Agreed. I’m dealing with an issue right not where the Principal Investigator separated from the institution without 1) preparing the final report and/or not leaving documentation so that the report can be completed; and 2) not having completed—it appears--a sufficient amount of the project.  They are however, working part-time on another project.

 

Theresa

 

 

Regards,

 

Theresa L Bailey

 

Theresa L Bailey, Ph.D.

 

The University of Texas at San Antonio

Office of Sponsored Project Administration

Director, Research Service Center, Downtown Campus

501 W. César E. Chávez Blvd.

San Antonio, TX 78207

T: 210.458.4226 | F: 210.458.5196

xxxxxx@utsa.edu | utsa.edu

 

"building relationships, providing solutions, and serving our stakeholders one contact at a time"

 

 

 

 

 

I strongly disagree with your suggestion that not getting the work done on time will not create problems with future funding. The review committees may not care that much about it, but we must remember that their role in the funding process is purely advisory: it’s the program officer or program director who recommends making the award, and the business office that actually issues it—and both of them are free to ignore or to override the recommendations of the review committee if they feel there is cause to do so. Every funding agency is seeing more and more proposals each year, and their budgets are either remaining flat or shrinking (which amounts to the same thing anyway, thanks to inflation). If they’re feds, they’re also increasingly risk-averse. If I’m looking at two projects, equally meritorious, and I only have enough money to fund one of them, then I’m going to give it to the investigator who poses the least risk, and that won’t be someone whose history with my agency is replete with examples of them not being able to complete a project on-time or on-budget.

 

As to poor proposal writing/organizing, I agree that it may not suggest an inability to perform the science or scholarship efficiently. But to the extent it prevents reviewers (and program staff) from understanding what the researcher/scholar is trying to accomplish (and I’ve read hundreds of such proposals over the years, both as an RD professional and as a panel reviewer), yes, it will absolutely be a problem for getting the project funded so that they’re in the position to do that science or scholarship.

 

 

 

Justifications for NCEs, 1^st, 2^nd, or nth, have always been interesting reads.  Some totally reasonable and some not so much.  Maybe agencies, after never questioning some of the poorer reasons for 1^st NCEs, are realizing the need to be more strict.  However, I don’t believe that PIs who get grants need to fear that not sticking to timetables will jeopardize their future grant-getting success.  I think this falls into that category of research administrator illusions with #1 on that list being that a poorly written or poorly organized proposal indicates less ability to do the science efficiently.  Nonsense, and thank god most review committees focus on the project and past productivity.  We need to protect PIs from getting into trouble and that can be a tough assignment at times.  But it is our job to define that boundary between what really helps our PIs and what makes sponsors happy.

CH

 

 

From: Research Administration List <xxxxxx@lists.healthresearch.org> On Behalf Of Charna Howson
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 8:50 AM
To: xxxxxx@lists.healthresearch.org
Subject: Re: [RESADM-L] NSF 3rd NCEs

 

= = = = = =

Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available via our web site at http://www.healthresearch.org (click on the "RESADM-L" link under "Sponsored Programs").

A link directly to helpful tips: http://tinyurl.com/resadm-l-help

= = = = = =

= = = = = =

Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available via our web site at http://www.healthresearch.org (click on the "RESADM-L" link under "Sponsored Programs").

A link directly to helpful tips: http://tinyurl.com/resadm-l-help

= = = = = =

= = = = = =

Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available via our web site at http://www.healthresearch.org (click on the "RESADM-L" link under "Sponsored Programs").

A link directly to helpful tips: http://tinyurl.com/resadm-l-help

= = = = = =