Researcher Behavior that Leads to Success in Obtaining Grant Funding: A Model for Success

NIH and Multiple Principal Investigators

Since February 2007, the NIH has allowed applicants and their institutions to list more than one Principal Investigator on a grant application. This initiative was designed for team science projects that do not fit into the single-PI model. One basic principle of this model is that each PI is equally responsible and accountable for the research project. However, one (1) contact PI must be designated. This designee is responsible for communication between the PIs and the NIH program official.

Does it really help to include cost sharing in proposals?

The Federal Grants News for Colleges and Universities, May 2007 edition, quoted the NSF proposal guide, "cost sharing is solely at the discretion of the applicant and WILL NOT be a factor in the grant making decision".  A leading panel of educators commented on the following question raised during a live broadcast aired in 2007 by The National Council of University and Research Administrators. "Does showing cost sharing in a proposal help to get a grant approved? In other words, is the sponsor more likely to award the funding if the organization shows cost sharing?" The response from the panelist was: "It depends. If required, the answer is yes. In this instance not providing cost sharing would disqualify the proposal. If NO cost share is required, the evidence has shown that IT HAS NO IMPACT."

GRANTS.GOV GOOF-UP. Always expect last minute problems.

The Chronicle of Higher Education cited a November 2nd story in the Boston Globe where a $300,000 grant application to the U.S. Department of Education was rejected because it was submitted to Grants.gov 46 minutes late. The applicant had over 40 years of experience providing educational programs to students and was enraged by the "bureaucratic technicality". John Kerry (D-Mass) complained unsuccessfully to the U.S. Dept of Ed where it was explained that the sponsor "did not have the discretion to waive the deadline nor the ability to alter Grants.gov requirements". It is well known there are problems with Grants.gov and the safest way to avoid such problems is to submit the application days ahead of the  actual deadline so there is time to fix any difficulties or errors.

NSF REVISES MERIT REVIEW TO ENCOURAGE TRANSFORMATIVE RESEARCH

Effective October 1, 2007, the Grant Proposal Guide, as well as funding opportunities issued after that date, will incorporate revised new intellectual merit criterion with the goal of enhancing NSF support for transformative research. This change will specifically include review of the extent to which a proposal explores potentially transformative concepts, such as creating entirely new fields or disrupting accepted theories and perspectives. While the concept of transformative research is not new to NSF, it is hoped that the revised criteria for merit review will infuse support of potentially transformative research throughout NSF.