Our rule is that a person is only Key if ... should they drop dead (and we
have had this happen) does the project stop or can they be replaced?

The PI has to determine that but they have to answer the question and
possibly some follow up questions (like... you mean that this graduate
student holds such unique skills that within a month you could not train
someone else?)

But as Charlie indicates, it is the PI's call.
r
------------------------------
Rene Hearns, PhD (cand), MPA, CRA
Director, Office of Sponsored Programs and Research
University of Louisiana at Monroe
700 University Avenue LIB 211
Monroe, LA 71209-3925
T: 318.342.1039
F: 318.342.1479
xxxxxx@ulm.edu

OSPR office hours M-Th 7:30 am - 5:00 pm & F 7:30 am - 11:30 am

Dissertation Topic:  Evaluating the impact of engaged learning on direct and
indirect citizen participation.

-----Original Message-----
From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@hrinet.org] On Behalf Of
Charlie Hathaway
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 10:04 PM
To: xxxxxx@hrinet.org
Subject: Re: [RESADM-L] Postdocs as Key Personnel

I've generally gone by the "rule" that key people have advanced degrees.
This would obviously include postdocs.  But I think you must allow each PI
to make this decision.  Certainly, there are technicians in labs (as there
are NCOs in the military) who are 1000 times more important to a mission
than others who happen to have a higher rank.  And since many of these
people are known outside labs and institutions because of their
accomplishments (or you want them to be known for career development
purposes), it makes great sense to designate them as Key.

But I agree with your general premise that too many people are often
included as Key.  I think skill and effort should trump donations of
reagents and advice.  But I doubt that any definitions or guidelines will
not make anyone happy other than the research administrator who cannot
possibly be a good judge of who warrants conspicuous treatment.

CH

> The recent Notice issued by the NIH (
> <http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-09-139.html>
> http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-09-139.html ) about
> changes in continuation progress reporting that all postdocs on NIH grants
> need to have Commons IDs prompts this question:
> Do you typically include postdocs as key personnel on NIH applications?
> The guidelines define key personnel as "individuals who contribute in a
> substantive, meaningful way to the scientific development or execution of
> the project", but 'substantive' and 'meaningful' can be interpreted very
> subjectively, although in this case 'execution' may be the operative term.
>  We have tried to limit the key personnel on our applications, because
> investigators often believe all of their people are 'key' and this can
> lead to problems with JIT reporting of Other Support. Your opinion and
> experience with this issue will be appreciated.
>
> Regards,
> Steve Hunter
> Legacy Research
> Portland, OR
>
>
>
>
> ======================================================================
>  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")
======================================================================

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