[Federal Register: July 18, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 136)]
[Notices]
[Page 41220-41222]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18jy05-55]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Request for Information Relating to Research Awards
AGENCY: Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
Office of Federal Financial Management (OFFM).
ACTION: Request for information relating to the use of multiple
Principal Investigators (PIs) on awards made under Federal research and
research-related programs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Many areas of today's research require multi-disciplinary
teams in which the intellectual leadership of the project is shared
among two or more individuals. To facilitate this team approach through
recognition of the contributions of the team leadership members, OSTP
issued a memorandum to all Federal research agencies on January 4,
2005, requiring them to formally allow more than one PI on individual
research awards. The Federal agencies are now seeking input from the
research community--scientists, research administrators, and
organizations that represent components of the scientific research
community--on how best to implement this policy. The current Request
for Information (RFI) poses a series of questions around core elements
that may comprise each agency's implementation plan. These elements
include:
(1) Statement of what constitutes a PI; (2) designation of contact
PI; (3) application instructions for listing more than one PI; (4) PIs
at different institutions; (5) access to award and review information,
and (6) access to public data systems.
DATES: Comments must be received by September 16, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Beth Phillips, Office of
Federal Financial Management, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC
20503; telephone 202-395-3993; FAX 202-395-3952; e-mail
ephillip@omb.eop.gov. Due to potential delays in OMB's receipt and
processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, we encourage
respondents to submit comments electronically to ensure timely receipt.
We cannot guarantee that comments mailed will be received before the
comment closing date. Please include ``Multiple Principal
Investigators'' in the subject line of the e-mail message, and your
name, title, organization, postal address, telephone number and e-mail
address in the text of the e-mail message. Please also include the full
body of your comments in the test of the e-mail message and as an
attachment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the Research
Business Models (RBM) Subcommittee see the RBM Web site at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://rbm.nih.gov
, or contact Geoff Grant at the Office of Science and
Technology Policy at 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503; e-mail
ggrant@ostp.eop.gov; telephone 202-456-6131; FAX 202-456-6027.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on RBM
This proposal is an initiative of the Research Business Models
(RBM) Subcommittee of the Committee on Science (CoS), a committee of
the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC). The RBM
Subcommittee's objectives include:
Facilitating a coordinated effort across Federal agencies
to address policy implications arising from the changing nature of
scientific research, and
Examining the effects of these changes on business models
for the conduct of scientific research sponsored by the Federal
government.
The Subcommittee used public comments, agency perspectives, and
input from a series of regional public meetings to identify priority
areas in which it would focus its initial efforts. In each priority
area, the Subcommittee is pursuing initiatives to promote, as
appropriate, either common policy, the streamlining of current
procedures, or the identification of agencies' and institutions'
``effective practices.'' As information about the initiatives becomes
available, it is posted at the Subcommittee's Internet site http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://rbm.nih.gov
.
II. Background on the Plan To Recognize Multiple PIs on Federal
Research Projects
Many areas of research, in particular, translations of complex
discoveries into useful applications, increasingly require multi-
disciplinary and inter-disciplinary teams. Innovation and progress
still spring from and depend on creative individual investigators, but
collaborative synergy plays an increasingly important role in advancing
science and engineering. In deciding whether to do research as members
of multi-disciplinary teams, individual investigators must consider how
credit for their participation would be judged by the current incentive
and reward policies of their academic institutions, by their funding
agencies, and by colleagues within their own disciplines. The present
system takes its structure from the paradigm of the single ``Principal
Investigator''. Although this model has worked well and encourages
individual creativity and productivity, it also can discourage team
efforts.
Multi-disciplinary research teams can be organized in a variety of
ways. Research teams vary in terms of size, hierarchy, location of
participants, goals, and structure. Depending on the size and the
goals, the management structure of a team may include: a director and/
or multiple directors, assistant or associate directors, managers,
group leaders, team leaders, investigators, and others as needed.
Regardless of how a research team is organized, a pertinent and
important question is how to apportion credit fairly if multiple
individuals provide the intellectual leadership and direction of the
team effort.
[[Page 41221]]
Acting on the recommendation of the RBM Subcommittee, the CoS
concluded that team research would be enhanced if all Federal agencies
allowed more than one PI on individual research awards. Some agencies
already do this, either formally or informally, but the CoS action,
which led to a directive to all research agency heads by the Director,
OSTP, dated January 4, 2005, extends the practice to all research
agencies as a matter of policy.
Federal Implementation Effort
Accordingly, the federal research agencies will allow more than one
PI to be named on grant and contract proposals and awards. 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. This concept is similar to the widely accepted
practice of recognizing the contributions and responsibilities of
business partners.
The agencies recognize that teams frequently cut across
institutional and geographic boundaries and that team efforts therefore
often involve subcontracting or consortia arrangements between
different institutions. Based on the experience that some agencies
already have with research teams spanning multiple institutions, the
agencies are relatively confident that recognition of personnel
involved in multi-institution research projects will not substantively
alter these well established relationships between institutions.
It should be emphasized that naming multiple PIs for a proposed
research project is solely at the discretion of the proposing
institution(s). The government's recognition of more than one
individual as PI also is not intended to alter the institution's role
in assigning administrative or reporting responsibilities, nor the
working relationship between team members as they collaboratively
allocate resources within the team, subject to any constraints of the
awardee institution or the Federal agency under the award terms and
conditions, and as they apportion credit for research accomplishments.
Compliance requirements will continue to apply to individuals and
institutions, as they do today, regardless of the designation of
multiple PIs.
III. Request for Information
The Federal agencies have not fully developed their implementation
of the new OSTP policy on recognition of multiple PIs. The
implementation will address several core issues, which are listed below
with some questions for which public input is sought in developing
agency strategies. The Research Business Models Subcommittee will work
to coordinate a cross-government implementation of this policy, to the
extent practicable, as agencies take the public comments into account
and finalize their plans. The cross-government implementation will then
be published in the Research Business Models Toolkit.
Proposed Elements of Agency Implementation Plans
(1) Statement of what constitutes a PI: The current expectation is
to allow institutions to propose as a PI any investigator whom they
judge to have the appropriate level of authority and responsibility
related to the proper conduct of the study and submission of required
reports to the agencies. All PIs would be named in the award. The term
``Co-Principal Investigator'', as currently used by some agencies,
would no longer be used, to avoid any confusion about relative status
of PIs on the project.
Q 1: Are there any difficulties associated by listing more than one
individual as a PI? If so, please elaborate.
(2) Designation of Contact PI: To facilitate communication, the
institution will be required to identify a Contact PI, to whom agency
program officials will direct all communications related to scientific,
technical, and budgetary aspects of the project for which agency staff
would normally contact the single PI. By recognizing a person as a
Contact PI, a Federal agency would not itself confer any special
privileges on that person or any additional responsibilities, other
than ensuring that all PIs receive information that the agency
transmits. While the designation of the Contact PI is at the discretion
of the proposing institution, he or she would normally be from that
institution. If an institution does not propose a Contact PI, then the
funding agency will use the first listed PI as the default for that
role.
Q 2: Are there any difficulties that would be created by the
designation of one PI as the Contact PI? If so, please describe. Are
there issues that would affect institutions?
(3) Application instructions for listing more than one PI: Each
agency would specify how its standard application procedures would be
modified to reflect the overall policy accommodating multiple PIs. This
may include instructions for describing, within the research plan, the
specific areas of responsibility for each PI and how the team will
function. In the case of more large-scale, complex multi-disciplinary
projects (e.g., center grants, multi-site clinical trials) agencies
already have in place special mechanisms with requirements for
management plans that address issues of coordination and decision
making within those projects. Such projects are typically solicited
through a special funding opportunity (e.g., Request for Applications
or Proposals), and this practice would continue.
Q 3: What issues should the agencies consider in developing their
instructions for applications naming more than one PI?
(4) PIs at different institutions: Multi-disciplinary research
generally is performed by teams of researchers with strengths across a
number of science and engineering specialties. To assemble teams with
the requisite expertise, PIs at institutions with strengths in
different disciplines that bear on a research question frequently
collaborate to propose and carry out the work jointly. Therefore, a
multi-disciplinary team's PIs often are from different institutions
and, when only a single institution is involved, the PIs are frequently
from separate academic departments. One element of each Federal
agency's implementation therefore is accommodating recognition of
multiple PIs from different institutions. Making one award to a single
lead institution often is the best way to ensure good programmatic
coordination of the overall team effort, with subawards from the lead
institution to support the research efforts of the other institutions.
Making separate awards with PIs at each collaborating institution
sometimes is a better approach and, occasionally, an award to a
consortium of institutions is most advantageous. The key for each
agency is to specify a method for recognizing multiple PIs that is
consistent with the overall policy and that works for the types of
business arrangements that the agency uses to support multidisciplinary
research.
Q 4: Recognizing that agencies differ in the structure of their
business arrangements with institutions, are there ways for the
agencies to recognize PIs for a team effort involving multiple
departments or institutions? What issues should the agencies consider
in deciding on the most appropriate award structure?
(5) Access to award and review information: Agencies that grant
access to award information to the PI likely would broaden that access
to all named PIs. Agencies that share peer review information with the
PI for a proposal
[[Page 41222]]
also are considering whether to broaden that access to all named PIs.
Q 5: What are the benefits of granting access to award and review
information to all named PIs, not just the Contact PI? What are the
difficulties, if any, in granting such access?
(6) Access to public data systems: Each agency will describe the
data system(s) that will list PIs and, if the public may directly
access those systems, how to access them. The current proposal is to
have all PIs named on the award statement listed in the agency data
system.
Q 6a: What are the benefits, if any, from listing more than one PI
in agency databases? What are the difficulties, if any, with such
listings?
Q 6b: Would use of agency data systems with PI information, warrant
an investment in alterations to such systems?
Other Considerations
Q 7: Overall, how will the changes proposed for official
recognition of multiple PIs benefit multi-disciplinary and inter-
disciplinary research? Would the proposed changes help or harm the
process of cooperation among researchers on a collaborative project?
Q 8: What other suggestions do you have for facilitating the
recognition of multiple PIs?
Kathie L. Olsen,
Associate Director for Science, Office of Science and Technology
Policy.
Linda M. Combs,
Controller, Office of Federal Financial Management.
[FR Doc. 05-14015 Filed 7-15-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3110-01-P