Role Confusion: How to tell the difference between Co-Investigators, Consultants, and others for an NIH proposal

Role confusion comes up often when planning NIH grant proposals.  There are several terms that are sometimes used interchangeably which actually represent different things.  Also, NIH terms differ from those of other funding agencies.  It is important to pay attention to the various role definitions and ensure you are using them correctly in your application.

For example, I have often heard Principal Investigators (PIs) refer to individuals from within their organizations as "Consultants".  At most universities, a Consultant is unable to be listed from within the organization.  Consultants are paid directly from the grant - the money is sent to them in their name - and thus it is typical to include individuals from within the organization as Co-Investigators (with measurable effort) or Other Significant Contributors (with no measurable effort). 

The term "Co-PI" is also used often to describe multiple PIs on a grant application.  However, NIH does not recognize the term "Co-PI"; rather, NIH uses the Multiple PI model and the PIs are referred to as Contact PI or MPI.

Confused yet?

Thankfully, there is a helpful page from NIAID that lists key roles and their definitions.  Keep this handy as you develop your Budget Justification and write about the research team in your Research Strategy.

Your Research Administrator is your friend

It seems that lately I have encountered several situations in which research administrators and principal investigators (PIs) have difficulty communicating.  Perhaps some of this results from poorly worded, difficult to decipher email requests due to the alphabet soup of acronyms that is the world of research administration.  Perhaps some of this results from the PI not considering the research administrator to be an important member of the proposal preparation team.  No matter what the reason, it is very important to the success of every proposal to have a good partnership between the PI and research administration staff. 

Imagine that you create the perfect R01 proposal.  The proposed research is groundbreaking, and you have assembled a top-notch team of experts.  All of your materials for the grant are final and have been approved by your organization's central grants office.  All that remains on June 5th is to push the grants.gov button, and you are on your way to hitting the grant jackpot, right? 

Except there is a problem. 

It turns out that your research administrator was not aware of the importance or existence of key letters of support for your application.  These documents are vital, as they demonstrate that you have access to the specialized data you need to complete the work, and an ongoing partnership with a key organization.  Without these letters, reviewers will be left scratching their heads, wondering why you did not include the letters of support that you referenced in the text. (You did remember to reference them in the text, right?) 

There is another problem. 

The Request for Applications (RFA) to which you applied includes instructions for a specialized type of biosketch in a format that is different from the ones you have included.  Now in addition to looking like you forgot to include your letters, you are also showing the reviewers your inability to follow the directions and meet the requirements of the RFA. 

Perhaps these examples are not issues that will be enough to completely sink a grant.  However, do you want to put the idea into reviewers' minds that you are not thorough and did not care enough to read and follow the instructions?  Given that we are in a funding climate where a grant that ranks in the 14th percentile may not be good enough to receive funding, every point counts.  Reviewers need to take away an overall impression that you know what you are doing.

Then there is another problem.  The grant was uploaded using a version of Adobe Professional that does not work well with grants.gov.  When your proposal was uploaded, the first page of your Research Strategy was cut off.  The reviewers will not be able to see that fantastic introduction or background that you wrote.  Because you handed off the grant to the research administrator and figured she would "take care of it", you did not think to log into the era commons and check to make sure that your grant uploaded correctly.  Now the error correction window has passed and you are out of luck. 

All of these issues, and many more, can be prevented by having regular communication with your research administration staff.  Having a friendly relationship, where you can pick up the phone and ask a quick question if need be, is important for all PIs.  In the examples mentioned above, if the research administrator had been involved in some of your proposal development meetings, he or she would have understood the need for the letters and known to include them.  He or she would also have likely reviewed the RFA more closely and walked you through it in a sit-down meeting, if you had made yourself available for such a meeting.  Finally, the research administrator would have been accustomed to being in more regular communication with you, making it likely that he or she would have sent a quick note reminding you that your grant was submitted and should be reviewed in the system. 

Research administrators may not be responsible for the scientific portions of your grant proposal, but their errors or inattention to detail can sabotage your entire project. Develop a relationship with your research administrator in which he or she feels like a member of the team.  This will make him or her less afraid to correct you, or even your entire research team, if you are not correctly interpreting instructions.  Invite your research administrator to some of your research team's meetings, allowing for at least a basic understanding of your research goals.  Finally, develop a relationship in which the research administrator feels empowered to do his or her job without fearing your wrath. Just because you are unhappy with institutional policies and procedures does not mean he or she can bend or break the rules for you. 

For more about research administration, visit the Society of Research Administrators International.

Creating an interdisciplinary research team using the R13 mechanism

As lines between many fields become more blurred, it is becoming more important to include interdisciplinary teams of researchers on grant proposals. Having a variety of perspectives and backgrounds included not only enhances your proposal, but also contributes to your research in important ways. For example, your background in psychology might cause you to look at various external factors shaping a particular type of behavior, while a neuroscientist may look at the factors in the brain related to this behavior, and a geneticist may look at inherited genes related to the behavior. All of these perspectives are important, and together can help to create a project that is able to examine many factors contributing to the particular behavior. In other words, creating a multidisciplinary team allows you to look at the same problem in ways you may never have imagined. Working together allows for exchange of ideas, intellectual debate, and unified theories that are useful across disciplines.

So, now that you understand that this is important, consider ways that you may be able to reach outside of your comfort zone and begin to work with scientists in related but different fields. One way that you might begin to engage in discussions and work toward applying for funding for joint research projects is to set up meetings. NIH recently released an RFA that will fund this type of meeting. The RFA-CA-10-017 uses the R13 mechanism to fund scientific meetings that are designed to build collaborations between researchers in basic behavioral and social science research. The grants are capped at $50,000 in direct costs per year for a maximum of 2 years. Not a researcher in the social and behavioral sciences? Don't worry, PA-10-016 also includes researchers in the life and physical sciences, as well as behavioral and social sciences researchers. This opportunity has a budget cap of $25,000 in direct costs per year for a maximum of 2 years.

Consultant or Co-Investigator? How do I choose?

It can sometimes be difficult to determine whether an individual should be budgeted as a Consultant or Co-Investigator on a project. There are several factors to consider when making this decision.

1. Will this person be essential to carrying out the scientific duties of the project? Will he/she bear some responsibility for it's progress? Or will he/she simply be advising on one aspect of the project?
2. What type of time commitment is the individual willing to devote to the project?
3. Is the individual employed by another institution, or your own? If located at another institution, will your budget allow room for a subcontract, including any indirect costs?
4. If the person is located at your institution, will they be willing to devote measurable effort to the project? (NOTE: In most cases consultants are not able to be hired from one's own institution. Many universities, etc., do not allow this. In this case, if you want to budget someone from your own institution, he/she must be included in your personnel list, not budgeted as a consultant. )