Charlie, what is the dilemma here?  This procedure, in so far as the
SO is concerned, is how things are done now in paper world.  The
authorized official signs the application and sends it.  In the G.g
model, the the authorized AOR submits the application. This is equal
to a signature on a paper application.   The NIH problem was the
second "signature."

The procedure you note is one discussed at the last NIH Commons
Working Group meeting.  The first proposal was for no Commons
verifications by either SO or PI.  There was some worry that what
arrived at the Commons might not be exactly what was sent.  Thus the
option for a negative approval was considered.  If PI does nothing,
then the application goes to review.  SO does nothing more.  However,
the PI could take a look, and if not satisfied with the outcome,
could reject, correct and have the AOR resubmit.  I assume the SO
could still look at the status of the e-application to confirm its
arrival at the Commons. Another consideration is when does the "clock
start ticking."  Does the PI have 2 days after the application has
taken the happy path -- gotten into the image stage -- or when the
deadline passes.

This new procedure would not allow a direct submission by the PI, if
an institution wanted to do that, because there would be no SO
approval at the Commons end.  Thus, there should now be no demand by
PI's for AOR status.

The rumored process seems like a good one, in line with other
agencies.  I would hope for a message from Commons to SO that the
application has arrived so the SO could have a look, if desired.

Bob Beattie
University of Michigan/ Grants.gov Liaison
xxxxxx@umich.edu   936-1283
Learn more about Grants.gov @ UMICH
http://www.research.umich.edu/era/grants_gov/

On Apr 3, 2006, at 11:37 PM, Charlie Hathaway wrote:

I've been told that NIH will issue new guidelines saying that the
mandatory verification step at the eRA commons will no longer be
necessary.  Instead, the PI will be responsible for checking that the
application is OK within two days.  If changes need to be
made the PI will hit "Reject" and will have the opportunity to
change it.  If not eRA commons will send grant (automatically?) to
review.

Can anyone confirm?

I know that many of you are cheering.  But for some of us, this
presents a
dilemma.  I am particularly eager to know whether this reject/failsafe
mechanism might allow the SO to be involved.

Charlie

======================================================================
 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")
======================================================================