe that in order to effectively support              |
| arvard | collaborative research any mechanism (such as linked        |
| Univer | awards) that reduces the inequalities between the different |
| sity** | PIs can tremendously improve the current setup. I do not    |
|        | believe it would lead to leadership problems beyond those   |
|        | already arising on scientific grouds. Rather, I find both   |
|        | mechanisms to be as effective from the management           |
|        | perspective, but the linked awards to have a signifciant    |
|        | benefit in promoting equality between equally contributing  |
|        | PIs                                                         |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | All of my grant support, except for a training grant and a  |
| Washin | new small multiscle NSF grant, is multiinstitutional. The   |
| gton** | four multi-university grant programs are also heavily       |
|        | multi-disciplinary, as is the nature of science porgrams    |
|        | nowadays. In some of these, particularly the non-NIH ones,  |
|        | there is a long delay in getting the subcontract funding to |
|        | the secondary participants: the research startup and        |
|        | continuing funding are burdened by the extra time required  |
|        | for not only startup but for reporting. Further, the        |
|        | reportng mechanisms for subscontracted programs are not     |
|        | nearly so clear to participants as when funding lines are   |
|        | evident to everyone. So linked awards ought to be a great   |
|        | boon to the science, requiring: less admin time, greater    |
|        | direct responisibility, more direct attribution of where    |
|        | the leadership collaboration is occurring, and heightened   |
|        | enthusiasm for accomplishing the best science.              |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **San  | Yes, a great deal more paperwork that wastes time and money |
| Diego  | at NIH and for each institution.                            |
| State  |                                                             |
| Univer |                                                             |
| sity** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **ohio | Both the sub-contract and the linked award systems          |
| state  |                                                             |
| univer | should be possible. Sometimes one is the more accurate      |
| sity** |                                                             |
|        | and useful method, sometimes the other.                     |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Wake | I have worked in on many collaborative agreements. There is |
| Forest | some inefficiency in shifting funding based on performance, |
| Univ   | however the involvement of NIH in this process has served   |
| ersity | to enhance collaboration and fairness. Timely and           |
| Health | transparent reporting is required, moreso that in more      |
| Scie   | hierarchical situations. I feel that a critical             |
| nces** | understanding should be that there exist a common standard  |
|        | for reporting progress at each site so that all PIs may be  |
|        | kept informed of progress and be mutually accountable. A    |
|        | strong presence of the Project Office is required. It has   |
|        | been my experience that loose confederations of             |
|        | non-standardized study groups is inefficient and may not    |
|        | result in the best science. There needs to be an upfront    |
|        | understanding from all parties about the responsibilities   |
|        | and accountabilities.                                       |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | I think that the idea of \'çredit\' is important,           |
| ersity | especially to younger investigators and those on            |
| of     | soft-money. A possible draw-back is the possibility that    |
| Ha     | here may not be a single coordinating center and possibly   |
| waii** | no way to keep all of the centers on track and deal with    |
|        | one that may be having problems. No one driving the boat,   |
|        | if you will.                                                |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | I think it would be very valuable to allow multiple PIs     |
| ersity | located across multiple institutions, rather than a         |
| of     | sub-contracting arrangement (which has been very cumbersome |
| Washin | and financially punitive in some cases - for example, when  |
| gton** | the indirect costs associated with the subcontract are      |
|        | considered direct costs of the lead institution). However,  |
|        | I believe it is still important to assign one institution   |
|        | leadership for the multi-site project. Without assigned     |
|        | leadership, the project could easily lose direction or      |
|        | become fragmented.                                          |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **John | This is true for most collaborations. However, there are    |
| A.     | times when one of the sites is doing most of the work and   |
| Burns  | plays major leadership roles in the project. Perhaps NIH    |
| School | should provide the options of either a linked award or a    |
| of     | subcontracted award.                                        |
| Med    |                                                             |
| icine, |                                                             |
| Univ   |                                                             |
| ersity |                                                             |
| of     |                                                             |
| Hawaii |                                                             |
| at     |                                                             |
| M      |                                                             |
| anoa** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | NIH allocation of research dollars not only affects an      |
| ersity | institution\'s bragging rights, but also F&A reimbursement. |
| of     | Distributing the funds through Linked Awards could hamper   |
| South  | the spirit of collaboration in order to avoid the loss of   |
| Flo    | funds.                                                      |
| rida** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **OAI  | Based on my own experience working in large university as   |
| ,inc** | well as small not-for-profit agency, when ever there are    |
|        | more than one primary responsible individuals involved, the |
|        | line of communication, authority and responsibility become  |
|        | less clear and the grant management less effective. It      |
|        | allows room for the individuals to \"pass the buck.\"       |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Vi   | Linked or \"collaborative\" awards have been effective for  |
| rginia | me on my collaborative NSF awards with other universities.  |
| Tech** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | Under the present arrangment, PIs of subcontracts suffer.   |
| ersity | The funding that comes to the subcontract institution does  |
| of     | not even count in the total NIH dollars to that             |
| Roche  | institution, let alone the department in which the          |
| ster** | subcontract resides. This aspect of multi-institutional     |
|        | collaboration is very adversely affected by subcontracts    |
|        | and would be strengthened greatly by a linked award         |
|        | arrangement.                                                |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **The  | Linked awards would simplifiy accounting because any        |
| Pennsy | mistakes would be within a single institution. With         |
| lvania | subcontracts, all to often the secondary institution        |
| State  | creates considerable work and misunderstanding when         |
| Univer | submitting bills to the primnary. (Personal experience)     |
| sity** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| *      | None                                                        |
| *Human |                                                             |
| Sc     |                                                             |
| iences |                                                             |
| Re     |                                                             |
| search |                                                             |
| Co     |                                                             |
| uncil, |                                                             |
| South  |                                                             |
| Af     |                                                             |
| rica** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | NSF has excellent arrangements (linked) that could be       |
| Ill**  | emulated.                                                   |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **R    | This could be something that the PIs should address in the  |
| oswell | application. Obviously someone will be taking the point     |
| Park   | position and his/her institute thusly recognized.           |
| Cancer |                                                             |
| Insti  |                                                             |
| tute** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Fred | The \"double overhead\" inherent in subcontract             |
| Hutc   | arrangements between different institutions is a major      |
| hinson | disincentive to collaboration. Linked awards would solve    |
| Cancer | this problem and would foster collaborations by making it   |
| Re     | easier to balance the respective contributions of the       |
| search | collaborators.                                              |
| Ce     |                                                             |
| nter** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Co   | In the case where a PI was not making adequate progress on  |
| lumbus | his/her part of the project, linked award arrangement could |
| Child  | potentially interfere with effective project management.    |
| ren\'s | Thereby, perhaps a safeguard could be put in place wherein  |
| Re     | the contact PI can re-institute a consortium arrangement if |
| search | deemed necessary and substantiated.                         |
| Ins    |                                                             |
| titute |                                                             |
| and    |                                                             |
| The    |                                                             |
| Ohio   |                                                             |
| State  |                                                             |
| Univer |                                                             |
| sity** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | Sometimes linked awards might result in noncooperation, but |
| ersity | the risk of this is not likely to be much higher than it    |
| of     | already is with subcontracts. The best argument for linked  |
| Utah** | awards might simply be the cost savings, both at NIH and at |
|        | the recipient institutions.                                 |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Co   | I think the subcontract system works except for it\'s       |
| lumbia | excessive cost - where the parent and the subcontract       |
| Univer | institutions take indirects and the latter takes it from    |
| sity** | the direct costs of the grant. If there are two or more PIs |
|        | at separate institutions, I imagine that one is dominant,   |
|        | and that the subcontract system is best in that situation.  |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Riv  | Only one responsible \"the buck stops here\" leader is      |
| erside | required. Co-PI\'s should be recognized officially as       |
| Re     | subordinate leaders at departments or institutions other    |
| search | than the PI\'s \-- or even within the same department if a  |
| Insti  | meaningful delegated leadership responsibility is assumed   |
| tute** | by the intradepartmental Co-PI.                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
|        | I have worked as a research coordinator on several          |
|        | multi-insitutional grants - Harlem Hospital, Columbia,      |
|        | University of Vermont, Cornell - both as the lead agency    |
|        | and as the sub-contractor. As the lead agency, it is        |
|        | sometimes difficult to hold a sub-contractor accountable.   |
|        | As a sub-contractor, you often find yourself being asked to |
|        | perform tasks that are beyond the scope of the project. It  |
|        | is also not an uncommon situation where your insitution is  |
|        | unable to fulfill the required tasks due to unforeseen      |
|        | circumstances yet the lead agency threatens your site by    |
|        | withholding payment. Both situations are uncomfortable and  |
|        | might be alleviated by the sharing of accountability.       |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **C    | If such concerns exist then the partner should remain a     |
| harles | subcontract and not                                         |
| R Drew |                                                             |
| Univer | a second PI.                                                |
| sity** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **     | It depends on the relationship between the PIs. If there    |
| Oregon | are changes in PI from one institution during the course of |
| Health | the grant, that were imposed by the institution, it can     |
| &      | result in conflicts between the PIs and institutions about  |
| S      | how the project should proceed.                             |
| cience |                                                             |
| Univer |                                                             |
| sity** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Re   | Linked awards may add incentive to collaborators to         |
| habili | complete their portion of the project while subcontracts do |
| tation | not. It would also help to reduce the high subcontractual   |
| Ins    | indirect costs that are included in the direct costs that   |
| titute | make a grant very expensive when collaborations are         |
| of     | involved.                                                   |
| Chi    |                                                             |
| cago** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| *      | either plan can work as long as the secondary PI can get    |
| *Johns | credit for their role and piece of the budget               |
| H      |                                                             |
| opkins |                                                             |
| Univer |                                                             |
| sity** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | This makes sense in terms of the engagement of              |
| ersity | investigators on grants and monetarily in terms of the      |
| of     | \"double-dipping\" that goes on with subcontracts. If this  |
| Ten    | latter issue is eliminated then more money comes directly   |
| nessee | to PIs for expending on research and ceilings of funding    |
| Health | limits are not artificially reached.                        |
| S      |                                                             |
| cience |                                                             |
| Ce     |                                                             |
| nter** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Salk | Sub-contracts are OK. Linked awards would definitely be     |
| Insti  | better.                                                     |
| tute** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | Again, it depends on the project\--whether it is a          |
| ersity | collaboration of equals or a key PI and minor contributors. |
| of     |                                                             |
| Il     |                                                             |
| linois |                                                             |
| at     |                                                             |
| Urbana |                                                             |
| -Champ |                                                             |
| aing** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | Linked awards are useful as long as one PI retains primary  |
| ersity | responsibility for overall management of the program. One   |
| of     | of the PIs should have responsibility for integrating the   |
| Calif  | various projects and overseeing progress.                   |
| ornia, |                                                             |
| San    |                                                             |
| D      |                                                             |
| iego** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| *      | The advantage of Linked Awards would be the recognition of  |
| *North | the investigator(s) at the sub-contract institution, but    |
| S      | this would negate the fluidity of funds that are often      |
| hore - | optimum. Wouldn\'t it be possible to maintain the current   |
| LIJ    | consortium/subcontract structure, but list all appropriate  |
| Re     | PIs and their Departments/Institutions and award amounts in |
| search | reports? Substantial reallocation of funds between projects |
| Insti  | would have to be negotiated with NIH, and would be          |
| tute** | reflected on the subsequent notice of award for the next    |
|        | budget period. This would then be similar to other grants   |
|        | that will have more than one PI.                            |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **     | So long as the PIs and institutions involved have a well    |
| Northw | thought out plan ahead of time, I believe that a linked     |
| estern | award plan could be very effective and beneficial to all    |
| Univer | involved.                                                   |
| sity** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| *      | I certanly hope not. Any interference would impair the      |
| *Univ. | research effort.                                            |
| Cali   |                                                             |
| fornia |                                                             |
| Ir     |                                                             |
| vine** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Ohio | I think that linked awards would be greatly preferable to   |
| State  | the current consortial/subcontract arrangement. The problem |
| Univer | with the current arrangement is that both the direct costs  |
| sity** | AND the indirect costs of the subcontract come out of the   |
|        | direct costs of the grant. In these days of limited funds,  |
|        | this creates great pressure to make sure that the           |
|        | subcontract is as small as possible. With linked awards,    |
|        | each institution would have their own direct and indirect   |
|        | costs, which would be a more equitable arrangement and      |
|        | would encourage researchers to distribute the work in the   |
|        | most efficient manner, rather than in the most              |
|        | cost-effective manner (i.e., whatever holds down the costs  |
|        | of the subcontract, as there is pressure to do currently).  |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **B    | Although I have been involved with sub-contracts for almost |
| righam | 12 years the lack of efficient management on one side or    |
| and    | another can cause problems (solvable problems\--but         |
| Wo     | problems none the less).                                    |
| men\'s |                                                             |
| Hosp   |                                                             |
| ital** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **     | Where this might be useful is in having universities        |
| Neuros | recognize subcontracts and consortial agreements in the     |
| cience | same way that they recognize PI on a grant. This would make |
| Center | investigators more willing to participate in these types of |
| LSU    | arrangements. However it has been my experience that        |
| Health | universities create more obstacles to collaborative work    |
| Sc     | oftentimes even being prohibitive. Basically how indirects  |
| iences | are handled am making that transparent is what is needed.   |
| Ce     | Typically the scientific leader on a project is clear.      |
| nter** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **The  | There are cases where a subcontract is appropriate (i.e. a  |
| Child  | collaborator at another institution is doing a sub-portion  |
| ren\'s | of the work on a bigger project on which a PI is the head), |
| Ho     | but in other cases where two investigators are equally      |
| spital | involved (i.e. combining patient populations equally        |
| of     | ascertained at both institutions to attain appropriate      |
| Philad | statistical power and doing equal lab-based work at both    |
| elphia | institutions), for both to be identified as PIs at their    |
| and    | repsective institutions would be beneficial (and would      |
| The    | decrease the number (and redundancy) of similar smaller     |
| Univ   | projects being submitted for funding, and may in fact       |
| ersity | engender fruitful collaborations)                           |
| of     |                                                             |
| Pennsy |                                                             |
| lvania |                                                             |
| School |                                                             |
| of     |                                                             |
| Medi   |                                                             |
| cine** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | I have run a multiple institution consortium for about 8    |
| ersity | years. A linked award would lock PIs into arrangements that |
| of     | turn out to be unsatisfactory. If the NIH thinks that this  |
| Texas  | approach is going to prevent researchers from occasionally  |
| M      | fighting like cats and dogs, they need to reconsider. The   |
| edical | confilcts are going to get bloodier and costlier both if    |
| Br     | you hand out more hatchets to investigators.                |
| anch** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Ca   | Linked awards can be difficult to manage, but they are      |
| rnegie | better than the current subcontract system.                 |
| Mellon |                                                             |
| Univer |                                                             |
| sity** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **R    | Linkage works if investigators have a history of effective  |
| utgers | collaboration.                                              |
| Univer |                                                             |
| sity** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| *      | Collaborations between faculty at different institutions    |
| *Univ. | reflect a broader problem related to any collaboration. The |
| of     | trick is in effective budgeting and oversight. Linked       |
| Roche  | awards sound very useful, but can threaten the success of   |
| ster** | one link if the companion is less meritorious.              |
|        | Sub-contracts or similar help avoid that problem and better |
|        | unify the collaboration.                                    |
|        |                                                             |
|        | If we are considering split award credit for different PIs  |
|        | (above), why not consider the same solution across          |
|        | institutions?                                               |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Na   | Having separate linked budgets will further contribute to   |
| tional | the isolation of investigators and institutes collaborating |
| Devel  | on multi-disciplinary projects.                             |
| opment |                                                             |
| and    |                                                             |
| Re     |                                                             |
| search |                                                             |
| Instit |                                                             |
| utes** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | The leader is the PI. (S)He is the primary architect of the |
| ersity | grant proposal. Example, I have thought of a novel genomics |
| of     | project, but I don\'t have the computational expertise to   |
| ROc    | execute it; (ie, I know what I want to achieve, but I       |
| hester | don\'t know the best way of achieving it). Thus, I reached  |
| School | out to those who do know. The result has been a fruitful    |
| of     | collaboration, a paper and a grant application with me as   |
| Medi   | PI (I thought of the idea!) and the computational biologist |
| cine** | is the Co-I (his lab is doing the comouter searching). Both |
|        | labs win in terms of publication (my student and the        |
|        | Co-I\'s share first authorship on the paper). At the        |
|        | sametime, they will receive monetary compensation for their |
|        | efforts to assist in this project. There could be potential |
|        | differences in opinion as to how to \"steer\" the project   |
|        | if new changes occur. This could hamper science and with    |
|        | \"collaborative fallout.\" Even th ebest of collaborators   |
|        | disagree and the great thing about the current system is    |
|        | there is little onous on the Co-I to lead the scientific    |
|        | effort. Certainly, new ideas are born and \"agreements\"    |
|        | are made between investigators. A formal link however could |
|        | cramp one\'s creativeness.                                  |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | Since the PIs are in separate intitutions some of the       |
| ersity | problems I mentioned above may not apply. I think linking   |
| of     | and awarding an equal status to the previously              |
| Ar     | subcontracting PIs will promote more inter-institutional    |
| kansas | research collaborations.                                    |
| for    |                                                             |
| M      |                                                             |
| edical |                                                             |
| Scie   |                                                             |
| nces** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **UN   | Specificially, in terms of community-based participatory    |
| C-CH** | research, all participating institutions (including         |
|        | community agencies) are equal partners in all aspects of a  |
|        | project. The sub-contract arrangement prohibits a full      |
|        | equality of all partners and in fact increases the          |
|        | complexity of managing a project budget. In the case of a   |
|        | subcontract, additional levels of administrative oversight  |
|        | are added because of the \"middle man\" role of the primary |
|        | institution. Alternatively, a Linked Award system increases |
|        | both the ownership of an institution\'s critical role       |
|        | within a project, and the institution\'s capacity in        |
|        | working with federal funding sources. It also could         |
|        | contribute to more effective project management by          |
|        | requiring that all partners establish guidelines for shared |
|        | decision-making.                                            |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | The Linkded Award arrangement dould possibly interfere if   |
| of     | one party fails to do the work appropriately as indicated   |
| Il     | in my comments above. In this case I suggest that a third   |
| linois | party comprised of individuals from both sites/universities |
| at     | could be used to aid in \"dispute settlement.\"             |
| Chi    |                                                             |
| cago** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | I have been using multiple sub-contractual agreements for   |
| ersity | several years on NIH and CDC-funded projects. To make these |
| of     | work, we have established collaborative decison-making      |
| North  | structures, including for financial management              |
| Caro   | decision-making. Hence, a linked award mechanism would      |
| lina** | serve to codify this practice, rather than requiring us to  |
|        | re-invent it with each new award.                           |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | Subcontracts are a pain and not very efficient. There has   |
| ersity | to be a better way.                                         |
| of     |                                                             |
| Chi    |                                                             |
| cago** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | It is critically important to provide PI credit to          |
| ersity | investigators in consortia institutions. Being listed as PI |
| of     | will give them the necessary credit and support they have   |
| Mich   | earned. However, such a system will make it more complex to |
| igan** | manage consortia. Since each investigator will have funds   |
|        | assigned, the PI of the consortium will lose leverage to    |
|        | reward excellent performance and remove poor performers     |
|        | from the consortium. Thus, the management of a linked award |
|        | project will become more difficult.                         |
|        |                                                             |
|        | I speak as a PI of two NCI funded consortia. In one NCI     |
|        | consortium, the Community Clinical Oncology Program,        |
|        | recognizing investigators at sites who contribute science   |
|        | to the consortium as PIs for their sites will enhance their |
|        | participation and justify reducing their clinical work      |
|        | load\--a critical need. In one instance, Having multiple    |
|        | PIs for our Community Program and for our second NCI        |
|        | supported consortium, the Early Detection Research Network  |
|        | will likely enhance productivity rather than diminish it    |
|        | because budgets and overheads can be directly assigned to   |
|        | each consortium center. But again, leverage to ensure       |
|        | productivity at all sites is markedly reduced with this     |
|        | type of mechanism.                                          |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | I think this is a great idea. I always work in              |
| ersity | collaboration with other PI\'s, and most are at other       |
| of     | institutes from my own. Our collaborative research is       |
| Minne  | always dependent on the work conducted in the other PI\'s   |
| sota** | lab. Although currently my self and my \"other institute\"  |
|        | collaborators have been successful in running independent   |
|        | R01s on our portions of the topic, rather than as           |
|        | \"sub-contracts\", if our R01s (which are not in funding    |
|        | synch in terms of renewal) were linked, we could more       |
|        | effectively weather renewal hiccups to keep the             |
|        | collaborations on track and productive in the absence of    |
|        | funds. The thought of losing what I view as my              |
|        | \"independence\" by potentially moving to a sub-contract of |
|        | my collaborator\'s R01, or vice versa, would create         |
|        | inequities between the value of the research conducted in   |
|        | the separate labs. If my extra-institutional collaborators  |
|        | were to temporarily lose their R01 funding whilst my was    |
|        | still running, the goals of my R01 would be severly         |
|        | compromised, as I am so dependent on them for their         |
|        | complementory expertise. Just looking at my publications    |
|        | demonstrates our interdependency. Of course, a              |
|        | collaboration can eventually run its course, and no longer  |
|        | make research sense. However, that could be handled between |
|        | the PI\'s and at the time of NIH renewal of linked projects |
|        | by the study sections and the NIH Institute Program         |
|        | Directors. Presumably different study sections could be     |
|        | assigned to look separately at the component PI\'s proposed |
|        | research, if the complementarity of the research warranted  |
|        | it.                                                         |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **     | This would be essential to promoting collaboration across   |
| Kaiser | institutions. The subcontracting arrangement adds cost but  |
| Perman | offers little in the way of improved efficiency. The prime  |
| ente** | grantee institution frequently charges F&A costs to the     |
|        | whole project, while the subcontracting institution will    |
|        | charge its own F&A costs to its portion of the sub.         |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **The  | Great idea for placing credit and also authority with both  |
| Univ   | lead investigators.                                         |
| ersity |                                                             |
| of     |                                                             |
| Ten    |                                                             |
| nessee |                                                             |
| Health |                                                             |
| S      |                                                             |
| cience |                                                             |
| Ce     |                                                             |
| nter** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | 11a) Yes, for the most part, in the case of highly          |
| ersity | collaborative and cooperative PIs. However, I do see a      |
| of     | major disadvantage in terms of the distribution of overhead |
| Chi    | costs. This can result in a situation where an awardee may  |
| cago** | provide a different level of service depending on whether   |
|        | the institution is a primary or a subcontract. For example, |
|        | the perception may be that the success (or failure) of a    |
|        | given project reflects most heavily on the reputation of    |
|        | the primary. An institution\'s commitment to and            |
|        | distribution of resources for a given project may occur     |
|        | differentially depending on whether the institution is a    |
|        | primary awardee or subcontractor. My sense is that, where   |
|        | multiple projects are at play, those for which an           |
|        | institution serves as a primary get priority in terms of    |
|        | assignment of staff and other resources.                    |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Ho   | Many years ago some NIH institutes offered \"bundled\"      |
| spital | awards - to collaborators at different institutions. This   |
| for    | appeared to be an effective mechanism, and I assume the     |
| S      | linked awards would be also. Of course it would depend on   |
| pecial | whether there were truly 2 independent investigators        |
| Sur    | involved.                                                   |
| gery** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **     | I think the best response to \"d\" is \"It depends.\" It    |
| Oregon | would help if this process required very specific           |
| Health | identification of who is taking the lead, etc..             |
| &      |                                                             |
| S      |                                                             |
| cience |                                                             |
| Univer |                                                             |
| sity** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
|        | Depends on how closely related they are. If they are        |
|        | essentially parallel projects without the need to use       |
|        | similar procedures, it may work great. For most projects    |
|        | spanning institutions however, there needs to be one person |
|        | who is ultimately answerable.                               |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | I have used NSF\'s collborative proposals approach          |
| ersity | (multiple PIs, each institution has its own budget, no      |
| of     | contracting arrangements) with great satisfaction. Such a   |
| Il     | linked award mechanism seems to facilitate management and   |
| linois | speed the process.                                          |
| at     |                                                             |
| Chi    |                                                             |
| cago** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **     | Any time you create more bureaucracy it has the potential   |
| Valley | to slow things down.                                        |
| P      |                                                             |
| sychol |                                                             |
| ogical |                                                             |
| Ser    |                                                             |
| vices, |                                                             |
| P      |                                                             |
| .C./TP |                                                             |
| A/RGVM |                                                             |
| HC/APA |                                                             |
| \[Div  |                                                             |
| 38\]** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **     | Linked awards are fair and will encourage collaboration.    |
| Boston |                                                             |
| Univ   | Each PI wants/needs indirects at home.                      |
| ersity |                                                             |
| School | Carry-over issues could be more complex but accountability  |
| of     | will be higher so that offsets problems.                    |
| Medi   |                                                             |
| cine** | I think that if NIH considered having all awards, including |
|        | RFAs and RFPs offered with only direct funds listed and let |
|        | the indirects be added later (rather than backed out of     |
|        | total offered funds), this would also simplify grants.      |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Wad  | The \"Linked awards\" mechanism would also be appropriate   |
| sworth | for PIs within a single institution.                        |
| Ce     |                                                             |
| nter** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | Allowing each PI, especially at seperate institutions, has  |
| ersity | the advantage of allowing flexibility. This will maximize   |
| of     | the efficience of effort on a research project\...          |
| Ar     |                                                             |
| kansas |                                                             |
| at     |                                                             |
| Little |                                                             |
| Rock** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Fox  | This may initially cause problems for some investigators    |
| Chase  | but as successful models are developed and publicized, this |
| Cancer | should minimize over time. The benefits outweigh the        |
| Ce     | temporary drawbacks.                                        |
| nter** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Utah | I sought feedback from other PIs on this issue, their       |
| State  | comments are below. I think the single PI -head of project- |
| Univer | may be the best setup with overhead going to other Co-PIs   |
| sity** | \... my sense is that universities care about the bottom    |
|        | line (\$\$) for decisions of merit increases and            |
|        | promotions. In terms of grant management, unless PIs at     |
|        | different sites are conducting separate research proejcts   |
|        | (e.g., replications), it seems that having one PI makes the |
|        | most sense from a management standpoint. On the other hand, |
|        | having multiple PIs with autonomy may have positive         |
|        | consequences such as co-PI applying for minority            |
|        | supplementd, or more grant proposals from unlikely places   |
|        | because co-PI will have been truly involved in grant        |
|        | management and might feel less intimidated about submitting |
|        | a grant proposal as PI.                                     |
|        |                                                             |
|        | From Rand Conger -- University of California Davis          |
|        |                                                             |
|        | The current problem is that the Co-Is or Co-PI have little  |
|        | standing with the funding agency. Perhaps there is a way to |
|        | correct that while still maintaining the PI as the project  |
|        | director, or a specific co-PI as project director. In any   |
|        | case, there has to be some place for the buck to stop,      |
|        | hopefully with a competent project director.                |
|        |                                                             |
|        | From Marion Forgatch -- Oregon Social Learning Center       |
|        |                                                             |
|        | Actually we\'ve had a similar situation many years ago. And |
|        | the co-i was bounced. I agree with Ana Marie about the      |
|        | pluses. But there are important minuses as well.            |
|        |                                                             |
|        | From Ana Mari Cauce -- University of Washington             |
|        |                                                             |
|        | there are pluses and minuses. The pluses are obvious. the   |
|        | minuses less so. but, with one clear PI the lines of        |
|        | accountability are clear. if multiple investigators         |
|        | disagree, the PI has final say. This can be important in    |
|        | some situations.                                            |
|        |                                                             |
|        | There was a very messy one I\'m aware of at the UW          |
|        | (thankfully, not in Psych) \-- and in the end the PI had to |
|        | bounce the Co-PI. I\'m not sure how that one would have     |
|        | been resolved if they were both equal.                      |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| *      | In this age of internet communication, joint PIs and        |
| *UAB** | projects are more manageable.                               |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| *      | Some institutions charge extra for subcontracts, so it will |
| *Johns | save NIH money to do linked awards and it will              |
| H      | appropriately recognize the PIs as equal                    |
| opkins |                                                             |
| Univ   |                                                             |
| ersity |                                                             |
| M      |                                                             |
| edical |                                                             |
| Sc     |                                                             |
| hool** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| *      | How smoothly consortial or sub-contract arrangements go     |
| *Mount | depends largely on the institution. In cases at our         |
| Desert | institution - it has worked well; however, I can see the    |
| Island | value in granting collaborating/consortial partners         |
| Biol   | autonomy over their projects and budgets.                   |
| ogical |                                                             |
| Labora |                                                             |
| tory** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Co   | In some instance, if a collaborating site is not honoring   |
| lumbia | its research and work obligations, a PI under current       |
| Univer | arrangements can invoke the requisite authority to          |
| sity** | reapportion resources and associated work obligations in an |
|        | efficient way, thereby significantly and quickly enhancing  |
|        | (and sometimes salvaging) a project.                        |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **St.  | Although you have listed a potential disadvantage of        |
| Jude   | \"creating boundaries\" between institutions, that can      |
| Child  | already be a problem with the current system. No change can |
| ren\'s | force investigators to work well together. Allowing linked  |
| Res    | awards, and giving credit to co-PIs, should foster          |
| Hosp   | collaborative projects by creating fair incentive for       |
| ital** | co-PIs to participate!                                      |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | NSF already offers the possibility of linked awards (called |
| ersity | Grants for Collaborative Research), for which the proposal  |
| of     | has one research plan but two budgets for the two linked    |
| Ari    | groups. One of the PIs is the lead PI. I serve that role    |
| zona** | for linked awards of this kind, and it works very well.     |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **     | The current need to put subcontract indirect costs in the   |
| Oregon | direct costs of the grantee institution is a barrier that I |
| State  | hope, would be non-existent in the new linked awards model. |
| Univer |                                                             |
| sity** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| *      | The sub-contract arrangement indeed creates inequalities    |
| *BioMe | between PI\'s at the awardee institution and investigators  |
| dware, | at the sub-contract institution. This inequality is such    |
| Inc**  | that investigators at the sub-contract institution report   |
|        | to the PI at the awardee institution. The PI at the awardee |
|        | institution has responsibility for the overall research     |
|        | effort, and this inequality therefore is justified and      |
|        | necessary.                                                  |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **C    | The NIH grant process is built around the premise that a    |
| reare, | single Principal Investigator has the knowledge,            |
| Inc.** | experience, authority, and responsibility to ensure that    |
|        | the project is successful. We believe that this model has   |
|        | served the NIH well in the past and remains appropriate for |
|        | the future. The Principal Investigator needs to have the    |
|        | authority to modify the work scope of subcontracting        |
|        | organizations or to cancel their subcontract if they are    |
|        | not performing. Principal Investigator authority is         |
|        | especially critical in SBIR (R43/R44) and STTR (R41/R42)    |
|        | grants where a focused effort is needed to achieve specific |
|        | research and development objectives.                        |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **The  | Same deal as above: The critical need for a single final    |
| Univ   | decision maker rather than multiples in that role.          |
| ersity |                                                             |
| of     |                                                             |
| North  |                                                             |
| Ca     |                                                             |
| rolina |                                                             |
| at     |                                                             |
| Chapel |                                                             |
| Hill,  |                                                             |
| RTI    |                                                             |
| In     |                                                             |
| ternat |                                                             |
| ional, |                                                             |
| P      |                                                             |
| acific |                                                             |
| Ins    |                                                             |
| titute |                                                             |
| for    |                                                             |
| Re     |                                                             |
| search |                                                             |
| a**    |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | The current method of using subcontracts is inherently      |
| ersity | disadvantageous to investigators who lose part of their     |
| of     | direct costs to pay for indirect costs at the subcontracted |
| Wisco  | institution. This certainly discourages collaboration       |
| nsin** | across institutions and could easily be eliminated with     |
|        | linked awards.                                              |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | depending on the nature and size of the linked awards       |
| Pittsb | sometimes multiple PIs can work. Otherwise having one PI    |
| urgh** | forces smooth integration or you lose the subcontract.      |
|        |                                                             |
|        | BTW, I have multi-institution R01s on which I both PI and   |
|        | second site person.                                         |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **     | I think there could be problems if the PI\'s were having    |
| Monell | communication or scientific conflicts, but that is probably |
| Ce     | rare.                                                       |
| nter** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Wash | The linked awards may encourage more collaboration, but its |
| ington | impact on effective project management may be negative. Its |
| Univ   | value is hard to judge.                                     |
| ersity |                                                             |
| in St. |                                                             |
| L      |                                                             |
| ouis** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **UT   | I think the way this is done by NSF throug fast lane could  |
| m      | be a good model for the NIH. One advantage is that it       |
| edical | reduces the total overhead for the project. Another         |
| school | advantage is that multiple PI\'s can get equal recognition  |
| at     | for their grant within their institution.                   |
| Hou    |                                                             |
| ston** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **R    | Past experience has shown that linked awards create a       |
| etired | burden on submission. In my experience, we chose to simply  |
| from   | submit separate proposals and skip the \"linked\" option    |
| Acade  | when collaborating accross institutions.                    |
| mics** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| *      | A contacting PI may be named to collect progress reports    |
| *State | from linked awards and then to report to NIH.               |
| Univ   |                                                             |
| ersity |                                                             |
| of New |                                                             |
| York   |                                                             |
| at     |                                                             |
| Stony  |                                                             |
| B      |                                                             |
| rook** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Duke | I think there is some confusion re: project management and  |
| Univer | recognition. The fund allocation clearly will follow the    |
| sity** | budget and budget justification. F and A (indirects) may be |
|        | marginally affected. It should have no impact on actual     |
|        | project management.                                         |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| *      | One problem with linked awards may come at the time of      |
| *Johns | renewal. If the collaboration has not worked or the         |
| H      | interests of the PIs have changed, there might be           |
| opkins | disagreements about what to do in a second renewal.         |
| Univer |                                                             |
| sity** | One problem with subcontracts is that they require          |
|        | agreement between the lead institution and the contractor   |
|        | rather than the lead institution and the NIH. This can be a |
|        | problem when one of the subcontractors is another           |
|        | government agency (such as a national lab). Having linked   |
|        | awards might make it easier to negotiate these since the    |
|        | negotiation would be directly with the NIH (which probably  |
|        | has more power).                                            |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Co   | my answer to a is \"dont know\" because of the variability  |
| lumbia | in the care with which (and hence success of) such          |
| Univer | arrangements are made                                       |
| sity** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **UNC  | \(1\) Because the subcontract indirect costs come out of    |
| Chapel | the direct cost budget of the primary institution and       |
| Hill** | because the primary institution gets indirect costs on the  |
|        | entire award, there is a disincentive to collaborate as the |
|        | secondary institution. In grants with subcontracts NIH is   |
|        | paying indirect costs twice: True indirect costs to the     |
|        | primary and indirect cost out of direct costs for the       |
|        | secondary. The net result is fewer funds are available for  |
|        | the PI and Co-PI.                                           |
|        |                                                             |
|        | \(2\) There is also administrative pressure on the PI to    |
|        | maximize institutional income and a disincentive to enter   |
|        | subcontracts.                                               |
|        |                                                             |
|        | \(3\) For these reasons all to often the more senior/more   |
|        | established institution will be primary, even though the    |
|        | secondary institution provides the majority of research and |
|        | scientific creativity.                                      |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| *      | Rankings are used for internal evaluations of departments   |
| *Univ. | and for faculty recruitment.                                |
| Texas  |                                                             |
| So     | Subcontracts are fine when one institution is providing a   |
| uthwes | service for the overall project. Linked awards are          |
| tern** | preferable when co-PI\'s with equivalent roles are located  |
|        | at multiple institutions.                                   |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **M    | A great idea. Having 2 institutions track a budget and      |
| ontana | collect F&A costs on part of the subcontract is a waste of  |
| State  | time and money.                                             |
| Univer |                                                             |
| sity** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| *      | Useful to help limit self-overestimation of merit. Develop  |
| *Emory | a pro-rated strategy for departmental ranking.              |
| Univ   |                                                             |
| ersity | Let the buck stop within the primary institution            |
| School |                                                             |
| of     |                                                             |
| Medi   |                                                             |
| cine** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Dar  | My comment on this flows from my reaction to the concept of |
| tmouth | multiple PIs in general: someone needs to be in charge. In  |
| Col    | my opinion, while there can be circumstances where          |
| lege** | co-leadership works, success is hugely dependent upon the   |
|        | individuals involved. While linked awards would eliminate   |
|        | the subaward mechanism,which is cumbersome and does convey  |
|        | inferior status to the subawardee, for me the question      |
|        | comes back to: who\'s in charge here?                       |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | The Department of Psychiatry at UCSD historically has       |
| ersity | performed well in these rankings, and so uses these high    |
| of     | rankings as a recruiting tool and performance gauge.        |
| Calif  | Without these rankings, other performance indices will need |
| ornia, | to be sought.                                               |
| San    |                                                             |
| D      |                                                             |
| iego** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
|        | We benchmark our research progress by the rankings. We also |
|        | use the rankings to leverage funding from philanthropic     |
|        | sources.                                                    |
|        |                                                             |
|        | Same issues as allocation of funds in item 9. There can be  |
|        | only one captain of the ship for accountability and         |
|        | stewardship.                                                |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
|        | We benchmark our research progress by the rankings. We also |
|        | use the rankings to leverage funding from other sources.    |
|        |                                                             |
|        | Same issues as in item 9. There can be only one captain of  |
|        | the ship for accountability and stewardship.                |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Cali | It really depends on the institution as to whether          |
| fornia | inequities are created. I think liked awards might help.    |
| P      |                                                             |
| acific |                                                             |
| M      |                                                             |
| edical |                                                             |
| Ce     |                                                             |
| nter** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
|        | We benchmark our research progress by the rankings. We also |
|        | use the rankings to leverage other sources of funding.      |
|        |                                                             |
|        | Same issues as under 9 above. There can be only one captain |
|        | of the ship for accountability and stewardship. If NIH      |
|        | adopts this whole concept, suggest the word \"principal\"   |
|        | be dropped; there would de facto be no PI.                  |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Mi   | since we are in the bottom quartile of the ranking tables,  |
| chigan | this might \"help\" the institution. many people are quite  |
| State  | shocked to find out where we are in the rankingsThe major   |
| Univer | disincentive right now for multi-instutional applications   |
| sity** | is the current system raises the budget, since the indirect |
|        | costs of the subcontract count as additional direct costs   |
|        | to the main institutions budget.                            |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | I am aware of one such linked award, between Marjorie Mau   |
| ersity | of University of Hawaii and Todd Seto of Queen\'s Medical   |
| of     | Center, regarding Disparities in CHF for Native Hawaiians.  |
| Hawaii | I think it is functioning well but would ask these          |
| &      | individuals about this.                                     |
| Johns  |                                                             |
| Hop    |                                                             |
| kins** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
|        | We use our ranking in institutional fund raising.           |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **     | Eliminates some ability to compare with other departments   |
| Baylor |                                                             |
| C      |                                                             |
| ollege |                                                             |
| of     |                                                             |
| Medi   |                                                             |
| cine** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **C    | It is used as a benchmark of research productivity.         |
| harles |                                                             |
| R Drew |                                                             |
| Univer |                                                             |
| sity** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | We have focused our efforts to ensure that as many of our   |
| ersity | faculty NIH grants as possible are credited to our          |
| of     | department. Our faculty research areas are                  |
| Utah** | interdisciplinary, and many faculty submit grants through a |
|        | number of different departments. A change would affect us,  |
|        | but not necessarily in a negative manner.                   |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| *      | This is the primary metric by which we motivate our staff   |
| *Rhode | to obtain funding for their research. It is one of the most |
| Island | important measures of our success as a department. Without  |
| Ho     | this we can\'t measure how we are doing.                    |
| spital |                                                             |
| /Brown |                                                             |
| M      |                                                             |
| edical |                                                             |
| Sc     |                                                             |
| hool** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | The status of departments and of divisions within           |
| ersity | depratments is influenced by these rankings. This           |
| of     | ultimately translates into budget and political power. If   |
| North  | the tables are not provided, my school would likely         |
| Ca     | construct them internally.                                  |
| rolina |                                                             |
| at     |                                                             |
| Chapel |                                                             |
| Hill,  |                                                             |
| Dept   |                                                             |
| of     |                                                             |
| Medic  |                                                             |
| ine,** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Co   | Linked awards are much better than subcontracts (or         |
| lumbia | consortial arrangements) because the subcontracts made for  |
| Unive  | the purpose od NIH grants are not binding. Therefore, the   |
| rsity, | linked award arrangement is much preferrable because it     |
| St.    | ensures that each member of the team can trust the nature   |
| L      | of the arrangement. This will greatly facilitate a positive |
| uke\'s | relationship between the investigators and administrators   |
| Roo    | of the involved institutions. The linked awards would still |
| sevelt | maintain the clear demand on each of the linked grantees    |
| Ho     | (all involved investigators) to fulfill their work to the   |
| spital | best of their capabilities at the most efficient cost and   |
| Ce     | within an effective time frame.                             |
| nter** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | Many departments at UW use those ranking tables to monitor  |
| ersity | annual growth compared to other institutions. This is very  |
| of     | useful data to have available to the research community.    |
| Wisco  | Lists of awards as described below would be cumbersome to   |
| nsin - | sort and summarize in a meaningful way if trying to look at |
| Mad    | more than one department at one institution, for example.   |
| ison** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | Penn uses these tables as a way to judge the success of it  |
| ersity | individual program relative to piers. Penn has              |
| of     | traditionally rankes high, so this has helped the imaging   |
| PENN/A | program argue for support from the institution. However, we |
| CRIN** | have also been invovled in a lot of collaborative research  |
|        | which is not credited on any ranking (NIH or that in        |
|        | Accademic Radiology). The rankings are of course artificial |
|        | and there is no reason dols cannot be counted twuice in the |
|        | ranking. If we were to list all PI\'s for each grant and    |
|        | develop a list of grand dols for which the department has   |
|        | an investigator in a PI position, and thos for which a      |
|        | dpeartment has an investigator on a Sub Investigator        |
|        | position this would create a different kind of ranking but  |
|        | would reflect the contribution of a department to NIH\'s    |
|        | research portfolio, in terms of the scope of their          |
|        | influence on the programs. In the end, it would turn the    |
|        | rankings on their hear since PI\'s of colalborative         |
|        | projects would in essace be credited with the entire        |
|        | project creating great incentive for collaboration. There   |
|        | will still be strong incentive for individual research      |
|        | projects based on indirect recovery to ballance this.       |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| *      | Excellent idea. Particularly at big universities, so-called |
| *Women | collaborations often never amount to any real exchange of   |
| and    | ideas, information, or techniques, after the initial        |
| Inf    | letters of collaboration are sent. This may be a means to   |
| ant\'s | encourage real sharing between researchers.                 |
| Ho     |                                                             |
| spital |                                                             |
| and    |                                                             |
| Brown  |                                                             |
| Univer |                                                             |
| sity** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **     | In my experience, for sequencing grants, we can often be a  |
| Baylor | subcontractor with the bulk of the funds going into the     |
| C      | subcontract. This is because the PI is selected as the      |
| ollege | expert on the organism, rather than based on the bulk of    |
| of     | the work. Multiple PIs or linked grants would greatly       |
| Medi   | improve this situation.                                     |
| cine** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **M    | The rankings are important not only as a raw number, but as |
| edical | an index of growth. This is a key figure used in recruiting |
| C      | faculty and in helping university administration obtain     |
| ollege | private-sector funding and alumni support.                  |
| of     |                                                             |
| Geo    |                                                             |
| rgia** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | In my own situation this would not have a negative impact   |
| ersity | though I can see how it might in other cirumcstances.       |
| of     |                                                             |
| Chi    |                                                             |
| cago** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| *      | In my current position, I function partly as an independent |
| *North | investigator and partly as a director of a production       |
| Sho    | facility that interacts through consortiums. The problem    |
| re-LIJ | with consortium is that the PI can use our involvement to   |
| Re     | increase likelihood of funding but turn around and use our  |
| search | funding for personnel and other expenditures elsewhere.     |
| Insti  | Time and effort on our part is uncompensated and the        |
| tute** | funding taken from our budget creates difficulties in my    |
|        | home institution that was counting on those funds for       |
|        | operation of my program. If awards were handled             |
|        | differently, my program would not be put in such awkward    |
|        | positions.                                                  |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Co   | I think the same arguments apply. Someone from the main     |
| lumbia | awardee organization should lead it based on negotiation    |
| Univer | about roles. Creating multiple PIs will not eliminate       |
| sity** | conflicts, but only make them harder to resolve.            |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | The MI/CCP U54 is in essence a \"linked award\" if I        |
| ersity | understand it properly. This permits independent            |
| of     | administration of the grants in keeping with the different  |
| Ari    | institutional guidelines, but also ensures accountability   |
| zona** | at the partner institutions.                                |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Co   | allows people w/complimentary expertises to apply           |
| lumbia | together-useful if there isn\'t someone on your capus       |
| Univer |                                                             |
| sity** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Vi   | From all my experiences at project oriented research, it    |
| rginia | always help to have a primary PI who is responsible for a   |
| Tech** | project. This is particularly helpful when there are        |
|        | difficult decisions to be made. It is almost impossible to  |
|        | have multiple PIs agree perfectly with each other.          |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **     | As a developmental neurobiologist involved in translational |
| Morgan | research on animal models for clinical disorders, I         |
| State  | frequently and very productively have teamed with           |
| Univer | colleagues in medical school environments for joint grants. |
| sity** | I am located on a small, comprehensive university campus    |
|        | and the primary institution for the awards has typically    |
|        | been the medical school and I have been the recipient of a  |
|        | subcontract. Unfortunately, my institution does not regards |
|        | these subcontract as \"independent funding\" and I have     |
|        | been denied promotion to full pfofessor for not having      |
|        | sufficient \"independent\" grants. The implementation of    |
|        | linked awards would very much help with this problem since  |
|        | my portion of the collborative project would directly come  |
|        | to my institution and I would be given credit as P.I. Going |
|        | for my seperate own independent RO1 grants is not the       |
|        | solution because the translational nature of my work really |
|        | requires interaction with a more clinical environment.      |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | Linked awards to two different institutions makes sense. In |
| ersity | my experience, subcontract arrangements can be cumbersome.  |
| of     | The primary PI must approve fund transfer and cover         |
| M      | indirect costs for the secondary institution as part of the |
| issour | direct cost of the grant at the primary institution. So the |
| i-Colu | subcontract project is essentially generating indirect      |
| mbia** | costs for two institutions and this cuts into the direct    |
|        | costs for the primiary P.I. In addition, the P.I. is often  |
|        | left to figure out the administrative procedures at both    |
|        | institutions, in order to accomplish appropriate transfer   |
|        | of funds. This makes the inclusion of subcontracts less     |
|        | appealing to P.I.\'s and hinders multi-institution grant    |
|        | applications.                                               |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
|        | I think collaborative projects are beneficial for           |
|        | recognition of multiple investigators; however, there would |
|        | need to be a central team that coordinates data management  |
|        | so the research does not deviate from the proposed plan or  |
|        | across settings. Also, would all PIs need to be identified  |
|        | ahead of time (i.e., at the time of the proposal)? One      |
|        | observation I have made with a pending subcontract at my    |
|        | institution is the expectation of intellectual property.    |
|        | That is, senior researchers being expected to be listed as  |
|        | an author on any paper that comes from the data rather than |
|        | their level of contribution to the analysis,                |
|        | interpretation, and development of the written product.     |
|        | Thus, problems with linked awards in lieu of the current    |
|        | system might be avoided if a joint contract was signed      |
|        | indicating requirements for data management and maintenance |
|        | as well as authority over resource/funding.                 |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Me   | Limits flexibility. All too often a project much change to  |
| mber** | respond to new ideas, technologies or discoveries.          |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Vi   | NSF has been doing it for years.                            |
| rginia |                                                             |
| Tech** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **New  | Linked awards are the most fair way to handle the funding.  |
| York   | There has been a lot of problem transferring funds between  |
| Univ   | institutions. It would be more fair and less of a problem   |
| ersity | if funds did not have to be transferred.                    |
| School |                                                             |
| of     |                                                             |
| Medi   |                                                             |
| cine** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **     | The concept of linking awards would afford the              |
| Alfred | \'collaborative\' investigator credit for the work from an  |
| I      | academic perspective (ie, for promotions and tenure         |
| duPont | consideration). I think that is what is missing from the    |
| Ho     | system and is needed.                                       |
| spital |                                                             |
| for    |                                                             |
| Chil   |                                                             |
| dren** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | Subcontracts are problematic, especially if the prime       |
| ersity | institution collects all of the credit for purposes of      |
| of     | rankings. Again, perhaps a Co-PI designation would help in  |
| Il     | terms of intellectual and budget credit. Primary            |
| linois | responsibility/credit and control of the budget should      |
| at     | remain with the prime institution, however, I know that the |
| Chi    | FDP is trying to address the logistics of subcontract       |
| cago** | issuance. The porocess is still very tedious and slow at a  |
|        | number of institutions. A Linked Award arrangement would    |
|        | eliminate this step but perhaps hinder the ability of the   |
|        | prime PI to control the subcontractee budget. There must be |
|        | some mechanism in place to assure control of the PI over    |
|        | the Co-PI project.                                          |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **     | I believe subcontracts are often awkward replacements for   |
| UCLA** | projects that would more usefully be executed as linked     |
|        | awards.                                                     |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| *      | we have tried this approach with integrated R01s            |
| *NCI** | initiatives. They were a disaster in terms of review and    |
|        | funding. Could never coordinate. Also study sections in     |
|        | times of limited budgets resent multiple awards to same     |
|        | group of investigators.                                     |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **     | Unless I am mistaken on how this works, it seems to me that |
| Purdue | the subcontracting mechanism is a waste of money. Is it not |
| Univer | true that the subcontract comes out of the direct costs of  |
| sity** | the PI which is subject to indirect costs? The subcontract  |
|        | then contains direct plus indirect costs. Both institutions |
|        | then have to manage the transfer of funds. Wouldn\'t be     |
|        | much more efficient to just send the award money to each    |
|        | individual institution? The distribution of funds would be  |
|        | decided by the PI\'s at the time the grant was written and  |
|        | changes could be made on the noncompetitive renewal as      |
|        | needed.                                                     |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| *      | Linked awards without a clear leader will open Pandora\'s   |
| *Univ. | box with regard to independent investigators without        |
| Ala    | accountability to others.                                   |
| bama - |                                                             |
| Birmin | The problems with subcontracts are centered around          |
| gham** | institutional bean counters who force PIs to deal with      |
|        | bureaucratic issues unrelated to the science. Streamline    |
|        | the system within the universities and the issues will be   |
|        | resolved.                                                   |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Line | The problem with the current system is the need for the     |
| berger | indirect costs of the grant to come from the direct costs   |
| Cancer | of the total award. This greatly limits the amount of money |
| Ce     | that PIs are willing to use for a sub-contract which        |
| nter** | hinders collaborative work.                                 |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | This could help in eliminating problems related to properly |
| ersity | crediting contributions.                                    |
| of     |                                                             |
| Tenne  |                                                             |
| ssee** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **     | PIs on joint proposals are collaborating on a project       |
| NJIT/R | towards a single scientific goal. Eliminating rank in this  |
| utgers | process can only help.                                      |
| Univer |                                                             |
| sity** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Br   | See 12                                                      |
| andeis |                                                             |
| Univer |                                                             |
| sity** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **LSU  | a\) No -- The subcontract arrangement serves as an          |
| Health | impediment to joint research between multiple institutions. |
| Sc     |                                                             |
| iences | b\) Yes -- There are inequities not only between the        |
| Ce     | different PIs, but also the institutions. The PI from the   |
| nter** | primary institution generally takes credit for the          |
|        | administrative core, and sometimes the whole grant, whereas |
|        | the PI from the secondary institution receives credit only  |
|        | for his/her individual project(s). This may not be          |
|        | appropriate in some cases.                                  |
|        |                                                             |
|        | c\) Yes -- There is value in offering linked awards. One of |
|        | the problems with the current method is that primary        |
|        | institution receives the credit for the bulk of these joint |
|        | grants. As a result, investigators from the secondary       |
|        | institution may be less willing to participate. Linked      |
|        | awards also have a benefit for the institutions. Currently, |
|        | the money for the administrative cores goes to the primary  |
|        | institution. Linked awards would allow the funds to be      |
|        | distributed based on the relative contributions of the      |
|        | investigators.                                              |
|        |                                                             |
|        | d\) Overall, linked awards would facilitate cooperation;    |
|        | however, some potential problems could arise. There could   |
|        | be difficulty assigning financial responsibility for        |
|        | aspects of a jointly-held program. Both institutions will   |
|        | try to maximize their funding and push the costs over to    |
|        | the other institution.                                      |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **     | State funds available for faculty salaries are reducing     |
| UTMB** | rapidly in the US. the Chairs and Deans expect the faculty  |
|        | to bring in 50-100% of their salaries from extramural       |
|        | funds. Funding schemes as they exist currently will need to |
|        | be overhauled soon, to meet the challenge of the poor       |
|        | health of State economies in the US. Giving credit to all   |
|        | PIs is a good first step, but probably a lot more will have |
|        | to be done at every level, including administrative and     |
|        | research infrastructure.                                    |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | Each Institution should directly receive their own money    |
| ersity | for studies across institutions, and each PI should have    |
| of     | control over their own money. This will remove the          |
| Miami  | secondary status of those PI\'s and lead to greater         |
| School | collaborations in the future. Right now, successful facutly |
| of     | are less likely to collaborate with other institutions      |
| Medi   | because they will not get full (financial) credit for their |
| cine** | efforts.                                                    |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Mayo | Having participated in a consortium agreement at the        |
| Clinic | awardee institution, the transfer of funds on a regular     |
| C      | basis is tedious and delays the receipt of the funds to the |
| ollege | other institution \-- for no good purpose.                  |
| of     |                                                             |
| Medi   |                                                             |
| cine** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| *      | Damned if you do, damned if you don\'t. I think that while  |
| *Mount | the subcontract arrangement does create inequities, it also |
| Sinai  | provides an enforceable structure for project management    |
| School | that is valuable. I am not sure which scenario is best, and |
| of     | it is probably variable depending on the type of multi-site |
| Medi   | project. Some would probably be better served by linked     |
| cine** | awards, some by contract-subcontract structure.             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **H    | I believe that one institution has to assume management of  |
| arvard | any project; however, there ought also to be ways to        |
| M      | eliminate the sense of inequity (e.g., the use of the term  |
| edical | \"SUB contract\" implies a \"less than\" relationship). I   |
| Sc     | currently manage several multiple institution grants and it |
| hool** | is certainly more complex than the single site grants.      |
|        | There could also be serious issues raised in the case of a  |
|        | project with multiple PI\'s that goes over budget - which   |
|        | institution/PI is responsible?                              |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
|        | I like the NSF model of collaborative proposals between     |
|        | institutions that can either be done utilizing a            |
|        | subcontract, OR by a collaborative proposal in which each   |
|        | organization has its own budget (no subcontract necessary). |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **The  | I should think two PIs at two institutions would be very    |
| Ohio   | difficult to manage efficiently.                            |
| State  |                                                             |
| Univ   |                                                             |
| ersity |                                                             |
| C      |                                                             |
| ollege |                                                             |
| of     |                                                             |
| Medi   |                                                             |
| cine** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | Theoretically, Linked Awards are a good idea, depends on    |
| ersity | the ego of the two PIs.                                     |
| of     |                                                             |
| Mon    |                                                             |
| tana** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Ion  | I agree with the statement the a \"P.I.\" at a              |
| O      | subcontractor may have equal responsibility to success of   |
| ptics, | the overall project but not get equal recognition.As an     |
| Inc.** | Industrial scientist                                        |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | The allocation of indirect costs will be the major issue    |
| ersity | that needs to be solved. I do not beleive the indirect      |
| of     | costs of second or third institue should be part of the     |
| So     | direct costs of grant.                                      |
| uthern |                                                             |
| Califo |                                                             |
| rnia** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Ass  | Linking awards would facilitate research progress by        |
| ociate | reducing and streamlining administrative efforts related to |
| Profe  | highly collaborative projects, expecially those which       |
| ssor** | involve multi-disciplinary approaches.                      |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| *      | Where it could be a problem is when the 2nd site\'s         |
| *Univ. | productivity depends upon the 1st, but with the Linked      |
| T      | award they have a P.I. responsibilty for the                |
| exas** | non-performance.                                            |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Me   | The funds would be earmarked on a per-institution basis,    |
| morial | and accounting should not be hindered in that kind of a     |
| Slo    | setting.                                                    |
| an-Ket |                                                             |
| tering |                                                             |
| Cancer |                                                             |
| Ce     |                                                             |
| nter** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ | I think the current consortium works well. One PI should    |
| So     | have the final say although we should acknowledge the       |
| uthern | efforts from other people.                                  |
| Califo |                                                             |
| rnia** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **The  | A linked award would make the budgetary issues easier. I    |
| Univ   | currently have a subcontract with a different university    |
| ersity | and it has been very difficult to get the money from that   |
| of     | institution. In addition, the PI at this other institution  |
| Mon    | is moving, and this adds another layer of beaurocracy onto  |
| tana** | the problem.                                                |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Ho   | Linked Award arrangements, with multiple PIs rather than    |
| siptal | sub-contracts, would be a big benefit when the proposal is  |
| for    | geared toward collaborative research between two or more    |
| S      | institutions. It would give recognition to the partners as  |
| pecial | \"true collaborators\". However, if the sub-contract was    |
| Sur    | only for \"work performed\", then a sub-contract is         |
| gery** | appropriate.                                                |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Scr  | Someone needs to be responsible and a strong single PI is   |
| ipps** | the only way you have to insure the project gets done. The  |
|        | vision and containment of extraneous projects needs to be   |
|        | in one PI.                                                  |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **     | Joint funding across institutions should be encouraged. The |
| UCSF** | use of subcontracts discourages this, because it takes      |
|        | indirect costs out of direct costs. The Linked Awards plan  |
|        | is a better one.                                            |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Vi   | Some projects require strong central leadership; these      |
| rginia | projects benefit most from a traditional sub-contract       |
| Polyt  | arrangment. Other projects do not need this and instead     |
| echnic | benefit from dispersed adminsitration. PIs and institutions |
| Ins    | should have the option to choose whichever arrangements     |
| titute | they believe best suits the project. That having been said, |
| and    | the choice of management mechanism should thus be subject   |
| State  | to review, to discourage choices based purely on financial  |
| Univer | or political expediency.                                    |
| sity** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Vi   | This is going to increase the NIH and grant bureaucracy     |
| rginia | while adding nothing that can\'t already be done under the  |
| Tech** | current sub-contract arrangements.                          |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+