I guess I am lodging a minority opinion here. I don't really see the
problem. In fact, to some extent, why this is so much different than
any other contract between a prime and a sub?
I have been involved with a similar situation several times. A PI left
my institution during the last year of a grant. NIH, rather than
approving a transfer, requested that we sub with the PI at his new
institution. We did so -- collected the appropriate IACUC approvals,
financial disclosures, etc. The project went into no cost extension and
the final reports, FSR and invention statement were submitted as easily
as if from my institution. I have recently had the same situation in
reverse -- a PI left another institution and joined the faculty here.
He had two NIH awards: one was transferred and the other, in its last
year, was not but a subcontract was developed to cover his effort and
misc. costs.
I have also been involved with projects wherein the application was
submitted with the PI paid via a subcontract -- although in each of
these cases s/he had joint appointments at both the prime and
subcontracting institution.
John
John R. Baumann, Ph.D.
Associate Vice Chancellor for Research
Director, Office of Research Services
5100 Rockhill Road (US Postal Service)
5211 Rockhill Road (Courier Service)
Kansas City, MO 64110
816.235.1303 (v)
816.235.6532 (f)
-----Original Message-----
From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@HRINET.ORG] On
Behalf Of Patricia Hagen PhD
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 1:59 PM
To: xxxxxx@HRINET.ORG
Subject: [RESADM-L] Remote PI?
Good afternoon friends.
One of the more creative divisions of our university has come up with an
interesting new twist to avoiding grant transfers. It's called the
"remote PI."
What this means is that when a faculty member leaves the institution to
take a faculty position at another institution, this division proposes
to keep the grant here at our institution and subcontract the PI work to
the new institution. Then, one doesn't have to go through "bothersome"
grant transfer paperwork and also we get to keep paying people at the
original institution off the grant.
I think the whole concept is LOONY. I see all kinds of compliance
worries related to the situation where the institution which is
responsible for the grant has a P.I. which is no longer its employee.
The latest attempt at this creative approach involves a Department of
State grant. A predecessor approved the "remote pi" idea for this
particular grant, but the Department of State is not completely
comfortable with this, so they've come up with yet another
alternative--they'll approve the "remote PI" situation if our
institution contracts the work directly to the individual faculty
member, and not to her new institution. They could care less if the two
institutions contract with one another! Oy vey! Am I on another
planet?
Please, colleagues, am I being too overcautious when I shout "NO!" into
the phone? Be honest. I am all about service.
Thanks,
Patty Hagen
Saint Louis University
======================================================================
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.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists")
======================================================================
======================================================================
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.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists")
======================================================================
