+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Affil  | **Comments on Allocation**                                |
| iation** |                                                           |
+==========+===========================================================+
| *        | facilitate the formation of teams                         |
| *College |                                                           |
| of St.   |                                                           |
| Cat      |                                                           |
| herine** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| *        | Increasingly, institutions already have mechanisms in     |
| *Indiana | place locally that have the same impact as apportionment. |
| Univ     | Such mechanisms include dividing an award into linked     |
| ersity** | grant accounts that are managed by each PI or Co-PI as    |
|          | well as the ability to assign intellectual credit for     |
|          | grant awards for internal reporting purposes. These local |
|          | mechanisms accomplish the underlying goals in both a more |
|          | efficient and effective manner than the proposed changes  |
|          | outlined here.                                            |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **The    | The apportionment of a budget to each investigator in a   |
| Un       | research team will interfere with the operation of a      |
| iversity | research project. The preparation of the Leadership Plan  |
| of       | in the application is another administrative section to   |
| C        | be included that does not add to the overall scientific   |
| hicago** | direction of the research. Additionally, the Plan should  |
|          | not be included in the Peer Review process as it does not |
|          | add to the overall scientific mission of the project.     |
|          | Allocating funds at the time of award will make           |
|          | implementing necessary changes more bureaucratic and      |
|          | administratively difficult.                               |
|          |                                                           |
|          | The University of Chicago has internal mechanisms through |
|          | our financial systems to allocate funds to individual     |
|          | investigators. We should be allowed to continue to manage |
|          | our awards through the current processes. Requiring NIH   |
|          | approval to re-budget (unless there is a 25% change per   |
|          | the current Grants Policy) would add an administrative    |
|          | complexity that is unnecessary.                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Boston | The arrangement is more equitable in theory and less      |
| Univ     | cumbersome in practice. To foster true interdisciplinary  |
| School   | research within a team framework, it is time to effect a  |
| of       | \"separate but equal\" administrative structure rather    |
| Me       | than the traditional \"project leader and subordinate\"   |
| dicine** | hierarchical structure. Many research projects are truly  |
|          | a joint effort and the funding mechanisms should reflect  |
|          | this.                                                     |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **       | We endorse the comments of the Council on Governmental    |
| Partners | Relations (COGR).                                         |
| He       |                                                           |
| althCare |                                                           |
| System,  |                                                           |
| Inc.**   |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Tufts  | 9b: Apportionment on NoA seems necessary if the grant is  |
| Uni      | submitted this way. However, it may be cumbersome to      |
| versity, | track changes more than once per year. Further, an easy & |
| M        | flexible system for changes of apportionment would be     |
| edford** | best because, once the budget is agreed upon,             |
|          | re-allocation of funds, for example, to research          |
|          | assistants at different institutions, may be best for the |
|          | project and should not require additional paperwork. In   |
|          | other words, after the initial apportionment in NoA, let  |
|          | the PIs decide how to re-allocate funds, as needed, with  |
|          | no or minimal additional paperwork.                       |
|          |                                                           |
|          | 9c depends upon the strength of the relationship between  |
|          | the PIs involved (see also 9b comments). It can           |
|          | facilitate funding of equipment, resources, and personnel |
|          | over the current system. However, any disagreements       |
|          | between PIs may interfere, but this may be minimized by   |
|          | having an initial apportionment in NoA.                   |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | It is key to give teams this option because some will     |
| iversity | want to decide these things up front to eliminate         |
| of       | competition within the team. Requiring apportionment in   |
| C        | all cases, and tracking it, should not interfere with a   |
| hicago** | mature team using a more flexible approach (as long as    |
|          | the apportionment can be changed), but will obviously     |
|          | induce much more paperwork.                               |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **The    | First of all, we do not support the premise that there    |
| Chi      | should be multiple PI's on a project. We have responded   |
| ldren\'s | to OSTP's Request for Information to express this         |
| Hospital | fundamental viewpoint. In our experience, projects have a |
| of       | leader who takes greater responsibility, although his or  |
| Philad   | her intellectual contribution may be matched by other     |
| elphia** | participants. We support the notion of a single PI and    |
|          | the recognition of multiple Co-PI's.                      |
|          |                                                           |
|          | As a result, we do not support the notion of apportioning |
|          | the budget by the funding agency to each PI or to each    |
|          | Co-PI. Whatever is gained by recognizing the contribution |
|          | of multiple investigators will be lost by the greatly     |
|          | reduced flexibility and local control that PI's now have  |
|          | to move funds to accommodate changes in the research. It  |
|          | will interfer with the day-to-day management of the       |
|          | project and add considerable paperwork burden.            |
|          | Presumably, moving funds from one part of a project to    |
|          | another could require permission of the funding, and a    |
|          | reissuance of multiple Notices of Grant Award. This runs  |
|          | counter to the intent and result of the Expanded          |
|          | Authorities that grantee institutions enjoy. It is also   |
|          | at odds with the modular grant budgeting requirements.    |
|          | Institutions routinely treat program projects by          |
|          | providing separate accounts to the individual projects    |
|          | and the PPG cores. This practice could be extended to     |
|          | other grant or contract mechanisms to provide Co-PI's     |
|          | with recognition, responsibility and accountability for   |
|          | their aspects of the overall project. By leaving it as an |
|          | internal, institutional decision provides institutions    |
|          | with flexibility and eliminates unnecessary paperwork     |
|          | with the awarding agency.                                 |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | UC supports efforts to recognize the contributions of all |
| iversity | team members in a collaborative project, but questions    |
| of       | whether apportionment of funds to individual              |
| Cali     | investigators is an effective means of achieving this     |
| fornia** | goal. Apportionment of a single institutional budget to   |
|          | individuals would greatly increase the administrative     |
|          | burden associated with managing the award, and would      |
|          | hinder the flexibility of investigators to move funds in  |
|          | response to the changing needs of a project. Furthermore, |
|          | the apportionment of funds to individuals might undermine |
|          | the cohesion of a group and could create potential        |
|          | conflicts among PIs. We encourage the NIH to consider     |
|          | alternative ways in which to recognize the valuable       |
|          | contributions of individual investigators.                |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Nort   | 9a. NIH should better define the grant mechanisms the     |
| hwestern | policy of multiple PI would apply to. There is no mention |
| Univ     | of this in the guidelines, although the emphasis seems to |
| ersity** | be on large multi- and inter-disciplinary projects. At a  |
|          | presentation by an NIH representative at the May, 2005    |
|          | Federal Demonstration Partnership meeting, NIH indicated  |
|          | that multiple PIs was not meant to apply to R01s. The     |
|          | distinction is important because the administrative       |
|          | burden and procedures would be substantially different    |
|          | for an R01 than for a P01. For example, NU may be able to |
|          | assign award credit to multiple PIs on an R01, but would  |
|          | not be able to submit multiple budgets as the NIH         |
|          | guidelines only discuss this possibility in terms of      |
|          | large, complex grants. Further, guidance is still needed  |
|          | on how to handle individual projects within a P01, e.g.,  |
|          | would NIH allow division of an individual project budget  |
|          | into several components? NU supports award credit to each |
|          | of the PIs but apportionment of the budget only to the    |
|          | level of the individual project.                          |
|          |                                                           |
|          | 9b. NIH should report budget apportionment on the NoA but |
|          | should not track changes during the life of the award.    |
|          | Internal rebudgeting is allowed under expanded            |
|          | authorities and should continue to be up to the           |
|          | institution. NIH should consider the difference between   |
|          | reporting budget apportionment on the NoA and reporting   |
|          | award credit, as intellectual contributions to particular |
|          | projects rarely track exactly with costs or expenditures  |
|          | related to individual projects. A more accurate           |
|          | representation of the intellectual involvement of the PIs |
|          | would be award credit.                                    |
|          |                                                           |
|          | 9c. Apportionment will facilitate cooperation of the      |
|          | research team for large projects and provide expenditure  |
|          | credit to the PIs based on their individual budgets and   |
|          | where the work is actually being carried out.             |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | I am a current PI of the UR HIV Vaccine Trials Unit, and  |
| iversity | under the new RFA for NIAID AIDS Clinical Research        |
| of       | Networks, I will no longer be able to keep my PI status   |
| Roc      | as we are consolidating our 2 clinical research programs  |
| hester** | (this consolidation was pretty much mandatory per the     |
|          | RFA). I am hoping my chances for career advancement       |
|          | don\'t suffer significantly as a result of \"losing my    |
|          | funding\", but frankly I am not optimistic. I am          |
|          | concerned that the NIAID requirement for program          |
|          | consolidation will force many junior investigators out of |
|          | academia (unless you are successful in changing the way   |
|          | that academic credit is recognized at universities).      |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | The University at Albany, SUNY\'s Office for Sponsored    |
| iversity | Programs already tracks this data. Identification of PIs  |
| at       |                                                           |
| Albany,  | The apportionment of a budget to each investigator in a   |
| SUNY**   | research team will interfere with the operation of a      |
|          | research project. While it is tempting to recognize       |
|          | intellectual contributions through the allocation of      |
|          | funds or the identification of intellectual effort, the   |
|          | reporting in the NoA and tracking of the apportionment of |
|          | the budget throughout the project undermines the          |
|          | flexibility and efficiencies gained through the expanded  |
|          | authorities and the implementation of the modular grant   |
|          | process. The goal of recognizing the contributions of     |
|          | each member of a team of researchers is excellent, but    |
|          | dividing up a project either through the budget or some   |
|          | similar allocation of effort or responsibilities (with or |
|          | without dividing up the budget) will raise concerns in    |
|          | accounting and accountability. This approach will make it |
|          | more difficult to move funds around within a project when |
|          | the scientific activities require it. These allocations   |
|          | of either resources or contribution, similar to changes   |
|          | in sub awards and levels of effort may require NIH prior  |
|          | approvals and are likely to become subject to audits.     |
|          | Universities can typically set up related linked accounts |
|          | if there is some particular reason to do so. It also      |
|          | seems counter-intuitive to take a project that is clearly |
|          | a team project and subdivide it into components making it |
|          | appear that one expects each component to function        |
|          | independently. Finally, allocation of credit by budget    |
|          | dollars is a poor indicator of the intellectual           |
|          | importance of the co-investigators' contributions.        |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **D      | Although we would not want to preclude other institutions |
| irector, | from being able to apportion dollars as they see fit, we  |
| Office   | would prefer to maintain our current procedures re:       |
| for      | allocation of funds, in keeping with the                  |
| S        | single-point-of-accountability model currently in place   |
| ponsored | (i.e., even if there are multiple PIs, there is one PI    |
| Pr       | who is identified as ultimately accountable for the       |
| ograms** | project and who is responsible for allocation of funds    |
|          | according to the mutual consent of the investigators, as  |
|          | indicated on the proposal.)                               |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Boston | Each research team has to have a clear leadership,        |
| Un       | whether it is a multi-centered study or a                 |
| iversity | multidisciplinary effort within the same university.      |
| School   | Appoortionment would dilute that leadership and create    |
| of       | unimaginable administrative nightmares. Another way to    |
| Medicine | solve this problem is to give status/credit to            |
| and      | co-investigators within NIH so individuals who have been  |
| School   | co-investigators will appear in CRISP and not appear to   |
| of       | be new to research when they submit as principal          |
| Public   | investigators.                                            |
| Health** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | Apportionment of funds divides, rather than unites,       |
| iversity | multiple PIs on a project. It should be left up to the    |
| of       | PIs to do whatever apportionment is appropriate to local  |
| Denver** | cultures or needs of contracts between institutions.      |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | Overall I think that this is an excellent idea and may    |
| iversity | make multi-disciplinary collaborations more attractive to |
| of       | different groups. The only challenge may be how the       |
| Pitt     | apportionment interferes or does not interfere with the   |
| sburgh** | research team. It is likely that this issue will depend   |
|          | more on each individual team then on the entire research  |
|          | population. That is the only issue that would concern me  |
|          | about the allication of funds to each PI.                 |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Massa  | Although it's important to recognize the contributions of |
| chusetts | researchers in a balanced and equitable way, a            |
| I        | requirement to report and/or track apportionment on       |
| nstitute | awards simply reduces efficiencies and adds an            |
| of       | administrative burden. Such a requirement would eliminate |
| Tech     | the flexibility necessary to effectively manage           |
| nology** | large-scale projects, unduly increases accounting         |
|          | oversight and monitoring, and prevent the use of          |
|          | established internal institutional processes for managing |
|          | funds. Reporting and tracking apportionment would         |
|          | undermine the spirit of expanded authorities and the      |
|          | modular grant process, and runs counter to the            |
|          | collaborative nature of large research projects.          |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **       | We believe the apportionment of a budget to each PI in a  |
| Columbia | research team will interfere with the operation of a      |
| Univ     | research project. We agree that it is critical to         |
| ersity** | recognize each member of the scientific team. However,    |
|          | while it is tempting to recognize intellectual            |
|          | contributions through the allocation of funds or the      |
|          | identification of intellectual effort, the reporting in   |
|          | the NoA and tracking of the apportionment of the budget   |
|          | throughout the project undermines the flexibility and     |
|          | efficiencies gained through the expanded authorities and  |
|          | the implementation of the modular grant process.          |
|          |                                                           |
|          | The goal of recognizing the contributions of each member  |
|          | of a team of researchers is needed, but dividing up a     |
|          | project either through the budget or some similar         |
|          | allocation of effort or responsibilities (with or without |
|          | dividing up the budget) will raise concerns in accounting |
|          | and accountability. This approach will make it more       |
|          | difficult to move funds around within a project when the  |
|          | scientific activities required it. We fear these          |
|          | allocations of either resources or contribution, similar  |
|          | to changes in sub awards and levels of effort may require |
|          | NIH prior approvals and are likely to become subject to   |
|          | audits. Universities can generally set up subsidiary      |
|          | accounts if there is some particular reason to do so. We  |
|          | question the wisdom of taking a project that is clearly a |
|          | team project and subdividing it into components; this     |
|          | makes it seem like NIH expects each component to function |
|          | independently which is not what will happen.              |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Ass    | The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC)       |
| ociation | posits that the proposed policy will only succeed if the  |
| of       | time-honored understanding of the meaning of "principal   |
| American | investigator" remains unchanged. Accordingly, a clear and |
| Medical  | precise definition of principal investigator is           |
| Co       | essential. The Federal Register notice of the Office of   |
| lleges** | Science and Technology Policy and the Office of           |
|          | Management and Budget (70 FR 41220-22), implicitly        |
|          | provides an appropriate, effective definition: "The       |
|          | expectation is that a proposing institution will name as  |
|          | PIs in its proposal those individuals who share the major |
|          | authority and responsibility for leading and directing    |
|          | the project, intellectually and logistically." In respect |
|          | to recognition of multiple PIs, the notice adds: "This    |
|          | concept is similar to the widely accepted practice of     |
|          | recognizing the contributions and responsibilities of     |
|          | business partners." The AAMC fully supports recognition   |
|          | of multiple PIs on NIH and other federal grants. Our      |
|          | chief concern is that the policy be implemented in a way  |
|          | that appropriately values the separate contributions of   |
|          | leaders of complex, multidisciplinary research projects   |
|          | and programs, and does not denigrate or mitigate the role |
|          | of leadership on such projects. Further, AAMC believes,   |
|          | based on broad experience, that a single individual       |
|          | should be designated by the institution as the program or |
|          | project leader for purposes of scientific and             |
|          | administrative accountability. With this understanding,   |
|          | the AAMC believes that allowing PIs and grantee           |
|          | institutions to apportion the budget to multiple PIs and  |
|          | to track this apportionment in NIH databases will         |
|          | facilitate the formation of multidisciplinary research    |
|          | teams because the members of the team (and their          |
|          | departments or institutions) can be credited individually |
|          | for their roles in obtaining the funding. We expect that  |
|          | agreements concerning allocation formulae combined with a |
|          | leadership plan to determine future allocations will be   |
|          | forged prior to the receipt of the award and should not   |
|          | hinder the efficient operation of the research team       |
|          | (indeed, many research agreements among multiple          |
|          | investigators and institutions already provide such       |
|          | allocations in detail). Because roles and contributions   |
|          | change in both anticipated and unanticipated ways during  |
|          | the course of a multi-year award, AAMC feels that         |
|          | apportionment should be specified on the notice of grant  |
|          | award and should be revised annually, as appropriate,     |
|          | with each subsequent yearly award. AAMC also recommends   |
|          | that these budget apportionments be added to the CRISP    |
|          | database. The monetary aspects of awards by PI name are   |
|          | already available publicly in the State and Foreign Site  |
|          | Award database on the NIH website, and having it          |
|          | available in the CRISP database would be a great          |
|          | convenience.                                              |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| *        | The apportionment of a budget to each investigator in a   |
| *Council | research team will interfere with the operation of a      |
| on       | research project. While it is tempting to recognize       |
| Gove     | intellectual contributions through the allocation of      |
| rnmental | funds or the identification of intellectual effort, the   |
| R        | reporting in the NoA and tracking of the apportionment of |
| elations | the budget throughout the project undermines the          |
| (COGR)** | flexibility and efficiencies gained through the expanded  |
|          | authorities and the implementation of the modular grant   |
|          | process. The goal of recognizing the contributions of     |
|          | each member of a team of researchers is excellent, but    |
|          | dividing up a project either through the budget or some   |
|          | similar allocation of effort or responsibilities (with or |
|          | without dividing up the budget) will raise concerns in    |
|          | accounting and accountability. This approach will make it |
|          | more difficult to move funds around within a project when |
|          | the scientific activities require it. These allocations   |
|          | of either resources or contribution, similar to changes   |
|          | in sub awards and levels of effort may require NIH prior  |
|          | approvals and are likely to become subject to audits.     |
|          | Universities can typically set up related linked accounts |
|          | if there is some particular reason to do so. It also      |
|          | seems counter-intuitive to take a project that is clearly |
|          | a team project and subdivide it into components making it |
|          | appear that one expects each component to function        |
|          | independently. Finally, allocation of credit by budget    |
|          | dollars is a poor indicator of the intellectual           |
|          | importance of the co-investigators' contributions.        |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Fox    | There is a growing need for computational approaches to   |
| Chase    | specific biological and medical problems, however there   |
| Cancer   | is a great reluctance on the part of study sections to    |
| Center** | fund individual computational projects, as they are       |
|          | generally not hypothesis-driven. By allowing multiple     |
|          | PI\'s on single grants, the computational work could be   |
|          | properly noted for purposes of promotion decisions.       |
|          |                                                           |
|          | \(c\) Facilitation will occur in groups that function as  |
|          | a team, but may interfere in highly contentious funding   |
|          | situations.                                               |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Case   | At present, in my institution, our prestige and our       |
| Western  | resources are directly related to the amount of money     |
| Reserve  | that is correlated with our grants on which we have       |
| Univ     | control and on which we are Pl. This is a negative        |
| ersity** | incentive to collaboration, and it is particularly        |
|          | onerous for technology driven investigators who get used  |
|          | a lot for input expertise and whose salaries are paid by  |
|          | pieces of many grants. There is no easy public record of  |
|          | this kind of service. The proposed changes would rectify  |
|          | this.                                                     |
|          |                                                           |
|          | A good example is: Currently, our cancer center director, |
|          | as PI of a P30 is a \"million dollar professor\". The     |
|          | many core directors and program directors are judged by   |
|          | the instition by the grants they PI, not on their         |
|          | contribution to the Cancer Center. This is not true at    |
|          | the Cancer Center level, but it is at the institutional   |
|          | level. The institutional language is one of numbers and   |
|          | statistics.                                               |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Wright | September 12, 2005                                        |
| State    |                                                           |
| Univ     | National Institutes of Health                             |
| ersity** |                                                           |
|          | Office of the Director                                    |
|          |                                                           |
|          | Office of Extramural Research                             |
|          |                                                           |
|          | NIH NOT-OD-05-055                                         |
|          |                                                           |
|          | To Whom It May Concern:                                   |
|          |                                                           |
|          | The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM)        |
|          | appreciates the opportunity to comment on the NIH request |
|          | for information NOT-OD-05-055 regarding multiple          |
|          | Principal Investigators on NIH grants SAEM represents     |
|          | over 5000 emergency physicians in academic medical        |
|          | centers, teaching hospitals, and emergency medicine       |
|          | training programs in the US and Canada. Our mission is to |
|          | advance patient care through research and education in    |
|          | emergency medicine. The Society of Academic Emergency     |
|          | Medicine and its membership strongly support              |
|          | acknowledging multiple principal investigators on         |
|          | federally sponsored research projects.                    |
|          |                                                           |
|          | Emergency Medicine is the primary specialty responsible   |
|          | for the treatment of acute illness and injury and as      |
|          | such, plays a critical role in the investigation of a     |
|          | variety of disease states. Despite this critical role,    |
|          | much of the research funding for specific problems has    |
|          | gone to disease-specific specialists without the ability  |
|          | to appropriately recognize the important contributions of |
|          | the emergency medicine investigators involved in the      |
|          | project. This lack of recognition often results in        |
|          | deterring academic emergency physicians from becoming     |
|          | involved with projects and limits the scope of the        |
|          | research to in-hospital or chronic care. We believe that  |
|          | allowing for the acknowledgement of multiple principal    |
|          | investigators on federally funded investigations will     |
|          | facilitate the collaboration of disease specific          |
|          | specialists and emergency medicine investigators.         |
|          | Appropriate acknowledgement of study investigators        |
|          | ensures fairness and appropriate recognition and          |
|          | development of all the investigators who significantly    |
|          | participate in these studies, regardless of specialty.    |
|          |                                                           |
|          | With respect to the specific questions regarding the      |
|          | distribution of research credit and funding in the RFI,   |
|          | our responses are listed below:                           |
|          |                                                           |
|          | a\) Should the NIH permit the PIs/grantee institution to  |
|          | ask for apportionment of the budget to each PI? SAEM      |
|          | answers "yes" for the reasons stated above, to assure the |
|          | appropriate funding goes to emergency medicine            |
|          | researchers and their departments in proportion to their  |
|          | efforts.                                                  |
|          |                                                           |
|          | b\) Should the NIH report budget apportionment on the     |
|          | Notice of Award (NoA) and track changes in apportionment  |
|          | throughout the project period?                            |
|          |                                                           |
|          | SAEM answers "yes," for reasons stated above, to assure   |
|          | academic credit where it is due.                          |
|          |                                                           |
|          | c\) Do you think that apportionment will interfere with   |
|          | or facilitate the efficient operation of a research team? |
|          | SAEM replies "facilitates," because this process would    |
|          | assure that funds are apportioned to the members of the   |
|          | research team who are doing the work, regardless of       |
|          | specialty or PI status. Directly linking resources to the |
|          | persons doing the research activities will assure that    |
|          | incentives and rewards are aligned. This usually results  |
|          | in increased productivity for all..                       |
|          |                                                           |
|          | Questions in the RFI related to departmental ranking      |
|          | tables and subcontract arrangements between institutions  |
|          | are best answered by individual institutions and          |
|          | departments of emergency medicine, not SAEM. We are       |
|          | encouraging our members to respond to this RFI            |
|          | individually to assist you with those questions.          |
|          |                                                           |
|          | SAEM wishes to thank the NIH for its consideration of our |
|          | views, and for the opportunity to respond to this RFI. We |
|          | consider this a very important and visionary approach by  |
|          | the NIH, and we commend you for this endeavor. Please     |
|          | feel free to contact us at any time if you have any       |
|          | questions.                                                |
|          |                                                           |
|          | Regards:                                                  |
|          |                                                           |
|          | Glenn C. Hamilton, MD, MSM                                |
|          |                                                           |
|          | President                                                 |
|          |                                                           |
|          | The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine               |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **The    | Not allowing individual PIs to control the finances that  |
| Jackson  | they need to meet the specific aims of a project that     |
| Labo     | they are responsible for can lead to terribly inefficient |
| ratory** | project management.                                       |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Ge     | I feel that the distribution of credit for the award is   |
| orgetown | absolutely crucial. It \*will facilitate\* the            |
| Un       | integration of interdisciplinary points of view in the    |
| iversity | grant preparation/proposal development process. I think   |
| School   | science will be(come) stronger. It could be due to lack   |
| of       | of experience, but it seems that reporting the            |
| Me       | apportionment on the NoA and tracking it will only make   |
| dicine** | more work for both the NIH and all PIs involved; it seems |
|          | that this will interfere with, or at least not            |
|          | facilitate, efficient operations of the research team.    |
|          | For example, I am a statistician. Many times my           |
|          | contribution to the design of a study (on which my        |
|          | consultation is sought) goes uncredited or is             |
|          | acknowledged by naming me the statistician - this cancels |
|          | out (on paper) the scientific contribution I have made    |
|          | and reinforces some researchers\' perspectives that       |
|          | statisticians are \'service providers\' and not           |
|          | scientific collaborators. I feel this weakens science in  |
|          | general (suffice to say that multiple PIs will help all   |
|          | of us out with this!). However, because I am a            |
|          | statistician, I do not have staff or a lab - I don\'t     |
|          | need this type of support to do my own research and work. |
|          | I think that many junior faculty will be in this          |
|          | situation - without a great deal of administrative        |
|          | support. So, if I had to keep track of all the NIH        |
|          | paperwork, it would be very burdensome for me. I think    |
|          | the leadership plan for multiple PIs could indicate which |
|          | of them has the capacity to handle the NIH and            |
|          | institutional paperwork. I would hope that this issue,    |
|          | which is wholly outside the realm of science but          |
|          | underpins the efficiency with which it can be carried     |
|          | out, will get the consideration it merits. I hope these   |
|          | are helpful comments.                                     |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **un     | this would work against the flexibility and efficiences   |
| iversity | gained through expanded authorities and modular grants.   |
| of       | Universities have ways to set up linked accounts if it is |
| Ke       | important to a specific project. If the NIH were to seek  |
| ntucky** | to apportion the budget to each PI and track it through   |
|          | time it would create a burden.                            |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Temple | There is likely to be extensive infightin for control of  |
| Un       | the dollars.                                              |
| iversity |                                                           |
| School   |                                                           |
| of       |                                                           |
| Me       |                                                           |
| dicine** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ   | When faculty from multiple departments at a medical       |
| of       | school or other institution are involved it is logical to |
| M        | do this splitting                                         |
| O-Kansas |                                                           |
| City     |                                                           |
| School   |                                                           |
| of       |                                                           |
| Me       |                                                           |
| dicine** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | Apportionment could lead to fracturing of the research.   |
| iversity | Spliting the budget would require tracking each one, an   |
| of       | increase in the administrative burden.                    |
| Southern |                                                           |
| maine**  |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Emory  | NIH should report budget apportionment on the NOA, but    |
| Univ     | not track changes throughout the project.                 |
| ersity** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | I am the PI of a multi-institutional NCRR grant within    |
| iversity | the IDeA program. Apportionment applied to the INBRE      |
| of       | grants such as mine would significantly hamper my ability |
| Arkansas | to develop statewide research infrastructure as spelled   |
| for      | out in the RFA and program guidelines.                    |
| Medical  |                                                           |
| Sc       |                                                           |
| iences** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| *        | this is a test                                            |
| *MasiMax |                                                           |
| Univ     |                                                           |
| ersity** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ   | Depends on the project, where the investigators have      |
| of       | responsibilities for portions of the project as in        |
| Mi       | program project grants or big UO1 or RO1, this will       |
| chigan** | facilitate, but if investigators are merely co-I working  |
|          | on parts of a project that are not stand alone, this can  |
|          | be disruptive                                             |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **MD     | I believe this matter may be continually reviewed after   |
| Anderson | implementation but the basis of the application for such  |
| Cancer   | apportionment would presumably be based upon a consensus, |
| Center** | written or otherwise, among the Principal Investigators.  |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | It would allow a better measure of sharing and            |
| iversity | collaboration.                                            |
| of       |                                                           |
| Cinc     | The road map is a great way to forward collaboration but  |
| innati** | to allow only one PI limits collaboration willingness     |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | NIH already has mechanisms involving multiple PIs such as |
| iversity | The Center grants, Program Project grant. If the police   |
| of South | extend to regular R01s, it may weaken the leadership of   |
| Ca       | the designated PI and increase the chance for breaking    |
| rolina** | the collaboration between the investigators.              |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **St.    | As long as the NIH maintains absolute felxibility,        |
| Lu       | leaving apportionment decisions to the                    |
| ke\'s-Ro | PI\'s/institutions, allowing co-PI\'s and allowing proper |
| oosevelt | recognition and division of funds among integrated        |
| Hospital | departments and cooperative multidisciplinary researchers |
| Center** | would be a clear area of potential improvement from the   |
|          | current narrow system.                                    |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Nort   | I think that it is best to have one overall manager who   |
| hwestern | is responsible for the project. Dispersing responsibility |
| Univ     | among a number of PIs will make management that much more |
| ersity** | difficult.                                                |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | The NIH should allow an initialyl apportionment to be     |
| iversity | proposed by the PIs, but should also allow this to be     |
| of       | changed flexibly throughout the project, since the        |
| Roc      | relative weights/contributions of each PI may shift       |
| hester** | during the project period.                                |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Ca     | Involving the sponsoring agency in the internal           |
| lifornia | apportionment of grant funds seems like a step backward   |
| I        | in grants management. It would be preferable to leave the |
| nstitute | internal apportionment of grant funds to the grantee      |
| of       | institution and the Principal Investigator                |
| Tech     |                                                           |
| nology** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **M.D.   | Research is rarely possible anymore as a stand-alone      |
| Anderson | investigator. Usually two or more investigators must work |
| Cancer   | closely, and usually with significant responsibilities,   |
| Center** | within a project. This is particularly true of            |
|          | translational clinical/bench research. In the single PI   |
|          | grant model, the contribution of the clinical lead        |
|          | investigator is rarely recognized and rewarded.           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | As long as the funds can be "re-allocated during the      |
| iversity | period of the award via a joint decision of the PIs,"     |
| of       | apportionment of the budget:                              |
| Pitt     |                                                           |
| sburgh** | 1\. increases the attention that the PIs will pay to the  |
|          | budget formulation;                                       |
|          |                                                           |
|          | 2\. allows an individual PI to manage his/her aspects of  |
|          | the research with a firm understanding of the budget      |
|          | available;                                                |
|          |                                                           |
|          | 3\. prevents one PI from exerting undue influence on a    |
|          | colleague because of budgetary control;                   |
|          |                                                           |
|          | 4\. facilitates the departmental/institutional oversight  |
|          | of the award since a given PI and his/her administrator   |
|          | have responsibility for only that part of the budget      |
|          | which they manage.                                        |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
|          | Overall, I think it will facilitate effciency by          |
|          | requiring greater planning and avoiding time consuming    |
|          | changes following the granting of awards. This is an      |
|          | issue that often interferes with the maintenance of       |
|          | stable collaborative arrangements in institutions.        |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | Although clearly more complicated, the ability to         |
| iversity | apportion funds will allow the collaborating PI\'s to     |
| of       | play a real role in the performance of the study and      |
| Wash     | support active, productive collaboration.                 |
| ington** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | Most of my research is done through PECARN (Pediatric     |
| iversity | Emergency Care Applied Research Network) which is         |
| of       | federally funded and always multisite, this would help    |
| Mi       | the NIH to know exactly where the money is going          |
| chigan** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Dept.  | I think the answer to that will depend on the specific    |
| of       | project and the way the budget and work are organized.    |
| Veterans |                                                           |
| Affairs, |                                                           |
| Boston   |                                                           |
| Univ     |                                                           |
| ersity** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Purdue | It will sometimes and not others                          |
| Univ     |                                                           |
| ersity** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| *        | I believe that this institution of multiple PIs will      |
| *Mailman | create more interpersonal/professional stuggles among     |
| School   | investigators. In short, all co-investigators will want   |
| of       | to be co-PIs.                                             |
| Public   |                                                           |
| Health,  |                                                           |
| Columbia |                                                           |
| Univ     |                                                           |
| ersity** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | The one major problem will be, what happens if one of the |
| iversity | PI\'s does not follow through? Will that affect the other |
| of New   | site(s)? I believe that sharing the responsibility is a   |
| Mexico,  | good thing, but there still needs to be an \"overseer\"   |
| Health   | to ensure that all PI are fulfilling their part of the    |
| Sciences | bargain. Otherwise one site could be doing well, and the  |
| Center** | other faltering and there is no one to shore up the       |
|          | latter.                                                   |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
|          | This sort of thing is already being done- \"legalizing\"  |
|          | it will probably help                                     |
|          |                                                           |
|          | keep better track of funds.                               |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Mayo   | A successful medical research team is typically           |
| Clinic** | multidisciplanary, but often overlooks those faculty      |
|          | contributing substantially to the program. Those faculty  |
|          | who serve as Co-I and receive salary support need to be   |
|          | formally recognized for their contributions. It\'s only   |
|          | fair\... and accurate.                                    |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **       | Allowing multiple PIs is an important step in promoting   |
| Michigan | clinical research in the communities. However, a          |
| State    | complicated tracking NIH tracking and reporting system    |
| Univ     | may create a new barrier.                                 |
| ersity** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Emory  | Good relationships will facilitate efficient operations.  |
| Univ     |                                                           |
| ersity** | Good relationships will (hopefully) trump greed.          |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **UCSF** | I can see cases of both depending on relationships of the |
|          | investigators.                                            |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **       | Both proposals seem overly reductive in that they try to  |
| Columbia | treat research projects that may be (usually are?) highly |
| Univ     | integrated, holistic processes as nothing more than the   |
| ersity** | sum of their parts. It would seem that for purposes of    |
|          | institutional, all PIs currently have a claim to being    |
|          | integral to the awarding of a grant and hence to its      |
|          | total funding allocation.                                 |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | c: some teams will work well when everyone knows their    |
| iversity | specific budgets.                                         |
| of       |                                                           |
| Loui     |                                                           |
| sville** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **U of   | This may be instiututional specific but determining this  |
| Pitt     | upfront and having official designation would seem to     |
| sburgh** | prevent subsequent conflicts and misunderstandings.       |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
|          | In the case of a project proposed by a researcher         |
|          | starting his career whom enlisted a senior researcher for |
|          | a part of his grant application, the youngest researcher  |
|          | is lousing the ability to stop the use of funds for other |
|          | projects that are not related to the original proposal.   |
|          | This would imply to involve NIH in the process, and the   |
|          | young investigator may loose more often for political     |
|          | reason, even if the scientific needs are present. This    |
|          | would reinforce the \"Mandarin\" attitude in this time of |
|          | budget cut, and eliminate the young independant crop.     |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Oregon | Recognizing Co-PIs on grants is critical to appropriate   |
| Health & | recognition for work done and intellectual contribution.  |
| Science  | While some studies truly have a single PI, many others    |
| Univ     | have multiple functional PIs. As this recognition is      |
| ersity** | linked to academic advancement and recognition for work   |
|          | done (i.e., academic currency), such a move would greatly |
|          | enhance participation and appropriate acknowledgment for  |
|          | federally-funded research.                                |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | This will recognize the often collaborative nature of     |
| iversity | research, particularly as bench -to-bedside work is begin |
| of       | emphasized.                                               |
| Pennsy   |                                                           |
| lvania** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Oregon | As long as the process is thoughtful and allows reporting |
| Health & | in a straightforward manner, it will not add much         |
| Science  | complexity to our grant process, but it will also permit  |
| Univ     | a division of resources within the institution in a       |
| ersity** | manner not previously possible. It may make               |
|          | multi-institutional projects a bit complex, but even      |
|          | these should be doable.                                   |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Mass.  | If the multi-PI mechanism becomes reality, I don\'t see   |
| General  | how it can possibly work \_without\_ budget allocation to |
| Hospital | each research team.                                       |
| &        |                                                           |
| Harvard  |                                                           |
| Medical  |                                                           |
| School** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **       | Tracking the apportionment of funds increases the         |
| Wellspan | complexity of the grant, and bookkeeping associated with  |
| Health   | it. This detracts from the actual effort to perform the   |
| System** | grant with rigor and common sense. It does not add        |
|          | anything, at all, to the grant process that is positive   |
|          | for research.                                             |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **U of   | This clarifies direct responsibility, rewards each        |
| Il       | individual for specific work and links money to work done |
| linois** | and therefore to work production for the NIH              |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Yale   | In an academic setting, it is important for faculty       |
| Univ     | members to have acknowledgement of what sort of support   |
| ersity** | they are getting as a PI. With the current arrangement,   |
|          | the writing of a grant could have been split between two  |
|          | investigators, and only one gets institutional credit as  |
|          | the PI. This affects appointments and promotions.         |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | This will facilitate interdisciplinary collaboration      |
| iversity |                                                           |
| of       |                                                           |
| M        |                                                           |
| innesota |                                                           |
| Medical  |                                                           |
| School** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| *        | transparency is paramount                                 |
| *Medical |                                                           |
| College  |                                                           |
| of       |                                                           |
| Wis      |                                                           |
| consin** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| *        | I think it depends on the relationship among the PIs      |
| *Medical |                                                           |
| College  |                                                           |
| of       |                                                           |
| Wis      |                                                           |
| consin** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | Collaborative grants often function this way anyhow as    |
| iversity | many scopes of work/subcontracts reflect. This would      |
| of Rhode | simply allow the credit to more accurately reflect the    |
| Island** | work.                                                     |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Buck   | Our institution strongly supports the recognition of      |
| I        | multiple PIs on NIH grants and believes that              |
| nstitute | investigators should receive recognition for doing        |
| for Age  | collaborative research. However, it is our belief that    |
| Re       | the apportionment issue has the possibility of            |
| search** | interfering in terms of any additional paperwork burden.  |
|          | Additional administrative burdens would not be the        |
|          | direction we would suggest. In addition, we wondered if   |
|          | NIH has considered addressing the issue of who will take  |
|          | the lead both scientifically and administratively         |
|          | (reporting purposes). For example, would there be a       |
|          | primary PI?                                               |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **ge     | Joint applicants should provide be required to address    |
| orgetown | (outside the 25 page limit) specifically how they will    |
| univ     | address issues of conflict or disaggreement and the       |
| ersity** | specific role and responsibilities of each PI .           |
|          |                                                           |
|          | Only one PI should be designated with the ability to      |
|          | allocate funds and % effort for erach application and     |
|          | this should be stated (in the application) and aggreed    |
|          | upon (and documented) by the PIs and their respective     |
|          | institution(s) prior to submission.                       |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Ge     | Currently, as a transdisciplinary researcher who is a     |
| orgetown | sole PI on only part of my projects, I have limited       |
| Un       | allocation of space (which goes to PIs) and have foregone |
| iversity | promotion and tenure since that is based on being PI, a   |
| Medical  | role that I have alternated with other researhers I work  |
| Center** | with                                                      |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| *        | neither, generally investigators will agree on the budget |
| *Harvard | at the time of grant preparation and their respective     |
| Medical  | institutions will need to sign off on this                |
| School** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
|          | Apportionment of the budget to each PI enhances           |
|          | accountabillity for the project. Flexibility to           |
|          | reallocate resources should be substantial during the     |
|          | project.                                                  |
|          |                                                           |
|          | These questions in Part 9 appear to presume that all PIs  |
|          | are affiliated with one institution. Procedures for       |
|          | allocation of funds to PIs also should apply to grants    |
|          | that involve more than one institution. The \"linked      |
|          | grants\" concept is not the only way to administer an     |
|          | award that involves more than one PI.                     |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
|          | Institutional recognition is often tied to grant awards.  |
|          | Currently, only the PI tends to get credit for a grant    |
|          | award. Budget awards to each PI will alleviate this       |
|          | problem by allowing each PI to have credit for their      |
|          | contribution to the project.                              |
|          |                                                           |
|          | For question b, NIH should report budget apportionment on |
|          | the NoA, but NOT track changes throughout the project     |
|          | period. Fluidity of funds and re-apportionment should be  |
|          | a joint decision of the PIs, and not need NIH approval    |
|          | unless substantial.                                       |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Penn   | Appropriate respective merit can only facilitate          |
| State    | investigators\' motivation to perform responsibilities    |
| Univ     | already inherent in collaborations that are currently     |
| ersity** | presented as having solo PIs.                             |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | It is hard to judge how much additional effort this       |
| iversity | policy would represent at NIH. That consideration should  |
| of New   | be a factor in the final decision- my opinion is          |
| Mexico   | favorable only if the cost is not excessive.              |
| HSC**    |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ   | I believe there should be a LIMIT of apportionment to not |
| Ci       | more than three PIs, preferably two (or one). I cannot    |
| ncinnati | imagine a situation where \[1\] a competent clinician,    |
| Med      | \[2\] a competent basic scientist, and perhaps \[3\] a    |
| Center** | competent epidemiologist-bioinformaticist-mathematician   |
|          | could not cover ALL aspects of ANY medical scientific     |
|          | project.                                                  |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Old    | This is a good move that perhaps can not only improve     |
| Dominion | collaboration but also improve the transition of grants   |
| Univ     | when an investigator changes institution. The current     |
| ersity** | situation is an absolute nightmare.                       |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ.  | I know that co-investigators like myself and others at my |
| Tenn.    | institution have been completely cut out of the grant by  |
| College  | the PI on the grant once funding has been started. The    |
| of       | suggested changes would prevent this.                     |
| Me       |                                                           |
| dicine** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ.  | The separate apportionment of funds will allow each P.I.  |
| of       | to do their part without having to continually ask for    |
| T        | funds for purchases or hiring personnel, etc. The         |
| ennessee | division of funds can be quite contentious, especially    |
| Health   | when trying to remember what was agreed upon years        |
| Science  | before. This apportionment would avoid an awful lot of    |
| Center** | arguments and keep the team focused on the work. It is in |
|          | human nature to find new uses for money if one controls   |
|          | the whole of it, so this will minimize conflict and       |
|          | ill-will. It will also assure the second or more P.I.\'s  |
|          | that their status is truly equal. As long as there is a   |
|          | clause to re-apportion with the agreement of all P.I.\'s, |
|          | then this is the only way to do it. I have been a Co-P.I. |
|          | under the old system, and it just doesn\'t work well.     |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Wa     | PIs should be allowed to either request specific          |
| shington | apportionment (eg., if multiple departments are           |
| Un       | involved), or to request a general budget that will be    |
| iversity | managed by the \"team\" leaders. The NIH should require   |
| Medical  | that whatever budgetary allotment is requested by         |
| School** | supported and fully explained.                            |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Wa     | I indicated \'don\'t know\' on 9c because it depends on   |
| shington | how NIH implements it. I would hope it would facilitate   |
| State    | efficiency, but not if it creates such a large burden of  |
| Univ     | paperwork (electronic or otherwise) so as to make         |
| ersity** | managing these types of awards cumbersome for PIs or      |
|          | their institutes.                                         |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Nort   | the following is the key from my vantage point: \"One     |
| hwestern | possible strategy for managing funds in the case of an    |
| Univ     | award with more than one PI would include a shared budget |
| ersity** | with joint oversight by the PIs throughout the project    |
|          | period.\" In other words, keep the budget together but    |
|          | provide credit and control to all PIs.                    |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **       | Apportionment is easily done within the institution       |
| Columbia | through the                                               |
| Univ     |                                                           |
| ersity** | creation of scope accounts. I think it would create more  |
|          | hurdles and allow less flexibility when changes are       |
|          | required if the money is separated before it comes into   |
|          | the university. It can be easily dealt with and changed   |
|          | within the university                                     |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | This will force (or conceivably) make it easier for       |
| iversity | researchers to cooperate across academic units in these   |
| of       | days of IMG (every tub on their own bottom and variations |
| Min      | of said) as ICR dollars can then be more readily divided  |
| nesota** | across unit. However, as PI\'s may be truly CO but the    |
|          | work may take place more in one PIs unit than the other,  |
|          | we should make a provision for the ICR division to be     |
|          | specified in the proposal and supported by workscope      |
|          | carried out in each unit.                                 |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | The assignment of funds will be an essential component to |
| iversity | assuring proper credit for NIH grants awared to co-PIs    |
| of Utah, | and so there has to be some system in place to track and  |
| Dep      | document the apportionment of funds. This responsibility  |
| artments | can also fall to the local department but will assure     |
| of       | more weight\--and ultimately support\--if it comes from   |
| Bioeng   | the NIH.                                                  |
| ineering |                                                           |
| and      |                                                           |
| Internal |                                                           |
| Me       |                                                           |
| dicine** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | Alterations in apportionment should be constructed such   |
| iversity | that all investigators involved must agree.               |
| of       |                                                           |
| Cinc     |                                                           |
| innati** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ.  | It will make budget flexibility more complicated and      |
| Colorado | introduce another level of non-productive record-keeping. |
| Health   |                                                           |
| Sci.     |                                                           |
| Ctr.**   |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| *        | This rule should apply to large grants (greater than      |
| *Medical | 500,000 per year).                                        |
| Un       |                                                           |
| iversity |                                                           |
| of South |                                                           |
| Ca       |                                                           |
| rolina** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | Money does many strange things in anyone\'s daily life    |
| iversity | including those in professional life. It can create       |
| of North | unnecessary tension among colleagues. In that aspect, it  |
| Carolina | may not be a bad idea to have a rather rigid budget plan  |
| at       | at the beginning and have PIs observe the plan as         |
| Chapel   | strictly as possible.                                     |
| Hill**   |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **UC     | I have had a grant for many years with NHLBI where I have |
| Merced** | been the PI. My Co-PI has never gotten the credit due her |
|          | at her institution.                                       |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| *        | Apportionment should be tracked and reported.             |
| *Seattle | Reapportionment should not require premission of NIH,     |
| Bi       | just the two PIs involved.                                |
| omedical |                                                           |
| Research |                                                           |
| I        |                                                           |
| nstitute |                                                           |
| and      |                                                           |
| Un       |                                                           |
| iversity |                                                           |
| of       |                                                           |
| Wash     |                                                           |
| ington** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Ac     | The greatest threat encountered with the shrinking        |
| ademic - | paylines is loss of talented investigators from the       |
| Univ. of | academic community. This proposal is one possible partial |
| MD       | remedy. The NIH needs to be much more responsive to the   |
| School   | health of the extramural research community! The greatest |
| of       | opportunity currently is the power of synergistic         |
| Me       | interactions among investigators with complementary       |
| dicine** | technologies; this is currently impeded by the current    |
|          | configuration. Both the opportunity and threat are        |
|          | addressed positively by this proposal. Attention should   |
|          | also be paid to the size of grants. This intiative should |
|          | NOT result in the average grant size being dramatically   |
|          | increased (we don\'t want a thousand program projects).   |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | It will facilitate the process assuming the two           |
| iversity | investigators get along and are honest which is not       |
| at       | always the case after the grant is awarded.               |
| B        |                                                           |
| uffalo** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | Yes, the idea of having more than one PI on a grant is    |
| iversity | good, in principle. It allows better and more efficient   |
| at       | collaboration between labs and research groups and, after |
| B        | all, it reflects the current trends in research, where we |
| uffalo** | ALL basically need collaborations and across-discipline   |
|          | interactions. In fact, these days such collaborations are |
|          | almost expected in a grant proposal that has any chance   |
|          | of being successful. Unfortunately, this concept does not |
|          | mirror the philosophy that, for many years now, has       |
|          | shaped the way of thinking of science in general and      |
|          | academia in particular. This was recently highlighted to  |
|          | me from observing and following the saga of one of our    |
|          | assistant professors going through the difficult and      |
|          | demanding process of promotion (and tenure). This was an  |
|          | individual who had two R01s under his belt (as PI in      |
|          | BOTH) but because he collaborated heavily with a "big     |
|          | name" in the area he was not seen as "independent" as it  |
|          | was perceived he should have been. The "big name" person  |
|          | had to actually go through nightmarish loops and          |
|          | somersaults to convince a skeptical promotion review      |
|          | board that this young investigator was, indeed,           |
|          | completely self sufficient and independent of him. While  |
|          | the young professor was eventually promoted (after a      |
|          | tsunami of paperwork and months of limbo) it highlighted  |
|          | a problem that I have seen too many times throughout the  |
|          | years. We had another faculty member held up for          |
|          | promotion because, while he was the PI of one of the big  |
|          | subprojects of a center grant (a subproject that, in      |
|          | itself, was at the level of a large R01), it wasn\'t      |
|          | "his" grant, to quote one of the review board members.    |
|          | Our university (and, I suspect, many others) has been     |
|          | pushing for "collaboration" for a couple of years now,    |
|          | with seminars and pamphlets and much advertising...yet    |
|          | laboratory space is assigned according to (to put it      |
|          | banally) how much money you have in "your" grant.         |
|          | "Ownership" of a grant makes you by default more          |
|          | marketable, especially as a young investigator; you can   |
|          | "take" that grant with you much more easily than a        |
|          | "collaborative" grant. Let\'s face it, while academia and |
|          | science in general is pushing for collaboration (once     |
|          | again, a SPLENDID idea), evaluation of success is still   |
|          | at the single individual level; first and last author     |
|          | positions on a paper count more than 2nd or 3rd...it\'s a |
|          | fact of life, and Nobel prizes are given to individuals   |
|          | (sometimes shared but still as separate entities), not    |
|          | departments. Until the whole school of thought changes so |
|          | that evaluation goes beyond single individuality, people  |
|          | will have no choice but to continue to "protect their     |
|          | turf". So, I say, YES, collaborative grants are, indeed,  |
|          | an EXCELLENT idea...let\'s hope that the philosophy in    |
|          | research and academia will follow the trend.              |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| *        | They should continue to do what is done. Funding          |
| *umdnj** | allocatino as in grant, track the changes and let there   |
|          | be some flexibility to adjust funding to reflect progress |
|          | and the study results                                     |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | I believe sharing credit as PI makes sense for funding    |
| iversity | mechanisms such as centers, program projects and other    |
| at       | obviously collaborative projects. I am not sure it would  |
| B        | work well for R-type grants. I can see such a possibility |
| uffalo** | might cause unintended consequences. In most cases, the   |
|          | creative process is driven by the vision of an            |
|          | individual, who then recruits a team to impement that     |
|          | vision. Conflict may arise when an investigator might     |
|          | invite a collaborator to participate in a project, and    |
|          | the collaborator might only agree to participate if       |
|          | offered a position as a P.I. While this could work with   |
|          | reasonable people, some individuals often let ego and     |
|          | pride interfere with sound judgment. So I am inclined to  |
|          | argue against permitting more than one PI to be named on  |
|          | an NIH funded R-type grant grant                          |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **       | Though the thought of potentially more paperwork does not |
| Michigan | excite me, I believe the benefits of such a program will  |
| State    | ultimately help young investigators (I am in this         |
| Univ     | category).                                                |
| ersity** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| *        | I\'m currently involved in two BRP projects. In one case  |
| *Georgia | I\'m the PI (over past five years) and in the other case  |
| I        | I\'m a co-investigator (over the past three years). I     |
| nstitute | think it is critical for these type of projects to have a |
| of       | single leader capable of shifting resources as needed to  |
| Tech     | achieve the goals of the project. Over the duration of    |
| nology** | the grant, there are many critical reasons why resources  |
|          | need to be reallocated. These reallocations require       |
|          | cutting of resources in particular areas to add effort in |
|          | others. Inevitably this process leaves one investigator   |
|          | with less funding and another with more funding. These    |
|          | tough decisions are virtually impossible with more than   |
|          | investigator making these types of decisions.             |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Johns  | There are plusses and minuses. On the plus side is        |
| Hopkins  | allocation of credit where credit is due. On the minus    |
| B        | side is the potential for \"I won\'t participate unless   |
| loomberg | I\'m a PI. So long as the peer reviewers evaluate the     |
| SPH**    | reasonableness of the PI list and fund allocation, the    |
|          | proposal will be a net benefit. Such evaluations will     |
|          | head off courtesy PI-ships.                               |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | Having PI status and responsibility is much more of an    |
| iversity | incentive to productivity than being a subcontractor.     |
| of       |                                                           |
| Alaska   |                                                           |
| Anc      |                                                           |
| horage** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ   | If PI\'s maintain flexibility and focus on moving the     |
| Vi       | project forward                                           |
| rginia** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | The current system of one administrative PI does not      |
| iversity | imply any particular system for allocating resources      |
| of South | within a collaboration. The team is forces to develop a   |
| C        | plan consistent with the research goals and is able to    |
| aroina** | modify that plan as the project progresses. NIH           |
|          | involvment will force teams to adopt a standard           |
|          | collaboration plan, whether appropriate or not, and will  |
|          | make it more dificult to adapt that plan during the       |
|          | course of the project.                                    |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | I can\'t think of any reason why this is not a good idea. |
| iversity | Be certain, if this is adopted,to allow single PI gant    |
| of       | awards as well.                                           |
| Illinois |                                                           |
| at       |                                                           |
| C        |                                                           |
| hicago** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| *        | If each PI is equaly dedicated and productive, it will    |
| *Oakland | faciliate the efficient operation of the project. If some |
| Univ     | PIs are not equally strong, it may delay the projects due |
| ersity** | to different opinions and productivity.                   |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **UNCW** | F&A, not the total award apportionment is the true issue  |
|          | here. W/O F&A, some univ administrators lend little worth |
|          | to funded projects                                        |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | Be sure to require as little additional requirments as    |
| iversity | possible.                                                 |
| of       |                                                           |
| Cinc     | Leave the main choices to the PI, not the institution or  |
| innati** | the agency.                                               |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **un     | joint projects should have joint PIs to show both of      |
| iversity | their contributions to the project                        |
| of Texas |                                                           |
| at       |                                                           |
| Austin** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | credit apportionment and resource allocation will greatly |
| iversity | enhance research collaborations and alleviate some        |
| of       | misgivings.                                               |
| Wis      |                                                           |
| consin** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ   | However, some flexibility should be incorporated.         |
| Ke       |                                                           |
| ntucky** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Stony  | This will overly complicate the process, especially since |
| Brook    | many PI\'s move from institution to institution. It will  |
| Univ     | be a beauracratic mess!                                   |
| ersity** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Massa  | The current system is a disincentive to interactive grant |
| chusetts | applications and therefore, indirectly to interactive     |
| General  | research. This step will greatly mitigate the concerns of |
| Hospital | PI\'s that by participating in multi-investigator         |
| /Harvard | efforts, their own effort is diminished in the eyes of    |
| Medical  | their host institution. PI\'s would be able to put their  |
| School** | best projects into interactive settings if the            |
|          | modification is instituted.                               |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | Overall, I think that apportionment of funds,             |
| iversity | particularly within an institution are a bad idea. I      |
| of       | think that it is generally best to have one investigator  |
| Wis      | be in charge of the budget for the entire project. This   |
| consin** | will provide the most flexibility of spending and will    |
|          | consolodate overlapping expenditures. This also makes the |
|          | PI more accountable for the project as a whole, rather    |
|          | than renegade groups with less coherent objectives.       |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | Apportionment would create additional administrative work |
| iversity | without a net benefit to research.                        |
| of       |                                                           |
| Wash     |                                                           |
| ington** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **The    | I think it is very important to have this issue resolved  |
| Burnham  | during the preparation of the grant. A loose policy on    |
| Ins      | the distribution of funds certainly has the potential to  |
| titute** | be contentious as detract from the research.              |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | I think the NIH needs to make very clear guidelines to    |
| iversity | universities participating in these arrangements so that  |
| of Texas | the logistics are facilitated. While in theory the        |
| at       | apportionment should ot interfere, the reality is that    |
| Austin** | some universities do not have the infrastructural support |
|          | to make this go as smoothly as it should.                 |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ   | Identification of authorship, leadership, and             |
| Wash     | responsibility is important and will encourage alll       |
| ington** | participants to put in the effort needed to give the      |
|          | project the greatest chance of success                    |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **ohio   | For all of the reasons outlined by the NIH notice,        |
| state    |                                                           |
| univ     | allowing multiple PI\'s on grants and allocation of       |
| ersity** |                                                           |
|          | funds to them individually is a much more accurate        |
|          |                                                           |
|          | reflection of the state of many research enterprises.     |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Wake   | I can envisage situations in which efficiency will be     |
| Forest   | enhanced and in which efficiency may be challenged. By    |
| Un       | distributing budget accountability, one may expect        |
| iversity | individuals will be better able to manage and allocate    |
| Health   | funds targeted for their efforts. Safeguards similar to   |
| Sc       | those used in collaborative agreements, which allow       |
| iences** | funding to be shifted to address underperforming sites,   |
|          | will be required.                                         |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | I would allow for explicit apportionment if this is       |
| iversity | requested, but otherwise I think it is wise to keep the   |
| of       | funds rather fluid rather than add another layer of       |
| Cal      | bureaucracy in the management of the funds                |
| ifornia, |                                                           |
| Davis**  |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | In most instances, each study site (PI) would have a      |
| iversity | \'tentative\'or planned budget and funds could be         |
| of       | initially allocated in this way. If there was fluidity in |
| Hawaii** | the reallocation of funds, needed changes could be made   |
|          | during the course of the study. I suppose one problem to  |
|          | the NIH would be handling differences in indirect costs   |
|          | rates if several institutions were involved and funds     |
|          | were transferred between institutions. The PIs would have |
|          | to consider carefully how to handle core resources that   |
|          | bridged study sites. I think the ideal would be to        |
|          | consider synergies that would make the whole greater than |
|          | the sum of the individual parts (as is the case with      |
|          | P01s).                                                    |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **John   | This will avoid the often lengthy and complicated         |
| A. Burns | subcontracting process. Most institutions have their own  |
| School   | unique legal issues and my own experience has been that   |
| of       | some subcontracts can take many months to process and can |
| M        | delay the inititation of the projects. Furthermore, since |
| edicine, | clinical research studies require IRB approval and the    |
| Un       | subcontract process that is linked to the IRB process     |
| iversity | could delay the start of the projects even more.          |
| of       |                                                           |
| Hawaii   |                                                           |
| at       |                                                           |
| Manoa**  |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | The additional layer of detail associated with the        |
| iversity | fluidity of funds between PIs will certainly be           |
| of South | problematic in some circumstances.                        |
| F        |                                                           |
| lorida** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **       | Allowing multiple PIs will prevent investigators who have |
| Columbia | made signifcant contributions to the development of a     |
| Univ     | proposal from being cut-out of teh project once the       |
| ersity** | proopsal has been funded. This has happened to me more    |
|          | than once. It also will give investigators a stronger     |
|          | stake in the project and therefore will help the project, |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| *        | Dealing with two budgets at two institutions could be a   |
| *state** | problem especially when state auditors are involved.      |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **       | I think \"multiple PIs\" is a more accurate approach on   |
| Virginia | collaborative, interdisciplinary research.                |
| Tech**   |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **The    | Actually , it will do both. Squabbles arise in any join   |
| Penn     | ventrue. Having joint PIs leaving lines of authority      |
| sylvania | ambiguous and will make in-fighting more likely.          |
| State    | Nevertheless, for many it will make collaboration more    |
| Univ     | attractive and thus should be an option.                  |
| ersity** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Human  | None                                                      |
| Sciences |                                                           |
| Research |                                                           |
| Council, |                                                           |
| South    |                                                           |
| Africa** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ   | It would be good if NIH took steps to facilitate          |
| Ill**    | collaboration, including seeing that everyone get         |
|          | recognition for collaboration.                            |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| *        | This will allow us to give proper attribution to the work |
| *Roswell | of our faculty. Also a great way to recognise the input   |
| Park     | of senior pre-docs and post-docs. This is especially      |
| Cancer   | imporatnt as they build the research reputations.         |
| Ins      |                                                           |
| titute** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **De     | Apportionment could facilitate collaboration between      |
| partment | PIs - especially as the research develops dynamically;    |
| of       | however, if there is any significant bureaucratic         |
| Ra       | overhead (i.e. approvals. paperwork, etc.), then this     |
| diology, | could interfere with the efficient operation.             |
| David    |                                                           |
| Geffen   |                                                           |
| School   |                                                           |
| of       |                                                           |
| Medicine |                                                           |
| at       |                                                           |
| UCLA**   |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **       | For many years on grants I essentially share in terms of  |
| Columbus | effort with Co-Investigators we have set up internal      |
| Chi      | apportioned budgets which has definitely facilitated the  |
| ldren\'s | efficient operation of both research teams.               |
| Research |                                                           |
| I        |                                                           |
| nstitute |                                                           |
| and The  |                                                           |
| Ohio     |                                                           |
| State    |                                                           |
| Univ     |                                                           |
| ersity** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | The costs and benefits of apportioning the budget are     |
| iversity | likely to vary widely with project circumstances and      |
| of       | structure. I see a greater potential need for             |
| Utah**   | apportionment in modular budgets than in detailed         |
|          | budgets. Items within detailed budgets can often be       |
|          | grouped quite naturally with particular investigators.    |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | This will allow more institutions to work together as     |
| iversity | each will get credit for the grant. Also will facilitate  |
| of       | senior investigators collaborating                        |
| Pennsy   |                                                           |
| lvania** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **       | These are very good questions. My opinion is that having  |
| Columbia | mulitiple PIs is extremely important to the growth of     |
| Univ     | younger faculty and that, unfortunately, their value is   |
| ersity** | often based on the grant funds (and indirects) they       |
|          | acquire for the institution -so apportionment is good.    |
|          | However, I am concerned that close monitoring of the use  |
|          | of the apportioned funds will hamper the nature of        |
|          | scientific investigation - it might be that as the work   |
|          | progresses, more funds would be spent in one of the two   |
|          | (for example) labs or by one of the two groups despite    |
|          | the fact that both PIs were still acting in concert. I    |
|          | would rather see the grant finances managed as a single   |
|          | entity.                                                   |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **De     | Approtionment is done internally at my institution, but   |
| partment | NIH recognition of the practice is desirable.             |
| of Human |                                                           |
| G        |                                                           |
| enetics, |                                                           |
| Un       |                                                           |
| iversity |                                                           |
| of       |                                                           |
| Utah**   |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | Possibly interfere, but well worth the added effort.      |
| iversity |                                                           |
| of       |                                                           |
| Cal      |                                                           |
| ifornia: |                                                           |
| Irvine** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| *        | If there is truly a seoncd or third PI then they meet the |
| *Charles | requirement to be                                         |
| R Drew   |                                                           |
| Univ     | responsible and if they are responsible they should have  |
| ersity** | the authority to                                          |
|          |                                                           |
|          | carry out their activiities.                              |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Oregon | It will reduce the complexities of having to do           |
| Health & | sub-contracts and give projects more spending             |
| Science  | flexibility.                                              |
| Univ     |                                                           |
| ersity** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Rehabi | This will aid in using resources from collaborative       |
| litation | institutions -they will feel obligated to support the     |
| I        | research                                                  |
| nstitute |                                                           |
| of       |                                                           |
| C        |                                                           |
| hicago** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Johns  | As interdisciplinary, interdepartmental, and              |
| Hopkins  | interinstitutional projects become more prevalent, it is  |
| Univ     | important that individuals with leadership roles be       |
| ersity** | recognized formally for their contributions. Further, as  |
|          | departments compete outside for faculty, students, and    |
|          | residents, and inside the institution for resources,      |
|          | space, training and new faculty positions, and influence, |
|          | the NIH funding rankings and attributable grant dollars   |
|          | and indirect costs make a difference. There is no         |
|          | downside to this, and a primary contact person can still  |
|          | be responsible to the NIH as well as receive recognition  |
|          | for the overall organization and adminisration of any     |
|          | program.                                                  |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ.  | we currently have been working with a subcontract in an   |
| of       | application, and it seems that it might have been easier  |
| Pitt     | to have 2 PIs                                             |
| sburgh** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Salk   | Apportionment should be allowed. Changes in apportionment |
| Ins      | should be allowed if there is unanimous agreement of all  |
| titute** | the PIs.                                                  |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | It depends on the project\--whether it is a collaboration |
| iversity | of equals or a key PI and minor contributors.             |
| of       |                                                           |
| Illinois |                                                           |
| at       |                                                           |
| Ur       |                                                           |
| bana-Cha |                                                           |
| mpaing** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **North  | I would suggest that each investigator be permitted to    |
| Shore -  | develop his own budget when appropriate, that decisions   |
| LIJ      | on changes in allocation be the joint responsibility of   |
| Research | the PIs, and that funds should be fluid, with changes     |
| Ins      | reported annually as part of the non-competing renewal.   |
| titute** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Nort   | I imagine that a good leadership plan will always include |
| hwestern | a relatively detailed plan for budget apportionment. So   |
| Univ     | long as PIs and reviewers pay careful attention to this   |
| ersity** | important part of the original application, it is my      |
|          | opinion that projects will fare better if the PIs are not |
|          | subject to what could quickly become over-managment from  |
|          | their home institution and the granting institute.        |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ.  | The goal should be to give recognition to both PIs and    |
| Ca       | perhaps thus to encourage collaborations. However, if in  |
| lifornia | so doing the administratioin and conduct of research is   |
| Irvine** | impaired, the new polilcy should not be implemented. The  |
|          | major goal is to achieve the greatest research return per |
|          | dollar invested, hence my preference to encourage         |
|          | collaboration without more administrative costs and       |
|          | addtional oversight, which is not needed.                 |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Ohio   | My experience on a grant where I was the PI and there     |
| State    | were multiple co-PI\'s was that the co-PI\'s contribution |
| Univ     | fluctuated over the course of the grant. I think that the |
| ersity** | most efficient operation of the research team will result |
|          | when budget apportionment is flexible. If people are good |
|          | at working together, they will be able to apportion the   |
|          | budget on an as-needed (and based on people\'s            |
|          | contributions, which may change during the course of the  |
|          | grant) basis.                                             |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Neur   | Anyting that increases university beaurocracy or allows   |
| oscience | the university access to PI funding or budget allocation  |
| Center   | is a mistake and will be detrimental to the getting the   |
| LSU      | research projects completed.                              |
| Health   |                                                           |
| Sciences |                                                           |
| Center** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **The    | I owuld assume that the \"PI\" title would not be just to |
| Chi      | represent the role of the individual but also to have     |
| ldren\'s | implications for academic advancement and should also     |
| Hospital | include allocation of the funds to the individual so      |
| of       | labelled for the work that was proposed (i.e a PI should  |
| Phil     | not be subordinate to another individual such as the      |
| adelphia | other PI)                                                 |
| and The  |                                                           |
| Un       |                                                           |
| iversity |                                                           |
| of       |                                                           |
| Penn     |                                                           |
| sylvania |                                                           |
| School   |                                                           |
| of       |                                                           |
| Me       |                                                           |
| dicine** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | The current system is best suited for the type of         |
| iversity | research that our group carrys out.                       |
| of       |                                                           |
| Iowa**   |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| *        | One person needs to be responsible for a Research Project |
| *Indiana | even though it may involve multiple disciplines.          |
| Uni      |                                                           |
| vsersity |                                                           |
| and      |                                                           |
| Commu    |                                                           |
| nication |                                                           |
| D        |                                                           |
| isorders |                                                           |
| Tec      |                                                           |
| hnology, |                                                           |
| INc**    |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Albert | great idea to have co-PI\'s on grants.                    |
| Einstein |                                                           |
| College  |                                                           |
| of       |                                                           |
| Me       |                                                           |
| dicine** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **PIRE** | As long as this is agreed upon in the writing of the      |
|          | proposal, and each P.I. is responsible for writing their  |
|          | own annual report to the NIH funding agency, this is      |
|          | reasonable. One problem might be a lack of flexibility,   |
|          | e.g., if one of the aims of the study proposal does not   |
|          | work out as expected, but another of the aims proves to   |
|          | be more fruitful. Depending on how co-PIs work together,  |
|          | adjusting the effort of the study may be more difficult   |
|          | than with a single PI who has responsibility over the     |
|          | whole study.                                              |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | The idea is appealing in theory only. In practice, the    |
| iversity | glue that holds a multidisciplinary team together boils   |
| of Texas | down to having a dynamic scientist manager who can keep   |
| Medical  | the team focused on common goals and prevent them from    |
| Branch** | defocusing. I do not share the opinion that you can use   |
|          | funding to force people away from single investigator     |
|          | projects, and then shoehorn them into                     |
|          | pseudocollaborations. Keeping multidisciplinary research  |
|          | afloat is akin to keeping a \"rock band\" together. I     |
|          | believe there are better ways to encourage investigators  |
|          | to organize themselves into research groups               |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **       | I think that having different PIs be directly responsible |
| Carnegie | for different portions of the budget will encourage and   |
| Mellon   | facilitate real collaboration. Now, if I help someone     |
| Univ     | with their grant I must trust that if the grant is funded |
| ersity** | they will provide me the resources necessary to complete  |
|          | my part. Having my own budget would allow me to control   |
|          | my ability to complete the word proposed.                 |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **un     | Right now I am ACTIVELY encouraged to NOT collaborate     |
| iversity | because my efforts will be for not if I am no the PI.     |
| of       |                                                           |
| min      | It\'s crazy\...\... no one can work in a vacuum. But      |
| nesota** | tenure, rankings, and public humiliations all depend on   |
|          | the PI vs CO-PI status.                                   |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| *        | Our multi-center project works best when allocation is    |
| *Rutgers | determined by the PI\'s operating each of our 3 separate  |
| Univ     | projects under the center umbrella. The investigators     |
| ersity** | agree to move funds (usually in the 10% to 15% area) to a |
|          | project in need or when one of the projects has a surplus |
|          | due to unforseen problems, e.g., slower recruitment than  |
|          | expected or delays in IRB approval for protocol changes.  |
|          | The PI\'s know one another\'s needs, trust one another\'s |
|          | judgments and do not think the allocation should be       |
|          | decided by university administrators.                     |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ.  | There must be a happy medium between yes and no above.    |
| of       | Perhaps an initial percentage of apportionment, to apply  |
| Roc      | to the entire grant period, would suffice.                |
| hester** | Micromanagement is unnecessary and likely overly          |
|          | burdensome.                                               |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **       | Most arguments and conflicts among married couples        |
| National | involve money. This will be no different among multiple   |
| Dev      | PIs. There should be a single PI responsible for both the |
| elopment | scientific integrity of a project and the project budget. |
| and      |                                                           |
| Research |                                                           |
| Inst     |                                                           |
| itutes** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | The current system of Co-Investigatorship works fine.     |
| iversity | Often the subcontract involves a nominal percent effort   |
| of       | or in special cases, there is an allocation of funds for  |
| R        | special services. In both cases, the Co-I is subordinate  |
| Ochester | to the PI since the PI initiates the subcontract (and     |
| School   | thus is ultimately credited for the intellectual          |
| of       | creativity). The Co-I is duly compensated for their       |
| Me       | servce in the way of money and co-authorship of papers.   |
| dicine** | The latter is significant for tenure and in some cases,   |
|          | co seniro authorship conveys to tenure committees equal   |
|          | contribution. If the project is large enough, then the    |
|          | current Program Project grants offer a solution to proper |
|          | credit. I think the current system is fine and need not   |
|          | be tinkered with.                                         |
|          |                                                           |
|          | Please note, in accordance with subcontracting, there     |
|          | already is apportionment to other institutuions (I am     |
|          | currently involved with two such processes). There is no  |
|          | need for NIH to expand its governance of grants to track  |
|          | changes in apportionment throughout a project; again,     |
|          | this is done de facto annually with the Non-competitive   |
|          | renewal. Apportionment, as envisioned, will hamper        |
|          | creative thought between both institutions.               |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | \"Apportionment\" already goes on between a PI and key    |
| iversity | co-investigators. Two or more PI will supposedly share    |
| of       | more power \"equally\" so the success will strongly       |
| Arkansas | depend on personalities unless their areas are clearly    |
| for      | defined (as in Projects in a P01 grant). Struggles for    |
| Medical  | power (funds) and ultimate decision making are easily     |
| Sc       | foreseen. Therefore, I just don\'t know.                  |
| iences** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ   | This really depends on the team. As I synthetic           |
| of       | organic/medicinal chemist, I have numerous collaborations |
| Illinois | with numerous biologists. My research group provides new  |
| at       | chemical entities for study by the biologists. The only   |
| C        | real difficulty I see in terms of such chemistry-biology  |
| hicago** | collaborations, and in having multiple PIs, stems from    |
|          | the inability to switch the sub-contract to another       |
|          | biology team should the biology group not undertake the   |
|          | work in a timely or exacting fashion. Issues like this    |
|          | can usually be avoided by making sure                     |
|          |                                                           |
|          | both teams are on the same page at the start of the       |
|          | collaboration. The benefit of having the multiple PI      |
|          | option stems from both parties now feeling \"more         |
|          | involved\" and thus in control of the funding that they   |
|          | helped to bring in.                                       |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | This will work as long as indirect costs are not included |
| iversity | in the budget of direct costs.                            |
| of North |                                                           |
| Ca       |                                                           |
| rolina** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | I have a junior colleague in the medical school here who  |
| iversity | has been quite negatively affected by the lack of         |
| of       | recognition of her Co-PI status by NIH and by the need    |
| C        | for a subcontract for her project activities.             |
| hicago** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | This plan will interfere with the efficient operation of  |
| iversity | the research team because there won\'t be a single        |
| of       | leader. Rather, there will be many \'cooks\'.             |
| Mi       | Nevertheless, the issues of credit and overhead are       |
| chigan** | stifling collaboration within the Institution at all      |
|          | levels and between Institutions. Situations of            |
|          | investigators being forbad by Dept Chairs to participate  |
|          | in collaborative grants because of lack of apportionment  |
|          | of overhead dollars and investigators refusing because of |
|          | lack of credit in promotion and tenure decisions are very |
|          | common at the University of Michigan. Thus, despite the   |
|          | likely interference in the efficient operation of a       |
|          | research team, changes in apportionment of budget and     |
|          | credit through the identification of multiple PIs within  |
|          | a grant will enhance collaboration and team science.      |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | Apportionment will help address the projected costs of    |
| iversity | each component of the work. A single pool of money may be |
| of       | depleted much more rapidly by one PI than another, and    |
| Min      | put in jeopardy the ability of the other PI to complete   |
| nesota** | their portion of the work. By enabling the PI\'s to agree |
|          | jointly to move initially apportioned money from one PI   |
|          | to another (as between budget catagories) means that all  |
|          | PIs are involved in the decision of the overall           |
|          | importance of different lines of research as the grant    |
|          | progresses, and whether money needs moving between PI\'s  |
|          | to support this.                                          |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **The    | I think this is a good idea, but now sure how it will     |
| Un       | actually play out, for better (I think) or perhaps for    |
| iversity | worse\...\...                                             |
| of       |                                                           |
| T        |                                                           |
| ennessee |                                                           |
| Health   |                                                           |
| Science  |                                                           |
| Center** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | I think the problem identified \-- lack of credit for     |
| iversity | investigators who                                         |
| of       |                                                           |
| A        | are not principal investigators \-- is a real one, but    |
| rizona** | the problem                                               |
|          |                                                           |
|          | should be dealt with at the level of the awardee          |
|          | instiitutions, not NIH.                                   |
|          |                                                           |
|          | My university specifically asks for apportionment of      |
|          | \"credit\" for the                                        |
|          |                                                           |
|          | indirect costs when a proposal is first submitted, and    |
|          | this seems like a good system \-- it makes the NIH        |
|          | records unnecessary (as                                   |
|          |                                                           |
|          | far as I know, I am not an administrator). In contrast,   |
|          | having multiple PI\'s creates the                         |
|          |                                                           |
|          | risk of no one on a project taking full responsibility    |
|          | for tracking the                                          |
|          |                                                           |
|          | 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.                 |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | A firm apportionment plan may enhance stability of        |
| iversity | scientific collaborations by making expections clear from |
| of       | the start.                                                |
| Wash     |                                                           |
| ington** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **St     | I would favor allowing Multiple PIs on NIH grants as      |
| anford** | acknowledgment of the progressive importance of           |
|          | multidisciplinary research, the inescapable need for      |
|          | collaboration, and the increasing tendency for any one PI |
|          | to have multiple projects with competing priorities.      |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | 9b-c) I would like to see NIH offer both options. The PIs |
| iversity | could select one or the other depending on the nature of  |
| of       | the collaboration. In some research collaborations (e.g.  |
| C        | two PIs with a longstanding, close working relationship), |
| hicago** | flexible apportionment without tracking will be more      |
|          | efficient. In others (e.g. new or distant/international   |
|          | collaborations), tracking may be necessary. In either     |
|          | case, I think apportionment with facilitate efficient     |
|          | operation of the research team.                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **       | The interdisciplinary nature of projects currently        |
| Hospital | results in the equivalent of a PI being a                 |
| for      | co-investigator; selection usually be based on seniority  |
| Special  | of investigators.                                         |
| S        |                                                           |
| urgery** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Oregon | I think apportionment makes more sense when the PIs are   |
| Health & | at different institutions as it helps address             |
| Science  | institutional issues. When the PIs are at the same        |
| Univ     | institution, I think this concept is more problematic and |
| ersity** | apportionment is not necessary.                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
|          | Tracking the budget apportionment is an administrative    |
|          | issue that can be handled at the institution level and    |
|          | should not be foisted upon the NIH.                       |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | In some cases, apportionment may be useful to             |
| iversity | PIs/institutions, and in other cases it may decrease      |
| of       | efficiency - PIs/institutions should be the judge and     |
| Illinois | make the request if they feel it would be necessary. In   |
| at       | the case of modular budgets, apportionment should be in   |
| C        | units of modules (or half-modules?)                       |
| hicago** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **San    | Permitting Co-PIs or more than one PI will provide an     |
| Diego    | avenue for joint work and joint recognition. The current  |
| State    | system is flawed because one is forced to choose a PI     |
| Univ     | (who receives the recognition) even when the research is  |
| ersity** | clearly a joint effort between two scientists             |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **       | The current system really does not recognize the          |
| Virginia | contributions of each of the co-investigators to the      |
| Comm     | grant proposal as the PI receives virtually all of the    |
| onwealth | credit for the award. Recognition of all of the           |
| Univ     | co-investigators would actually provide an incentive for  |
| ersity** | more integrated collaborations, both in terms of the      |
|          | research and the development of the grant.                |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Boston | To the extent that this mechanism is more fair and        |
| Un       | encourages collaborations, then it facilitates matters.   |
| iversity | However, it will likely result in extra work for each PI  |
| School   | for reporting purposes. Suggest single scientific         |
| of       | progress reports with multiple financial reports. Submit  |
| Me       | all electronically.                                       |
| dicine** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Fox    | It is the only way for academic institutions to seriously |
| Chase    | value the effort of collaborative work. Although I am a   |
| Cancer   | nurse, I do not work in a department of nursing. However, |
| Center** | I am on a task force sponsored by the Oncology Nursing    |
|          | Society to evaluate the role of nurses in cooperative     |
|          | group and/or multisite research. One of the MAJOR         |
|          | barriers to nurse scientist involvement in such reseach   |
|          | appears to be the lack of credit they recieve from their  |
|          | Deans and/or instutitions for not being the PI of such    |
|          | studies. This proposal would help eliminate such          |
|          | barriers.                                                 |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Wayne  | The concept of joint responsibility is the most           |
| State    | attractive and the one most likely to succeed.            |
| Univ     |                                                           |
| ersity** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Utah   | I think this set up will create more paperwork but I      |
| State    | think it\'ll be about even in the end. Allowing each PI   |
| Univ     | to handle their own budget can make for less hassles with |
| ersity** | the details (e.g., moving money from travel to supplies)  |
|          | but more hassles with bigger issues (e.g., running out of |
|          | money).                                                   |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | I think that this is an excellent way to promote          |
| iversity | collaborations.                                           |
| of       |                                                           |
| Oklahoma |                                                           |
| Health   |                                                           |
| Sciences |                                                           |
| Center** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **UAB**  | This is an excellent idea. It fosters interactive         |
|          | projects and brings together expertise for more novel     |
|          | projects.                                                 |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Johns  | If the budget would be apportioned it would be like       |
| Hopkins  | having two separate grants. If the PIs can\'t agree, it   |
| Un       | will not be a good project                                |
| iversity |                                                           |
| Medical  |                                                           |
| School** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **St.    | I think the PI should be permitted (but not required) to  |
| Jude     | state: I would like this budget apportioned among these   |
| Chi      | PIs. However, this is most important for subcontracts, so |
| ldren\'s | that each subcontract PI has their own budget that can be |
| Res      | counted by the PI\'s institution.                         |
| Ho       |                                                           |
| spital** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | I strongly support adoption of a policy in which there    |
| iversity | can be a PI and also Co-PIs on a proposal/grant. But I    |
| of       | also believe that there should be one PI for the project  |
| A        | who oversees budget distribution, efficiencies,           |
| rizona** | coordination of the parts of the project and the various  |
|          | efforts on it, etc. On the other hand, the Co-PIs should  |
|          | be recognized as having co-responsibility for the ideas   |
|          | behind, and and the proposing and executing of, the       |
|          | project. In other words, they should be recognized and    |
|          | credited for their leadership and intellectual            |
|          | contributions, but only one true PI should be the project |
|          | coordinator, responsible for management, budget           |
|          | allocation, etc. Otherwise, in my experience, chaos and   |
|          | misunderstandings are likely.                             |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Oregon | In these days of increasing interdisciplinary research,   |
| State    | recognzing multiple PIs is a move in the right direction. |
| Univ     |                                                           |
| ersity** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Bio    | I understand the idea behind multiple PI\'s, especially   |
| Medware, | with the need for multidisciplinary teams. But I believe  |
| Inc**    | the need for clearly defined lines of responsibility and  |
|          | reporting is paramount. Running a large research team is  |
|          | best accomplished by having one scientist in command. The |
|          | existing arrangement at NIH where there is one PI is the  |
|          | way to accomplish this. Co-PI\'s often are designated     |
|          | within the research team, but this has no official        |
|          | standing at NIH, which is appropriate. Hence the present  |
|          | arrangement means the line of responsbility for conduct   |
|          | of the research, and the corresponding control over       |
|          | budget, is clear.                                         |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| *        | The chances of successful completion of a research        |
| *Creare, | project is significantly enhanced by a Principal          |
| Inc.**   | Investigator who has personal responsibility for the      |
|          | overall outcome of the project. Allocation of funds       |
|          | between multiple Principal Investigators may lead to      |
|          | negotiation and renegotiation of budgetary allocations    |
|          | and divert focus from the technical work. Failure to      |
|          | recognize personal contributions to successful projects   |
|          | within grantee organizations is a structural problem that |
|          | should be fixed within the grantee organizations. The     |
|          | advantages of a single Principal Investigator are         |
|          | especially important on projects oriented to technology   |
|          | development, as in SBIR (R43/R44) and STTR (R41/R42)      |
|          | grants.                                                   |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ.  | For my response to Question 9a, I would have liked to     |
| of North | select                                                    |
| Ca       |                                                           |
| rolina - | both the yes and no responses, since it is often          |
| Cha      | difficult to formally separate a grant\'s budget across a |
| rlotte** | project team since supplies, equipment, etc.. needed to   |
|          | complete the Project\'s aims.                             |
|          |                                                           |
|          | To avoid artificially attempts to calculate the % of each |
|          | budgetary category initially allocated to one PI versus   |
|          | another, I advocate                                       |
|          |                                                           |
|          | the 1st strategy presented in NOT-OD-05-055 rather than   |
|          | the 2nd.                                                  |
|          |                                                           |
|          | However, to help with University book-keeping, perhaps    |
|          | NIH                                                       |
|          |                                                           |
|          | could have PIs define how the \"credit\" for the grant    |
|          | should be distributed (e.g, If there are 3 PIs, is it a 3 |
|          | x 33.3% split, or is it actually 60% credit for the       |
|          | budget for one person, and 20% each for the other two ) . |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Dayton | Will lead to fragmented decision making and inefficiency, |
| CCOP**   | conflict, bureacracy.                                     |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **The    | I have had nearly 40 years of support from federal        |
| Un       | research grants (mainly NIH), as PI and co-investigator.  |
| iversity | Having more than one PI (and I believed this as firmly    |
| of North | when co-investigator) could seriously interfere with the  |
| Carolina | occasional need for an imbalance of authority when        |
| at       | decisions must be made and thereby produce negative       |
| Chapel   | effects for the progress of research. Let the research    |
| Hill,    | institutions (academic and other) that know the           |
| RTI      | researchers best resolve problems associated with having  |
| Intern   | one principal investigator.and spare them and NIH from    |
| ational, | the bigger problems associated with distributed final     |
| Pacific  | authority.                                                |
| I        |                                                           |
| nstitute |                                                           |
| for      |                                                           |
| Research |                                                           |
| a**      |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **U.     | It will interfere, but it is the right thing to do        |
| Pennsy   |                                                           |
| lvania** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | I think that financially there really needs to be one     |
| iversity | person in charge of the budget and that too many cooks in |
| of       | the kitchen will be detrimental, so to speak, in making   |
| Southern | decisions. In case of small subaccounts for               |
| Cali     | coinvestigators to facilitate specific aspects of the     |
| fornia** | project or for the salary funds, our institution allows   |
|          | us to do this internally already.                         |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ   | Overall control of a regular R01 type grant must reside   |
| Pitt     | in one person. Otherwise the PI cannot change personnel   |
| sburgh** | and direction as dictated both by new findings and by the |
|          | performance of co-investigators.                          |
|          |                                                           |
|          | BTW, I have R01s with subcontracts and am subcontracts on |
|          | others.                                                   |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Monell | There is some danger in that there may be more chance for |
| Center** | misuse of funds or losing track of what has been used,    |
|          | but I think the overall effect would be beneficial.       |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
|          | I think it will be great opportunity to combine different |
|          | perspective and experience in one Project                 |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Wa     | NIH should permit, not require the apportionment.         |
| shington |                                                           |
| Un       | The apportionment should be tracked, but there should be  |
| iversity | some flexibility for the PIs to re-allocate the fund      |
| in St.   | without reporting to NIH if the percentage is small.      |
| Louis**  |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| *        | Many projects are interdisciplinary across department and |
| *Retired | college lines. Giving co-I\'s ease in spending, rather    |
| from     | than going outside their department or college will       |
| Aca      | facilitate the work. However, they should also have the   |
| demics** | fiscal responsibility.                                    |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Main   | Having multiple PI\'s for CCOP administation could only   |
| LIne     | increase the ease of reporting AEs, annual review of      |
| Health   | studies to the IRB, etc, as all MDs involved with CCOPs   |
| CCOP**   | are busy doing work besides overseeing CCOP. Having two   |
|          | PIs to erview all information would make getting to one   |
|          | of them an easier proposition.                            |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Duke   | From my experience in multidisiplinary research this      |
| Univ     | approach is LONG OVERDUE. Much of today\'s research       |
| ersity** | requires specialists from several disciplines.            |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Johns  | Without apportionment it is difficult to get credit for   |
| Hopkins  | collaborative work. Space and other resources (such as    |
| Univ     | secretarial help, \...) are often allocated using square  |
| ersity** | feet/\$ of research funds (or this is at least used as an |
|          | indicator of equity of allocation of space). Under the    |
|          | current system, the PI gets all the credit. This is a     |
|          | disincentive to participating in collaborative research.  |
|          | If only the title \"PI\" is shared, this won\'t be enough |
|          | for credit to be distributed. However, it should be       |
|          | possible for the PIs, through mutual agreement, to        |
|          | reapportion funds during the project period without       |
|          | asking NIH permission. There probably does need to be a   |
|          | lead PI who will be able to settle disputes and is        |
|          | ultimately responsible for NIH reports.                   |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **       | with one major exception: It should NOT be within the     |
| Columbia | rights of the grantee institution to charge ANYTHING      |
| Univ     | against the DIRECT cost budget of the PI items NOT        |
| ersity** | approved by the NIH and the grantee. Such items would     |
|          | include institutional charges for tuition, fees,          |
|          | \"central funds\" assesments, university administration , |
|          | infrastructure costs, insurance etc                       |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | Apportionment, agreed upon by the involved PIs at the     |
| iversity | time of proposal submission, will resolve many disputes   |
| of       | that currently arise among senior investigators. I think  |
| Southern | apportionment will greatly benefit research.              |
| Cali     |                                                           |
| fornia** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **       | This may be a critical change as we develop more clinical |
| Memorial | trials with laboratory components, and essential feature  |
| Sloan-K  | of translational research.                                |
| ettering |                                                           |
| Cancer   |                                                           |
| Center** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **W      | It really depends on the nature of the grant.             |
| adsworth |                                                           |
| Center** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Texas  | I think that apportionment may continue to place          |
| Southern | unnecessary emphasis on the amount of money the PI has    |
| Univ     | been awarded which influences promotion and tenure rather |
| ersity** | than intellectual contributions.                          |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **       | It will greatly facilitate collaborative research greatly |
| Columbia | because it will ensure that each investigator can trust   |
| Uni      | the agreements that are made. Therefore, the              |
| versity, | investigators can focus on the project and develop the    |
| St.      | comfort, communication and cooperation that are essential |
| Luke\'s  | for efficient team-work. This will make leadership of a   |
| R        | project involving multiple investigators much more        |
| oosevelt | effective. This is because the leader would have a        |
| Hospital | clearly defined goal: To make sure that the proposed work |
| Center** | is going to be performed to the highest possible          |
|          | standard, at a good cost to effectivity ratio and within  |
|          | an optimal time frame.                                    |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **       | I think the plan to name multiple PIs with control over   |
| Columbia | portions of budgets is a bad one. It may address a need   |
| Univ     | for faculty and institutions to apportion credit for      |
| ersity** | grant awards, but it does so at a huge price\--the        |
|          | diffusion of clear lines of responsibility and control.   |
|          | In the current system, the PI can make decisions,         |
|          | hopefully after negotiation with co-Is. In the new        |
|          | system, disputes could not be easily resolved, and as a   |
|          | result flexibility will decline and conflicts will        |
|          | proliferate. Consider the benefits of the Federal         |
|          | Demonstration Project guidelines\--rebudgeting up to 25%  |
|          | without approval from NHLBI and the ability to use funds  |
|          | from one project to further aims on a intellectually      |
|          | related project. I can\'t see these key elements          |
|          | surviving in a world with multiple PIs. My advice is let  |
|          | the awardee institutions figure out their own solutions   |
|          | to their accounting problems.                             |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **       | Multiple PI\'s will diffuse responsibility to get the     |
| Memorial | proposed work completed. Currently each PI has the strong |
| Sloan    | motivation of renewal to complete the work. With multiple |
| Ket      | smaller pieces, an investigator may choose to ignore a    |
| tering** | grant which provides him/her small amount of funds.       |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
|          | Having multiple PI\'s merely reflects the complex,        |
|          | collaborative nature for research, especially             |
|          | communuty-based participatory reseach, which by           |
|          | definition, is research that is perforemd in the          |
|          | community.                                                |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **USDA   | Allow for changes                                         |
| Human    |                                                           |
| N        |                                                           |
| utrition |                                                           |
| R        |                                                           |
| esearach |                                                           |
| center   |                                                           |
| on Aging |                                                           |
| at Tufts |                                                           |
| Univ     |                                                           |
| ersity** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **       | It appears that efforts at tracking funding allocation is |
| Virginia | not beneficial. In my experience the necessary            |
| Tech**   | experience, tools, and techniques usually changes as a    |
|          | project evolve. In the interest of pursuing promising     |
|          | results, funding must be kept fluid. Since all PIs        |
|          | already keep track of their own spending, it seems        |
|          | wasteful of time and energy of NIH to further monitor the |
|          | activity.                                                 |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | Each PI will have a budget to manage in order to          |
| iversity | accomplish his/her research goals. There should be a      |
| of       | SIMPLE mechanism whereby funds could be transferred from  |
| Mis      | one PI\'s budget to another PI\'s budget, if the two      |
| souri-Co | investigators agree on reapportionment of funds in order  |
| lumbia** | to accomplish the overall research goals.                 |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
|          | If all PIs viewed themselves as \"equal\" collaborators   |
|          | with different needs and involvement throughout the       |
|          | project, apportionment could facilitate access and use of |
|          | resources and funds. I also think, if monitored           |
|          | carefully, it would help to validate actual involvement.  |
|          | However, who gets to decide how the resources/funds are   |
|          | distributed\-\--I just don\'t want to see early career    |
|          | researchers to be overshadowed.                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **       | A mechanism is needed for apportionment, though this      |
| Member** | should be worked out among investigators and not by NIH.  |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **       | If it\'s done correctly. I think sharing among PIs can be |
| Virginia | enabled where needed by the institutions involved. It     |
| Tech**   | should be stipulated, however, that NIH has no objection  |
|          | to that and it need not be reviewed by NIH before         |
|          | happening.                                                |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **New    | It will result in more open communication about the       |
| York     | budget between collaborators                              |
| Un       |                                                           |
| iversity |                                                           |
| School   |                                                           |
| of       |                                                           |
| Me       |                                                           |
| dicine** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Alfred | It may work well in some instances on some awards, but I  |
| I duPont | worry that you will have a situation where no one is      |
| Hospital | functioning as PI because everyone is trying to be PI.    |
| for      | The sum of the work may not add up to what was proposed   |
| Ch       | if you have two or more PIs treating a single grant as    |
| ildren** | more than one award.                                      |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Albany | I think it impossible to manage scientific direction and  |
| Medical  | experimental priorities by \"consensus\". It will also    |
| C        | make compliance issues at the institution more difficult  |
| ollege** | as accountibility will become \"mushy\". Definitely will  |
|          | cause more problems than it will solve.                   |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | I would suggest that apportionment only be permitted on   |
| iversity | program projects primarily for the purpose of             |
| of       | intellectual credit, both at the NIH and grantee          |
| Illinois | institutions. Perhaps there could be one PI and multiple  |
| at       | Co-PIs. The PI would have overall financial and           |
| C        | administrative responsibility, but scientific             |
| hicago** | responsibility/credit would be shared. The databases      |
|          | could show the Co-PI sub-awards but somehow link back to  |
|          | the parent grant? The same PI/Co-PI designations could be |
|          | applied for subcontracts.                                 |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **UCLA** | I believe that apportionment, IF it is an OPTION, can     |
|          | facilitate the operation of a research team, but it is    |
|          | important to permit the option also to have multiple      |
|          | PI\'s without financial apportionment for cases where     |
|          | that will enhance efficiency.                             |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **NID    | As a long veteran of NIH Study Section, I believe that    |
| CD/NIH** | more than one P.I. on an RO1 is a bad idea. Ultimately,   |
|          | the buck has to stop somewhere. Beyond initial review and |
|          | funding, out-year oversight and control of funded         |
|          | activities is limited enough as it is. Having a           |
|          | situtation where two people can fight over who get the    |
|          | credit for success, or worse yet, point fingers at each   |
|          | other for failure will become an administrative           |
|          | nightmare. It will effectively be impossible for Study    |
|          | Section, Council, and program administration to sort out  |
|          | any such disputes given their resources and access to     |
|          | information.                                              |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Purdue | I think it will be important to apportion the budget at   |
| Univ     | the time of the application and award and then allow the  |
| ersity** | PI\'s collectively to change the apportionment as the     |
|          | project develops if it becomes necessary (and indicate    |
|          | changes on noncompetitive renewals). I can imagine all    |
|          | sorts of complications arising if two or more PI\'s in    |
|          | separate departments or institutions are allowed to spend |
|          | money from a single budget.                               |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ.  | It will neither interfere nor facilitate. The real effect |
| A        | will be to give appropriate credit to individuals for     |
| labama - | their contributions.                                      |
| Birm     |                                                           |
| ingham** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Li     | I think that there are current problems with the system   |
| neberger | that we now use which discourages administrative          |
| Cancer   | personnel from recommending that investigators work with  |
| Center** | other groups due to the lack of                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **La     | In a true collaboration, the PIs would need to make       |
| Tech     | adjustments to the apportionments based upon findings and |
| Univ     | events in the research process. The research team must be |
| ersity** | able to work together to resolve any issues. Otherwise,   |
|          | it is not true teamwork.                                  |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | It could also save on indirect costs in lieu of contracts |
| iversity | between institutions.                                     |
| of       |                                                           |
| Ten      |                                                           |
| nessee** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **NJIT   | NIH budgeting is much more streamlined and less           |
| /Rutgers | bureaucratic than most Institutional subawards or even    |
| Univ     | internal budgeting. Having the apportionment through NIH  |
| ersity** | would eliminate the need for dealing with additional      |
|          | institutional red tape.                                   |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **       | See 12                                                    |
| Brandeis |                                                           |
| Univ     |                                                           |
| ersity** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **LSU    | a\) Yes -- The reapportionment will better facilitate     |
| Health   | collaborative grants. However, there are potential        |
| Sciences | problems associated with this change. Department Heads    |
| Center** | may pressure investigators to have greater amounts of the |
|          | budget allocated to their department in order to capture  |
|          | greater indirect costs.                                   |
|          |                                                           |
|          | b\) Yes -- I think that tracking of changes by NIH will   |
|          | minimize potential conflicts between departments and      |
|          | between the participating investigators.                  |
|          |                                                           |
|          | c\) This is a double edged sword. The current system,     |
|          | where the grant is awarded to a single PI, tends to       |
|          | inhibit collaborations. For example, rather than two      |
|          | individuals working together, they might submit separate, |
|          | but weaker, grants. In this case neither may be funded.   |
|          | So in this regard, the apportionment will facilitate      |
|          | joint grant applications. On the other hand, the          |
|          | apportionment could lead to squabbles with regard to an   |
|          | investigator's contribution to the program, because this  |
|          | will affect Departmental metrics for research space       |
|          | allocations, the amount of the research incentive bonus   |
|          | for a particular faculty member, and 'bragging rights'    |
|          | for departmental extramural funding. Despite these        |
|          | potential drawbacks, I think the overall impact would be  |
|          | that the apportionment would facilitate grant submissions |
|          | and funding.                                              |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | At present, faculty who participate in collaborative      |
| iversity | research as investigators on grants outside of their      |
| of Miami | department suffer loss of overhead credit, which is       |
| School   | highly detrimental to the faculty in terms of promotion   |
| of       | and covering the expenses of their space. In the present  |
| Me       | situation, there is a negative incentive to collaborate   |
| dicine** | outside of the department. There is also the unfortunte   |
|          | situation in which a facutly helps write the              |
|          | collaborative grant and then gets cut out or cut down by  |
|          | the PI of the grant. This really puts the collaborative   |
|          | faculty in a degrading position. Full control of the      |
|          | grant money needs to go to those collaborative faculty    |
|          | outside of the department in which the PI resides. This   |
|          | will assure that the research is performed as written     |
|          | into the grant.                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Baylor | The contact PI should have an oversight and monitoring    |
| College  | responsibility over the other PIs to ensure that          |
| of       | allocated funds are utilized as proposed. The contact PI  |
| Me       | should agree to and \"approve\" any significant           |
| dicine** | deviations from proposed work or spending patterns by the |
|          | other PIs. In the event of a disagreement, the contact PI |
|          | should report to the NIH project officer. Imagine a       |
|          | scenario where a non-contact PI diverts funds to          |
|          | un-proposed studies leaving prposed studies shortchanged. |
|          | That could have adverse impact on the overall project.    |
|          |                                                           |
|          | It could be difficult to determine the overall progress   |
|          | of the entire project during renewals. What happens if a  |
|          | non-contact PI has expended his or her fund allocation    |
|          | without delivering?.                                      |
|          |                                                           |
|          | The Contact PI should have some strong oversight power!!. |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Mayo   | Collaboration is ALWAYS facilitated by giving talented    |
| Clinic   | scientists autonomy and this translates to money.         |
| College  | Additionally, I firmly believe that this policy would     |
| of       | enhance the attractiveness of collaboration by granting   |
| Me       | PI status to all those who deserve the role for a         |
| dicine** | particular project.                                       |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Mount  | With the tenuous structure of fund accounting in many     |
| Sinai    | academic institutions, the parcelling out of the budgets  |
| School   | will add too much complexity to the administration of     |
| of       | grants. In most functional programs, monies are allocated |
| Me       | proportionally to the productivity of outputs, as this    |
| dicine** | works to the advantage of the grantees. By apportioning   |
|          | budgets a priori, it is possible that the rigidly defined |
|          | categories will be counter-productive over the lifetime   |
|          | of the grant.                                             |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| *        | This will clearly add administrative tasks to the         |
| *Harvard | management of a project. It might also create the         |
| Medical  | impression of more fixed boundaries where funds are       |
| School** | concerned - that is, with identified funds apportioned to |
|          | PI\'s, there might be less willingness to share. It will  |
|          | require a cultural shift; but it is a warranted one.      |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | It won\'t help, but may be necessary.                     |
| iversity |                                                           |
| of       |                                                           |
| Vi       |                                                           |
| rginia** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **The    | I have been sharing PI status with collaborators on an    |
| Ohio     | institutional (informal) basis for ten years, on grants   |
| State    | numbering perhaps 5. There have been problems and         |
| Un       | advantages. The major advantage has been ensurance of a   |
| iversity | closer working relationship between the two PIs. The      |
| College  | problems have been several: 1. The informal PI has to     |
| of       | fight for adequate credit. 2. Allocation of salary is     |
| Me       | difficult. We have found it best to split salary monies   |
| dicine** | evenly. 3. How to allocate funds: we have divided the     |
|          | money half and half. But flexiblity is needed and should  |
|          | not be enforced by NIH.                                   |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | I think apportionment will help us, but make your job     |
| iversity | harder.                                                   |
| of       |                                                           |
| M        |                                                           |
| ontana** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| *        | Every year I have to solve \"issues\" that arise due to   |
| *Georgia | NIH subcontracts from collaborators at other              |
| I        | universities. The subcontracting process is inefficient   |
| nstitute | and generates needless paperwork. As science gets         |
| of       | increasingly multidisciplinary (most of my R01 are        |
| Tech     | multiple university projects), the effects of the current |
| nology** | subcontract inefficiency multiply.                        |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ.  | reduced efficiency, but sometimes necessary.              |
| Texas**  |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **       | This will be particularly helpful to allow junior faculty |
| Memorial | demonstrate their involvement in time and effort,         |
| Sloan-K  | hopefully stimulating their ability to head other grant   |
| ettering | submissions. The division between different institutional |
| Cancer   | involvement of co-PIs would no doubt foster cooperative   |
| Center** | research from different sites.                            |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **The    | I think this is definitely the type of collaborative      |
| Un       | grant that NIH should move to. Many of us do this any     |
| iversity | way, but this defines more specifically each role and the |
| of       | budget, and will allow for credit for promotion and       |
| M        | tenure. I am so pleased that NIH is moving in this        |
| ontana** | direction.                                                |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **       | Multiple PIs should be determined by the investigators,   |
| Hosiptal | not the institute. And multiple PIs should only exist if  |
| for      | well-defined goals exists for each PI with respect to the |
| Special  | overall goals of the grant. Otherwise, the independence   |
| S        | of PIs through separate budgets may be determental to     |
| urgery** | facilitate successful completion of the grant.            |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Oregon | I am opposed to multiple PIs on grants. A single person   |
| Research | needs to be responsible for decision-making and oversight |
| Ins      | of the funded research project. Thus, I feel              |
| titute** | apportionment should be unnecessary given a single PI     |
|          | scenario.                                                 |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Assoc. | Apportionment at the time of award will tend to minimize  |
| Dept.    | misunderstandings, and will permit each PI to do          |
| Head**   | financial/resource planning. Reallocation should require  |
|          | the consent of both PIs.                                  |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Emory  | At a time when availability of NIH dollars is at a        |
| Un       | premium and research level I institutions have created    |
| iversity | funding trajectories that may be unrealistic, efforts to  |
| School   | support the concept of linked awards could provide many   |
| of       | benefits. First such a system will, to a limited extent,  |
| Me       | diffuse the business mentality assimilated over the past  |
| dicine** | decade by many Research I (and other institutions)        |
|          | wherein more attention seems to be focused on total       |
|          | indirects than one the career development of particularly |
|          | younger (less experienced or funded) faculty. Second,     |
|          | such an initiative \"levels the playing field\" in that   |
|          | PIs at other sites (particularly applicable to multi-site |
|          | RCTs) can receive credit for their contributions and      |
|          | efforts even though they may not be the \"primary\" PI    |
|          | for the study. Third, the linked approach would foster    |
|          | better cooperation (and perhaps respect) within each      |
|          | participating site. Fourth, such an effort could foster   |
|          | additional collaborations between institutions and even,  |
|          | by way of example, between departments at institutions    |
|          | who would learn from the example(s) set by the original   |
|          | fundees in a linked application.                          |
|          |                                                           |
|          | I speak not as a frustrated investigator but as a         |
|          | seasoned one who has been successful at predominantly NIH |
|          | funding as well as funding from multiple sources for more |
|          | than 30 years. I am concerned about our future,           |
|          | motivation in biomedical research to attract and retain   |
|          | younger (newer) investigators, and an apparent need to    |
|          | reorient university administrators who are slow to part   |
|          | with frozen conceptualizations of existing funding        |
|          | mechanisms and perhaps even slower to grasp the           |
|          | potentially deleterious effects resulting from delayed    |
|          | recognition of the benefits that can be derived from      |
|          | novel approaches to research sharing.                     |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Johns  | I suggest leaving this allocation optional and up to the  |
| Hopkins  | investigative team to decide and manage, in the best      |
| Univ     | interests of the research plan and the team members. For  |
| ersity** | example, on a given project, the team may want to         |
|          | designate in the grant application a formal apportionment |
|          | of funds (for their own internal team or Institutional    |
|          | purposes); however, if the research progress dictates     |
|          | change in apportionment, this should not require the      |
|          | bureaucracy of reporting/discussion with NIH. As another  |
|          | example, a different project team may just retain         |
|          | flexibility by saying that the project funding support    |
|          | would be allocated by the team ad hoc, as they see fit.   |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **UCSF** | I support the apportionment of budget, but not joint      |
|          | oversight. One person should be responsible. Each could   |
|          | be responsible for their share of the budget.             |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **H      | for multi-center studies or subcontracts, this would      |
| arvard - | greatly facilitate collaboration and progress             |
| BIDMC**  |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Ch     | I think it could be an issue of the insitution does not   |
| ilden\'s | have adequate systems in place to set up and monitor the  |
| Hospital | budget in this way.                                       |
| Boston** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | Multiple PIs will be good for big projects like P01 and   |
| iversity | BRP. It may not be a good idea for smaller grants like    |
| of       | R01 or R21. With current funding level and inflation, a   |
| Utah**   | divided resources and focus in R01s and R21s will only    |
|          | low down efficiency and productivity. It may not be good  |
|          | to help junior researchers to establish their independent |
|          | research career.                                          |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **       | This will depend very much on the chemistry among the     |
| Virginia | collaborators. Especially for new collaborations, fixed   |
| Pol      | budget approtionments may aid in building trust. In       |
| ytechnic | cases, where trust is not an issue, flexible budget       |
| I        | apportionments through a traditional sub-contract         |
| nstitute | mechanism provide more opportunities to tailor the budget |
| and      | to changing circumstances.                                |
| State    |                                                           |
| Univ     |                                                           |
| ersity** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Johns  | This will allow are more developed collabortion within    |
| Hopkins  | the scope of grant. Having submitted 2 R01 as PI and      |
| School   | Co-PI, it haelps if both had some control of the budget.  |
| of       |                                                           |
| Me       |                                                           |
| dicine** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **       | One person should have responsibility for a project and   |
| Virginia | should have control of the budget. A single budget allows |
| Tech**   | maximum flexibility to reallocate funds if necessary.     |
|          | Multiple PIs with multiple budgets will lead naturally to |
|          | separate projects under one \"umbrella\" grant, and away  |
|          | from the idea that a grant should be a well-focused       |
|          | single project.                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | Thus far, on Program Project, RO1, and sub-contract       |
| iversity | grants there has always been an un-ease about the         |
| of       | contributions of PI vs. the CO-Is on the grants as to     |
| Mis      | \"who gets credit\" and how the contributions of the      |
| souri-Co | Centers, Departments, Schools, etc. are acknowledged. To  |
| lumbia** | fulfill the road map ideas and to truely develop the      |
|          | integrated science model called for in the RFAs ,         |
|          | Training Grants, etc. some system that allows for a       |
|          | \"split-out\" of credits is needed badly.                 |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **North  | A single PI has too much control over budgetary and other |
| S        | issues which frequently is a deterent to other scientists |
| hore-LIJ | playing non-PI roles in projects or making substantive    |
| Research | efforts in grant writing and review. This current system  |
| Ins      | establishes investigators with de facto \"subservient\"   |
| titute** | roles, who receive less credit which factors in on how    |
|          | they prioritize their effort on various projects which    |
|          | benefit them to various degrees. By sharing the credit    |
|          | amoung multiple PIs and allowing investigators to control |
|          | funding related to their projects will ease establishment |
|          | and operation of interdisciplinary projects. This would   |
|          | be especially beneficial for younger (under 50)           |
|          | investigators who are currently being squeezed by the     |
|          | flaws of the current system.                              |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | I work with program projects and center grants, some with |
| iversity | complex subcontracting arrangements. These essentially    |
| of       | already function as multi-PI awards with one individual   |
| C        | designated as the \"uber-PI\' and that is the person I    |
| hicago** | report to; there is no reason I couldn\'t report to two   |
|          | such senior individuals with the budget is still          |
|          | apportioned among \"subproject leaders.\"                 |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Baylor | We are used to multiple-PI grants from other agencies     |
| College  | (USDA eg) with separate budgets for each institution.     |
| of       | This is analogous to the current NIH scenario when there  |
| Me       | is a subcontract with a PI for the subcontract. An        |
| dicine** | additional option is when the multiple PIs are within the |
|          | same institution. In that case a single budget can be     |
|          | presented which should adequately describe the funds for  |
|          | each PI\'s component of the project                       |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| *        | I recognize the need for recognition of investigators who |
| *Medical | play a more important role on a grant than simply an      |
| College  | investigator; however, there still needs to be just one   |
| of       | PI. This not only streamlines recordkeeping lines between |
| G        | the NIH and grants and contracts departments, but also    |
| eorgia** | avoids confusion in the peer review process when trying   |
|          | to determine who really is the PI, i.e. the person        |
|          | driving the project. Even when dealing with human         |
|          | assurance and animal care concerns, there ultimately      |
|          | needs to be one person responsible for the grant, or else |
|          | you can get people pointing fingers and not accepting     |
|          | responsibility for various actions. The best solution,    |
|          | and one that could be part of an NIH-initiated scientist  |
|          | mentoring plan, is to create an official Co-PI, (or       |
|          | Associate PI?) position. With that system, developing     |
|          | faculty, or those who might be moving towards assuming    |
|          | control over a grant, would be granted that status. This  |
|          | would carry additional "status" in cv's and in the peer   |
|          | review process. Thus, study section members would view    |
|          | R01 applicants with prior Associate PI status as having   |
|          | established the ability to coordinate a research program. |
|          | This would create a system analogous to the authorship    |
|          | system in scientific publications, in which both a first  |
|          | and senior author can be identified. Both carry           |
|          | independent meaning, which are important in their own     |
|          | right, and one can read a biosketch and see the           |
|          | transition of a scientist to a senior author. Similarly,  |
|          | I can see how a funding history can move from an NRSA and |
|          | investigator on an R01, to an Associate PI, to a PI.      |
|          | Please, however, maintain one PI per grant. Mike Brands   |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | This is a very trickey issue. I have extensive experience |
| iversity | in large collaborative projects. It would be valuable to  |
| of       | have a mechanism to apportion credit, however there needs |
| PENN     | to be some leverage for the overall project PI to ensure  |
| /ACRIN** | the project moves along in a coherent way. I would        |
|          | support apportionment, so long as it is reviewed yearly   |
|          | and the project leadership team can recommend changes in  |
|          | the best interest of the project. This is the only way    |
|          | the leadership team maintains leverage with the sites and |
|          | controll of the project.                                  |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | a\. Although I feel apportionment to each PI is           |
| iversity | logistically necessary at time of award in the least,     |
| of       | I\'m not sure that this administrative burden has to fall |
| Wis      | on the reviewers and staff of NIH. With other agencies    |
| consin - | who allow multiple PIs, budget allocation between PIs is  |
| M        | done within the University and this process works well.   |
| adison** | If apportionment had a negative impact on the modular     |
|          | budget process, I\'d be more opposed to NIH managing      |
|          | this. b. Though I am not strongly opposed to this, this   |
|          | seems unnecessary for NIH to do and could be handled by   |
|          | Universities. Perhaps annual progress reports could       |
|          | request summary of approximate distribution of funds      |
|          | between PIs. c. This could go either way depending on     |
|          | effect it would have on administrative/reporting          |
|          | requirements. To a certain extent, multi-investigator     |
|          | teams have budget plans that distribute the funds amongst |
|          | the teams and this would be creating a more formal        |
|          | process. It could facilitate, as long as PIs didn\'t lose |
|          | flexibility and additional forms/reporting were not       |
|          | required.                                                 |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | When the policy is changed to allow multiple PIs, this    |
| iversity | will become the default. The problem with divided         |
| of North | responsibility (includeing divided budget responsibility) |
| Carolina | is that nobody is responsible. The current system is the  |
| at       | best one. However, if budget is allocated to each PI,     |
| Chapel   | this should be tracked through the NGA.                   |
| Hill,    |                                                           |
| Dept of  |                                                           |
| Med      |                                                           |
| icine,** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Rhode  | Obviously this increases the profile of important         |
| Island   | collaborators, and will engage them more in the projects. |
| Hospit   | It is more bang for the buck, particular for large awards |
| al/Brown | like multicenter clinical trials.                         |
| Medical  |                                                           |
| School** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **D      | I currrently am an equivalent co-PI (but not listed as    |
| artmouth | such) on an R01. This is the second individual research   |
| Medical  | award that I have jointly shared with another             |
| School** | investigator (Dr. Ann Clark); the fist was a joint        |
|          | proposal from the NSF. In both cases, we have listed Dr.  |
|          | Clark as PI (alphabetical\....). My university does       |
|          | recognize the joint nature of this grant. For example,    |
|          | the indirect costs are split between our two departments  |
|          | (Physiology and Psychology) based on each of our percent  |
|          | efforts. However, there are other areas that are made     |
|          | administratively difficult by the recognition of a sole   |
|          | PI. For example, rather than each of our departments      |
|          | having a portion of the budget to manage, Dr. Clark\'s    |
|          | administrator manages all finances. In other words, she   |
|          | is taking on the duties that would normally fall to my    |
|          | administrator for my purchases, salaries etc. With only   |
|          | two of us on the grant, this is manageable, but still     |
|          | makes it much more difficult in that her administrator is |
|          | not always familiar with details of my lab. Moreover, I   |
|          | think it seems unwieldy to ask a single administrator to  |
|          | do this for multiple PIs, especially if they are at       |
|          | different institutions. Finally, as you note in the RFA,  |
|          | listings in databases makes a difference with repsect to  |
|          | one\'s advancement. At this point, I am a full professor  |
|          | and so do not mind as much (although I still do to some   |
|          | extent) if grant that are legitimately half mine do not   |
|          | show up in the CRISP or other databases. However, if I    |
|          | were at an earlier point in my career, this might be a    |
|          | significant disincentive for submitting collaborative     |
|          | proposals in which I was not listed as the PI.            |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **       | Apportionment will simplify the situation when            |
| Virginia | investigators are in different administrative units,      |
| Tech**   | e.g., medical school vs. engineering. If there is a need  |
|          | to share funds between units, let that be done at the     |
|          | institutional level. They already have mechanisms in      |
|          | place to handle that.                                     |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| *        | If there is truly a seoncd or third PI then they meet the |
| *Charles | requirement to be responsible and if they are responsible |
| R Drew   | they shoulkd have teh authority to carry out their        |
| Univ     | activiities.                                              |
| ersity** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | Currently the PI has discretion to make changes of up to  |
| iversity | 20-25% of the total budget despite the award being made   |
| of       | on the basis of the proposal which might have described   |
| Hawaii & | an approach that one of the co-PIs suggested and that is  |
| Johns    | thereafter abandoned. Greater changes can be made with    |
| H        | the approval of the project officer. I have seen this     |
| opkins** | occur several times to the detriment of the research. I   |
|          | believe the apportionment will give dollars and authority |
|          | to other important members of the team. Secondly, the     |
|          | current system means that faculty members have to fight   |
|          | about who is PI and sews dissent rather than              |
|          | collaboration within universities. I have often pursued a |
|          | collaborative approach and allowed others to be PI and    |
|          | myself to be a co-PI. I was not admitted to the American  |
|          | Society for Clinical Investigation when nominated and was |
|          | told that the reason was that I had not had enough        |
|          | publications in the New England Journal of Medicine from  |
|          | projects on which I was the PI. Therefore I was penalized |
|          | for helping to promote others\' careers, which seems      |
|          | contrary to what good mentorship should be about.         |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
|          | NIH and institutional effort could be better expended on  |
|          | other tasks. Dependence on multiple institutions for      |
|          | change in funding allocation could delay progress with    |
|          | research. Would take time away from scientific issues for |
|          | negotiating administrative issues.                        |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **D      | As a research administrator I don\'t think it\'s possible |
| artmouth | to overstate the importance apportioning budgets on       |
| C        | multiple PI grants. At the end of the day, everyone is    |
| ollege** | going to focus on the money and we need the ability to    |
|          | establish with absolute clarity which resources are       |
|          | allocated to which PI. Apportionment would prevent        |
|          | miscommunications and misunderstandings that would        |
|          | inevitably get in the way of collaboration.               |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
|          | NIH and institutional effort could be better expended on  |
|          | other tasks. Flexibility in changing allocation after     |
|          | funding would be a nightmare that could delay research    |
|          | progress. Would increase amount of communication time     |
|          | between the \"PIs\" that is spent on negotiating          |
|          | administrative issues rather than scientific ones. If NIH |
|          | adopts this whole concept, suggest the word \"Principal\" |
|          | be dropped; there would de facto be no PI.                |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
|          | This would be a nightmare. NIH and institutional effort   |
|          | could be better expended on other tasks. Flexibility in   |
|          | changing apportionment after funding would depend on      |
|          | three or more institutions (including NIH) - a potential  |
|          | nightmare that could delay research progress. Also would  |
|          | increase amount of communication time between the \"PIs\" |
|          | that is spent on negotiating administrative issues rather |
|          | than scientific ones. If NIH adopts this whole concept,   |
|          | suggest the word \"Principal\" be dropped; there would de |
|          | facto be no PI.                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | Apportionment and independent control of expenditures     |
| iversity | would facilitate the efficient operation of the research  |
| of       | team by forcing it to collectively consider and agree     |
| Cal      | upon actual or best-estimate expenditures before awards   |
| ifornia, | were made, ensuring that the actual research conducted    |
| San      | would have greater fidelity to that proposed in grant     |
| Diego**  | applications.                                             |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Emory  | Should facilitate honesty among collaborators - more      |
| Un       | trust is better. Advise apportion in NOA, but don\'t      |
| iversity | track - let the institutions be flexible.                 |
| School   |                                                           |
| of       |                                                           |
| Me       |                                                           |
| dicine** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| *        | It would facilitate planning, so long as changes can be   |
| *Montana | readily made with just institutional approval, as is      |
| State    | currently done for budget category changes                |
| Univ     |                                                           |
| ersity** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Univ.  | I strongly prefer a shared budget with joint oversight by |
| Texas    | the PIs throughout the project period. I agree that       |
| Southw   | \"This would provide the flexibility needed to move funds |
| estern** | between PIs and various aspects of the project as         |
|          | required.\"                                               |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **un     | facilitate: encourages faculty to collaborate across      |
| iversity | universities and across schools within universities.      |
| of       | interfere: separates budget oversight of the complete     |
| pitt     | project and may require more oversight by NIH to provide  |
| sburgh** | the aggregate budget oversight                            |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **Un     | I think this should be an option, but not mandatory for   |
| iversity | the use of co-PI\'s                                       |
| of       |                                                           |
| Wash     |                                                           |
| ington** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+