+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Aff | **RFI Comments on Other Issues**                             |
| iliat |                                                              |
| ion** |                                                              |
+=======+==============================================================+
| **The | I believe that funding projects with multiple PIs even in    |
| Unive | multiple institutions is necessary. I am also convinced that |
| rsity | this would work only if the budget for each PI are kept      |
| of    | separate. A certainl flexibility should be allowed, such as  |
| Texas | , for instance, permit 25% of each PIs funds to be moved to  |
| at    | another PI during each year.                                 |
| Dal   |                                                              |
| las** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Co  | We like this idea \-- the potential for collaboration is     |
| llege | raised when it works such that each PI is able to manage     |
| of    | her/his own money and to get credit for work done in their   |
| St.   | lab. Much more equitable.                                    |
| C     |                                                              |
| ather |                                                              |
| ine** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Par | We endorse the comments of the Council on Governmental       |
| tners | Relations (COGR).                                            |
| Healt |                                                              |
| hCare |                                                              |
| Sy    |                                                              |
| stem, |                                                              |
| I     |                                                              |
| nc.** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | In general, I support the multiple PI idea. The main concern |
| Tufts | is the exact implementation. There may be potential for      |
| U     | credit or responsibility problems with certain               |
| niver | implementations, some of which may be hard to anticipate.    |
| sity, | Flexibility in further modifying the implementation will be  |
| Medf  | important to ensure that the benefits outweigh any problems. |
| ord** | Also, there is potential for additional administrative or    |
|       | paper work which could detract for PIs time to focus on the  |
|       | research. Extra effort should be made to minimize            |
|       | administrative requirements. Thank you.                      |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | This submission represents the position of three PIs and     |
| Unive | combined representation of the large-scale research          |
| rsity | collaborative they lead together: a Junior Faculty and       |
| of    | Hospitals Director at Chicago (Jonathan Silverstein) a       |
| Chic  | former Dean at Northwestern (Richard Morimoto) and an        |
| ago** | Associate Vice Chancellor at UIC (Brenda Russell). Together  |
|       | they lead the Chicago Biomedical Consortium which currently  |
|       | spans Two Private Universities, One Public, and One National |
|       | Lab (ANL).                                                   |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Regarding Ranking Tables: We understand the value of ranking |
|       | awards per faculty member in an institution as well as       |
|       | institutional total ranking - together they paint a picture  |
|       | properly of the award productivity of an institution. The    |
|       | \"small and great\" institution is under-represented by      |
|       | total rank and the \"large and average\" insititution is     |
|       | over-represented whereas the reverse is true of per-faculty  |
|       | ranking.                                                     |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **The | Overwhelmingly, the individuals with whom I consulted on the |
| C     | questions posed by the July 29, 2005 RFI were surprised by   |
| hildr | the premise that the current system discourages team         |
| en\'s | science. We have seen the number of subcontracts grow        |
| Hos   | annually, as we have seen the number of multidisciplinary    |
| pital | projects. We cannot recall cases where these issues of       |
| of    | recognition were cogent at the investigator level, because   |
| Phil  | the PI tends to emerge quite naturally. We strongly endorse  |
| adelp | the concept of a single PI. This individual is not only      |
| hia** | accountable and responsibility, but serves as the leader.    |
|       | Generally, this is not a role that can be played by a        |
|       | committee. Complex proposals are very demanding to prepare   |
|       | and multi-institutional and multi-disciplinary projects are  |
|       | difficult to sustain. It is the responsibility of the        |
|       | principal investigator to ensure that all aspects of the     |
|       | project, scientific progress as well as compliance with      |
|       | various regulations, allocation of adequate resources,       |
|       | timely communications are met. It is critical that all       |
|       | members of the teams be recognized but diminishing the       |
|       | leadership role of the PI is not the appropriate response.   |
|       | We also believe that use of the term Co-PI or                |
|       | Co-Investigator would adequately acknowledge the             |
|       | contribution of other key team members.                      |
|       |                                                              |
|       | We reject the role of "contact PI," believing that this      |
|       | individual will become the de facto PI. We envision          |
|       | researchers augmenting their CV's by including the           |
|       | designation of "contact PI" and envision review committees   |
|       | weighing this designation more heavily that simple PI in the |
|       | future. The RFI is a wake up call to institutions to         |
|       | consider ways in which to better recognize the collaborative |
|       | nature of much of our science and to develop more            |
|       | sophisticated databases and reporting tools. NIH can also    |
|       | address the recognition of multiple investigators by         |
|       | expanding the information about co-investigators in its      |
|       | electronic databases. It would be the single most important  |
|       | NIH achievement for ensuring that appropriate recognition    |
|       | and credit is given to all investigators whatever their      |
|       | designation. One method would be to modify CRISP so that one |
|       | could search CRISP and find all projects for a given         |
|       | individual on which they have a major role (PI, co-PI).      |
|       | Finally, in connect to the departmental ranking tables, we   |
|       | do use them, but recognize their limitations. We often look  |
|       | across departments of pediatrics and independent children's  |
|       | hospitals. But, in doing so, we know that we are not         |
|       | comparing apples to apples or oranges to oranges, which      |
|       | greatly diminishes the value of the tables. They are, for    |
|       | example, far less valuable than the institutional ranking    |
|       | tables. The boundaries of departments at institutions is     |
|       | constantly in flux -- a division which was part of a         |
|       | department of medicine might, for example, be made an        |
|       | independent department. A clinical department might include  |
|       | basic scientists at one institution while a department with  |
|       | the same name at another institution would not.              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | I have attached below a letter that was sent to the OSTP     |
| Unive | from the University of Minnesota that expresses our views on |
| rsity | the issue of multiple PI recognition.                        |
| of    |                                                              |
| M     | September 16, 2005                                           |
| innes |                                                              |
| ota** | Beth Phillips                                                |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Office of Federal Financial Management                       |
|       |                                                              |
|       | 725 17th Street, NW                                          |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Washington, DC 20503                                         |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Dear Ms. Phillips:                                           |
|       |                                                              |
|       | I am writing to respond to the request for information (RFI) |
|       | published in the Federal Register on July 18, 2005 by the    |
|       | Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) related to    |
|       | the use of multiple Principal Investigators (PIs) on awards  |
|       | made under Federal research and research related programs.   |
|       |                                                              |
|       | The University of Minnesota is a public, land grant          |
|       | university with a long, illustrious tradition of research    |
|       | and scholarly investigation with nearly three quarters of    |
|       | its research portfolio funded by federal sponsors. The       |
|       | University of Minnesota applauds the efforts of OSTP and the |
|       | NIH for raising this issue for discussion with the research  |
|       | community and governmental agencies to explore how           |
|       | recognition of the intellectual contributions of multiple    |
|       | PIs will support and encourage vibrant inter-disciplinary    |
|       | and multi-disciplinary research. The University of Minnesota |
|       | believes it can be a leader in adopting a new model for PI   |
|       | recognition and will work vigorously to change the culture   |
|       |                                                              |
|       | The University of Minnesota believes that the definition of  |
|       | who is a PI on a grant correctly rests with the grantee      |
|       | institution since it has the responsibility for grant awards |
|       | made to it. The University of Minnesota has a policy that    |
|       | defines who can be a PI and it has served us well in         |
|       | managing the scientific leadership of the numerous projects  |
|       | conducted over many decades. Conversations with other COGR   |
|       | member research institutions lead us to believe they have    |
|       | similar policies and share the same view about the           |
|       | responsibility to designate a PI. It will be important for   |
|       | grantee institutions to establish criteria to expand PI      |
|       | eligibility in the current environment of                    |
|       | multi/inter-disciplinary research. The danger will be that   |
|       | the number of PIs on grants may increase to a point that the |
|       | use of multiple PIs may not encourage or support             |
|       | inter-disciplinary research, but will be counter productive. |
|       | Grantee institutions must explore reasonable limits on the   |
|       | number of PIs on inter-disciplinary research or we will see  |
|       | a repetition of what has occurred with regard to authorship  |
|       | on scientific publications where the number is so great that |
|       | it is difficult to assess any one individual's contribution  |
|       | to the work. Should there be a practical limit? We have seen |
|       | some scholarly publications ask authors to specify their     |
|       | role in the scholarship. Perhaps there should be some        |
|       | minimal thresholds or guidance for PI recognition. It        |
|       | certainly does not make sense for a typical R01 grant to     |
|       | have more than two or three PIs. On the other hand, use of   |
|       | multiple PIs will offer an opportunity to recognize          |
|       | intellectual contributions of scholars who currently because |
|       | of their role in research will not be recognized as PIs on   |
|       | some funded projects. For example, statisticians make        |
|       | important contributions but currently are not recognized as  |
|       | PIs. It will be incumbent on the academic officers involved  |
|       | in the review of applications for funding to exercise        |
|       | judgment and apply prudent criteria in order to determine    |
|       | who shall be a PI on a project.                              |
|       |                                                              |
|       | The RFI raises the question of difficulties associated with  |
|       | designating more than one PI. Some of the concerns have been |
|       | mentioned in the previous paragraph, but there are other     |
|       | concerns. There will be additional administrative burden as  |
|       | a result such as changing management systems both at the     |
|       | sponsor level but also at the grantee level to accommodate   |
|       | multiple PIs and possibly multiple budgets on smaller        |
|       | awards. Program project grants had used multiple budgets     |
|       | effectively for years, but multiple PIs may wish to have     |
|       | individual budgets as well. Lead time for implementation     |
|       | will be needed not only for the sponsors but also for the    |
|       | grantee institutions.                                        |
|       |                                                              |
|       | With the use of multiple PIs there will be the practical     |
|       | dilemma of how sponsors will communicate information and     |
|       | which PI will be responsible for communications with other   |
|       | PIs. Efforts also must be made to avoid the "contact PI"     |
|       | from becoming the burden of the most junior faculty member   |
|       | listed on the grant. Whatever the designation for the PI who |
|       | will be responsible for communications amongst the PIs and   |
|       | the sponsor, the designation must not convey more importance |
|       | than there really is with it.For application instructions,   |
|       | agencies should provide some guidance and structure to what  |
|       | proposals must contain, while allowing for less structure    |
|       | with small, less complex teams of investigators. In other    |
|       | words, the structure should allow PIs some flexibility to    |
|       | whether or not they provide information such as multiple     |
|       | budgets; one for each PI. For small, less complex teams of   |
|       | investigators it hardly seems necessary to provide a         |
|       | management plan or leadership plan with roles and            |
|       | responsibilities information in the application.             |
|       |                                                              |
|       | With regard to awards that involve PIs from different        |
|       | institutions, the PIs should have flexibility in determining |
|       | whether they use one institution as the grantee that will    |
|       | make sub-grants or subcontracts to other institutions whose  |
|       | faculty members are PIs on the project, or have linked       |
|       | awards made to each institution, or follow the collaborative |
|       | research proposal model that NSF uses with multiple budgets  |
|       | that are submitted by each participating institution. These  |
|       | are all good features that work well depending on the nature |
|       | of the project being proposed to a federal sponsor.          |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Access to award and review information is very important to  |
|       | each investigator. To the degree possible, peer review       |
|       | documents should be communicated directly to all PIs on a    |
|       | grant to ensure that all are aware of the reviewers'         |
|       | comments and recommendations. Likewise it is important for   |
|       | all PIs to see the award information contained on the notice |
|       | of award in a timely manner. With e-mail communication of    |
|       | awards information, it would not seem to be an additional    |
|       | burden for sponsors to notify all PIs of the peer review and |
|       | award information. E-mail addresses for PIs should be        |
|       | information that is contained in the original application    |
|       | for funding.                                                 |
|       |                                                              |
|       | The University of Minnesota supports the efforts on the part |
|       | of the OSTP to work with federal agencies and research       |
|       | institutions to consider ways to enhance multi-disciplinary  |
|       | research through the recognition of the intellectual         |
|       | contributions of a number of investigators on a single       |
|       | project. This will no doubt change reward and incentive      |
|       | policies of research universities, but this culture shift    |
|       | will benefit the faculty, will encourage its participation   |
|       | on multi-disciplinary research, and will advance it.         |
|       |                                                              |
|       | The University of Minnesota appreciates the opportunity to   |
|       | comment on this issue.                                       |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Sincerely,                                                   |
|       |                                                              |
|       | R. Timothy Mulcahy, Ph.D.                                    |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Vice President for Research                                  |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | Assigning Responsibility for Accountability                  |
| Unive |                                                              |
| rsity | We encourage the NIH to consider the statement of what       |
| of    | constitutes a PI as discussed in the Office of Science and   |
| Ca    | Technology Policy Request for Information (Federal Register  |
| lifor | Vol. 70, No.136). We recommend that NIH-specific eligibility |
| nia** | requirements should not extend beyond those already in place |
|       | and that institutions should continue to be responsible for  |
|       | appointing PIs based on institution-specific eligibility     |
|       | requirements and the needs of individual research projects.  |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Under current practice (as specified by federal grant        |
|       | regulations and by the certifications and representations    |
|       | signed by a grantee institution), one person is ultimately   |
|       | responsible for compliance with the terms and conditions of  |
|       | the award. The person with this responsibility is typically  |
|       | the named Principal Investigator, who is responsible both to |
|       | his or her own institution as well as to the grant agency    |
|       | for performance under the award. Recognition of multiple PIs |
|       | may distribute responsibility, raising questions about how   |
|       | to assign accountability in an effective and meaningful way. |
|       |                                                              |
|       | This issue is of particular importance if a named PI on a    |
|       | signed proposal cover page is from another institution, such |
|       | as a sub-recipient institution. The prime grantee            |
|       | institution cannot sign and accept responsibility for that   |
|       | PI's compliance with federal certifications and              |
|       | representations, and can only sign certifications and        |
|       | representations for investigators over whom it has           |
|       | institutional authority and control. Thus, the NIH should    |
|       | modify proposal and award documents to ensure that one       |
|       | institution is not signing representations or certifications |
|       | for an employee of another institution. A simple             |
|       | modification could consist of inserting appropriate language |
|       | indicating that the institutional signature on a document    |
|       | does not represent employees not at that institution and     |
|       | that names of PIs at other institutions are provided for     |
|       | informational purposes only. One PI might be designated the  |
|       | "Lead PI" instead of the "Contact PI" (as proposed in the    |
|       | OSTP RFI), a title which appears to be strictly              |
|       | administrative and lacking in authority. The "Lead PI" would |
|       | accept ultimate scientific, budgetary, and compliance        |
|       | responsibility for a project, thus providing a clear focus   |
|       | of responsibility, accountability and authority within a     |
|       | group of collaborators.                                      |
|       |                                                              |
|       | We recognize that a "Lead-PI / PI" model largely mirrors the |
|       | current "PI / Co-PI" model, the fundamental difference being |
|       | one of terminology, and retaining the current titles could   |
|       | be appropriately defined in agency policy to increase        |
|       | recognition of Co-PIs. Nonetheless, use of the term "PI"     |
|       | rather than "Co-PI" may in itself be an important signal of  |
|       | the intent that these individuals be accorded increased and  |
|       | equal recognition, and, combined with the more substantive   |
|       | recognitions associated with their inclusion in agency       |
|       | databases, as discussed below, should significantly advance  |
|       | the goal of recognizing and encouraging the contributions of |
|       | multiple collaborators.                                      |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Access to Electronic Information                             |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Allowing all PIs / Co-PIs associated with a project to view  |
|       | award and review information and including all PIs / Co-PIs  |
|       | in NIH databases represent important and substantive ways of |
|       | affording meaningful recognition to key contributors to a    |
|       | research project. UC strongly encourages NIH to afford to    |
|       | all PIs / Co-PIs the same privileges regarding access of     |
|       | award information and inclusion in databases (including      |
|       | CRISP) as are currently afforded only to PIs.                |
|       |                                                              |
|       | The benefits of including all PIs (or Co PIs) in agency      |
|       | databases and allowing all PIs to view award and review      |
|       | information extend to those individuals, their institutions, |
|       | and the public:                                              |
|       |                                                              |
|       | •While many PIs currently share award and review information |
|       | with their colleagues, allowing all PIs / Co-PIs named on an |
|       | award to access this information takes the burden of         |
|       | communication off a single individual and allows for a more  |
|       | collaborative and efficient approach to a research project   |
|       | by those with an interest in the project's progress and      |
|       | success;                                                     |
|       |                                                              |
|       | •Beyond the ability to access peer review information, an    |
|       | investigator's ability to search a database and identify all |
|       | key individuals associated with particular awards would      |
|       | facilitate that investigator's ability to foster new         |
|       | research collaborations in a particular area of study.       |
|       | Investigators are currently only able to view the names of   |
|       | PIs (and not Co-PIs) associated with a project in            |
|       | CRISP;CRISP allows NIH personnel to identify potential       |
|       | reviewers etc., but currently limits personnel to searching  |
|       | for PIs only. Enabling personnel to identify all key         |
|       | contributors to a project (be they PIs or Co-PIs) would      |
|       | broaden the scope of the search function and would afford    |
|       | meaningful recognition to individuals;                       |
|       |                                                              |
|       | • Ensuring that public databases are fully searchable allows |
|       | for the contributions of all individuals names as PIs /      |
|       | Co-PIs to become part of the public record.                  |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | I think this change can work with minimal problems if the    |
| Unive | lines of responsibility are clearly laid out in advance. In  |
| rsity | a way, perhaps the problem is more one of how academia       |
| of    | works, but it will be tough to change that.                  |
| R     |                                                              |
| oches |                                                              |
| ter** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Pr  | The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology     |
| ofess | (ARVO) is the world's largest association of clinical and    |
| ional | basic scientists who study disorders affecting vision and    |
| Soci  | the eye. ARVO has more than 11,300 members of which 6,500    |
| ety** | are from the United States. Approximately 80% of the grants  |
|       | issued by the National Eye Institute (NEI) are held by       |
|       | members of ARVO.                                             |
|       |                                                              |
|       | The current NIH granting system requirement restricting the  |
|       | number of Principal Investigators (PI's) to one per grant    |
|       | proposal is outdated, especially in the climate of a greater |
|       | desire and need for multidisciplinary studies. Many          |
|       | researchers collaborating on a grant proposal face the       |
|       | unpleasant decision of choosing a PI even though all         |
|       | co-investigators are expected to contribute equally to the   |
|       | project. There is unfairness rife in this system because PI  |
|       | status is considered to be superior to co-I status. For      |
|       | example, when it comes to promotion and tenure decisions, as |
|       | well as salary increases and post-tenure review, the PI      |
|       | position is rated much higher, and co-I status often is not  |
|       | viewed as important.                                         |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Admittedly, there are problems that could occur with         |
|       | allowing more than one PI per grant. For example, how does   |
|       | one determine whether contributions of each PI are roughly   |
|       | equal, will there be some kind of "means testing"? If a      |
|       | junior scientist is listed as co-PI on a proposal with a     |
|       | senior investigator, when will the junior scientist be       |
|       | viewed as independent? Should there be a limit to the number |
|       | of PI's that could be listed on a proposal? Will this add to |
|       | the administration of the award? How can the administrative  |
|       | issues be resolved so that not to burden the investigators?  |
|       |                                                              |
|       | While these issues will need to be addressed, it is          |
|       | important that we consider the benefits to allowing more     |
|       | than one PI per proposal. These benefits include enhanced    |
|       | opportunities and interest in collaboration, especially      |
|       | multidisciplinary collaboration. In addition, it is crucial  |
|       | to bring fairness to the system, so each investigator        |
|       | receives appropriate credit for their contributions,         |
|       | especially multidisciplinary projects.                       |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments on this   |
|       | important issue.                                             |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| *     | EM physicians typically do not receive proper credit for     |
| *UTHS | subgrant projects. This unfairly makes EM a subordinate      |
| CSA** | field of medicine with regard to research activiites and     |
|       | recognition thereof.                                         |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | I think this plan is very appropriate, not only for multiple |
| Unive | PIs located across multiple institutions, but also within    |
| rsity | the same institution. I am a PD working in a clinical        |
| of    | department, and I think this plan would help interaction     |
| Ken   | between basic scientists and clinicians.                     |
| tucky |                                                              |
| Co    | The lack of recognition of multiple PIs has affected me for  |
| llege | many years. I am working with a clinician who has been the   |
| of    | PI on a long-running project. However over this time I have  |
| Medic | taken over all of the duties normally assigned to the PI,    |
| ine** | but I have not received any of the credit for this.          |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | Identification of PIs                                        |
| Unive |                                                              |
| rsity | We believe that the role of principal investigator, as the   |
| at    | leader of a team of researchers, is significant and should   |
| Al    | not be eliminated as an option in the conduct of science.    |
| bany, | Teams require leaders and an advisory committee is not       |
| S     | always a sufficient substitute for leadership. Complex       |
| UNY** | proposals are very demanding to prepare and                  |
|       | multi-institutional and multi-disciplinary projects are      |
|       | difficult to sustain. It is the responsibility of the        |
|       | principal investigator to ensure that all aspects of the     |
|       | project, scientific progress as well as compliance with      |
|       | various regulations, allocation of adequate resources,       |
|       | timely communications are met. It is critical that all       |
|       | members of the teams be recognized but diminishing the       |
|       | leadership role of the PI is not the appropriate response.   |
|       |                                                              |
|       | NIH should maintain the concept of Co-Investigator in its    |
|       | awards and incorporate it into its data systems without      |
|       | abandoning the leadership role of a principal investigator.  |
|       | The designation of Co-Investigator acknowledges the          |
|       | significant intellectual contribution of the individual to   |
|       | the project. If we have failed to recognize this             |
|       | contribution in our internal institutional systems and NIH   |
|       | has failed to recognize this role in its databases, this is  |
|       | the problem we need to correct. It does not require          |
|       | abandoning the roles of PI and co-investigators nor does it  |
|       | require the creation of a new role of "contact PI."          |
|       |                                                              |
|       | The definition of a principal investigator and               |
|       | co-investigators proposed by OSTP/OMB should be considered   |
|       | by NIH. The broad definition -- those individuals who share  |
|       | the major authority and responsibility for leading and       |
|       | directing the project, intellectually and logistically --    |
|       | provides sufficient direction to the institutions to make    |
|       | reasonable choices. The applicant institutions should be     |
|       | responsible for designating who is a principal investigator. |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Contact PI                                                   |
|       |                                                              |
|       | The proposed contact PI appears to be a clerk rather than a  |
|       | leader; someone appointed to facilitate communications       |
|       | between the research team and NIH, principally to ensure     |
|       | that all reports are submitted in a timely manner.           |
|       | Unfortunately, the tasks and role of contact PI as defined   |
|       | may likely devolve to the most junior person on a team.      |
|       | Thus, while attempting to address the problem of recognition |
|       | of individuals who are major contributors to a project, the  |
|       | proposal undervalues the work of the person who is providing |
|       | leadership for a complex team.                               |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Electronic Information                                       |
|       |                                                              |
|       | The primary means by which NIH can address recognizing       |
|       | multiple investigators is by expanding the information about |
|       | co-investigators in its electronic databases. It would be    |
|       | the single most important NIH achievement for ensuring that  |
|       | appropriate recognition and credit is given to all           |
|       | investigators whatever their designation.                    |
|       |                                                              |
|       | It would be a reasonable and, we believe, an effective first |
|       | step toward enhancing the ability of award recipients to     |
|       | recognize the contributions of all investigators on a        |
|       | project. If this tool proves less effective than we          |
|       | anticipate, then, and only then, should NIH consider         |
|       | additional tools such as the allocation of funds in the      |
|       | budget.                                                      |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Currently, CRISP only allows search and retrieval of the PI. |
|       | Adding all investigators to CRISP will provide research      |
|       | institutions with an invaluable tool for monitoring the work |
|       | and contribution of their investigators. Since CRISP is a    |
|       | tool for NIH to identify potential reviewers, advisors, etc. |
|       | it would be reassuring to researchers to know that they      |
|       | would be identifiable even if they were not the PI on a      |
|       | project. Being able to search CRISP for those with           |
|       | significant responsibility on projects would also help       |
|       | others to identify potential collaborators or simply to have |
|       | a better view of who was doing what work in a field. It      |
|       | would be a welcome change if NIH were to modify CRISP to     |
|       | allow searches for any individuals with significant          |
|       | scientific roles on projects.                                |
|       |                                                              |
|       | We believe all co-investigators as well as the institution's |
|       | authorizing official should have electronic access to the    |
|       | reviews of the project, usually restricted to the PI. This   |
|       | approach ensures that those with a significant interest in   |
|       | the outcome of a review, etc., will be able to obtain timely |
|       | information.                                                 |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **B   | A plan to recognize multiple PIs is very necessary. For      |
| oston | example, in the case of Centers, the RO1 PIs get no credit   |
| Unive | for their work as investigators, in the current system. This |
| rsity | need for recognition of status and contribution should be    |
| S     | balanced, however, against the need for central leadership   |
| chool | to provide good science and the need for financial           |
| of    | accountability. The biggest problem in collaborating across  |
| Med   | universities is the need for the secondary institution\'s    |
| icine | indirects to be calculated in the direct budget. Many of us  |
| and   | would wish to collaborate, but can not come up with a        |
| S     | reasonable budget for getting the work done if we do so.     |
| chool | Other institutions need their indirects, but they should not |
| of    | figure in the master budget as directs.                      |
| P     |                                                              |
| ublic |                                                              |
| Hea   |                                                              |
| lth** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Mic | This is an inspired plan and hopefully will help             |
| higan | universities overcome the antiquated promotion/tenure        |
| State | folkways that depend too heavily on what a single person     |
| Un    | does, and not enough on what the outcome can be              |
| ivers |                                                              |
| ity** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | My wife is, in reality, an equal PI with me on all grants,   |
| Unive | but she is not listed as a PI on any of them, largely for    |
| rsity | historical reasons related to women and academic             |
| of    | appointments. Once, we tried to get a shared instrument      |
| Den   | grant and the NIH review system rejected the proposal on the |
| ver** | basis that she was not a PI and therefore we did not have    |
|       | the required number of PIs.                                  |
|       |                                                              |
|       | It would also help her within the University if NIH would    |
|       | list her as PI or co-PI on the grants. This is my main       |
|       | reason for my strong support for listing multiple PIs.       |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | It is an interesting idea; however, it may require           |
| Unive | streamlining of the NIH procedures to allow for multiple     |
| rsity | forms and variations on submitted proposals.                 |
| of    |                                                              |
| Pi    |                                                              |
| ttsbu |                                                              |
| rgh** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Mas | The impact of this policy change on the recognition of       |
| sachu | professional credit is overdue. In order to maximize the     |
| setts | benefits of such a change, it is imperative that NIH not     |
| Inst  | limit the institutional flexibility that currently exists,   |
| itute | nor significantly add to the administrative burden of        |
| of    | proposing or managing large projects. NIH should ensure that |
| Te    | any requirements developed surrounding the submission of     |
| chnol | proposals and the issuance of awards are fully implementable |
| ogy** | in the current eRA environment.                              |
|       |                                                              |
|       | With the recognition of a higher level of participation and  |
|       | responsibility than was otherwise attributed to              |
|       | co-Investigators, all researchers identified as PIs should   |
|       | have access to award and review information. As all PIs      |
|       | would have an equivalent level of investment in and reliance |
|       | on feedback from reviewers and award information, it would   |
|       | be a disservice not to provide the information, and would    |
|       | not respect the spirit of the new policy.                    |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Grants.gov will release the final version of its PureEdge    |
|       | forms in October, 2005, and will not approve any changes to  |
|       | those forms for two years. These forms currently only allow  |
|       | for one PI. How will both NIH and institutions deal with     |
|       | this limitation? If the preferred mechanism for submission   |
|       | of proposals to the Federal government cannot accommodate    |
|       | the new policy, the impact of the policy is severely         |
|       | mitigated.                                                   |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Although this policy change will attend to many of the       |
|       | recognition inequities that exist today, administration of   |
|       | the change in the eRA environment will need to be carefully  |
|       | explored. The move towards Grants.gov raises issues of       |
|       | compatibility and consistency across both agencies and       |
|       | institutions. The idea that required forms will be           |
|       | incompatible with the new policy is disturbing and will need |
|       | to be addressed. MIT recommends that NIH work closely with   |
|       | organizations such as the FDP and Grants.gov to ensure a     |
|       | smooth implementation.                                       |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **B   | I think that it is a very good idea. Many of my projects     |
| aylor | involve collaborations with investigators at other           |
| Res   | institutions and it is often difficult to \"carve out\" my   |
| earch | contribution to a project. Thus, I would benefit from such a |
| I     | proposal.                                                    |
| nstit |                                                              |
| ute** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **B   | Multiple PIs are a fact of modern life. No one has the time  |
| aylor | to be the sole PI of any major clinical trial study.         |
| Res   |                                                              |
| earch |                                                              |
| Insti |                                                              |
| ute** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Col | Identification of PIs                                        |
| umbia |                                                              |
| Un    | The definition of a principal investigator proposed by       |
| ivers | OSTP/OMB should be considered by NIH. The broad definition   |
| ity** | -- those individuals who share the major authority and       |
|       | responsibility for leading and directing the project,        |
|       | intellectually and logistically -- provides sufficient       |
|       | direction to the institutions to make reasonable choices.    |
|       | The applicant institutions should be responsible for         |
|       | designating who is a principal investigator. This            |
|       | designation must remain an institutional responsibility to   |
|       | avoid the challenges of having each agency develop a         |
|       | separate and potentially conflicting definition of principal |
|       | investigator.                                                |
|       |                                                              |
|       | We believe that the role of a single principal investigator, |
|       | as the leader of a team of researchers, is significant and   |
|       | should not be eliminated as an option in the conduct of      |
|       | science. The challenge of recognizing multiple investigators |
|       | does not require abandoning the concept of PI and "co-PI."   |
|       | The designation of Co-Principal Investigator (co-PI)         |
|       | acknowledges the significant intellectual contribution of    |
|       | the individual to the project.                               |
|       |                                                              |
|       | We must correct the deficiencies in our databases to         |
|       | recognize all contributors to the project; we do not need to |
|       | abandon the roles of PI and co-PI nor do we need to create   |
|       | the new role of "contact PI."                                |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Contact PI                                                   |
|       |                                                              |
|       | The proposed contact PI, as described in the RFI, appears to |
|       | be a clerk rather than a leader; someone appointed to        |
|       | facilitate communications between the research team and the  |
|       | funding agency and to ensure that reports are submitted in a |
|       | timely manner. Unfortunately, the tasks and role of contact  |
|       | PI will likely devolve to the most junior person on a team.  |
|       | Thus, while attempting to address the problem of recognition |
|       | of individuals who are major contributors to a project, the  |
|       | proposed solution undervalues the work of the person who is  |
|       | providing leadership for a complex team.                     |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Implementation Plan                                          |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Requiring a Leadership Plan as an additional section within  |
|       | all multi-investigator applications takes away a measure of  |
|       | institutional autonomy and adds a layer of bureaucracy and   |
|       | its associated costs that, in many cases, will not be        |
|       | necessary. Review of this plan by review panels -- and the   |
|       | resultant "tinkering" could undermine the awardee            |
|       | institution's ability to manage the project as it sees fit.  |
|       | The creation of management or advisory committees of         |
|       | researchers outside the grantee institution directing the    |
|       | administrative management of the project adds a layer of     |
|       | bureaucracy and a potential point of conflict.               |
|       |                                                              |
|       | The requirement for management plans for large, complex,     |
|       | multiple institution grants makes sense. But, as stated      |
|       | above, the addition of a management plan for less-complex,   |
|       | intra-institutional collaborations among two or three        |
|       | investigators may prove a disincentive to multi-disciplinary |
|       | approaches. We urge the adoption of the successful NSF model |
|       | whereby principal investigators may choose the model most    |
|       | likely to succeed for their particular project, i.e., either |
|       | submit a proposal for collaborative research which the       |
|       | agency funds directly to each institution or which is funded |
|       | to one institution which in turn issues subawards. Achieving |
|       | the scientific goals should dictate the type of mechanism    |
|       | used for identifying participants and awarding the funds.    |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Electronic Information                                       |
|       |                                                              |
|       | As many areas of science require teams there is a challenge  |
|       | to ensure that those who participate are appropriately       |
|       | recognized. The primary issue NIH can address in recognizing |
|       | multiple PIs is expanding the electronic information in its  |
|       | databases. It may be the single most important NIH goal to   |
|       | ensure appropriate recognition and credit is given to all    |
|       | investigators whatever their designation.                    |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Currently, CRISP only allows search and retrieval of the PI. |
|       | Since CRISP is a tool for NIH to identify potential          |
|       | reviewers, advisors, etc. it would be reassuring to          |
|       | researchers to know that they would be identifiable even if  |
|       | they were not the PI on a project. Being able to search      |
|       | CRISP for those with significant responsibility on projects  |
|       | would also help others identify potential collaborators or   |
|       | simply to have a better view of who was doing what work in a |
|       | field. It would be a welcome change if NIH were to modify    |
|       | CRISP to allow searches for any individuals with significant |
|       | scientific roles on projects.                                |
|       |                                                              |
|       | We strongly believe all investigators (as well as the        |
|       | institution's authorizing official) should have electronic   |
|       | access to the reviews of the project, now usually restricted |
|       | to the PI. This approach ensures that those with a           |
|       | significant interest in the outcome of a review, etc., will  |
|       | be able to obtain timely information.                        |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Departmental Ranking Tables                                  |
|       |                                                              |
|       | The departmental ranking tables may no longer serve the      |
|       | purpose for which they were originally developed. The        |
|       | nomenclature used and the scientific membership in           |
|       | departments is diverse and NIH's tables do not allow for     |
|       | easy comparisons. The ranking tables are clearly appropriate |
|       | at the institutional level since NIH makes awards to         |
|       | institutions. However, the further down in the institutional |
|       | structure one goes the less useful these tables become.      |
|       | Comparisons are complicated by different institutional       |
|       | structures and especially by the presence/absence of         |
|       | interdisciplinary institutes. When a university addresses    |
|       | complex areas of science through interdisciplinary           |
|       | institutes there is the very real risk that NIH funding      |
|       | disappears from view since the NIH reports are for           |
|       | departments. The challenge of developing structures within   |
|       | institutions that are most helpful in supporting research on |
|       | complex issues belongs with the institutions that are doing  |
|       | the work and these institutions should not be presented with |
|       | disincentives to do so for fear that NIH will not recognize  |
|       | their new structure within its Department Ranking Tables.    |
|       |                                                              |
|       | We recognize the critical need to acknowledge the            |
|       | contributions of all members of a research team. This formal |
|       | acknowledgement strengthens the reputation of individual     |
|       | researchers and their institutions. We also recognize and    |
|       | acknowledge that research institutions share this            |
|       | responsibility to be certain that the intellectual           |
|       | contribution and the related resources flow to all           |
|       | appropriate members of a research team. If federal agencies  |
|       | enhance their data systems and provide reasonable access,    |
|       | institutions use these tools to identify the roles and       |
|       | contributions of their staff. The challenge of fair          |
|       | treatment in promotion and academic tenure decisions and the |
|       | allocation of resources in terms of salary or laboratories   |
|       | lies at home. NIH can help by providing us with tools.       |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **A   | NIH provides no definition of principal investigators in the |
| ssoci | proposal. We believe NIH must include such a definition, as  |
| ation | noted above, to guide institutions in confidently            |
| of    | designating PIs as distinct from key collaborators. We       |
| Ame   | support the working definition provided in the OSTP and OMB  |
| rican | notice, reiterating that the emphasis is on those            |
| Me    | individuals who share the major authority and responsibility |
| dical | for leading and directing the project, intellectually and    |
| Colle | logistically                                                 |
| ges** |                                                              |
|       | The AAMC recognizes that having multiple PIs creates the     |
|       | necessity for developing a plan for accomplishing regulatory |
|       | compliance. Different institutions will develop different    |
|       | approaches to accomplishing this, and we believe that they   |
|       | should be allowed to do so. We expect that institutions will |
|       | designate a program or project director (handling similar    |
|       | responsibilities as currently handled by PIs on NIH program  |
|       | project (P01) grants. \[As necessary, requirements should be |
|       | interpreted or re-evaluated by NIH and DHHS to provide       |
|       | flexibility in the assignment of key compliance obligations  |
|       | among multiple PI's.\]                                       |
|       |                                                              |
|       | AAMC strongly favors the elimination of the departmental     |
|       | ranking tables because these rankings have little, and       |
|       | diminishing, functional value, and the resources spent to    |
|       | generate them would be better spent elsewhere. The reason    |
|       | these rankings are of such little value is that institutions |
|       | have widely variable approaches for parsing the complex      |
|       | world of biomedical science, medical education, and patient  |
|       | care into departmental units, often based on particular      |
|       | local circumstances. In addition, the creation of so many    |
|       | interdisciplinary institutes and centers over recent years,  |
|       | where many faculty spend the major share of their research   |
|       | and training efforts, not only skews ranking results when    |
|       | those efforts are credited back to faculty members' home     |
|       | departments, but provides a misleading portrait of where NIH |
|       | funds are expended within the awardee institutions.          |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Co  | Identification of PIs                                        |
| uncil |                                                              |
| on    | We believe that the role of principal investigator, as the   |
| Go    | leader of a team of researchers, is significant and should   |
| vernm | not be eliminated as an option in the conduct of science.    |
| ental | Teams require leaders and an advisory committee is not       |
| Rela  | always a sufficient substitute for leadership. Complex       |
| tions | proposals are very demanding to prepare and                  |
| (CO   | multi-institutional and multi-disciplinary projects are      |
| GR)** | difficult to sustain. It is the responsibility of the        |
|       | principal investigator to ensure that all aspects of the     |
|       | project, scientific progress as well as compliance with      |
|       | various regulations, allocation of adequate resources,       |
|       | timely communications are met. It is critical that all       |
|       | members of the teams be recognized but diminishing the       |
|       | leadership role of the PI is not the appropriate response.   |
|       |                                                              |
|       | NIH should maintain the concept of Co-Investigator in its    |
|       | awards and incorporate it into its data systems without      |
|       | abandoning the leadership role of a principal investigator.  |
|       | The designation of Co-Investigator acknowledges the          |
|       | significant intellectual contribution of the individual to   |
|       | the project. If we have failed to recognize this             |
|       | contribution in our internal institutional systems and NIH   |
|       | has failed to recognize this role in its databases, this is  |
|       | the problem we need to correct. It does not require          |
|       | abandoning the roles of PI and co-investigators nor does it  |
|       | require the creation of a new role of "contact PI."          |
|       |                                                              |
|       | The definition of a principal investigator and               |
|       | co-investigators proposed by OSTP/OMB should be considered   |
|       | by NIH. The broad definition -- those individuals who share  |
|       | the major authority and responsibility for leading and       |
|       | directing the project, intellectually and logistically --    |
|       | provides sufficient direction to the institutions to make    |
|       | reasonable choices. The applicant institutions should be     |
|       | responsible for designating who is a principal investigator. |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Contact PI                                                   |
|       |                                                              |
|       | The proposed contact PI appears to be a clerk rather than a  |
|       | leader; someone appointed to facilitate communications       |
|       | between the research team and NIH, principally to ensure     |
|       | that all reports are submitted in a timely manner.           |
|       | Unfortunately, the tasks and role of contact PI as defined   |
|       | may likely devolve to the most junior person on a team.      |
|       | Thus, while attempting to address the problem of recognition |
|       | of individuals who are major contributors to a project, the  |
|       | proposal undervalues the work of the person who is providing |
|       | leadership for a complex team.                               |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Electronic Information                                       |
|       |                                                              |
|       | The primary means by which NIH can address recognizing       |
|       | multiple investigators is by expanding the information about |
|       | co-investigators in its electronic databases. It would be    |
|       | the single most important NIH achievement for ensuring that  |
|       | appropriate recognition and credit is given to all           |
|       | investigators whatever their designation.                    |
|       |                                                              |
|       | It would be a reasonable and, we believe, an effective first |
|       | step toward enhancing the ability of award recipients to     |
|       | recognize the contributions of all investigators on a        |
|       | project. If this tool proves less effective than we          |
|       | anticipate, then, and only then, should NIH consider         |
|       | additional tools such as the allocation of funds in the      |
|       | budget.                                                      |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Currently, CRISP only allows search and retrieval of the PI. |
|       | Adding all investigators to CRISP will provide research      |
|       | institutions with an invaluable tool for monitoring the work |
|       | and contribution of their investigators. Since CRISP is a    |
|       | tool for NIH to identify potential reviewers, advisors, etc. |
|       | it would be reassuring to researchers to know that they      |
|       | would be identifiable even if they were not the PI on a      |
|       | project. Being able to search CRISP for those with           |
|       | significant responsibility on projects would also help       |
|       | others to identify potential collaborators or simply to have |
|       | a better view of who was doing what work in a field. It      |
|       | would be a welcome change if NIH were to modify CRISP to     |
|       | allow searches for any individuals with significant          |
|       | scientific roles on projects.                                |
|       |                                                              |
|       | We believe all co-investigators as well as the institution's |
|       | authorizing official should have electronic access to the    |
|       | reviews of the project, usually restricted to the PI. This   |
|       | approach ensures that those with a significant interest in   |
|       | the outcome of a review, etc., will be able to obtain timely |
|       | information.                                                 |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Departmental Ranking Tables                                  |
|       |                                                              |
|       | The departmental ranking tables may no longer serve the      |
|       | purpose for which they were developed. The nomenclature used |
|       | and the scientific membership in departments is diverse and  |
|       | NIH's tables do not allow for easy comparisons. The ranking  |
|       | tables are clearly appropriate at the institutional level    |
|       | since NIH makes awards to institutions. However, the further |
|       | down in the institutional structure one goes the less useful |
|       | these tables become. At smaller levels of analysis           |
|       | comparisons are complicated by different institutional       |
|       | structures and especially by the presence/absence of         |
|       | interdisciplinary institutes. When a university addresses    |
|       | complex areas of science through interdisciplinary           |
|       | institutes there is the very real risk that NIH funding      |
|       | disappears from view since the NIH reports are for           |
|       | departments. Also, there are different ways to sort areas of |
|       | science which make interpretation of even departmental data  |
|       | difficult. There are many ways that departmental data do not |
|       | help support research that is served by interdisciplinary or |
|       | other non-traditional centers. The challenge of developing   |
|       | structures within institutions that are most helpful in      |
|       | supporting research on complex issues belongs with the       |
|       | institutions that are doing the work. It is unlikely that    |
|       | there is any one solution. The NIH should not be making the  |
|       | traditional departmental structure "valuable" by according   |
|       | it ranking status. There would be no loss to deleting the    |
|       | departmental ranking tables.                                 |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Departments and colleges at some COGR member institutions    |
|       | use the departmental ranking tables for a variety of         |
|       | purposes. The majority recognize, however, that the tables'  |
|       | usefulness has been greatly diminished over time.            |
|       |                                                              |
|       | We recognize the critical need to acknowledge the            |
|       | contributions of all members of a research team. This formal |
|       | acknowledgement strengthens the reputation of individual     |
|       | researchers and their institutions. We also recognize and    |
|       | acknowledge that research institutions share the             |
|       | responsibility to be certain that the intellectual           |
|       | contributions and the related resources flow to all          |
|       | appropriate members of a research team. If NIH enhances it   |
|       | data systems and provides reasonable access, institutions    |
|       | can use these tools to identify the roles and contributions  |
|       | of their staff. The challenge of fair treatment in academic  |
|       | promotion and tenure decisions and the allocation of         |
|       | resources in terms of salary or laboratory space should      |
|       | remain the purview of the research institutions. NIH can     |
|       | help by providing us with tools.                             |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **W   | Please proceed to recognize multiple PIs on NIH grants       |
| alter | awarded to scientific studies.                               |
| Reed  |                                                              |
| Army  |                                                              |
| Inst  |                                                              |
| Res** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **W   | I urge NIH to recognize multiple PIs on a grant              |
| alter |                                                              |
| Reed  |                                                              |
| Army  |                                                              |
| Inst. |                                                              |
| Res** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| *     | NIH has/had(?) a mechanism for linked grants to be reviewed  |
| *Case | as one. I\'m not sure of the designation now, but I was      |
| We    | involved with one years ago. The problem with it was that    |
| stern | the reviewers didn\'t know what to do with it. It wasn\'t a  |
| Re    | program project grant, it was 5 R01s that were linked but    |
| serve | scored indepdenently. Nobody understood it. At that time,    |
| Un    | the 5 investigators were linked by technology.               |
| ivers |                                                              |
| ity** | As I understand it, the current proposal would force the PI, |
|       | on original submission, to create a real budget allocated to |
|       | each Co-PI, and that would allow NIH to deal directly with   |
|       | Co-PI\'s. This would significantly enhance the role of the   |
|       | PI; should provide the incentive for the Co-PI to focus on   |
|       | the work that he/she has committed to do, and publicly       |
|       | receive the credit for this effort. I heartily endorse this  |
|       | idea.                                                        |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| *     | Recognition of multiple PIs is well overdue and will correct |
| *Univ | inequities which occur in most if not all institutions.      |
| of    | Co-PIs or Co-Is are basically not recognized as              |
| Cinci | important/equal contributors to the scientific endeavor.     |
| nnati | This can have major effects on a faculty\'s career           |
| Co    | advancement. It may not always be necessary to divide funds  |
| llege | because sometimes the 2 PI\'s share a lab, equipment etc.or  |
| of    | may be in the same department.                               |
| Medic |                                                              |
| ine** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **The | I am very pleased to see NIH taking on the issue of proper   |
| Ja    | recognition for all investigators in multi-investigator      |
| ckson | research. Most of my research is done as a member of various |
| La    | consortia. My home institution has already implemented       |
| borat | record keeping protocols that recognize the importance of    |
| ory** | team science and the importance of giving proper attribution |
|       | to all contributing members of a consortium. I think NIH\'s  |
|       | plan to formally recognize multiple PIs will have a very     |
|       | positive impact on fostering the kind of team science that   |
|       | is key to driving biomedical research forward.               |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | I think that flexibility in the NIH application structure    |
| Georg | can only improve investigators\' abilities to collaborate    |
| etown | across disciplines, departments, and campuses. I agree that  |
| Unive | the institutional standing and overall careers of junior     |
| rsity | colleagues will be helped dramatically if their              |
| S     | contributions on grant proposals can be recognized in terms  |
| chool | of co-PI-ships. I wonder if NIH considers providing specific |
| of    | mentoring incentives for senior PIs - ie, some mechanism for |
| Medic | promoting and identifying good mentoring. This would be most |
| ine** | welcome!                                                     |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Hal | MY RESPONSE AND CONCERNS TO MULTIPLE PI\'S.                  |
| lmark |                                                              |
| h     | ALTHOUGH IT SEEMS A GREAT IDEA BUT WHO WILL BE THE           |
| ealth | RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY SITE OR PERSONAL ISSUES OR CONDUCT       |
| C     | ?.WHERE THE LIABILITY LIES?                                  |
| are** |                                                              |
|       | NIKRUI MD                                                    |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | Many grants require two or more large efforts that lend      |
| Unive | themselves to more than one independent but linked PI. This  |
| rsity | plan to recognize multiple PI\'s is a good initiative.       |
| of    |                                                              |
| Ca    |                                                              |
| lifor |                                                              |
| nia** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | The recipient institution should be in the position to       |
| unive | identify the PI and while there is much merit in recognizing |
| rsity | more than the PI's contribution, it is important not to      |
| of    | diminish the role of the PI. This is especially the case in  |
| Kentu | regard to complex projects or team science. All members of   |
| cky** | the team should be identified, valued and made visible, but  |
|       | there is still considerable leadership needed for such       |
|       | projects, leadership typically vested in the PI. Complex     |
|       | proposals are very demanding to develop and conduct,         |
|       | especially when it is multi-institutional. There are issues  |
|       | both of accounting and accountability that would be better   |
|       | served by retaining the concept of a PI. It would also be    |
|       | desirable to include the concept of coPI in the NIH          |
|       | terminology and then make such individuals visible on award  |
|       | statements and through CRISP.                                |
|       |                                                              |
|       | The concept of contact PI does not address the roles and     |
|       | responsibilities of a PI and appears to be largely clerical  |
|       | in nature. This would be needed only in the absence of a     |
|       | true PI and it would be far preferable to simply retain the  |
|       | original concept of PI.                                      |
|       |                                                              |
|       | It would also be very valuable to make clear to the research |
|       | community that anyone who had a major role (or perhaps any   |
|       | role, but is identified by name) on a proposal has the right |
|       | to the critique. The means for implementing this could be as |
|       | simple as making that an obligation of a PI. In other words, |
|       | the PI must share the critique. Perhaps if the PI were       |
|       | recalcitrant the NIH could provide it, but it seems          |
|       | unnecessary for the NIH to develop a process to do that when |
|       | there is a perfectly good PI ideally positioned to do it.    |
|       |                                                              |
|       | The electronic data bases are very important in making known |
|       | who is involved in NIH-funded research. It would be a great  |
|       | improvement if CRISP were searchable for not just the PI but |
|       | the coPI as well. That would address the central issue here  |
|       | of "credit" for contribution to research. The data about     |
|       | coPIs would be available for use by NIH --in searching for   |
|       | reviewers -- as well as by the broader scientific community  |
|       | in seeking to identify who is involved in different areas of |
|       | research. Making such a change in CRISP would be widely      |
|       | viewed as a very positive step in making an already useful   |
|       | tool even more valuable.                                     |
|       |                                                              |
|       | The proposed implementation could be very burdensome and     |
|       | intrusive -- as implied by the Notice -- or it could be      |
|       | fairly simple and highly useful. I hope that the process of  |
|       | achieving greater recognition for the teams involved in      |
|       | complex science does not introduce administrative burden,    |
|       | blur lines of responsibility and undermines the needed       |
|       | leadership for complex projects. If the NIH were to first    |
|       | take the step of simply making better data available (via    |
|       | CRISP) it would be widely applauded.                         |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **T   | Apportionment of credit is a difficult task. In institutions |
| emple | where there are Centers and Departments, assignment of       |
| Unive | credit between these two entities is frequently difficult.   |
| rsity | At least at Univesities there are Deans and Provosts to      |
| S     | resolve this type of conflict. Does NIH really want to be in |
| chool | the business of resolving disputes of this nature? It should |
| of    | also be realized that grants are not contracts. Frequently,  |
| Medic | discoveries lead to new directions which the PI is           |
| ine** | positioned to pursue. If all fo the money is rigidly         |
|       | apportioned, the grant will become like a contract and basic |
|       | research will be stifled.                                    |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | I think this is a long overdue idea, one which will finally  |
| Unive | give junior PIs credit for what they put into program        |
| rsity | projects!                                                    |
| of    |                                                              |
| Ariz  |                                                              |
| ona** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| *     | Recognition of multiple PIs may facilitate                   |
| *Univ | inter-departmental cooperation to a greater degree than      |
| of    | currently exists. This would be an improvement in the        |
| MO-K  | research environment.                                        |
| ansas |                                                              |
| City  |                                                              |
| S     |                                                              |
| chool |                                                              |
| of    |                                                              |
| Medic |                                                              |
| ine** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| *     | This email is a follow-up of our telephone conversation      |
| *Ohio | regarding your request to provide input on the issue of the  |
| State | proposal to allow universities to submit grant proposals to  |
| Un    | the NIH with more than one principal investigator. I begin   |
| iv.** | by mentioning that during my tenure at my University I have  |
|       | been a Department Chair for 15 years, Associate Dean for     |
|       | Research and Graduate Education in our Medical Center for    |
|       | two years and for 12 years, the Associate Vice President for |
|       | Research focusing on the health sciences colleges in our     |
|       | Health Sciences Center. One of the major responsibilities    |
|       | that I had in my role as a research administrator was to     |
|       | work with groups of faculty to establish                     |
|       | multidisciplinary/interdisciplinary research programs        |
|       | including helping them to organize program project grants.   |
|       | In addition, I have been the PI (Director) on four program   |
|       | project-type grants as well as a training grant, and speak   |
|       | from that experience as well. I understand the concern       |
|       | raised about credit for multiple faculty participating on    |
|       | grants and allowing universities to add additional PIs to    |
|       | research grants in order to satisfy that concern. Based upon |
|       | my experiences, I believe that would not be the best way to  |
|       | deal with the issue of "giving credit where credit is due."  |
|       | The following are some of my reasons for opposing this       |
|       | proposal:                                                    |
|       |                                                              |
|       | 1\. For grants that have more than one faculty member        |
|       | involved as a co-PI or for a program project/center grant    |
|       | where you are dealing with faculty who are PIs on multiple   |
|       | projects/cores, there has to be one person who is            |
|       | responsible for the overall program, including one person    |
|       | who makes final decisions regarding budget and science       |
|       | issues as they arise. This person needs to be able to deal   |
|       | with senior colleagues who may disagree with the Director    |
|       | and/or with each other. The Director's responsibility is to  |
|       | find a way to obtain a consensus among colleagues when       |
|       | possible. However, if no consensus is possible, it needs to  |
|       | be understood by all concerned that the Director/PI has the  |
|       | responsibility to make sure that the scientific "game plan"  |
|       | proposed in the grant proposal is performed. If you remove   |
|       | the ability of the PI to have the final say, there will not  |
|       | be a person who can be held responsible.                     |
|       |                                                              |
|       | 2\. The issue of promotion and tenure reviews of faculty,    |
|       | particularly junior faculty, who participate in              |
|       | multidisciplinary grant activities, had been a problem at my |
|       | University because of some of the department P&T committees  |
|       | who did not have a perspective that valued multidisciplinary |
|       | team efforts. This has improved over the years because the   |
|       | membership of the committees now include a new generation of |
|       | faculty who have worked on multidisciplinary research        |
|       | projects.. It was a problem for some P&T committees to try   |
|       | and evaluate the role that these faculty played in their     |
|       | involvement with group research. Traditionally, P & T        |
|       | evaluations were to a great degree based on whether a person |
|       | was viewed as having attained the status of an "independent  |
|       | investigator". Participating as a collaborator on grants     |
|       | obtained by other faculty was not considered compatible with |
|       | the definition of an independent investigator. In fact,      |
|       | there were several circumstances where I was told by faculty |
|       | that some P&T committees actually "dinged" the faculty       |
|       | member for participating in such activity before they were   |
|       | tenured. This philosophy is not compatible with the          |
|       | recognition on the part of the NIH or the university that    |
|       | interdisciplinary/multidisciplinary research initiatives are |
|       | very important and need to be supported. I discussed this    |
|       | concern with the Provost who sent memos to the departments   |
|       | to clarify this issue. I think this has helped. There also   |
|       | has been a change at the Deans level which has resulted in   |
|       | more support for multidisciplinary research within and       |
|       | between colleges. The bottom line is that there are ways for |
|       | P&T committees to evaluate and give credit to faculty who    |
|       | are involved in joint research initiatives.                  |
|       |                                                              |
|       | 3\. If the NIH allows multiple PIs on a grant proposal, it   |
|       | could have impact on whether a faculty member decides to     |
|       | organize collaborative proposals involving other faculty. It |
|       | takes a major time commitment and quite a bit of effort,     |
|       | skill and leadership to put together a large grant, e.g.     |
|       | program project grant. Each co-PI is responsible for         |
|       | completing their section(s) and submitting it to the         |
|       | Director. The Director is responsible for organizing the     |
|       | entire grant proposal. This includes a complicated budgetary |
|       | process that needs to be coordinated, not to mention the     |
|       | form pages, etc. in a very short period of time as people    |
|       | try to make a deadline. Having one single PI who provides    |
|       | the leadership and who has the responsibility for the        |
|       | proposal (and who gets recognition for that) is what works.  |
|       | A strong leader who has the respect of his/her colleagues is |
|       | a critical component of this process for a successful        |
|       | outcome. These issues also apply to grants that are smaller  |
|       | in size such as R01 grants with multiple faculty             |
|       | involvement.                                                 |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Traditionally the NIH has had a hands-off policy             |
|       | (appropriately so in my opinion) allowing universities to    |
|       | decide what titles they choose to give faculty that appears  |
|       | on the face page of a grant proposal. Examples of this are   |
|       | assistant professor vs. clinical assistant professor. The    |
|       | same philosophy should be employed on this as well. My       |
|       | university has dealt with this issue internally to some      |
|       | degree by developing a policy in which a form is filled out  |
|       | by the PI before the grant goes to the grants office. This   |
|       | form was designed by our grants office and our Office of     |
|       | Research and assures that each of the co-PIs on a grant get  |
|       | the appropriate financial/expenditure credit for themselves  |
|       | and their departments/colleges resulting in a fair           |
|       | distribution of the credit associated with the grant         |
|       | proposal. This protects the tradition of the PI being        |
|       | responsible for a grant, with all of the implications        |
|       | already mentioned, but deals with the fairness issue raised  |
|       | by our faculty concerning the appropriate credit being given |
|       | to a co-PI.                                                  |
|       |                                                              |
|       | In summation, it is my opinion that it would be a mistake to |
|       | change the rules for PI status. I am concerned with          |
|       | "unintended outcomes" if the rules are changed by the NIH.   |
|       | My suggestion is for the NIH to be responsive to this        |
|       | concern by encouraging university administrations to work    |
|       | internally through their office of research and faculty      |
|       | groups, to come up with a university wide policy to deal     |
|       | with the issue of credit at the local level. Each university |
|       | is different from another university on how they may feel    |
|       | regarding this policy. "One size will not fit all" and       |
|       | encouraging universities, at the local level, to explore     |
|       | their own solutions would be a better strategy for dealing   |
|       | with the issue of credit.                                    |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | The issue of \"who gets credit for a project\" is different  |
| Unive | from \"how is a project best managed\". As with the          |
| rsity | publication of papers, credit for authorship is important.   |
| of    | However, effective management and control may not be best    |
| Sou   | served by doubling (or some other multiple) the number of    |
| thern | awards for a single project.                                 |
| ma    |                                                              |
| ine** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | The administrative burden on the the NIH and the             |
| Emory | universities will be overwelming. Additional time will be    |
| Un    | needed for implementation. Also the definition of PI,        |
| ivers | Contact PI, co-PI should be decided in collaboration with    |
| ity** | faculty groups such as AAMC and AAU. The definitions should  |
|       | be governmnent-wide.                                         |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **U   | Should absolutely be done. Many co-I\'s do a substantial     |
| MDNJ- | amount of work on grants, yet are never formally             |
| RWJMS | acknowledge. This would be an excellent step forward for the |
| at    | NIH                                                          |
| Cam   |                                                              |
| den** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Ma  | Test Test Test Test                                          |
| siMax |                                                              |
| Un    |                                                              |
| ivers |                                                              |
| ity** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| *     | As is the case with surveys of this nature, it depends on    |
| *Univ | the project and the responsibilities of the investigators.   |
| of    |                                                              |
| Michi | Given that most institutes do not give credit to faculty who |
| gan** | are co-I, it is important to define what circumstances would |
|       | merit multiple PIs.                                          |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | Many years of deliberation on this issue \-- although the    |
| Unive | idea seems sound, the responsibility line for any grant must |
| rsity | have one single individual involved in order to know exactly |
| of    | where the responsibility is and stops.                       |
| Wa    |                                                              |
| shing |                                                              |
| ton** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | I think it is a movement on the right direction to attempt   |
| Unive | to set up a system that allows to acknowledge that many      |
| rsity | grant submissions have more than one principal investigator. |
| of    |                                                              |
| Calif |                                                              |
| ornia |                                                              |
| Los   |                                                              |
| Ange  |                                                              |
| les** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **MD  | I think this is a vitally important topic of concern that is |
| And   | long overdue for attention. My experience with grant reviews |
| erson | as a clinical investigator with strong translational         |
| C     | interests has been that unless one directly owned laboratory |
| ancer | space or personally created a research model for pursuing a  |
| Cen   | scientific idea in collaboration with a basic scientist,     |
| ter** | one\'s original ideas and plans for study which may have a   |
|       | fundamental mechanistic reach and need for bench-based       |
|       | research, would never be recognized sufficiently for         |
|       | competitive funding despite the personal assembly of a       |
|       | robust research team in the proper environment appropriate   |
|       | for these goals. Instead one would have to designate oneself |
|       | as a collaborator and the scientist willing to pursue one\'s |
|       | ideas would have to be designated as sole P.I. This has a    |
|       | chilling effect on creating research teams when the critical |
|       | ideas and energy to assemble the right team and pursue the   |
|       | problem with conviction to its conclusion - including the    |
|       | ability to validate this in the clinical setting - comes     |
|       | from the clinical investigator in this example cited.        |
|       |                                                              |
|       | I think it is important that the NIH and other funding       |
|       | agencies facilitate the recognition of the critical          |
|       | importance of these types of collaborations by allowing the  |
|       | designation of multiple P.I.s in addition to the traditional |
|       | model. As a clinical investigator with an interest in asking |
|       | fundamental questions in the clinic, one would like to be    |
|       | able to create these teams based on one\'s understanding of  |
|       | the specific challenges required to solve the problem,       |
|       | without having to lose control or credit for the idea and be |
|       | seen as merely \"collecting specimens\" in the clinic.       |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **St. | Multi-disciplinary medicine is the only real kind, from the  |
| Luk   | patient care perspective. Therefore multi-disciplinary       |
| e\'s- | research is clearly the optimal way to achieve real strides  |
| Rooos | in patient care, the ultimate goal. Recognizing multiple     |
| evelt | PI\'s is the best way to support, encourage, and ultimately  |
| Hos   | foster multi-disciplinary research. Kudos for your           |
| pital | recognition of this.                                         |
| Cen   |                                                              |
| ter** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | This is a potentially revolutionary way to advance research. |
| Unive |                                                              |
| rsity |                                                              |
| of    |                                                              |
| Texas |                                                              |
| at    |                                                              |
| Sout  |                                                              |
| hwest |                                                              |
| ern** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | I think this is a very good idea and strongly support its    |
| Unive | implementation.                                              |
| rsity |                                                              |
| of    |                                                              |
| Haw   |                                                              |
| aii** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | I think it is important to recognize multiple PIs. I also    |
| Unive | think the concept of linked awards would encourage more      |
| rsity | cross-institutional collaborations.                          |
| of    |                                                              |
| R     |                                                              |
| oches |                                                              |
| ter** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | This is a very important issue in the field of Emergency     |
| Unive | medicine. We frequently participate in NIH-funded studies,   |
| rsity | but are infrequently listed as the PI, and therefore         |
| of    | frequently do not receive appropriate credit/recognition.    |
| C     |                                                              |
| alifo |                                                              |
| rnia, |                                                              |
| Davis |                                                              |
| S     |                                                              |
| chool |                                                              |
| of    |                                                              |
| Medic |                                                              |
| ine** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | Presumably the goal is to promote collaboration on           |
| Unive | multidsciplinary problems and facilitate interaction between |
| rsity | different laboratories and institutions. However, other      |
| at    | mechanisms already exist, such as subcontracts and           |
| Bu    | consortia, or PPGs, which have a track-record of working     |
| ffalo | with clear lines of accountability. The business of          |
| (SU   | grant-writing is already complex and stressful enough with a |
| NY)** | very uncertain outcome in the face of diminishing pay-lines. |
|       | The extra effort involved in coordinating activities between |
|       | two or more PIs, especially if these involve different       |
|       | institutions, may not be seen as worthwhile if the result is |
|       | to divide a fixed or dwindling sum between several           |
|       | investigators, and to confuse the lines of accountability    |
|       | and control. It comes down, as always, to a question of      |
|       | money: Will this make it easier to get grants? Will there be |
|       | any more money available?                                    |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | This is an extremely complicated issue. The recognition of   |
| Calif | multiple PI\'s is obviously a matter of concern to           |
| ornia | investigators and academic administrators. However, from an  |
| Inst  | administrative point of view, there needs to be a single     |
| itute | individual who is designated as the person with ultimate     |
| of    | responsibility for the scientific and technical conduct of   |
| Te    | the project. Grants management by committee can work well    |
| chnol | for many issues and problems, but there are times when there |
| ogy** | simply must be one person who\'s in charge.                  |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **In  | Not all co-investigators are equal and some research         |
| diana | programs are truly interdisciplinary. It is more for         |
| Un    | recognition of the contribution of the investigator that the |
| ivers | multiple PI is needed. Our University already splits up the  |
| ity** | indirect cost depending on where the research components are |
|       | carried out., I would hate to make that more complicated     |
|       | than it already is at this time.                             |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | In implementing any such plan, it is critical that the       |
| Unive | government be sensitive to the regulatory or administrative  |
| rsity | burdens placed on the grantee institutions by the plan. For  |
| of    | example, with regard to the allocation of funds, the NIH     |
| Pi    | might want to consider adding an additional field to the     |
| ttsbu | grant number that indicates to which PI that portion of the  |
| rgh** | grant is being awarded. (Example: 1 R01 XY12345-01-00 would  |
|       | indicate that the award is made to a single PI; 1 R01        |
|       | XY1234-01-01 would indicate that this part of the award is   |
|       | made to PI#1 on an application, 1 R01 XY12345-0-02 would     |
|       | indicate that this part of the award is made to PI#2, and so |
|       | on.) This would both retain the information that this is a   |
|       | single grant but allow both the NIH and the grantee          |
|       | institution to manage the different budgets with unique      |
|       | identifiers.                                                 |
|       |                                                              |
|       | After the NIH has analyzed the comments received and a draft |
|       | plant for implementation has been developed, a useful next   |
|       | step would be to have a forum for discussion with the        |
|       | directors of Offices of Sponsored Research from key          |
|       | universities and, perhaps, with other senior administrators  |
|       | (such as vice chancellors for research).                     |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
|       | This is a timely and insightful initiative that will address |
|       | some basic problems with the evolving nature of the          |
|       | extramural research program at NIH. It is particularly       |
|       | important to maintain strong collaborative arrangements with |
|       | subspeciality faculty who play essential rolse but are not   |
|       | often chosen to lead interdisciplinary projects.             |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | I think it would be good to have multiple PIs and would be   |
| Unive | fine to give each their own budget. Thanks.                  |
| rsity |                                                              |
| of    |                                                              |
| Iowa  |                                                              |
| Co    |                                                              |
| llege |                                                              |
| of    |                                                              |
| D     |                                                              |
| entis |                                                              |
| try** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **B   | This is a much needed initiative for the NIH to consider.    |
| oston |                                                              |
| Un    | Thank you.                                                   |
| ivers |                                                              |
| ity** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| *     | It\'s a wonderful idea, especially for new investigators.    |
| *John |                                                              |
| Jay   |                                                              |
| Coll  |                                                              |
| ege - |                                                              |
| C     |                                                              |
| UNY** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Co  | The dictionary reports the definition of \"principal\"       |
| mpact | variously as \"first, highest, \... one who holds a position |
| Mem   | of presiding rank \... the person having prime               |
| brane | responsibility for an obligation \...\" I find no            |
| Sys   | accommodation in the title \"Prime Investigator\" for a      |
| tems, | project to have \"Multiple PI\'s\". I perceive NIH is        |
| I     | proposing to run their projects by \"unaccountable           |
| nc.** | committees\". NIH seems to be trying to solve recognition,   |
|       | credit problems, etc. within grant institutions that are not |
|       | NIH\'s problem. Will NIH programs get better results, run    |
|       | more effectively, etc. for it? Perish the thought! If the    |
|       | grant recipients, primes, subs, etc. cannot agree among      |
|       | themselves on such matters, why does NIH think that they     |
|       | will get anything but finger-pointing and excuses for        |
|       | results on \"committee run projects\"?                       |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | This is a very important plan to recognize Co-PIs who is     |
| Unive | many cases (including my own) are critical for the funding   |
| rsity | of the proposal (as stated in summary statements) but do not |
| of    | generate the appropriate degree of credit by administrators. |
| Flor  | This plan would greatly encourage collaboration across       |
| ida** | departments and institutions.                                |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | Regarding multiple PIs, this is an excellent idea. It allows |
| Unive | universities to give credit to true co-investigators and     |
| rsity | will encourage collaboration. The NSF allowsCo-PIs on their  |
| at    | grants. They may have insight into how and when they should  |
| Buff  | be used.                                                     |
| alo** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | Thank you for your willingness to consider this option!      |
| Dept. |                                                              |
| of    |                                                              |
| Vet   |                                                              |
| erans |                                                              |
| Aff   |                                                              |
| airs, |                                                              |
| B     |                                                              |
| oston |                                                              |
| Un    |                                                              |
| ivers |                                                              |
| ity** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | The idea is a good one. The only obstacle I see is how does  |
| Unive | one ensure equitable work efforts among all the sites?       |
| rsity |                                                              |
| of    |                                                              |
| New   |                                                              |
| Me    |                                                              |
| xico, |                                                              |
| H     |                                                              |
| ealth |                                                              |
| Sci   |                                                              |
| ences |                                                              |
| Cen   |                                                              |
| ter** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **U   | The Multiple PIs concept is excellent and will resolve many  |
| of    | credit, budgetary and responsibility issues and disputes     |
| W     | arising from multi-disciplinary projects.                    |
| ashin |                                                              |
| gton, |                                                              |
| Seat  |                                                              |
| tle** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | I am in support of this intiative; prospective PI\'s need    |
| Unive | clear dillenation of the roles and responsibilities that     |
| rsity | accompany the designation                                    |
| of    |                                                              |
| Wisc  |                                                              |
| onsin |                                                              |
| -Madi |                                                              |
| son** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
|       | Is there interest or a mechanism for limiting the number of  |
|       | co-PIs (for example to 2 for an R01)?                        |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| *     | With current tightening of purse-strings at the NIH,         |
| *Mayo | progression though the academic funding ranks will be        |
| Cli   | greatly protracted. Recognition for significant              |
| nic** | contributions within multidisciplanary medical research      |
|       | teams would be a step in the right direction.                |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **B   | Allowing multiple PIs more accurately reflects the           |
| oston | contributions of many of the members of the research team    |
| Unive | and thus more fairly provides appropriate credit than does   |
| rsity | the present system of single PI. This is especially the case |
| S     | in multicenter or other collaborative research. This may     |
| chool | also enhance the ability of these individuals (recognized    |
| of    | multiple PIs) to compete successfully for extra-mural        |
| Medic | funding.                                                     |
| ine** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Mic | This concept is very important to community hospital sites   |
| higan | that have university affiliations but are not university     |
| State | hospitals. These are the very sites where clinical research  |
| Un    | should be expanded.                                          |
| ivers |                                                              |
| ity** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | The leadership has to be clear. I favor a model where there  |
| Vande | are multiple PIs with one assuming the leadership and        |
| rbilt | adminsitrative responsibility similar to Program Projects    |
| Un    | model but in a smaller scale.                                |
| ivers |                                                              |
| ity** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | I perceive the main inequity in the current sole PI system   |
| Maine | is to the secondary or Co investigator on theproject.        |
| Me    | Whether appropriate or not, many institutional and persoanl  |
| dical | development steps are based on funding (NIH funding          |
| Cen   | specifically) and acquiring the funding is often dependent   |
| ter** | on prior funding.                                            |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | From my perspective this is a very good idea that will       |
| Unive | foster collaboration. I, and I am sure my colleagues, would  |
| rsity | be more interested in working together if we can get PI      |
| of    | credit. The days of the individual investigator toiling away |
| Lo    | in a lab are over and larger teams are needed, especiallly   |
| uisvi | at smaller institutions. Right now established investigators |
| lle** | have little incentive to work with younger folks since they  |
|       | cannot get PI credit. Younger investigators should also      |
|       | benefit when they can become PIs jointly with more           |
|       | experienced people. Finally, there has been some online      |
|       | discussion about the loss of freedom for individual          |
|       | investigators. As I undersand it, no one is forced to do     |
|       | this. If you do not trust your collaborators then dont work  |
|       | with them.                                                   |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| *     | large studies are neccessary to promote medical knowledge    |
| *Chil |                                                              |
| drens | reward systems in academic medicine needs to be modified     |
| Hos   |                                                              |
| pital | giving credit academically (PI) to more than one person      |
| of    | enhances this.                                               |
| Phil, |                                                              |
| U     | giving credit finanaciall (PI ) budgetarily to more than one |
| p     | person will also enhance this                                |
| enn** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| *     | The proposed change is long overdue.                         |
| *Wake |                                                              |
| F     |                                                              |
| orest |                                                              |
| Un    |                                                              |
| ivers |                                                              |
| ity** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Vir | It is the fair thing to do and will ultimately promote more  |
| ginia | collaboration and focus on actual work.                      |
| Co    |                                                              |
| mmonw |                                                              |
| ealth |                                                              |
| Un    |                                                              |
| ivers |                                                              |
| ity** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | Please recognize multiple PI - many times people do a lot of |
| Unive | work for no credit.                                          |
| rsity |                                                              |
| of    |                                                              |
| Virgi |                                                              |
| nia** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | as a member of a relatively \'new specialty\' which requires |
| brown | strong inter-departmental collaboration, multi-PI grants     |
| me    | would greatly increase emergency medicine\'s research        |
| dical | position within the medical center                           |
| sch   |                                                              |
| ool** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | I don\' like it. If I am the PI, I came up with idea, I      |
| UNIVE | assembled the research group, I wrote the application and    |
| RSITY | shepherded it through the committee and fretted about its    |
| OF    | review in Council. Coinvestigators just don\'t do that.      |
| MASS  |                                                              |
| ACHUS |                                                              |
| ETTS; |                                                              |
| H     |                                                              |
| AVARD |                                                              |
| ME    |                                                              |
| DICAL |                                                              |
| SCH   |                                                              |
| OOL** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| *     | In some cases we are the (sub-PI) fulfilling partner on      |
| *Inst | grants and contracts where we write the grant proposal and   |
| itute | carry out essentially all of the content-related work, and   |
| for   | the listed PI (being outside his field of experience)        |
| Me    | performs only an administrative function. We use the PI and  |
| dical | his institution only because their prior grant history makes |
| Inf   | them attractive to grant review committees. This pads the    |
| ormat | cost of the work, but until we have a longer PI history      |
| ics** | ourselves, we will continue to use this approach \--         |
|       | anything that reflected the real division of funds and work  |
|       | would significantly benefit the growth and development of    |
|       | new labs and new researchers.                                |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | Recognizing multiple PIs will be similar to mulitple         |
| Unive | authorship, where most authors do not qualify for            |
| rsity | authorship. There is such pressure from institutions to      |
| of    | obtain funding as a PI, the incentive to abuse the           |
| Ill   | recognition of multiple PIs will be enormous.                |
| inois |                                                              |
| at    |                                                              |
| Chi   |                                                              |
| cgo** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | I think it is imperative to recognize multiple PI\'s, if the |
| Unive | NIH is serious about encouraging translation research. There |
| rsity | are several parties that deserve to be acknowledged in       |
| of    | primary roles.                                               |
| Penn  |                                                              |
| sylva |                                                              |
| nia** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | I don\'t see why someone should be called a PI unless there  |
| Mass. | is a well defined, predictable budget under that person\'s   |
| Ge    | supervision. Budget apportionment to each PI is absolutely   |
| neral | necessary. In my oipinion, the existing mechanism of         |
| Hos   | subcontracting would work just fine if (a) PIs were allowed  |
| pital | to subcontract other research teams within the same          |
| &     | institution, not only on the outside, (b) subcontracts       |
| Ha    | received by both external and internal subcontract PIs and   |
| rvard | their institutions/departments were reportable as NIH        |
| Me    | grants.                                                      |
| dical |                                                              |
| Sch   |                                                              |
| ool** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Wel | Recognizing multiple PIs may be good in terms of recognizing |
| lspan | that more than one person can co-lead a research effort. We  |
| H     | all have our own expertise. If you then require a funding    |
| ealth | split to accompany this recognition, however, you are        |
| Sys   | gaining only complexity. The joint PI recognition can be     |
| tem** | good for career development, but in each grant, the PIs      |
|       | should determine the funding splits and who does what,       |
|       | without the mandating of this by NIH.                        |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | Having the ability to have more than one PI on a project     |
| Washi | corrects the inequity of the equal co-investigator\'s role   |
| ngton | as non-PI.                                                   |
| Unive |                                                              |
| rsity |                                                              |
| in St |                                                              |
| Lo    |                                                              |
| uis** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | Such a plan reflects the current realities of how science is |
| Unive | done; and encourages team development.                       |
| rsity |                                                              |
| of    |                                                              |
| Chic  |                                                              |
| ago** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Me  | Recognizing multiple PIs acknowledges the contribution of    |
| dical | each investigator, assists with conflict of interest         |
| Co    | disclosure and holds all accountable for succesful           |
| llege | implementation of a study protocol.                          |
| of    |                                                              |
| W     |                                                              |
| iscon |                                                              |
| sin** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | Emergency Medicine is a field that is under-represented by   |
| Unive | NIH funding - this would help its recognition.               |
| rsity |                                                              |
| of    |                                                              |
| R     |                                                              |
| oches |                                                              |
| ter** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | Great idea.                                                  |
| Unive |                                                              |
| rsity |                                                              |
| of    |                                                              |
| Rhode |                                                              |
| Isl   |                                                              |
| and** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **The | I support there is only one PI                               |
| Ohio  |                                                              |
| State |                                                              |
| Un    |                                                              |
| ivers |                                                              |
| ity** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| *     | Other comments received from our PIs at the Buck included    |
| *Buck | suggestions such as limiting the number of PIs on a grant ,  |
| Inst  | such as 2 per institution, and that there be some minimal    |
| itute | effort required for PI status.                               |
| for   |                                                              |
| Age   | Some confusion remains as to the heirarchy with multiple     |
| Resea | PIs. Is there a primary or lead PI? In the case of linked    |
| rch** | institutions, what if one of the linked institutions does    |
|       | not submit its paperwork on time and how will that effect    |
|       | the other institutions involved? Also, will there still be   |
|       | the opportunity to list Co-PIs or Collaborators or how       |
|       | should this be handled?                                      |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Ros | Multiple PIs is the only means by which translational        |
| alind | research will move forward. This also eliminates the         |
| Fra   | \"need\" for a PI entering a new area with a great idea to   |
| nklin | rely on the connection of networks that a established PI     |
| U.    | will insist on using to be PI on a proposal that was not     |
| Med   | his/her idea to begin with. In this case both individuals    |
| icine | will get the recognition they need to establish themselves   |
| and   | or maintain their status in the scientific community.        |
| Scie  |                                                              |
| nce** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | This would be a major improvement. Currently, those          |
| Georg | participating in transdisciplinary research have to          |
| etown | sacrifice some of their potential career in terms of         |
| Unive | promotion and tenure. This discourages investigators from    |
| rsity | working with each other limiting the number of researchers   |
| Me    | willing to work on transdisciplinary projects.               |
| dical |                                                              |
| Cen   |                                                              |
| ter** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
|       | The recognition of multiple PIs provides needed flexibility  |
|       | in the design of research proposals and projects.            |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
|       | How the award would be listed in the Commons and on CRISP in |
|       | terms of PIs (all PIs listed?) Would each PI have access to  |
|       | info on the entire grant or just their budgeted part? Need   |
|       | to be able to keep funds fluid as new discoveries are made   |
|       | and priorities change.                                       |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | I think it would be highly favorable overall in that it      |
| Unive | would strongly encourage collaborative research. Currently   |
| rsity | there are huge benefits to the PI and often only minimal     |
| of    | benefits to his/her collaborators. That STRONGLY discourages |
| New   | multidisciplinary, collaborative research in a culture that  |
| M     | strongly favors assignment of \"credit\".                    |
| exico |                                                              |
| HSC** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| *     | Again, beyond THREE MAX, TWO better\-\--I believe one would  |
| *Univ | be looking for problems if anyone had four or more PIs on    |
| Cinci | any large medical scientific project.                        |
| nnati |                                                              |
| Med   |                                                              |
| Cen   |                                                              |
| ter** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | I strongly favor recognizing multiple PI\'s and I think it   |
| Unive | is long overdue. The current system perpetuates R01\'s going |
| rsity | to a relatively small pool of senior investigators and more  |
| of    | importantly it discourages true interdisciplinary and        |
| North | collaborative projects because of the disincentive for the   |
| Car   | non-PI to take an equal share of the responsibility fand     |
| olina | creativity in the research. If we want to move to a system   |
| at    | that fosters innovation and collaboration, as per the NIH    |
| C     | roadmap, then there must be a way to allow for multiple PIs. |
| hapel |                                                              |
| H     |                                                              |
| ill** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | Most departments in my institution ignore coinvestigators on |
| Univ. | NIH grants as though they did not exist. I have been both PI |
| Tenn. | and coinvestigator on NIH grants. As PI, I have broad        |
| Co    | ability to do whatever I wish with funding, even to cut out  |
| llege | a coinvestigator entirely. As a coinvestigator, I have no    |
| of    | rights whatsoever. I could and have been cut out of grants   |
| Medic | without even being given notice that it was occurring. I     |
| ine** | know of other examples where this has happened in my         |
|       | institution. Recognizing multiple PIs would help to remedy   |
|       | this situation, It would not, however, eliminate the problem |
|       | completely unless something is done to prevent the           |
|       | institution from discriminating against minority (not a      |
|       | racial or social minority, but a financial minority)         |
|       | investigators.                                               |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | It is unfair that the F/A costs get charged twice for a      |
| Unive | collaborative grant by both institutions. If Linked-award    |
| rsity | allows for separate F/A charges in each institution, it will |
| of    | be much better for researchers to get most \$ into doing     |
| New   | research. I am sure tax-payers want to see their money goes  |
| Mex   | into research, rather than over-charged F/A. Current system  |
| ico** | is punishing inter-institution collaborations. It has to be  |
|       | changed!!!                                                   |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | Many institutions provide funds from the Indirect Costs for  |
| Univ. | department costs. If so, this is based on who the Direct     |
| of    | Costs are awarded to. Therefore, the Co-P.I.\'s department   |
| Tenn  | gets no credit and loses funds. Chairs are not happy about   |
| essee | this.                                                        |
| H     |                                                              |
| ealth | In addition, many institutions are adopting policies that    |
| Sc    | dictate how many dollars of extramural funding are needed    |
| ience | per square foot of laboratory space. The Co-P.I. gets        |
| Cen   | nothing in this situation.                                   |
| ter** |                                                              |
|       | Thus, multiple P.I.\'s and Linked Awards are most fair, most |
|       | beneficial for obtaining space and support, most beneficial  |
|       | for career progress. These are ideas that are long overdue.  |
|       | I have been told by some administrators that I am a fool to  |
|       | collaborate on grants \"since they don\'t count\". Yet many  |
|       | grants today can ONLY be done with more than one participant |
|       | being in charge of part of the grant. Collaborations are the |
|       | future but they need to be recognized.                       |
|       |                                                              |
|       | I enthusiastically support the plan for multiple P.I.\'s     |
|       | with funds directly apportioned to each P.I.                 |
|       |                                                              |
|       | I enthusiastically suppor the Linked Awards instead of       |
|       | Subcontracts with funds directly apportioned to each P.I.    |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | I think this is long overdue. In response to one of the      |
| Washi | basic issues in this change, I absolutely believe that       |
| ngton | creating multiple PIs will facilitate collaborative and      |
| Unive | interdisciplinary research. This will benefit not only the   |
| rsity | PIs, but also the society as a whole as the need for         |
| Me    | interdisciplinary reserach is great.                         |
| dical |                                                              |
| Sch   |                                                              |
| ool** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | I support the idea of recognizing grants with multiple PIs.  |
| Washi |                                                              |
| ngton |                                                              |
| State |                                                              |
| Un    |                                                              |
| ivers |                                                              |
| ity** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| *     | This is a commendable step to facilitate team science needed |
| *Dana | for bringing the basic science findings to the clinic        |
| F     |                                                              |
| arber |                                                              |
| C     |                                                              |
| ancer |                                                              |
| I     |                                                              |
| nstit |                                                              |
| ute** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Col | I think the plan is a good idea. The easiest way to          |
| umbia | implement it is to simply list multiple PIs on the grant.    |
| Un    | This is done already for other funding agencies. I have      |
| ivers | never found it to be a problem.                              |
| ity** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | I strongly encourage the NIH to allow co-PI status on        |
| Unive | grants. The limitation of a single PI affects me personally  |
| rsity | each year I submit an annual report to my department and at  |
| of    | each step in promotions. I perform interdisciplinary         |
| Utah, | research with others and will continue to do so no matter    |
| D     | that the regulations support but it will be much easier to   |
| epart | pursue this with a co-PI arrangement possible.               |
| ments |                                                              |
| of    |                                                              |
| Bioe  |                                                              |
| ngine |                                                              |
| ering |                                                              |
| and   |                                                              |
| Int   |                                                              |
| ernal |                                                              |
| Medic |                                                              |
| ine** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | Absolutely essential. Collaborative projects are really the  |
| Unive | way to go. However, at the \$250k cap, it\'s really hard to  |
| rsity | figure out how any project with multiple PIs could get done. |
| of    | That basically gives a bit of salary to 2 PIs, a technician  |
| Ci    | or student a piece, and a few animals and supplies. Its      |
| ncinn | barely workable.                                             |
| ati** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | It would be helpful to permit listing of multiple P.I.s on   |
| Univ. | grants to allow for proper identification of those involved. |
| Col   | Of concern however, are the proposals to allocate particular |
| orado | budget amounts to particular P.I.\'s. Such an arrangement    |
| H     | will reduce flexibility and will tend to increase paperwork  |
| ealth | as a project evolves.                                        |
| Sci.  |                                                              |
| C     |                                                              |
| tr.** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | I am not aware of the current system needing fixing. The PI  |
| Unive | needs to retain the control over the project as a whole, and |
| rsity | perhaps multiple PIs may interfere with that control. The    |
| of    | sub-contract arrangement seems to work well in that the PI   |
| Flor  | can monitor what is going on financially and influence       |
| ida** | change if necessary.                                         |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **UNC | I work at the bench/clinic interface and it seems reasonable |
| S     | that the very different responsibilities of lab and clinic   |
| chool | leaders in the same institution should be recognized by      |
| of    | having joint PI arrangments. A multiple PI arrangement is    |
| Medic | also appropriate when multiple institutions are involved     |
| ine** | although there is less of issue in this case because there   |
|       | is a clearer division of labor in this case.                 |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | the current sub-contract arrangement creates problems in the |
| Unive | PI\'s budget because the indirect cost of the sub-contract   |
| rsity | has to be built into the direct cost of the primary PI\'s    |
| of    | budget. This is particularly true for the modular grant      |
| C     | format.                                                      |
| alifo |                                                              |
| rnia, |                                                              |
| Irv   |                                                              |
| ine** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | To have multi-investigator PI grants will require increased  |
| Washi | size of the grant for funding. There is no insentive         |
| ngton | provided to have this type of grant without the ability to   |
| State | sufficiently support the multiple PI\'s work. Great idea to  |
| Un    | do this and will foster integrated research activity, but    |
| ivers | practically need larger grants so as to make program         |
| ity** | successful.                                                  |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | Two comments are relevant. First, I represent a rather       |
| Unive | \"under-represented\" school of pharmacy of a major public   |
| rsity | univeristy. It is about the time that the NIH recognize a    |
| of    | new disciplinary entity, \"pharmaceutical sciences,\" which  |
| North | deals with drug/gene delivery research. The field is         |
| Car   | distinct from pharmacology, cell biology and anatomy,        |
| olina | immunology, biochemistry, etc., although my students learn   |
| at    | and apply all of the above in drug delivery research.        |
| C     | Secondly, I wholeheartedly welcome this particular           |
| hapel | initiative. Drug delivery research, for instance, invariably |
| H     | requires collaborations with others from different medical   |
| ill** | fields. Multi-PI system will allow us work on a common       |
|       | research interest with equal foolting in credit and          |
|       | responsibilty. But develop an efficient, repeat efficient,   |
|       | mechanics. Good luck!                                        |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
|       | It should be absolutely clear who has financial              |
|       | responsibility. The traditional coinvestigator mechanism     |
|       | should also be retained for cases when an individual is      |
|       | important but couldn\'t run the project for various reasons. |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Se  | If multiple PIs are on a grant, then moving money between    |
| attle | the two should be easy and not require NIH permission. NIh   |
| Biome | should track the money but not require permission.           |
| dical |                                                              |
| Res   |                                                              |
| earch |                                                              |
| Inst  |                                                              |
| itute |                                                              |
| and   |                                                              |
| Unive |                                                              |
| rsity |                                                              |
| of    |                                                              |
| Wa    |                                                              |
| shing |                                                              |
| ton** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | The NIH plan to recognize multiple PIs should move forward.  |
| Unive | It is a much awaited resolution. It will enable people who   |
| rsity | has been working as much as the PI in a grant to receive     |
| of    | credit for the work done.                                    |
| Mary  |                                                              |
| land, | The system of recognition in my University is based on the   |
| C     | number of grants we have as PIs, while collaborations, do    |
| enter | not count at all. The main element required for promotion is |
| for   | NIH-funded grants as PI. The rest of our work as             |
| Va    | co-investigators has no value at the moment of promotions,   |
| ccine | assignment of laboratory space, etc.                         |
| Dev   |                                                              |
| elopm | For people early in their research careers this is a major   |
| ent** | problem.,                                                    |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Thank you very much!!!                                       |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | This idea is long overdue!                                   |
| Acade |                                                              |
| mic - |                                                              |
| Univ. |                                                              |
| of MD |                                                              |
| S     |                                                              |
| chool |                                                              |
| of    |                                                              |
| Medic |                                                              |
| ine** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | The concept of multiple PIs is reasonable and does reward    |
| Unive | all investigators affiliated with the grant. It, however,    |
| rsity | has the potential to create conflicts in regard to           |
| at    | implimentation and dividing of the budget within the         |
| Buff  | laboratories involved. If the budgets are totally separate   |
| alo** | this should eliminate this problem.                          |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **um  | You have to have one PI with overall authority, otherwise    |
| dnj** | you will greatly increase the politics of the science and    |
|       | decrease the ability of the PI to control the science and    |
|       | study.                                                       |
|       |                                                              |
|       | I can not think of a worse scenario. You must remember that  |
|       | there are                                                    |
|       |                                                              |
|       | heavy politics at some Universities that do not reflect      |
|       | scientific merit or results but does reflect power and       |
|       | politics.                                                    |
|       |                                                              |
|       | At some Universites, the more success one has the more       |
|       | people want to interfer at the cost of science and research  |
|       | output and outcomes                                          |
|       |                                                              |
|       | If you want examples, I woul dbe willing to go into great    |
|       | detail                                                       |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | I think this would help tremenously with our evaluations for |
| Unive | tenure and promotion and would encourage collaborations to   |
| rsity | occur across departments and colleges.                       |
| of    |                                                              |
| Kentu |                                                              |
| cky** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| *     | I work in a transdisciplinary area (Behavioral Cardiology).  |
| *Medi | Recognition of only one PI, when 2 have been involved, has   |
| cine, | always been contentious, and slowed interdisciplinary        |
| Col   | research. Multiple PI status would recognize the leadership  |
| umbia | each faculty provided to the research project.               |
| Un    |                                                              |
| ivers |                                                              |
| ity** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Mas | Having multiple PI\'s in title and authority should not have |
| sachu | to entail doubling, tripling, etc the administrative         |
| setts | aspects/hassles of awards. Thanks.                           |
| Ge    |                                                              |
| neral |                                                              |
| Hospi |                                                              |
| tal** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Ge  | Recognizing multiple PI\'s is a great idea and is a real     |
| orgia | boost for PI\'s. I think changing the financial structure    |
| Inst  | behind the way contracts are awarded causes many problems    |
| itute | over the lifetime of an active multi-institutional grant.    |
| of    |                                                              |
| Te    |                                                              |
| chnol |                                                              |
| ogy** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | The concept of one pi came about because of problems many    |
| unive | years ago associated with co-pi\'s when such were real       |
| rsity | positions on a grant application - like in the early 80\'s.  |
| of    | The changes proposed will only repeat the problems of who is |
| north | responsible for fraud and mismanagement that existed when    |
| dak   | there were equal partners in one grant.                      |
| ota** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | I think that having more than one PI will be problematic in  |
| Unive | many ways. If conflicts arise between the PIs then serious   |
| rsity | issues will be faced. If grant awards are increased          |
| of    | proportionally and multiple PIs are given independent funds  |
| K     | to govern, then this approach can work. However, I am        |
| ansas | skeptical that multiple PIs can work. A single PI must have  |
| Me    | the ultimate control over a project or it can be very        |
| dical | difficult to control and direct.                             |
| Cen   |                                                              |
| ter** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | I would be interested in how these awards would be reviewed. |
| Unive | Would each segment have to stand alone? Would they both have |
| rsity | to receive priority scores or would they be reviewed as one  |
| of    | project in competition with other single projects?           |
| A     |                                                              |
| laska |                                                              |
| A     |                                                              |
| nchor |                                                              |
| age** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| *     | In general, this is a good idea, but needs support and help  |
| *Univ | with implementation from academic institutions.              |
| Virgi |                                                              |
| nia** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un  | I believe that this is a misguided plan to apportion credit  |
| ive   | between multiple PI\'s. Unfortunately, the grant review      |
| rsity | process is not designed to make an accurate determination of |
| of    | the relative intellectual effort of the people developing    |
| South | the project. Currently, it is clear that NIH is not          |
| Caro  | attempting to make such a determination and institutions are |
| ina** | forced to make their own inquiries according to their own    |
|       | standards. If the NIH attempts to assign credit, there will  |
|       | be an overwelming tendancy to adopt and rely on these        |
|       | assignments, regardless of their inaccuracies or             |
|       | unsuitability for a particular purpose.                      |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Institutions already have the ability to track the flow of   |
|       | funds to particular departments or facutly members, if they  |
|       | wish to do so. If the NIH needs to get involved in this      |
|       | issue, it should focus on reporting where funds were         |
|       | actually spent after the fact. It is not wise to create less |
|       | flexible funding structures at the beginning of a project,   |
|       | solely for the purpose of making the reporting easier.       |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | Each of us wants the best possible science. Any              |
| Unive | administative arrangement that promotes this goal is to be   |
| rsity | encouraged.                                                  |
| of    |                                                              |
| Ill   |                                                              |
| inois |                                                              |
| at    |                                                              |
| Chic  |                                                              |
| ago** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **U   | This will help sort out our promotions and tenure issues,    |
| NCW** | will help from having a single multiinvestigator award being |
|       | counted 2-3-4-5 times, and will formally lay out who gets    |
|       | how much credit.                                             |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | Review guidelines need to be revised to include more than an |
| Unive | analysis of leadership plan.                                 |
| rsity |                                                              |
| of    |                                                              |
| Ci    |                                                              |
| ncinn |                                                              |
| ati** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | I think it is a great idea that has been needed for some     |
| Unive | time.                                                        |
| rsity |                                                              |
| of    |                                                              |
| Con   |                                                              |
| necti |                                                              |
| cut** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | good idea overall, probably best to have a lead institution  |
| unive | with mult instiututional grants                              |
| rsity |                                                              |
| of    |                                                              |
| Texas |                                                              |
| at    |                                                              |
| Aus   |                                                              |
| tin** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
|       | Multiple PIs is a bad idea. Every co-investigator would like |
|       | to be PI in this system and will create a rift among         |
|       | co-investigators.                                            |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| *     | Our junior faculty are required to have 3 grants AS P.I., in |
| *Univ | order to get promoted or get tenure.                         |
| Cinci |                                                              |
| nnati | For them, there is no incentive to collaborate. If fact,     |
| Co    | that would be foolish.                                       |
| llege |                                                              |
| of    | For senior members of the faculty, being P.I is the ticket   |
| Medic | to participating in certain grant activities, such as        |
| ine** | Centers, Training faculty, and Instrumentation grants.       |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Given the way most research projects work, multiple P.I.s    |
|       | makes sense for the NIH, as well as for the investigators    |
|       | and institutions.                                            |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **U   | For a huge contract like the Sjogren's Registry, with 2 of   |
| CSF** | us acting as true Co-PIs, this would be a boon.              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Col | Multiple PI listing for R01 within the same institution IS   |
| umbia | not necessary. However, for subcontracts involving multilple |
| Un    | institutions, it will likely to be more efficient if budgets |
| ivers | are apportioned.                                             |
| ity** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | Long overdue. At research universities, of course, a         |
| Unive | tremendous emphasis is placed on extramural funding during   |
| rsity | the faculty evaluation, tenure and promotion process. NIH,   |
| of    | meanwhile, seems to be placing more emphasis on promoting    |
| South | collaborative projects requiring multiple investigators. And |
| Car   | yet, many of these same universities evaluate faculty        |
| olina | research programs under the old 1 R01 = 1 PI \"lone wolf\"   |
| S     | paradigm, where any personnel other than the PI essentially  |
| chool | receive no credit for their ability contribute to            |
| of    | high-quality research that attracts extramural funding. A    |
| Medic | move by NIH to allow for multiple PI\'s would be a big step  |
| ine** | toward forcing these institutions to update their evaluation |
|       | criteria in light of current funding realities.              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| *     | A wounderful idea. The ability to recognize Co-PIs will      |
| *Loma | strenghten the motivation for research collaborations needed |
| Linda | to advance most research areas.                              |
| Un    |                                                              |
| ivers |                                                              |
| ity** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
|       | Specific guidlines should be created as to who is eligible   |
|       | to be included as a PI. There is the strong possibility for  |
|       | abuse of this policy by departmental chairs. A chairperson   |
|       | should not be allowed to be a PI with a subordinate junior   |
|       | faculty without extensive justification (beyond the proposed |
|       | Leadership plan) and formal apportionment of the budget. The |
|       | rationale for having multiple PIs from within a department   |
|       | is very weak since such individuals can collaborate easily,  |
|       | and the potential for abuse is quite high.                   |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | I am the PI of an NIH Program Project Grant and have         |
| Popul | recently been the PI of two other Program Project Grants. I  |
| ation | feel that it is unwise to have 2 PIs. It\'s like having two  |
| Coun  | supervisors or two chairpersons. It usually doesn\'t work    |
| cil** | well.                                                        |
|       |                                                              |
|       | I might add that I have found that being a PI of a Program   |
|       | Project Grant involving investigators at other institutions  |
|       | can be frustrating as their first priority is usually their  |
|       | own RO1 Grant. As an employee of a different institution one |
|       | has no power to make a investigator at another institution   |
|       | (Who is often tenured) devote the appropriate effort to the  |
|       | Program Project Grant.                                       |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **New | Good for junior faculty attempting to get tenure.            |
| York  |                                                              |
| Un    | Easier to \"recruit\" colleagues from other departments to   |
| ivers | participate in large grants.                                 |
| ity** |                                                              |
|       | Often, in reality, there are co-PIs, just not recognized by  |
|       | NIH or by the indvidual\'s own institution.                  |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | I have always thought that this would be a good idea. Large  |
| Unive |                                                              |
| rsity | multi-disciplinary studies often require the direct          |
| of    | leadership of two or more                                    |
| Michi |                                                              |
| gan** | P.I.s. However, some of the challenges will be issues that   |
|       | deal with                                                    |
|       |                                                              |
|       | splitting/dividing indirect costs and support for financial  |
|       | management of the                                            |
|       |                                                              |
|       | grants if the various P.I.s come from different              |
|       | departments/schools, etc.                                    |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Although, by recognizing multiple P.I.s you will also likely |
|       | get better                                                   |
|       |                                                              |
|       | accountability and larger input of energy from the P.I.s if  |
|       | they are equally                                             |
|       |                                                              |
|       | recognized in status. Just like sharing equal first          |
|       | authorship on a manuscript,                                  |
|       |                                                              |
|       | dual/multiple P.I.s will feel equal ownership on a grant     |
|       | application.                                                 |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | The PI is the one who develops the ideas and writes the      |
| Stony | grant and thus is the director of the overall concept of the |
| Brook | project and how its will be carried out, is essentially the  |
| Un    | creator of the project. Having multiple PI\'s will reward    |
| ivers | the individuals who did not write the project, and who may   |
| ity** | have just carried benchtop work.                             |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | Multiple principal PI would be a good idea                   |
| Unive |                                                              |
| rsity |                                                              |
| of    |                                                              |
| Ill   |                                                              |
| inois |                                                              |
| -Chic |                                                              |
| ago** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | I have concerns about senior investigators bullying junior   |
| Unive | investigators into being PI\'s on grants. I\'m not convinced |
| rsity | that the existing system is \"broken\" so why try to fix it? |
| of    |                                                              |
| W     |                                                              |
| iscon |                                                              |
| sin** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Sta | In general, I think that most projects tend to have a        |
| nford | single, natural PI, but there are often circumstances in     |
| Un    | which you would like to have someone designated co-PI. I     |
| ivers | think the PI should still maintain fiscal responsibility,    |
| ity** | but the co-PI designation is to indicate that the co-PI is   |
|       | considered pretty much an equal of the PI in terms of        |
|       | intellectual input in the project. There are some            |
|       | circumstances where there is not an obvious choice as to     |
|       | whom of two or more people should be PI, but I encounter     |
|       | these situations much less frequently. I think simply        |
|       | recognizing that there can be a co-PI would be a step in the |
|       | right direction. For budgetary issues, a sub-allocation is   |
|       | often provided to the co-PI (especially if they are in       |
|       | another department), and this arrangement works just fine -  |
|       | it does not need additional oversight from the NIH as far as |
|       | I\'m concerned.                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **UIC | One PI still might be declared ultimately responsible to     |
| Co    | maintain accountability and leadership of research teams.    |
| llege |                                                              |
| of    |                                                              |
| D     |                                                              |
| entis |                                                              |
| try** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | Multiple PIs on a single award is a bad idea, because there  |
| Unive | needs to be a single individual who is responsible for the   |
| rsity | research and the budget. Multiple PIs could lead to dilution |
| of    | of research quality by giving PI status to a researcher who  |
| Wa    | could not obtain it independently but only as part of a      |
| shing | joint effort with another PI. Linked awards is preferable to |
| ton** | multiple PIs on the same award because each award and each   |
|       | PI would have to pass peer review separately.                |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **The | I think this is a great idea but should be modeled on the    |
| Bu    | PO1 format w/o the physically separate components and cores  |
| rnham | but similar administration.                                  |
| I     |                                                              |
| nstit |                                                              |
| ute** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | Excellent idea.                                              |
| Unive |                                                              |
| rsity |                                                              |
| of    |                                                              |
| R     |                                                              |
| oches |                                                              |
| ter** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Ha  | Multiple PI recognition is particulalry critical for         |
| rvard | interdisciplinary research. Computational biologists (such   |
| Un    | as myself) working in the interface between biology and      |
| ivers | computer science collboarate with scientists in both fields, |
| ity** | and are particualrly prone to \"suffer\" from a diminished   |
|       | position as they need less funds and are often a             |
|       | sub-contractor despite their critical and unique             |
|       | contribution to a project.                                   |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| *     | The planning for the jont leadership is essential. It\'s one |
| *Univ | thing to have it in the original grant application, and      |
| Wa    | another to actually do it, so this will need assessment by   |
| shing | NIH review in the early years. This will really be an        |
| ton** | experiment in science management, but I\'ll predict it will  |
|       | be very worthwhile.                                          |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| *     | This could be a very significant positive step forward for   |
| *Mayo | fostering interdisciplinary research which is key to moving  |
| C     | the field forward                                            |
| linic |                                                              |
| Co    |                                                              |
| llege |                                                              |
| of    |                                                              |
| Medic |                                                              |
| ine** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| *     | I have reviewed for NIH and recently reviewed for the United |
| *Marq | Kingdom. I think NIH could profit from the UK approach to    |
| uette | application review. It was all online and I was asked        |
| Unive | because of expertise related to the proposal. The current    |
| rsity | NIH approach, for other than POs or RFAs, has reviewers who  |
| Co    | really don\'t know the area of science they are reviewing.   |
| llege | We would better spend NIH monies funding research, rather    |
| of    | than transporting and housing reviewers. We also would fund  |
| Nurs  | better science if all those reviewing a particular           |
| ing** | application had expertise in that area, rather than have a   |
|       | reviewer read numerous applications for which they have      |
|       | little expertise. Thank you very much for considering this   |
|       | as well as the above responses!                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **San | A single PI is neccessary because that person is responsible |
| Diego | for oversight and overall conduct of a scientific project.   |
| State | There is a good reason for that. The PI or designated        |
| Un    | research staff at one setting do the majority of the work.   |
| ivers | Collaboartors tend to voice alot more commitment than they   |
| ity** | are generally willing to give. Inequities in work completed  |
|       | already ocurr. The PI accepts the respnsibility to get the   |
|       | job done. If the NIH allows more than 1 PI for a project     |
|       | then potential collaborators who have good intentions but    |
|       | produce very little and leave the other PI(s) left to do the |
|       | work is going to credit when it is not deserved.             |
|       |                                                              |
|       | A major issue never never addressed in clinical research is  |
|       | that the nurse study cordinators do the vast majority of the |
|       | work and get no credit what so ever for their major major    |
|       | contribution to the study. It seems to me that if NIH needs  |
|       | to address interdisciplinary collaboration, then attention   |
|       | needs to be given to members of reseasrch teams who are      |
|       | never recognized for their contribution to science. Nurses   |
|       | at the bedside collect the data not the PIs and yet they go  |
|       | untrained for the most part and can never receive education, |
|       | promotion or merit awards for the work they do. The current  |
|       | system rewards everybody on the top of the pyramid while the |
|       | people who recruit patients, consent them, collect the data, |
|       | take 24/7 on call to assess labs, and do the paperwork are   |
|       | the workforce of research and they deserve more attention.   |
|       | Instead of assuming that giving more power and control via   |
|       | prestiage and money is going to maximize the best interest   |
|       | of making science, think about to improve the quality of     |
|       | data gathered by nurses and non nurse study coordinators.    |
|       | They are left to dothe work while PIs get the glory and that |
|       | is not fair and they know it. Continuing to ignore this      |
|       | bottom level of the research workforce ignores an aspect of  |
|       | research collaboration that does effect the quality of       |
|       | science.                                                     |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| *     | I strongly endorse the plan. As research plans continue to   |
| *ohio |                                                              |
| state | increase in the numbers of strong investigators associated   |
| un    | with                                                         |
| ivers |                                                              |
| ity** | each grant, it is more and more the case that each of them   |
|       |                                                              |
|       | should have PI status.                                       |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| *     | There may be issues related to confidentiality agreements    |
| *Wake | and data sharing that will be required. Individual PIs must  |
| F     | be responsible to ensuring that appropriate consenting is in |
| orest | place.                                                       |
| Unive |                                                              |
| rsity | Subcontracts will continue to be useful in many situations.  |
| H     | Some thought may be required to understand what incentives   |
| ealth | there will continue to be for subcontracts.                  |
| Scien |                                                              |
| ces** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | I strongly endorse this plan. I would like to see a plan     |
| Vande | implemented that would allow a change in allocation to       |
| rbilt | existing projects.                                           |
| Un    |                                                              |
| ivers |                                                              |
| ity** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | With linked R01s, presumably there would be three identical  |
| Unive | grants submitted for review and they would all be given an   |
| rsity | identical score. It may be necessary to change this          |
| of    | requirement for complex studies in which it would be         |
| Haw   | difficult to get all of the necessary methodology into a 25  |
| aii** | page proposal.                                               |
|       |                                                              |
|       | The other possibility is through a consortium-type grant in  |
|       | which three individual R01s would be submitted, perhaps with |
|       | common cores. This would be trickier to review, but          |
|       | certainly possible.                                          |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **P   | As Director of our NIH Botanial Center and Project Leader    |
| rofes | for one of the three Projects, I would find it useful to     |
| sor** | have multiple PI\'s (Project Leaders) since our research is  |
|       | highly multidisciplinary and under the present system, only  |
|       | the Project Leader(PI) receives credit for their inout and   |
|       | work on the Project, within the University. Having only one  |
|       | Project Leader(PI) tends to create management problems and   |
|       | morale within the Center. I would suggest no more than two   |
|       | PI\'s(Project Leaders) else the system could be corrupted.   |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **HA  | My view is that Co-PI\'s in multidisciplinary/collaborative  |
| RVARD | programs are appropriate and shld be encouraged, reflecting  |
| ME    | expertise and leadership in a particular discipline. As it   |
| DICAL | stands now in such new programs that i see, the PI manages   |
| SCH   | the overall project goals and vision , however falls short   |
| OOL** | in                                                           |
|       |                                                              |
|       | pushing forward effective partnerships of practice w         |
|       | co-investigators re hypothesis-driven interpretations and    |
|       | multiple experimental designs. Since convergent disciplines  |
|       | and new integrative mindsets are now the points of challenge |
|       | in leading teams with a collaborative strategy, Co-PI\'s     |
|       | will help to shape a new promise of productivity and value   |
|       | in the way we do science.                                    |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | Project Management should be done one institution internal   |
| Human | to the consortium. PI\'s must be recognised separately as    |
| Sci   | must budgets as it helps create greater equity between       |
| ences | research partners                                            |
| Res   |                                                              |
| earch |                                                              |
| Coun  |                                                              |
| cil** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| *     | I think this is an important step in fostering               |
| *John | inter-disciplinary research.                                 |
| A.    |                                                              |
| Burns |                                                              |
| S     |                                                              |
| chool |                                                              |
| of    |                                                              |
| Medi  |                                                              |
| cine, |                                                              |
| Unive |                                                              |
| rsity |                                                              |
| of    |                                                              |
| H     |                                                              |
| awaii |                                                              |
| at    |                                                              |
| Ma    |                                                              |
| noa** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | I would like to see Crisp track all Co-PIs and               |
| Unive | Co-Investigators - without trying to link their contribution |
| rsity | to dollars. I also would like to see Crisp track all         |
| of    | participating institutions - without trying to link their    |
| South | contribution to dollars.                                     |
| Flor  |                                                              |
| ida** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | Recognizing multiple PIs is important in attributing         |
| Unive | participation and achievement to young and mid-career        |
| rsity | investigators who are involved in multi-investigator grants. |
| of    | As it is now, they are often penalized by promotion and      |
| Texas | tenure committees for being on multi-investigator grants     |
| Me    | because co-PI has no official status.                        |
| dical |                                                              |
| Bra   |                                                              |
| nch** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **The | Multiple PI grants is a wonderful idea, way overdue.         |
| Bu    |                                                              |
| rnham |                                                              |
| I     |                                                              |
| nstit |                                                              |
| ute** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **st  | Change is a good thing. This could only help generate better |
| ate** | proposals by creating a equity among the PIs on the grant.   |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | I think it\'s great.                                         |
| Unive |                                                              |
| rsity |                                                              |
| of    |                                                              |
| R     |                                                              |
| oches |                                                              |
| ter** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **The | Multiple PIs should be an option with careful justification  |
| Pe    | and clear budget allocations. The number of PIs should be    |
| nnsyl | limited, certainly no more than 3 for any one instrument.    |
| vania |                                                              |
| State |                                                              |
| Un    |                                                              |
| ivers |                                                              |
| ity** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | Considering the many mechanisms by which NIH has encouraged  |
| Unive | the development of grants and contracts that involve         |
| rsity | collbaortors from within an institution and from without, it |
| of    | is a disincentive to have only one PI. Frequently, the best  |
| Texas | grants are the result of the teamwork between equally        |
| Me    | contributing scientists, yet only one can be the PI. This    |
| dical | hurts faculty, especially, young faculty, in academia when   |
| Bra   | it comes to promotion and tenure. It discourages exactly the |
| nch** | type of productive, collabortative and interdisciplinary     |
|       | research that hold the greatest promise for the advancement  |
|       | of sciences in the future. Having multiple PIs on an NIH     |
|       | grant is long overdue.                                       |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | The issue is critical when two or more institutions are in   |
| Human | two different countries or continents especially when the    |
| Sci   | currency exchange rates against the US S fluctuate           |
| ences | considerably                                                 |
| Res   |                                                              |
| earch |                                                              |
| Cou   |                                                              |
| ncil, |                                                              |
| South |                                                              |
| Afr   |                                                              |
| ica** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| *     | Great idea to recognize multiple PIs\--long overdue!         |
| *Univ |                                                              |
| Ill** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | feel strongly with the concept of multiple and Co-Pi\'s      |
| Unive |                                                              |
| rsity |                                                              |
| of    |                                                              |
| H     |                                                              |
| awaii |                                                              |
| S     |                                                              |
| chool |                                                              |
| of    |                                                              |
| Medic |                                                              |
| ine** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | I think it is important to implement co-PI status. However,  |
| UMass | I think that it may be useful to designate a senior PI vs    |
| Me    | junior PIs. There is also a likely need for contingency      |
| dical | plans in the event that one PI drops out for any reason      |
| Sch   | (Illness, etc), and whether or not the remaining PI can name |
| ool** | a new co-PI.                                                 |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | I think this is a great idea and recognizes the signficant   |
| Depar | roles and achievements of collaborators; It incentives team  |
| tment | science, which is so critical in our research environment.   |
| of    |                                                              |
| Radio | It also potentially minimizes the ability of a PI to involve |
| logy, | many collaborators on the writing of a proposal and then,    |
| David | when the grant is actually awarded, unilaterally deciding    |
| G     | where funding goes and who stays in and who is out of the    |
| effen | research team.                                               |
| S     |                                                              |
| chool |                                                              |
| of    |                                                              |
| Med   |                                                              |
| icine |                                                              |
| at    |                                                              |
| U     |                                                              |
| CLA** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Col | Recognition of multiple PIs not only recognizes the          |
| umbus | evolution of how the specific aims of most grants are        |
| C     | accomplished but would also be helpful to the promotion and  |
| hildr | tenure process wherein PI status is extremely important at   |
| en\'s | most institutions to the evaluation process.                 |
| Res   |                                                              |
| earch |                                                              |
| Inst  |                                                              |
| itute |                                                              |
| and   |                                                              |
| The   |                                                              |
| Ohio  |                                                              |
| State |                                                              |
| Un    |                                                              |
| ivers |                                                              |
| ity** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | I strongly support the plan. The current system rewards      |
| Unive | different kinds of investigators disproportionately. At many |
| rsity | institutions, including my own, a new way of accounting for  |
| of    | the contributions of biostatisticians, epidemiologists, and  |
| U     | informatics researchers is likely to benefit everyone        |
| tah** | involved in collaborative projects.                          |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| *     | This issue has direct relevance to my scientific program and |
| *Wads | collaborations. I have a very close collaboration with       |
| worth | colleagues at the Trudeau Institute, where we have developed |
| Cen   | a program to study immunity to tuberculosis. My collaborator |
| ter** | and I work very closely and have submitted several grant     |
|       | proposals together. As we share equally in the design of the |
|       | studies and the supervision of the program, it is inaccurate |
|       | to designate us as PI and co-PI, and it is very awkward to   |
|       | arrange the sub-contracting between the instutions in the    |
|       | proposals. Our work would be faciliated under the proposed   |
|       | system because it more closely reflects the nature of our    |
|       | very collaborative efforts. I suspect that this is also true |
|       | of many other scientific collaborations between              |
|       | investigators at closely linked institutions.                |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Col | There is clearly a need to have more than one PI for many    |
| umbia | grants that are submitted these days. The impact of such a   |
| Un    | change in terms of financial oversight must be evaluated -   |
| ivers | but I would hope it would be kept simple without additional  |
| ity** | layers of restrictions about how funds could be used.        |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | Multiple PI awards are an excellent idea, as long as the     |
| Georg | total award amount gets bigger.                              |
| etown |                                                              |
| Un    |                                                              |
| ivers |                                                              |
| ity** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | It is about time multiple PIs were recognized. I wrote 3     |
| Unive | funded RO1s without my name on any of them (1 as a grad      |
| rsity | student, 2 as a post-doc). With this said, I think the       |
| of    | system should allow for a post-doc to be a joint PI with an  |
| C     | a priori agreement of fund mangement should the post-doc     |
| alifo | leave prior to the end of the grant. This could help         |
| rnia: | post-docs get their foot in the funding door through formal  |
| Irv   | name recognition, but require that the majority/all the      |
| ine** | funds remain in the faculty PIs lab should the post-doc      |
|       | leave.                                                       |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| *     | Use and officially recognize the designation Co-PI. There    |
| *Rive | only can be one PI.                                          |
| rside |                                                              |
| Res   |                                                              |
| earch |                                                              |
| I     |                                                              |
| nstit |                                                              |
| ute** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
|       | As a nurse practitioner I have been involved with            |
|       | multi-disciplinary research teams for the past 11 years.     |
|       | Despite my nursing colleagues\' opinions that nursing        |
|       | research should not be diluted by multi-disciplinary         |
|       | research teams, I have not felt that way. I am usually the   |
|       | only nurse on the research team and have noted a sincere     |
|       | amount of respect from all the other discplines I have had   |
|       | the pleasure to work with over the years (physicians,        |
|       | pharmacists, biostatisticians, physiologists, nutritionists, |
|       | economists, mathematicians, educators). On every project but |
|       | one that I have worked on, however, the PI has always been a |
|       | physician. For that reason, I feel that the recognition of   |
|       | multiple PIs on a project would be a good idea in that it    |
|       | would allow other disciplines to share the responsibility    |
|       | and direction of projects. Physicians tend to overlook       |
|       | certain aspects of a project (e.g., quality of life, cost of |
|       | a product/service, educational component for patients or     |
|       | healthcare staff). I would suggest that the use of multiple  |
|       | PIs from various disciplines on a reserach project would     |
|       | help to broaden the scope of many research applications and  |
|       | improve the quality overall.                                 |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Ch  | I think it is a great idea. There are exiting templates that |
| arles | work and the                                                 |
| R     |                                                              |
| Drew  | subcontract process is often cumbersome, fraught with delays |
| Un    | and an                                                       |
| ivers |                                                              |
| ity** | impediment to research collaborations.                       |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **O   | At this point in history, collaboration has become essential |
| regon | in nearly every aspect of research. Forcing one individual   |
| H     | to be PI sets a fabricated, often unwarranted and devisive   |
| ealth | heiarchy that compromises intellectual partnership,          |
| &     | professional recognition and project productivity. When I    |
| Sc    | submit grants, I list my co-PI as just that, the             |
| ience | co-PRINCIPAL investigator. It has no administrative validity |
| Un    | in the current funding system, but at least it recognizes    |
| ivers | the legitimate intellectual contribution of my partner. I    |
| ity** | think that the option of Linked Awards should be made        |
|       | available (when justified) to all applicants.                |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **U.  | This is a long overdue and necessary step in dealing with    |
| C.    | modern collaborative biomedical research.                    |
| Irv   |                                                              |
| ine** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | This is important to our College of Nursing because we often |
| Unive | collaborate with other Colleges, especially the College of   |
| rsity | Medicine, and we some way of giving both Colleges credit.    |
| of    |                                                              |
| Ark   |                                                              |
| ansas |                                                              |
| for   |                                                              |
| Me    |                                                              |
| dical |                                                              |
| Scien |                                                              |
| ces** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | The questions in the RFI do not addess some of my concrns. I |
| Washi | believe that a single PI should be responsible for the       |
| ngton | budget and the integrity of the scientific data.             |
| Unive |                                                              |
| rsity | My principal objection to multiple PIs is dealing with the   |
| in    | worst case scenarios. I have been on the Washington          |
| St.   | University Committee on Research Integrity for some time.    |
| Lo    | When a case of scientific misconduct occcurs, the PI is held |
| uis** | responsible. If there were multiple PIs, the problems would  |
|       | be compounded. Dealing with research fraud is unpleasant and |
|       | messy as it is today; with multiple PIs, especially in       |
|       | different institutions, the task of dealing with scientific  |
|       | misconduct would be further complicated.                     |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Additionally, if NIH allows multiple PIs, I would guess that |
|       | most grants that now designate Co-investigators would start  |
|       | designating multiple PIs. This would result in confusion in  |
|       | the Promotion and Tenure process at out university and, I    |
|       | assume, most. For example, a reviewer would see an           |
|       | individual as a \"PI\" on a grant. That might mean that      |
|       | he/she originated the ideas and preliminary data which was   |
|       | the basis for the grant proposal, or it migh mean that the   |
|       | individual was supplying some technical expertise in one     |
|       | facet of the project. In the vast majority of awards, it is  |
|       | a single individual who drives the intellectual process of   |
|       | the research. While designating multiple PIs would be a good |
|       | solution in a small minority of awards (I estimate \~1%), it |
|       | would lead to confusion in the other 99%.                    |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Some institutions allocate \"credit\" of some sort for       |
|       | indirect costs brought into the institution and may give     |
|       | departments some sort of acknowledgement in proportion to    |
|       | the indirects. This process is generally done looking only   |
|       | at the home department of the PI. Designating multiple PIs   |
|       | may facilitate this process of crediting each department     |
|       | properly but that could be done internally by each           |
|       | institution if they wished.                                  |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **M.I | Permitting more than one PI to be named on an NIH funded     |
| .T.** | grant, contract, or cooperative agreement seems inferior to  |
|       | the idea of officially recognizing the designation of a      |
|       | Co-PI. One individual should be responsible for carrying out |
|       | the research, and for reporting the results of the research  |
|       | to NIH.                                                      |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **ro  | Muliple PIs wil enable more junior faculty to share credit   |
| swell | and responsibility in carrying out a funded program. Junior  |
| park  | faculty are already, in most instances, responsible for      |
| c     | major aspects of the project while a senior investigator     |
| ancer | usually receives credit as the sole PI. The multiple PI      |
| i     | concept would share credit and reflect the responsibility    |
| nstit | that already exists in many or most instances of which I am  |
| ute** | aware. It would also facilitate the transition of young      |
|       | faculty into scientific careers.                             |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | This plan will really help recognize the contributions of    |
| Johns | individual investigators. For example, now national          |
| Ho    | Department rankings can be completely changed by attributing |
| pkins | the entire budget of a single multicenter trial to the       |
| Un    | organizing institution                                       |
| ivers |                                                              |
| ity** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | I think that this is an excellent idea and one that is       |
| Unive | definitely overdue. The need for modern biomedical science   |
| rsity | to include multidisciplinary approaches, each of which are   |
| of    | on equal terms and have a need for their own recognition is  |
| Tenn  | important.                                                   |
| essee |                                                              |
| H     |                                                              |
| ealth |                                                              |
| Sc    |                                                              |
| ience |                                                              |
| Cen   |                                                              |
| ter** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | The implementation of multiple PIs will definitely foster    |
| Washi | larger collaborative projects.                               |
| ngton |                                                              |
| Un    |                                                              |
| ivers |                                                              |
| ity** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| *     | This is an extremely important issue and I applaud the NIH   |
| *Salk | for dealing with it.                                         |
| I     |                                                              |
| nstit | One important additional issue is overhead: my understanding |
| ute** | is that sub-contract arrangements give rise to higher        |
|       | overall overhead. This is a bad situation that should be     |
|       | fixed.                                                       |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | I am preparing an R01 application with a colleague at a      |
| Unive | different institution. We are both junior faculty, in the    |
| rsity | 2nd and 3rd year of our appointments. Our project is a truly |
| of    | interdisciplinary collaboration, with each of us             |
| Ill   | contributing a unique expertise (structural biology vs.      |
| inois | molecular genetics) and expending similar and substantial    |
| at    | efforts. Under current rules, we have to choose one PI       |
| Urb   | arbitrarily; multiple PIs would allow each of us to receive  |
| ana-C | appropriate credit for tenure decisions etc.                 |
| hampa |                                                              |
| ing** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | In situations where there are several different projects     |
| Unive | included within an NIH RO1 grant which are relatively        |
| rsity | independent and self-contained, and different investigators  |
| of    | have the major responsibility for each specific project and  |
| C     | their associated budgets, I would endorse the plan to        |
| alifo | recognize multiple PIs. In other cases, where the various    |
| rnia, | components of a project can not be as easily separated,      |
| San   | there would be problems if one of the PIs failed to complete |
| Di    | their part in a timely manner. It would therefore be         |
| ego** | appropriate to continue to assign one person as \"senior\"   |
|       | PI for each RO1 grant. While each of the PIs would be        |
|       | granted separate budgets under the \"Multiple PI Plan\", a   |
|       | policy of assigning one PI primary responsibility for        |
|       | overall management of the "grant program" would insure there |
|       | would be a mechanism in place for resolving any significant  |
|       | problems. If a formal system of grant management and power   |
|       | sharing is not clearly established in the beginning, the     |
|       | grantee Institutions or NIH would have to adjudicate any     |
|       | conflicts that arise between the multiple PIs. It should be  |
|       | noted that, once the \"Multiple PI Plan\" is instituted, it  |
|       | will be difficult (impossible) stop a geometric growth in    |
|       | the number of PIs on NIH grants. However, since it has been  |
|       | suggested that budgetary constraints may, in the future,     |
|       | lead to a reduction in the total number of NIH grants and    |
|       | restrictions prohibiting investigators from serving as PI on |
|       | more than one NIH grant, the "Multiple PI Plan" would        |
|       | provide a useful mechanism for properly acknowledging        |
|       | investigators that function as PI for a specific project     |
|       | included within an RO1 grant. Given the reality that few PIs |
|       | possess the expertise required to complete all aspects of    |
|       | complex molecular biological studies on their own, it would  |
|       | be appropriate for NIH to establish a \"Multiple PI Plan\"   |
|       | in order to foster more interdisciplinary collaborations     |
|       | between established investigators in a time of shrinking     |
|       | grant funding.                                               |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
|       | I think this may produce more problems than it solves, and   |
|       | there are many unanswered questions. Potential problems      |
|       | include the situation of one of the PIs moving to another    |
|       | institution- what happens in that situation? How are issues  |
|       | of budeget reallocation determined - who makes the ultaimate |
|       | decisions? If something new is to be done perhaps it would   |
|       | best be implemented under the auspices of PPGs, which        |
|       | already have a structure for dealing with multiple projects  |
|       | with several PIs. Perhaps what is needed is a \"mini PPG\"   |
|       | instead of a maxi R01.                                       |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | I think recognizing multiple PIs is a very positive step     |
| North | forward in recognizing the importance of team science. Among |
| Sh    | other benefits, it could encourage physicians to participate |
| ore - | more fully in translational research projects without their  |
| LIJ   | having to be the traditional PI, permitting recognition of   |
| Res   | their contributions by their own institution and by others.  |
| earch | This recognition could have a major positive impact on the   |
| I     | current problem of loss of physician investigators.          |
| nstit |                                                              |
| ute** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **No  | In general, it is my opinion that PIs should be given the    |
| rthwe | option to work out whatever arrangement they believe is in   |
| stern | the best interest of the project. The flexibility offered by |
| Un    | the possibility of co-PI arrangments is very attractive      |
| ivers | especially with respect to the goal of encouraging and       |
| ity** | recognizing the value of inter-disciplinary research.        |
|       |                                                              |
|       | It seems to me that the keys to success in this endeavor are |
|       | (1) a well thought out shared leadership plan that includes  |
|       | all matters ranging from personell managment to budget       |
|       | apportionment, (2) clear procedures at the PIs home          |
|       | institution(s) and the granting institue for handling        |
|       | disputes and misunderstandings between the co-PIs.           |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **New | Budget, responsibilities, and resources can be shared, but   |
| York  | ultimately one person has to be responsible for dealing with |
| Un    | NIH and the university. Multiple PIs is likely to add more   |
| ivers | problems while it may resolve others.                        |
| ity** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| *     | I think that the plan to recognize multiple PI\'s is an      |
| *Ohio | excellent idea. I am in the process of moving from Ohio      |
| State | State to the University of WI-Madison and I\'ve already      |
| Un    | begun talking to some researchers there about submitted a    |
| ivers | grant together. The multiple PI model would best fit the     |
| ity** | research plan we are considering \-- much better than a      |
|       | program project or an R01 with one PI and multiple co-PI\'s. |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Br  | I support it fully                                           |
| igham |                                                              |
| and   |                                                              |
| Wom   |                                                              |
| en\'s |                                                              |
| Hospi |                                                              |
| tal** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | I think it is a bad idea to have multiple PIs. The current   |
| Unive | system effectively holds one person primarily responsible    |
| rsity | for all the critical funcitons involved in a research        |
| of    | program. Blurring of responsability is a bad idea. The same  |
| I     | is true in regards to determining who should receive the     |
| owa** | primary leadership credit for a successful research          |
|       | enterprise. Blurring of credit is a bad idea as well.        |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | My opinion is that the plan to recognize multiple PIs is not |
| Unive | a practical idea. It is going to reward polical savvy over   |
| rsity | strong science. It will reward bigness over smallness. It    |
| of    | will reward larger and stronger competitors and punish       |
| Texas | smaller ones. I suggest that the NIH keep the present system |
| Me    | of single investigators organizing collaborations under      |
| dical | contracts with other institutions. To encourage more         |
| Bra   | collaboration, I think the the NIH should increase the       |
| nch** | proportion of extramural funds that can be used for          |
|       | descretionary use by program people; the proportion of       |
|       | funding that comes as a response to RFAs and RFPs aimed at   |
|       | multidisciplinary research should be boosted.                |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | I see this situation as being similar to the switch to       |
| Unive | moduar budgets: the rules at NIH became more open and        |
| rsity | flexible, but individual universities still had constraints  |
| of    | (i.e., they still request detailed budgets). The shift at    |
| Kan   | the NIH level, however, made it easier to work with the      |
| sas** | money at the local level. Anytime NIH can take the lead like |
|       | this to create possibilities or make administration of funds |
|       | more flexible, it\'s a good thing that will trickle down to  |
|       | individual universities/institutions.                        |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | This is a great idea, which I fully support.                 |
| House |                                                              |
| Ear   |                                                              |
| I     |                                                              |
| nstit |                                                              |
| ute** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| *     | In the review process, each PI needs to be evaluated for     |
| *Univ | capacity to lead the component of the work allocated to      |
| of IL | him/her. Clear guidleines will be needed to facilitate       |
| at    | submissionof sufficient information for reviewers to jude    |
| Chic  | the adequacy of the the PI\'s capacity to lead.              |
| ago** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | this plan will almost assuredly encourage collaboration and  |
| unive | team spirit\..... in this information overlaod age\.... the  |
| rsity | team approach will allow creativity and specialization to    |
| of    | enhance reasearch ideas and endeavors                        |
| m     |                                                              |
| innes |                                                              |
| ota** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Ru  | Although there is typically a central or leading figure      |
| tgers | involved in organizing a research program, having multiple   |
| Un    | PI\'s brings younger and/or less prominent investigators     |
| ivers | into the decision making arena. This provides greater        |
| ity** | opportunities for growth in managing large projects,         |
|       | developing skills in inter-disciplinary team work and can    |
|       | improve the overall merit of the program.                    |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Nat | Although the concept of allocating more credit to secondary  |
| ional | investigators in multi-site projects is laudable, having     |
| D     | equal multiple PIs will interfere with rather than improve   |
| evelo | the cohesiveness of such projects. You need a single PI with |
| pment | a single vision to take responsiblity for each project.      |
| and   | Having 4 different but equal Presidents of the United States |
| Res   | would not work, and neither will having multiple PIs. A good |
| earch | PI will bring the other investigators from the other         |
| In    | institutes together to work as a team, resolve disputes, and |
| stitu | be accountable for the scientific integrity and budgetary    |
| tes** | management of the project. Having multiple equal PIs will    |
|       | promote separate isolationist conduct of research not a more |
|       | integrated approach. In my opionion, allowing multiple PIs   |
|       | will have an opposite, deleterious, effect on                |
|       | multidisciplinary reseach from that intended.                |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | We have everything in place already for this issue:          |
| Unive | subcontracting for small grants and program projects for     |
| rsity | larger grants. I don\'t see any utility in this vision.      |
| of    |                                                              |
| ROch  |                                                              |
| ester |                                                              |
| S     |                                                              |
| chool |                                                              |
| of    |                                                              |
| Medic |                                                              |
| ine** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | I am concerned with the potential situation where personnel  |
| Unive | is not clear about to whom they are directly responsible     |
| rsity | when PIs are from the same department. I am also concerned   |
| of    | with clear distribution of funds when the PIs are from the   |
| Ark   | same institution but different departments. Linked           |
| ansas | applications between institutions are very attractive. Note  |
| for   | that in the latter case two (or more) separate applications  |
| Me    | and budgets are generated; should that be also the case for  |
| dical | the other two cases?                                         |
| Scien |                                                              |
| ces** | Thanks for this opportunity.                                 |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| *     | Overall, I think the plan has merit in that that all members |
| *Univ | of the                                                       |
| of    |                                                              |
| Ill   | science team will feel more vested and more responsible for  |
| inois | the conduct of the research program; rather than saying or   |
| at    | thinking that since only the PI gets the credit, let him/her |
| Chic  | do all the work!                                             |
| ago** |                                                              |
|       | I believe the multiple PI approach will facilitate higher    |
|       | quality research.                                            |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | When the PIs are from an academic center AND a               |
| Unive | community-based organization (CBO), which would be the case  |
| rsity | for community-based participatory research as well as for    |
| of    | research conducted by a coalition of organizations, a more   |
| North | \"user friendly\" mechanism needs to be in place for CBOs to |
| Carol | establish and maintain a federally-negotiated overhead rate. |
| ina** | The current procedure is so complex that our university has  |
|       | a department totally dedicated to this task.                 |
|       |                                                              |
|       | I applaud this innovation and request for input. Thank you.  |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **K   | This is an excellent plan that was too long in coming!       |
| aiser |                                                              |
| Pe    |                                                              |
| rmane |                                                              |
| nte** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | I think this is an outstanding idea. It has the potential to |
| Unive | facilitate multidisciplinary, collaborative research. It     |
| rsity | also has the potential to help junior faculty attain a track |
| of    | record as a PI if listed with more senior researchers on a   |
| Ne    | single grant.                                                |
| vada, |                                                              |
| R     |                                                              |
| eno** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **The | I think this is a forward thinking approach that if utilized |
| Unive | as is designed will be helpful for all parties               |
| rsity |                                                              |
| of    |                                                              |
| Tenn  |                                                              |
| essee |                                                              |
| H     |                                                              |
| ealth |                                                              |
| Sc    |                                                              |
| ience |                                                              |
| Cen   |                                                              |
| ter** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | Having multiple PI\'s creates the                            |
| Unive |                                                              |
| rsity | risk of no one on a project taking full responsibility for   |
| of    | tracking the                                                 |
| Ariz  |                                                              |
| ona** | budget and expenditures, and making the hard decisions to    |
|       | cut                                                          |
|       |                                                              |
|       | costs when necessary. I think that having multiple PIs would |
|       | increase friction among the investigators, necessitate more  |
|       | time in                                                      |
|       |                                                              |
|       | meetings between investigators to go over expenditures       |
|       | (which                                                       |
|       |                                                              |
|       | someone will have to calculate anyway, why burden more than  |
|       | one person), as well as increase the paperwork burden        |
|       | associated with                                              |
|       |                                                              |
|       | preparing proposals and progress reports. In the current     |
|       | system,                                                      |
|       |                                                              |
|       | one individual is clearly responsible for the administrative |
|       | work, and gets \*somewhat\* more credit as a consequence.    |
|       | This is a                                                    |
|       |                                                              |
|       | good system. The issue is only to ensure that \"somewhat\"   |
|       | does                                                         |
|       |                                                              |
|       | not translate to \"all\", but as I suggested above, this     |
|       | should be                                                    |
|       |                                                              |
|       | handled by individual institutions rather than NIH. I find   |
|       | the proposed cure to be worse than the problem.              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | Great idea. Long overdue. Should be implemented ASAP.        |
| Unive |                                                              |
| rsity |                                                              |
| of    |                                                              |
| Wa    |                                                              |
| shing |                                                              |
| ton** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | A great idea and it is time to implement it                  |
| Univ. |                                                              |
| of    |                                                              |
| Tenn  |                                                              |
| essee |                                                              |
| H     |                                                              |
| ealth |                                                              |
| Sc    |                                                              |
| ience |                                                              |
| Cen   |                                                              |
| ter** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | As a junior, interdisciplinary researcher in biomedicine     |
| Unive | collaborating with senior social scientists, this policy     |
| rsity | change has major implications for my recognition within the  |
| of    | medical school and for my research productivity. Currently,  |
| Chic  | I am 90% funded by and a co-principal investigator as a      |
| ago** | subcontractor on two major NIH grants. Because indirects on  |
|       | the subcontract are small and NIH rankings of my             |
|       | division/department are not affected, these efforts are      |
|       | virtually invisible to my division/institution. I applaud    |
|       | this effort, in light of NIH\'s emphasis on                  |
|       | interdisciplinary research, and am eager to see this         |
|       | implemented as soon as possible.                             |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| *     | I believe that recognizing multiple PIs, will help advance   |
| *Dept | the scientific careers of junior investigators on            |
| of    | multidisciplinary projects and projects with multiple        |
| Epi   | institutions. I have heard that the average age of new PIs   |
| demio | getting their first R01 is 42. I believe that the proposed   |
| logy, | policy change will give more experience, responsibility, and |
| Univ  | recognition to collaborating investigators, earlier in their |
| of    | careers. This should make these younger investigators more   |
| Texas | competitive in grant application reviews and therefore give  |
| M.D.  | them more productive years in scientific research            |
| And   | leadership. Ultimately, this will benefit the objectives of  |
| erson | the NIH and taxpayers in general.                            |
| C     |                                                              |
| ancer |                                                              |
| Cen   |                                                              |
| ter** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Hos | I personally think this is an excellent idea and             |
| pital | enthusiastically endorse it.                                 |
| for   |                                                              |
| Sp    |                                                              |
| ecial |                                                              |
| Surg  |                                                              |
| ery** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **O   | Many teams at our institution use the co-PI concept          |
| regon | informally, within descriptions of their work. It would be   |
| H     | great if NIH would formally recognize this concept.          |
| ealth |                                                              |
| &     |                                                              |
| Sc    |                                                              |
| ience |                                                              |
| Un    |                                                              |
| ivers |                                                              |
| ity** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
|       | This is a copy of what was emailed in response to the OSTP   |
|       | RFI.                                                         |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Multiple Principal Investigators                             |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Comment on proposed change to federal policy                 |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Federal Register Vol. 70, No. 136 / Monday, July 18, 2005 /  |
|       | Notices                                                      |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Office of Science and Technology Policy, Request for         |
|       | Information Relating to                                      |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Research Awards                                              |
|       |                                                              |
|       | August 11, 2005                                              |
|       |                                                              |
|       | The inclusion of more than one ultimate authority on a       |
|       | project has the obvious hazard of not knowing who has the    |
|       | last word, and where the buck stops. There will be issues    |
|       | that neither Principal Investigator (PI) wants to address,   |
|       | issues on which they disagree, and this can cause a project  |
|       | to spiral into chaos and mismanagement.                      |
|       |                                                              |
|       | It is necessary that one individual has ultimate authority   |
|       | and responsibility. Multiple co-PIs could be named, who are  |
|       | essentially senior co-investigators, but they must be under  |
|       | one unifying authority. It is up to the institutions to      |
|       | allocate resources according to PI and/or co-PI status.      |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Social psychology provides experimental data showing that    |
|       | many human beings will not take responsibility and act in an |
|       | emergency when there are others present who could act, but   |
|       | they would act if they believed there were no others to      |
|       | help. As a result, no one acts when there is a diffusion of  |
|       | responsibility.                                              |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Multidisciplinary work can be successfully accomplished by a |
|       | team led by a single PI. Further projects in another\'s area |
|       | of focus could be led by another member of the team. In this |
|       | way, the PI role can be shared among a team across different |
|       | projects.                                                    |
|       |                                                              |
|       | A difficulty with multidisciplinary work is having all       |
|       | investigators meet, due to competing schedules. I suggest    |
|       | that a requirement be instituted that all investigators      |
|       | agree to meet together at least once per year to review      |
|       | progress of the project. That would be helpful in convincing |
|       | investigators to clear their schedules for at least one      |
|       | joint meeting per year.                                      |
|       |                                                              |
|       | FYI, I am Principal Investigator of 2 NIH R01s, DK60692 and  |
|       | DK70922, each of which are multidisciplinary trials. One     |
|       | involves investigators at a second institution. Thank you    |
|       | for the opportunity to comment on this proposed change in    |
|       | federal policy.                                              |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Catherine L. Davis, Ph.D.                                    |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Assistant Professor of Pediatrics                            |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Georgia Prevention Institute                                 |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Medical College of Georgia                                   |
|       |                                                              |
|       | 1499 Walton Way, HS 1640                                     |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Augusta, GA 30912                                            |
|       |                                                              |
|       | \(706\) 721-9551 direct                                      |
|       |                                                              |
|       | http://www.mcg.edu/institutes/gpi/                           |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | Well done. Multiple PIs are an important reality of modern   |
| Unive | science.                                                     |
| rsity |                                                              |
| of    |                                                              |
| Ill   |                                                              |
| inois |                                                              |
| at    |                                                              |
| Chic  |                                                              |
| ago** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **V   | I could be all wet, but what sounded like this would be a    |
| alley | good thing, is to provide a way for a practitioner like      |
| Psy   | myself in the community to get involved in research, get a   |
| cholo | modicum of reimbursement from the time taken away from       |
| gical | his/her practice so they can be involved in research. This   |
| Serv  | could make it easier for those of us who at first chose to   |
| ices, | avoid a research career to gravitate back towards it with    |
| P.C.  | guidance and not making it impossible to feed the children   |
| /TPA/ | you\'ve had in the mean time. Sorry to be so practical but   |
| RGVMH | this is the world I live in. I guess I have this fantasy     |
| C/APA | that we can actually create a more truly scientist           |
| \     | practitioner model in the field of health psychology, and in |
| [Div3 | practice I know very few who aren't mostly one or the other. |
| 8\]** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **B   | This would be an important step forward. The roadmap and the |
| oston | current state of clinical investigation (my area) is         |
| Unive | increasingly geared towards multicenter collaboration. The   |
| rsity | need for \"official\" recognition by NIH is real and         |
| S     | substnative. Allowing for multiple PIs would encourage       |
| chool | collaborative work. Limits need to be placed (how many PIs?) |
| of    | and reporting requirements made clear (use of web-based      |
| Medic | reporting would help). This is a good initiative.            |
| ine** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | After surveying the thoughts of faculty and administrators   |
| Univ. | at the UCSD School of Medicine, we see little or no downside |
| of    | to having two principal investigators or joint-principal     |
| C     | investigators on grants. For administrative purposes, one    |
| alifo | individual may need to be identified as the contact person.  |
| rnia, | Joint -or co-investigators would reflect on the level of     |
| San   | work and participation in the grant in a more accurate       |
| Di    | fashion than the current system of identifying one           |
| ego** | individual (only) as the principal investigator. One can     |
|       | envision possible scenarios where joint investigators on a   |
|       | single grant would require a department (or the University)  |
|       | to alter the way it administers such grants. This is likely  |
|       | to be a hurdle each institution can and should tackle. The   |
|       | bottom line: if the designation of joint PI\'s reflect the   |
|       | level of work put toward a project or grant, then the NIH    |
|       | and the academic institution should be supportive of such a  |
|       | change.                                                      |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
|       | While this proposal seems to be aimed at research efforts    |
|       | where who gets the credit for being PI has implications for  |
|       | resume-building and for just plain fairness in academe,      |
|       | allowing multiple PIs is also of value in participatory      |
|       | community research where the professional relationship       |
|       | between academic and community PIs is very different from    |
|       | the relationship between two experienced researchers         |
|       | co-managing a very complex project. Usually the academic     |
|       | researcher has greater research expertise than the community |
|       | co-researcher. But in community research, communities        |
|       | realize that technical expertise is not the only skill       |
|       | needed for research that will benefit them. Thus communities |
|       | now may allow research only if the community can maintain    |
|       | project control and therefore, want a community              |
|       | co-researcher of equal authority..                           |
|       |                                                              |
|       | If community participatory research is really going to       |
|       | provide all the benefits it promises, there are more         |
|       | important underlying issues than PI-ship that have to do     |
|       | with growing community research capacity. Of greatest        |
|       | importance is the training needs of community researchers    |
|       | who choose to stay in place (e.g. continue to be a community |
|       | physician) while increasing their role in research While the |
|       | academic side of an academic-university partnership helps    |
|       | with training community researchers, most academic training  |
|       | programs are degree-oriented rather than providing specific  |
|       | skills needed for a working health professional who has      |
|       | specific academic needs and very limited time for the        |
|       | academic community. The NARCH program does have an           |
|       | academic-to-community training component but it is either    |
|       | for "growing" minority academics rather than keeping someone |
|       | in place and training them or the training component is at a |
|       | relatively introductory level, intended for non-professional |
|       | junior members of the community research effort and it       |
|       | doesn't go far enough in progressing every year to more      |
|       | complex skills.                                              |
|       |                                                              |
|       | A practical career development program would be available on |
|       | the internet for community professionals interested in       |
|       | developing into full researchers on their own time table by  |
|       | taking different parts of a program sponsored by NIH at no   |
|       | cost to the community researcher. Internet programs from     |
|       | Universities for MPHs cost too much and while flexible, are  |
|       | not flexible enough. The time element is still too rigid for |
|       | the community-working students. If a course were broken down |
|       | into smaller (e.g. one credit) courses, a community          |
|       | professional could complete smaller units, rather than       |
|       | having each course worth 3-5 credits.. Not only would the    |
|       | community-based researcher be able to make more manageable   |
|       | time commitments for study, such sub-divisions might make it |
|       | possible for someone to take only the necessary material if  |
|       | he doesn't need all the information in a full (3-5 unit)     |
|       | course. Also, the community researchers need ways to         |
|       | determine how to get the most benefit out of training        |
|       | programs. For example, make on-line self-assessment tests    |
|       | available to identify their deficiencies, linked to          |
|       | recommendations for which courses would correct the          |
|       | deficiency.                                                  |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Thank you.                                                   |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | The current system is an impediment to transdisciplinary     |
| Georg | projects. This is especially true in epidemiology, where the |
| etown | best projects have multiple and substantial laboratory,      |
| Un    | biostatistical, and epidemiological aims that cannot be      |
| ivers | fully satisfied by any one group. The current system creates |
| ity** | a tension between the senior investigators in the team that  |
|       | need not be there, and it discourages full collaboration.    |
|       | This is particularly true for senior investigators who       |
|       | happen to be within the same academic department. Their      |
|       | joint environment should facilitate collaborative projects,  |
|       | but their need for individual PI status causes them to       |
|       | compete rather than cooperate. Often this results in         |
|       | inefficiency and waste, and becomes an obstacle to progress. |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Fox | This is a long overdue and much needed proposal!             |
| Chase |                                                              |
| C     |                                                              |
| ancer |                                                              |
| Cen   |                                                              |
| ter** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| *     | As a junior researcher at a \"not top\" research             |
| *Utah | institution, I like the idea of spreading the overhead       |
| State | wealth around a bit. Scholars like myself can have important |
| Un    | roles in grants that are best PI\'d elsewhere because of     |
| ivers | institutional and community resources. Having that           |
| ity** | involvement be recognized through routing of overhead money  |
|       | to our institutions seems like a fair arrangement. I also    |
|       | like the idea of the co-PI that could be an \"advanced       |
|       | apprentice\" \... so someone could co-PI before submitting a |
|       | grant by him/herself and still have a \"true\" grant         |
|       | experience.                                                  |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | As a bioinformaticist, I find great value in promoting       |
| Unive | interdisciplinary research though multiple PIs.              |
| rsity |                                                              |
| of    |                                                              |
| Ark   |                                                              |
| ansas |                                                              |
| at    |                                                              |
| L     |                                                              |
| ittle |                                                              |
| R     |                                                              |
| ock** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | I strongly favor this change. It would be a huge step        |
| Unive | forward and will greatly facilitate collaborative,           |
| rsity | multidisciplinary work.                                      |
| of    |                                                              |
| U     |                                                              |
| tah** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | I think that this is an excellent idea. It will help junior  |
| Unive | faculty in collaborative projects and will help enhance      |
| rsity | their careers. Linked awards will also help in               |
| of    | inter-institutional collaborations.                          |
| Okl   |                                                              |
| ahoma |                                                              |
| H     |                                                              |
| ealth |                                                              |
| Sci   |                                                              |
| ences |                                                              |
| Cen   |                                                              |
| ter** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Mas | Recognition of multiple PIs is critical for clinical         |
| sachu | research now and in the future and it is increasingly        |
| setts | important to recognize multi-disciplinary approaches to      |
| Ge    | basic research. I completely support this important          |
| neral | initiative.                                                  |
| Hospi |                                                              |
| tal** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | We are all aware of cases where the PI of a grant is         |
| Mount | marginally involved in a project that may be run by another  |
| D     | individual who can, at best be referred to as a              |
| esert | co-investigators. For junior faculty level individuals, this |
| I     | can be a tremendous detriment to building a record of        |
| sland | securing and successfully carrying out independent research  |
| Biolo | programs because they have not been adequately recognized    |
| gical | for past achievements.                                       |
| La    |                                                              |
| borat | In another common scenario - many projects have become       |
| ory** | highly multi-disciplinary with many players having different |
|       | expertise integrally involved in the success of the project. |
|       | These individuals should all be recognized and have the      |
|       | opportunity to build their grant records.                    |
|       |                                                              |
|       | I urge you to update this process of naming PIs so it more   |
|       | accurately reflects and recognizes major participants in     |
|       | grant programs. Thanks for the opportunity to express my     |
|       | views about this very important matter.                      |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Col | generally a good idea.                                       |
| umbia |                                                              |
| Un    |                                                              |
| ivers |                                                              |
| ity** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **St. | The most important thing is that the multiple PIs and the    |
| Jude  | instituions of those PIs get credit for the funding coming   |
| C     | to their institution. The current system is creating a       |
| hildr | dis-incentive to do collaborative, \"team\" science.         |
| en\'s |                                                              |
| Res   |                                                              |
| Hospi |                                                              |
| tal** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **B   | I believe that recognizing multiple PI\'s is a recipe for    |
| ioMed | disaster in certain circumstances. PI\'s are highly          |
| ware, | dedicated individuals often with large egos. There thus      |
| Inc** | should be only one leader of a multidisciplinary research    |
|       | effort, and this leader must have the budgetary control that |
|       | goes along with overall responsibility for delivering the    |
|       | research goods to NIH.                                       |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | Thank you for finally taking steps to remedy this problem.   |
| Univ. |                                                              |
| of    |                                                              |
| North |                                                              |
| Carol |                                                              |
| ina - |                                                              |
| C     |                                                              |
| harlo |                                                              |
| tte** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **D   | Potential problems with decision making, authority,          |
| ayton | efficiency.                                                  |
| C     |                                                              |
| COP** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **D   | The ability for NIH to recognize multiple PIs will not only  |
| ePaul | facilitate interdepartmental and interinstitutional          |
| Un    | cooperation in research, but will also help the professional |
| ivers | development of new career researchers. Often, junior-level   |
| ity** | researchers are responsible for the development of new grant |
|       | proposals, but are discouraged from submitting them          |
|       | identifying him/herself as the PI. Permitting both junior-   |
|       | and senior-level researchers to apply as Co-PIs would        |
|       | benefit the mentorship process and permit more accurate      |
|       | recognition of the scholarly contributions made by           |
|       | junior-level researchers.                                    |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **D   | I think it will generally bring more equality in instances   |
| ePaul | where the proposals were truly a joint, collaborative        |
| Un    | effort.                                                      |
| ivers |                                                              |
| ity** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **The | As per above: It is a bad idea. Let the grantee institutions |
| Unive | figure these things out after grants are awarded.            |
| rsity |                                                              |
| of    |                                                              |
| North |                                                              |
| Car   |                                                              |
| olina |                                                              |
| at    |                                                              |
| C     |                                                              |
| hapel |                                                              |
| Hill, |                                                              |
| RTI   |                                                              |
| Inte  |                                                              |
| rnati |                                                              |
| onal, |                                                              |
| Pa    |                                                              |
| cific |                                                              |
| Inst  |                                                              |
| itute |                                                              |
| for   |                                                              |
| Res   |                                                              |
| earch |                                                              |
| a**   |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| *     | For single institution R01 and normal sized and usual R01    |
| *Univ | between institutions, one PI is critical for making sure     |
| Pi    | there is cohesive direction and productivity towards a       |
| ttsbu | singular goal. Science dictated by committee (rather than    |
| rgh** | input from a committee) is guaranteed mediocracy.            |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Multiple PIs would severely hamper my ability to direct R01  |
|       | and get co-investigators to actually deliver.                |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Also, such splitting would complicate getting                |
|       | co-investigators onboard (they will each argue as co-PI      |
|       | splitting the pie into 3, 4, 5 pieces, etc.                  |
|       |                                                              |
|       | As a member of the UPitt Tenure and Promotion committee,     |
|       | this would complicate the issue of who drives grants. For    |
|       | biostats and others that usually are co-investigators, we    |
|       | realize that and have no problems cause they are just        |
|       | co-Investigators. This is a problem that does not actually   |
|       | exist as much as it is discussed.                            |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | In the climate of increased collaborations being essential   |
| Texas | to successful grant proposals, it is critical that all PIs   |
| A&M** | get recognition. This also holds all PIs feet to the fire to |
|       | contribute their fair share to the proposal, rather than     |
|       | have the full responsibility to ensure productivity fall on  |
|       | the single PI as it currently does.                          |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Col | I have often been, and currently am, in the position of      |
| umbia | co-investigator on large NIH awards and have played a        |
| Unive | crucial part in the application for the award and in its     |
| rsity | execution. However, without being named as PI, I receive no  |
| Co    | credit from my administration. Our grants management agency  |
| llege | simply lists grants by PI. Individual credit for senior      |
| of    | investigators will encourage more collaborations among       |
| Physi | experienced investigators.                                   |
| cians |                                                              |
| and   |                                                              |
| Surge |                                                              |
| ons** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **M   | I think it would be a good way to acknowledge when multiple  |
| onell | scientists make equivalent intellectual contributions, but   |
| Cen   | in every proposal, even a highly multidisciplinary one,      |
| ter** | there is always one \'prime motivating force\' that makes    |
|       | sure everything gets done and submitted. This individual     |
|       | bears the brunt of the \'headaches\' associated with         |
|       | mulitdisciplinary, multi-departmental or multi-institutional |
|       | projects in terms of following up, coordinating, planning    |
|       | and motivating. This leadership and effort should be         |
|       | recognized in some way - perhaps by adding a \'Project       |
|       | Leader\' identifier that would also be the contact person    |
|       | for NIH.                                                     |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| *     | Information on the allowable budget range would be very      |
| *Wake | helpful in evaluating the feasibility of this approach. This |
| F     | plan would likely require a higher upper limit than a        |
| orest | regular RO1.                                                 |
| Unive |                                                              |
| rsity |                                                              |
| S     |                                                              |
| chool |                                                              |
| of    |                                                              |
| Medic |                                                              |
| ine** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **U   | I think this is a great idea and will enable collaborations  |
| CSD** | to have greater impact than they have now.                   |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **B   | As expertise becomes more focused and scince becomes more    |
| aylor | translational (roadmap driven), allwoing muliple P.I.\'s     |
| Co    | will encourage interdisciplinary integration without         |
| llege | subordination. Great idea.                                   |
| of    |                                                              |
| Medic |                                                              |
| ine** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | This is an outstanding idea. I\'m using the adjective in an  |
| USC** | NIH manner!                                                  |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Re  | Most current research is colaborative with equal partners.   |
| tired | In the case of junior faculty, promotion and tenure are      |
| from  | highly linked to independence. Therefore it is critical for  |
| A     | them to recieve credit for the level of their participation  |
| cadem | in projects. In the case of senior faculty, pay is affected  |
| ics** | by these criteria. In the case of departments, colleges and  |
|       | administrators the same is true for their performance        |
|       | evaluations. For example, many journals now contain          |
|       | statements of \"equal contributions\" in their author list.  |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| *     | This should have been done 20 years ago. Get moving.         |
| *Duke |                                                              |
| Un    |                                                              |
| ivers |                                                              |
| ity** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Col | Co pi\'s at the same nstitution should be reintroduced as    |
| umbia | \"real\" in the NIH \$ assesment, AT the moment co PIs have  |
| Un    | no immunity against the rule that if they have no full PI    |
| ivers | NIH \$ \--\> they lose their lab                             |
| ity** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | Recognition of multiple PIs is essential to effective        |
| Unive | multidisciplinary research.                                  |
| rsity |                                                              |
| of    |                                                              |
| Sou   |                                                              |
| thern |                                                              |
| Ca    |                                                              |
| lifor |                                                              |
| nia** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | I would strong favor such a plan. For example, in my         |
| Unive | institution, if we have a clinical PI, and a laboratory      |
| rsity | co-PI, even if the majority of the funds go to the           |
| of    | laboratory co-PI, they are not recognized as PI in terms of  |
| Pe    | additional space allocation.                                 |
| nnsyl |                                                              |
| vania |                                                              |
| S     |                                                              |
| chool |                                                              |
| of    |                                                              |
| Medic |                                                              |
| ine** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Mem | We need to create a level playing field for clinical and     |
| orial | laboratory scientists so that they can work most effectively |
| Sloan | together based on mutual respect, equal recognition, and     |
| -Kett | equivalent academic prestige.                                |
| ering |                                                              |
| C     |                                                              |
| ancer |                                                              |
| Cen   |                                                              |
| ter** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | It is essential to recognize multiple PIs. However, the NIH  |
| Unive | should not create additional bureaucracy and paperwork by    |
| rsity | requiring descriptions of management, statements of how      |
| of    | disagreements would be resolved, etc. A description of the   |
| C     | scientific role of each PI and submission of separate        |
| alifo | budgets should be sufficient. Additional descriptions for    |
| rnia, | management usually wind up being \"BS\" anyway. Typically    |
| Irv   | there are unwritten rules of how the research is conducted,  |
| ine** | based on the dynamics of the individuals, experience, and    |
|       | expertise. It is often difficult, if not impossible, to      |
|       | accurately describe how hypothetical situations would be     |
|       | dealt with. The NIH should aim for efficiency and            |
|       | minimization of paperwork.                                   |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| *     | To quote Robert Frost \"Good fences make good neighbors.\"   |
| *Dart | As stated above the question comes down to \"who\'s in       |
| mouth | charge?\" In my experience with co-leadership of any project |
| Coll  | or organization I\'ve seen exactly 3 cases where two         |
| ege** | individuals with perfectly complementary skills (and little  |
|       | discernable ego) worked together as a well balanced team     |
|       | that produced fantastic results (in two of these cases, I    |
|       | might add, the individuals in question are also married to   |
|       | eachother). In the vast majority of cases, the result has    |
|       | either been: a) no one is in charge or b) everyone is in     |
|       | charge. I understand the issues related to promoting         |
|       | collaboration and the importance of shared credit. From a    |
|       | management perspective, unless costs and responsibilities    |
|       | are clearly apportioned, this will be a nightmare. Right the |
|       | impetus for sharing credit is all about the science, but as  |
|       | soon as an award notice is issued to two or more people of   |
|       | equal status on the project, it\'s going to be all about the |
|       | money. If this plan is going forward, I cannot state         |
|       | strongly enough that each multiple PI project must have a    |
|       | clear plan for allocation of resources and responsibilities  |
|       | that is documented from proposal through to the award.       |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
|       | I appreciate the underlying issue but think recognizing      |
|       | multiple PIs would bring new problems that would interfere   |
|       | with research productivity, add a new scale of inefficiency, |
|       | and add burden to NIH staff.                                 |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Ha  | Under this mulitple PI system, it would be helpful to allow  |
| rvard | for mutual IRBs monitored via the eRA link . Furthermore, at |
| Me    | least the IRB training certifications could be standardized. |
| dical | Currently, the institutions implement and recognize their    |
| Sch   | own training mechanisms, in addition to one required by NIH. |
| ool** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
|       | I appreciate the underlying issue but think recognizing      |
|       | multiple PIs would bring new problems that would interfere   |
|       | with research productivity, and add scale of inefficiency    |
|       | and burden to both NIH and institutional staffs.             |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
|       | I appreciate the underlying issue, but think recognizing     |
|       | multiple PIs would bring new problems that would interfere   |
|       | with research productivity, and add a new scale of           |
|       | inefficiency and burden to NIH and institutional staffs.     |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | Good idea to recognize multiple PIs                          |
| Unive |                                                              |
| rsity |                                                              |
| of    |                                                              |
| Penn  |                                                              |
| sylva |                                                              |
| nia** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | I think it is an excellent idea, and long overdue. There is  |
| Unive | too much need for interdisciplinary research, but little     |
| rsity | acknowledgement at the institutional level of the roles of   |
| of    | faculty other than the PI.                                   |
| Wa    |                                                              |
| shing |                                                              |
| ton** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | I think it is an excellent idea to foster collaborative      |
| Unive | research. How to operationalize the leadership structure so  |
| rsity | that it actually works is going to be challenging but it is  |
| of    | well worth taking on this challenge.                         |
| H     |                                                              |
| awaii |                                                              |
| &     |                                                              |
| Johns |                                                              |
| Hopk  |                                                              |
| ins** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Ch  | If such concerns exist then the partner should remain a      |
| arles | subcontract and not a second PI.                             |
| R     |                                                              |
| Drew  | I think it is a great idea. There are exiting templates that |
| Un    | work and the subcontract process is often cumbersome,        |
| ivers | fraught with delays and an impediment to research            |
| ity** | collaborations.                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| *     | Multiple PIs would especially be useful on very large        |
| *Wads | grants, such as some contracts                               |
| worth |                                                              |
| Cen   |                                                              |
| ter** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Vir | Linked awards, the way the NSF implements the process, are   |
| ginia | the solution. Subcontracts involve excess paperwork and the  |
| T     | contribution of the subcontractee is invisible. I\'m the     |
| ech** | subcontractee on an R01, have the bulk of the money, yet     |
|       | nobody can find me in CRISP.                                 |
|       |                                                              |
|       | I think it\'s a great idea whose time has come. Be careful   |
|       | not to allow the \"corresponding PI\" become a de factor     |
|       | \"real PI\". Perhaps you could think about requiring a       |
|       | different one for each of the years of the contract.         |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | The type of projects that I think this would apply would be  |
| Rhode | coordinated by a study chair, who would be in charge. The    |
| I     | budgets will have to be managed carefully. One problem with  |
| sland | the U awards is that the DCC has it\'s own budget and can be |
| Hosp  | unresponsive to the study group if it wants\--there is no    |
| ital/ | leverage. This could apply to the linked awards too if the   |
| Brown | budgets are chopped up too fine\--I suggest having the PI    |
| Me    | named in the grant application get the lion\'s share of the  |
| dical | budget, maybe even all of the budget, so s/he can manage the |
| Sch   | study with some leverage. The co-PI or multiple designation  |
| ool** | should be more for adademic recognition of the unique level  |
|       | of involvement, in CRISP and eRA commons.The type of         |
|       | projects that I think this would apply would be coordinated  |
|       | by a study chair, who would be in charge. The budgets will   |
|       | have to be managed carefully. One problem with the U awards  |
|       | is that the DCC has it\'s own budget and can be unresponsive |
|       | to the study group if it wants\--there is no leverage. This  |
|       | could apply to the linked awards too if the budgets are      |
|       | chopped up too fine\--I suggest having the PI named in the   |
|       | grant application get the lion\'s share of the budget, maybe |
|       | even all of the budget, so s/he can manage the study with    |
|       | some leverage. The co-PI or multiple designation should be   |
|       | more for adademic recognition of the unique level of         |
|       | involvement, in CRISP and eRA commons.                       |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | I have had a lot of experience with subcontract              |
| Unive | arrangements. Some work well but others don\'t. Under the    |
| rsity | subcontract system, a nonperforming site can be cut off      |
| of    | without jeporadizing the entire award. With independent      |
| North | linked awards, there will far less accountability.Although   |
| Car   | the plan for recognizing joint PIs addresses a significant   |
| olina | problem in interdisciplinary teams, it has a big downside in |
| at    | loss of accountability and loss of management tools to carry |
| C     | out a project.                                               |
| hapel |                                                              |
| Hill, |                                                              |
| Dept  |                                                              |
| of    |                                                              |
| M     |                                                              |
| edici |                                                              |
| ne,** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| *     | The multiple PI concept is great. Perhaps this would allow   |
| *UTHS | recognition of the substantial, innovative, and critical     |
| CSA** | work of those exceptional junior faculty that are excluded   |
|       | from PI positions because more senior faculty members have   |
|       | better peer recognition. With this new rule, exceptional     |
|       | junior faculty that have made major contributions could      |
|       | become co-PIs. This could speed up the research career of    |
|       | talented junior faculty that are ready and willing to take   |
|       | on major responsibilities. Right now a lot of talent is lost |
|       | because it just takes too long for a new investigator to     |
|       | become credible enough in front of the peers. A new          |
|       | investigator is criticized when he/she takes on a major      |
|       | responsibility, thus the only solution is to work behind the |
|       | scenes. Unfortunately, when the NIH study sections read the  |
|       | grants, they do not know that many beautiful and innovative  |
|       | ideas were generated by talented junior faculty. The co-PI   |
|       | idea may help distribute the credit more fairly. It is a     |
|       | great idea!                                                  |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Col | I find the recognition of multiple PIs and linked awards     |
| umbia | between institutions essential for the successful            |
| U     | development of collaborative efforts.                        |
| niver |                                                              |
| sity, | The present situation seems to foster tactical plans for the |
| St.   | competitive betterment of the positions of individual        |
| Lu    | investigators, giving the leader another problem to worry    |
| ke\'s | about and leaving all team members in an un-comfortable      |
| Roos  | position. This is not a good foundation for a highly         |
| evelt | successful team !                                            |
| Hos   |                                                              |
| pital | If the boundaries were clearly set from the beginning, the   |
| Cen   | leader and all investigators could focus on achieving        |
| ter** | scientific progress and to better the management or          |
|       | treatment of disease.                                        |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | The \"Linked\" concept seems to have worked well for NSF and |
| Unive | I feel it could be a valuable addition to certain types of   |
| rsity | proposals/awards where the subcontractor is a                |
| of    | significant/equal contributor. Currently investigators who   |
| W     | are PI on a subcontract (rather than the prime award) do not |
| iscon | receive as much credit/recognition for their contribution    |
| sin - | and in some cases their role is significant. In addition,    |
| Madi  | delays associated with the administrative aspects of setting |
| son** | up multiple large subcontracts on any given award can have a |
|       | negative impact on the project. Project management could be  |
|       | greatly facilitated if linked awards made directly to the    |
|       | institutions involved were implemented for larger projects.  |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | As suggested in prior comments, there are times in large     |
| Unive | multi institutional efforts that strong central leadership   |
| rsity | is needed to resolve issues of scientific and operational    |
| of    | disagreement and keep a program on track. Linked awards      |
| PE    | would make this more difficult. One way to mitigate this     |
| NN/AC | would be to have an overall PI that works closely with NIH   |
| RIN** | program staff to approtion the linked awards yearly in the   |
|       | best interest of the project.                                |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | There should be a mechanism to recognize more than one PI    |
| Women | from the same lab. Junior scientists often become the        |
| and   | driving force behind a project, as they mature. But          |
| Infa  | frequently, junior scientists have to leave to achieve       |
| nt\'s | independence. This results in down time for both the mentor  |
| Hos   | and the person leaving. It would be useful to allow juniors  |
| pital | a means to achieve recognition and parity in the environment |
| and   | where they have been productive. The current practice of     |
| Brown | assigning Co-PI status on a grant really has very little     |
| Un    | meaning on resumes for promotion and hiring committees.      |
| ivers |                                                              |
| ity** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| *     | I think multiple PIs should be recognized within the         |
| *Yale | institution and within the departments themselves. Many      |
| U     | times, there is truly more than one true PI on grants and    |
| niver | they are listed as co-PIs, but don\'t have enough say in the |
| sity, | projects                                                     |
| Sch.  |                                                              |
| Med** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Me  | There can be only one PI. Some of the push to award multiple |
| dical | PIs is from faculty needing PI status for promotion and      |
| Co    | tenure. The Associate PI position I mentioned above could    |
| llege | help in that regard if it comes with an announcement by the  |
| of    | NIH regarding its elevated status. However, there needs to   |
| Geor  | be one contact person - one person who takes responsibility  |
| gia** | for all the animal care and human assurance problems that    |
|       | may develop, responsibility for all budgetary problems that  |
|       | develop, and who gets the credit for the successful conduct  |
|       | of the research. This person usually is the one who          |
|       | developed the central hypothesis and the Specific Aims.      |
|       | Although there may be a small percentage of truly co-PI      |
|       | situations, this is not enough to warrant a change from a    |
|       | system that is so consistent with the scientific process: A  |
|       | person has an hypothesis and designs a study to test it.     |
|       | That is the PI. Certainly others help, and they usually have |
|       | positions on the paper that reflect the degree of help, i.e. |
|       | first author who really ran the study, or other author. Some |
|       | of the push may be over a fight for indirect dollars in the  |
|       | case of multi-site awards, but that could be addressed in    |
|       | other ways. With multiple PI's I envision a situation where  |
|       | many people want credit for the grant, but they probably     |
|       | would all point to the true PI for any problems that         |
|       | develop. That is the person who should be the sole PI. Peer  |
|       | review also would be a mess with multiple PIs. I'm not       |
|       | saying it couldn't be done, but it certainly would           |
|       | complicate the process.                                      |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | This would be beneficial in multiple situations, especially  |
| Unive | when the PI\'s strengths complement each other, and in cases |
| rsity | when succession may be an issue,                             |
| of    |                                                              |
| Chic  |                                                              |
| ago** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | Multiple PIs would definitely improve interdisciplinary      |
| North | research in the following ways: -increased incentive for     |
| Shor  | collaborators to make the project a priority over other      |
| e-LIJ | projects/duties -gives younger PIs a better chance at        |
| Res   | funding -allows scientists from smaller institutions a       |
| earch | better chance of establishing and being involved in funded   |
| I     | projects. The current system favors scientists from larger   |
| nstit | institutions but all the good ideas don\'t come from there.  |
| ute** | -multiple PIs will allow investigators from different        |
|       | institutions to more effectively work together (allowing     |
|       | multiple PIs can effectively tear down the artificial wall   |
|       | forcing people to only look \"in house\" for collaborators.  |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | THis notion of recogizing multiple PIs should especially     |
| Unive | help junior faculty who are part of larger centers and       |
| rsity | consortia to gain the necessary recognition for their quest  |
| of    | to attain tenure as well as promotion. Thank you for         |
| Miss  | hasseling with the though problem of placing metrics on      |
| ouri- | intellectual pursuits. If I have any concern it is the \$\$  |
| Colum | = quality of research, but we live with \# publications =    |
| bia** | quality, so this may not be differnt.                        |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Col | It sounds like you have already decided to go ahead with     |
| umbia | this multiple PI plan. Again, I think it is a mistake that   |
| Un    | will result in even more of our time being spent in grants   |
| ivers | administration.                                              |
| ity** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | The major issue that MUST be addressed is credit on awards   |
| Unive | and manuscripts for young faculty in the tenure track. NIH   |
| rsity | could facilitiate this process by providing special          |
| of    | recognition for multiple site grants and/or working with     |
| Ariz  | university administrators to ensure that appropriate credit  |
| ona** | is given for joint/multiple PIs and joint publications. At   |
|       | present, most university P&T processes are working from the  |
|       | traditional \"proof of independence\" model which is sadly   |
|       | outmoded but nevertheless strongly influences how young      |
|       | faculty apply for grants. They are inevitably directed by    |
|       | department chairs and P&T committes to apply for the \"gold  |
|       | standard,\" \"RO1\" where the competition is fierce. This    |
|       | pernicious process has to stop or we will lose many of our   |
|       | best young minds in science.                                 |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Col | seems like a great idea, especially since it will endable    |
| umbia | one to create a proposal that is more comprehensive, and     |
| Un    | could address more in depth issues by pooling expertise of   |
| ivers | two investigators. Also will be useful for mentoring, since  |
| ity** | people who apply together generally read each others         |
|       | applications much more critically. It isn\'t easy to find    |
|       | someone who will spend the time to do this unless that have  |
|       | a personal interest in getting the funding. Being a true     |
|       | co-PI is a pretty motivating factor.                         |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Vir | I believe multiple PIs on grants will encourage more         |
| ginia | collaboration, foster sharing of supplies, technicians and   |
| Co    | equipment.                                                   |
| mmonw |                                                              |
| ealth | It is becoming more and more difficult for a single PI to    |
| Un    | maintain an RO1, and in addtion particpate in collaborative  |
| ivers | grant proposals. The current priority and benchmark for      |
| ity** | tenure track faculty is to be the PI on at least one NIH     |
|       | funded R01award.                                             |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Multiple PIs will also help to promote basic                 |
|       | science-clinical collaborations by allowing PhDs and MDs to  |
|       | work together and get equal credit. The current system       |
|       | places a high value on the PI, discouraging efforts to be    |
|       | listed as a collaborator and commit a significant % on ones  |
|       | total effort.                                                |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
|       | Please recognize and take into account the accomplishments   |
|       | of community-based practitioners when it comes to evaluating |
|       | the credentials of PIs. Not all \'credentials\' are earned   |
|       | in the lab. Some are earned through real-life work and       |
|       | accumulated expertise.                                       |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | Departmental Ranking Table was only for Colleges of          |
| Unive | Medicine. NIH awards grants to other Colleges - eg Arts and  |
| rsity | Science as well as Agriculture and Life Sciences.            |
| of    |                                                              |
| Flor  |                                                              |
| ida** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Vir | Even though I do not know how departmental ranking will      |
| ginia | affect Virginia Tech, I do not believe that it is necessary. |
| T     | Any sort of ranking tends to degenerate into a measuring     |
| ech** | standard for competition rather than a reward for good work. |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| *     | Institutional indirect cost credit must be determined before |
| *Univ | this process is implemented. There should be Indirect Cost   |
| of    | creditied to each PI in proportion to their budget           |
| M     | responsibilities. Without this, PI\'s within Departments at  |
| innes | institutions where a fraction of indirect cost recovery      |
| ota** | supports infrastructure will be at a significant             |
|       | disadvantage.                                                |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **M   | In general, collaborations between a larger, more research   |
| organ | intensive institution and a smaller college or university    |
| State | puts the smaller institution at a disadvantage because the   |
| Un    | collaborator on the latter campus is unlikely to be the      |
| ivers | primary P.I. A similar imbalance exists when a more senior   |
| ity** | and a more junior investigator collaborate. There is         |
|       | frequently pressure for the more senior investigator to be   |
|       | the P.I. and the junior one to be the Co-Pi. It would very   |
|       | much help therefore to recognize more then one P.I. in       |
|       | situations were contributions are equal between              |
|       | collaborators and institutions. Independent funding          |
|       | allocation, such as in linked awards, will allow each        |
|       | collaborating institution to receive full credit for the     |
|       | research conducted and NIH \$\$ awarded.                     |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | Not all multi-investigator projects are at the level of a    |
| Unive | program project grant. I envision that a simplified process  |
| rsity | to facilitate multi-investigator grants, would increase      |
| of    | collaborations, and would strengthen subsequent PPG          |
| Miss  | applications if the research interactions warrant.           |
| ouri- |                                                              |
| Colum |                                                              |
| bia** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | I think it is particularly good to recognize multiple PI\'s  |
| North | on program grants                                            |
| Shore |                                                              |
| -Long |                                                              |
| I     |                                                              |
| sland |                                                              |
| J     |                                                              |
| ewish |                                                              |
| I     |                                                              |
| nstit |                                                              |
| ute** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
|       | While, I think it allows for greater recognition of those    |
|       | equally involved with project, my main concern would be that |
|       | more advanced or senior researchers would be expected to be  |
|       | put on as a PI of a grant initiated by a more junior faculty |
|       | member simply because of their status, rather than           |
|       | contribution. Questions I would want addressed would be:     |
|       | what level of effort would be required to make one eligible  |
|       | as a PI; how does multiple PIs with different qualifications |
|       | affect decision-making; would there be an inequity of senior |
|       | researchers being added to proposals or does this policy     |
|       | allow for newer researchers to be acknowledged as a PI when  |
|       | they would not have otherwise; would this solve territorial  |
|       | problems or promote greater power struggles?                 |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Mem | Excellent plan for recognition of multidisciplinary          |
| ber** | research. But adding layers of fiscal administration will be |
|       | a burden for everyone, without compensatory benefits         |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | PI/official Co-PI is a good concept and give the importance  |
| Univ. | and weightage to all responsible participating investigators |
| TX    |                                                              |
| HSC   |                                                              |
| at    |                                                              |
| San   |                                                              |
| Anto  |                                                              |
| nio** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Vir | In order not to let the \"corresponding PI\" become the de   |
| ginia | facto \"real PI\", that role should be fulfilled by a        |
| T     | different PI each fiscal year. That will also help the team  |
| ech** | stay more cohesive and encourage better joint leadership.    |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | R01 is for individual grant. Grants with the multiple PIs    |
| Unive | should be considered as program project grants. I disagree   |
| rsity | with allowing multiple PIs on R01 grants. Otherwise, R01     |
| of    | grants will become just like P grants.                       |
| R     |                                                              |
| oches |                                                              |
| ter** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **New | This would be a great boon to newer investigators who must   |
| York  | always step back to let a more experienced investigator who  |
| Unive | is more likely to get funding (because of the track record)  |
| rsity | always be the PI on the project. There is little to no       |
| S     | recognition for being a co-investigator even though he or    |
| chool | she may be doing most of the work.                           |
| of    |                                                              |
| Medic |                                                              |
| ine** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | This plan is long overdue                                    |
| Unive |                                                              |
| rsity |                                                              |
| of    |                                                              |
| Al    |                                                              |
| abama |                                                              |
| at    |                                                              |
| Bi    |                                                              |
| rming |                                                              |
| ham** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | What will become a mechanism like the P01s? Will multiple PI |
| NCI** | R01s replace P01s down the road? What are the boundries for  |
|       | use of this mechanism?                                       |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| *     | As NIH proposals become more and more interdisciplinary      |
| *M.D. | there is a valid need for recognizing multiple PIs on NIH    |
| And   | grants so that PIs can get a well deserved recognition for   |
| erson | their work within their appointed institution and at NIH.    |
| C     | For example, at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center our promotions   |
| ancer | and tenure is based on how many grants we serve as PIs       |
| Ce    | versus Co-I. The work that goes into a grant as a Co-I is    |
| nter, | comparable to the work put forth by the PI, therefore the    |
| The   | system needs reform in order to recognize all individuals    |
| Unive | equally on a grant.                                          |
| rsity |                                                              |
| of    |                                                              |
| Te    |                                                              |
| xas** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **P   | I think it is a great idea, especially in this time of       |
| urdue | interdisciplinary science. It will be important, however, to |
| Un    | monitor these to see if requested budgets on grants now      |
| ivers | suddenly expand in size as both PI\'s want a \"full-scale\"  |
| ity** | R01-type budget out of a single application.                 |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | Provide an opportunity to share credit and encourage strong  |
| Unive | commitment from all key personal.                            |
| rsity |                                                              |
| of    |                                                              |
| Kentu |                                                              |
| cky** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | A single-proposal format would be best even though multiple  |
| Unive | institutions are involved. In this case there would be       |
| rsity | advance cooperation between parties to provide a working     |
| of    | basis with mutual agreement by all as to tasks, credits,     |
| T     | funds, etc. Any intellectual property obtained should be     |
| ennes | assigned to the originating institution for tech transfer. A |
| see** | single final report should be submitted.                     |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **NJ  | The recognition of multiple PIs would eliminate the          |
| IT/Ru | disparity in projects where there is truly equal             |
| tgers | contribution to the project mangement.                       |
| Un    |                                                              |
| ivers |                                                              |
| ity** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Bra | I think it\'s certainly true that cross-disciplinary,        |
| ndeis | cross-departmental and cross-institutional research is - or  |
| Un    | at any rate, should be - the wave of the future. I also      |
| ivers | think the NIH has had a good mechanism in place for years to |
| ity** | facilitate this: the Program Project Grants (PO1s or PPGs).  |
|       | I do not understand, especially in view of the Roadmap       |
|       | initiative, why so many of the Institutes at NIH seem to shy |
|       | away from funding more of these kinds of grant. PPGs appear  |
|       | to be the poor stepsister in the family of NIH support       |
|       | mechanisms, and that makes no sense to me. My honest opinion |
|       | is that throwing increased support behind the PPG mechanism  |
|       | would be a bettr long-term solution than the partly cosmetic |
|       | or band-aid approach of permitting multiple PIs on RO1       |
|       | grants, but if that is all that can be done at this time, I  |
|       | would strongly support such a change. I think everything     |
|       | possible needs to be done to encourage collaborative         |
|       | endeavors in biomedical research, not only because the       |
|       | science demands it but also because we have to find ways of  |
|       | allocating our resources more efficiently.                   |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | It is an excllent idea. multiple PIs within the individual   |
| Queen | institutions should also be offered similar arrangements.    |
| sland |                                                              |
| Inst  |                                                              |
| itute |                                                              |
| of    |                                                              |
| Me    |                                                              |
| dical |                                                              |
| Resea |                                                              |
| rch** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Sta | Great idea, long overdue.                                    |
| nford |                                                              |
| Unive |                                                              |
| rsity |                                                              |
| Me    |                                                              |
| dical |                                                              |
| Sch   |                                                              |
| ool** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | Recognizing all PI, especially on program project grants,    |
| Unive | would be helpful. In addition, I think that the dialogue     |
| rsity | that NIH has started about these issues is good and will     |
| of    | hopefully lead to improvements in the system.                |
| Texas |                                                              |
| H     |                                                              |
| ealth |                                                              |
| Sc    |                                                              |
| ience |                                                              |
| C     |                                                              |
| enter |                                                              |
| San   |                                                              |
| Anto  |                                                              |
| nio** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | It is time to start treating collaborating PI\'s as \"real\" |
| Unive | scientists in all possible ways rather than as secondary     |
| rsity | scientists. This will lead to more collaborations, which     |
| of    | will facilitate the progress of science.                     |
| Miami |                                                              |
| S     |                                                              |
| chool |                                                              |
| of    |                                                              |
| Medic |                                                              |
| ine** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| *     | One cannot overstate the potential impact this policy could  |
| *Mayo | have on facilitating the entry of younger investigators into |
| C     | academic research. Currently the average scientist recieves  |
| linic | their first R01 at \>40 years of age \-- leading to marked   |
| Co    | discouragement and attrition. This could be greatly          |
| llege | expedited by facilitating earlier (recognized) PI            |
| of    | experience\...and for academic institutions that translates  |
| Medic | to how much money is under your own name.                    |
| ine** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Ha  | I believe that multiple PI\'s should be recognized and some  |
| rvard | way of assigning \"value\" to each developed. I am concerned |
| Me    | that anything like this will, however, add a level of        |
| dical | administrative complexity to an already challenging job. On  |
| Sch   | the other hand, it is really important to do this in the     |
| ool** | interests of collaborative work. I would suggest piloting    |
|       | this at an institution (or two) with a good track record in  |
|       | managing complex grants. They might be able to develop       |
|       | operational policies that could be replicated by others as   |
|       | the plan is rolled out.                                      |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | I think it is important to recognize and support             |
| Unive | collaborations. Requesting a \"leadership plan\" is a        |
| rsity | reasonable way to parse some of the difficulties. The fact   |
| of    | that dollars do not necessarily track with contribution is   |
| Virgi | true, but inevitable\...we have the same problem with        |
| nia** | respect to the Departmental rankings.                        |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
|       | I support the idea that there should be able to be more than |
|       | one \"PI\". From a personal career-growth perspective, the   |
|       | current model does not offer prestige to anyone except the   |
|       | PI.                                                          |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **The | It would be adequate if the NIH simply gave credit to the    |
| Ohio  | two PIs in the form of equal standing and let them work out  |
| State | the details. One special situation that guides my thinking   |
| Unive | is a series of grants with a colleague on which the two of   |
| rsity | us have been co-PIs, with my being the PI of record on one   |
| Co    | and he the PI of record on another. This symmetry itself     |
| llege | solves many management problems.                             |
| of    |                                                              |
| Medic |                                                              |
| ine** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | Overall I think it\'s a good idea. Being a co-PI does not    |
| Unive | carry the same cachet with some university administrators.   |
| rsity | If a particular situation warrants having two PI\'s to get   |
| of    | the research done and for everyone to feel good about it,    |
| Sou   | then I see no reason not to have the new policy.             |
| thern |                                                              |
| Ca    |                                                              |
| lifor |                                                              |
| nia** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Ion | As an industrial scientist doing NIH supported research      |
| Op    | through the SBIR program, the subcontrctor arrangement may   |
| tics, | have to be kept for this type of collaboration due to legal  |
| I     | issues involved. But I am very much aware that I should give |
| nc.** | full credit to the lead researcher for his/her contributions |
|       | at colaborating institutions.                                |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | I think NIH\'s plan to recognize multiple PIs is very        |
| Scien | positive and long over due! Many (most?) scientific projects |
| tific | involve multiple PIs from multiple departments and research  |
| Comp  | institutes. NIH needs to recognize the often multiple PI and |
| uting | multidisciplinary nature of such projects and formerly       |
| and   | acknowledge multiple PIs.                                    |
| Im    |                                                              |
| aging |                                                              |
| Insti |                                                              |
| tute, |                                                              |
| Unive |                                                              |
| rsity |                                                              |
| of    |                                                              |
| U     |                                                              |
| tah** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| *     | As an investigator with prior NEI R01 funding and co-PI on   |
| *Asso | currently active Canadian Institutes of Health Research      |
| ciate | (CIHR) grants, I see great value in recognizing the co-PI    |
| P     | model since contributions of co-grantees are often equal in  |
| rofes | workload and merit.                                          |
| sor** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Mem | The definition of primary and secondary institutions imply a |
| orial | de facto PI and subordinates similar to the present          |
| Sloan | situation wtih grants. However, the ease of adminstration    |
| -Kett | would seem to outweigh this concern.                         |
| ering |                                                              |
| C     |                                                              |
| ancer |                                                              |
| Cen   |                                                              |
| ter** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| *     | I do agree that NIH should allow muliple PIs in one grant.   |
| *Univ | With the current research environment, it is important for   |
| Sou   | many people to collaborate on an important scientific issue. |
| thern | It is very important to give credits to the many people      |
| Ca    | involved, in particular, the PIs. Currently with NIH, only   |
| lifor | the PI are creditted and this is not good for the scientific |
| nia** | community.                                                   |
|       |                                                              |
|       | However I do think it is important for one person to be      |
|       | responsible for the entire budget and not subdivide the      |
|       | budget significantly as this will involve some problems in   |
|       | the long run. I have an NSF grant with PI and co-PI and we   |
|       | work very effectively in managing the budget. However I do   |
|       | think one person should have the final say when              |
|       | disagreements happens.                                       |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **The | This is a great idea, it will energize the community and     |
| Unive | ensure that everyone gets appropriate credit from their      |
| rsity | departments for the work they do on projects.                |
| of    |                                                              |
| Mont  |                                                              |
| ana** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Hos | Multiple PIs and Linked Awards is a very good, and timely    |
| iptal | concelpt. However, this must be left up to the principle     |
| for   | people involved on the grants, not the institutes, and must  |
| Sp    | be decided on before submission of the grant . Difficulties  |
| ecial | will probably arise when there is a single PI and a          |
| Surg  | co-investigator later claims they should have been a PI      |
| ery** | also. Documentation will be important to justify multiple    |
|       | PIs, probably in the grant application itself, since         |
|       | promotion, salary, and tenure issues will come into question |
|       | at a later date when credit for being a PI on an NIH grant   |
|       | is part of the criteria for advancement.                     |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| *     | It is about time we have this sort of arrangement of         |
| *Marq | multiple PIs. Very important for the biomedical engineering  |
| uette | community.                                                   |
| Un    |                                                              |
| ivers |                                                              |
| ity** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **O   | I think subcontracts with a secondary institution is by      |
| regon | definition a hierarchical relationship, and that this can    |
| Res   | ofte be appropriate. I am opposed to multiple PI             |
| earch | arrangements, even in the situation of subcontracts. The     |
| I     | multi-site projects done by CDC under cooperative agreements |
| nstit | designates a single PI at each site. Each award is           |
| ute** | negotiated separately, etc. I think their system is the only |
|       | way in which projects across multiple sites should use       |
|       | multiple PIs.                                                |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | Please take a proactive stand on this critical matter and    |
| Emory | thank you for providing an open forum for dialogue.          |
| Unive |                                                              |
| rsity |                                                              |
| S     |                                                              |
| chool |                                                              |
| of    |                                                              |
| Medic |                                                              |
| ine** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **UC  | This is a superb idea!! Any way to make it retroactive for   |
| San   | currently funded grants with subcontracts? This would allow  |
| Di    | you to assess the effects of multiple PIs quickly.           |
| ego** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **u   | I think its a terrible idea to have more than one PI on a    |
| csf** | project. This will create all kinds of problems, and prevent |
|       | responsibility for a grant from being identified             |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| *     | I suppose this affects their status and tenure etc.          |
| *Scri | Allocating more money to the hypothetical mathematicion      |
| pps** | because of his/her intellectual contribution seems to ignore |
|       | the fact that biological experiments require more people and |
|       | resouces. Should NIH be involved in another administrative   |
|       | social engineering project that will drain scarce research   |
|       | funds to satisfy the satisfy the perceived slights of a few? |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | A good idea to recognize multiple PIs, but a bad idea to get |
| Johns | down to sub-crediting the dollars and cents.                 |
| Ho    |                                                              |
| pkins |                                                              |
| Un    |                                                              |
| ivers |                                                              |
| ity** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **U   | There are many advantages to this plan and few               |
| CSF** | disadvantages. One advantage, not listed, is the chance to   |
|       | transition leadership of a grant over time.                  |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Col | This is a good thing.                                        |
| umbia |                                                              |
| U.**  |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| *     | would facilitate seamless transition when PI moves from to   |
| *Harv | different institution                                        |
| ard - |                                                              |
| BI    |                                                              |
| DMC** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | I think it will promote team work and regular interaction    |
| Child | among colleagues                                             |
| en\'s |                                                              |
| Hos   |                                                              |
| pital |                                                              |
| Bos   |                                                              |
| ton** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Vir | In my experience, the greatest source of inequity is when    |
| ginia | artificial limits are placed on the number of PIs or co-PIs  |
| P     | allowed on a proposal by an agency, the limit of 4 co-PIs on |
| olyte | NSF proposals being my greatest source of frustration. Some  |
| chnic | projects involve many faculty collaborating on a equal       |
| Inst  | status, and forcing PIs to categorise their collaborators    |
| itute | introduces unnecessary tension.                              |
| and   |                                                              |
| State |                                                              |
| Un    |                                                              |
| ivers |                                                              |
| ity** |                                                              |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Vir | If you need to, increase the recognition of co-investigators |
| ginia | instead. Even in a team science approach, one person needs   |
| T     | to be in charge of the project, and that is the PI. You will |
| ech** | just end up replacing the current system of PI and Co-I\'s   |
|       | with an identical system of a lead PI and othe PI\'s. Only   |
|       | the names will change.                                       |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+