U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Logo
HHS URL Link
Skip to Main Content
Funding Opportunities
Funding Opportunities (RFAs, PAs) & Notices
Unsolicited Applications (Parent Announcements)
Research Training & Career Development
Small Business (SBIR/STTR)
Contract Opportunities
 
NIH-Wide Initiatives
New and Early Stage Investigators
Multiple Principal Investigators
Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS)
NIH Roadmap for Medical Research
NIH Blueprint for Neuroscience Research
 
Global OER Resources
Glossary & Acronyms
Frequently Used Links
Frequent Questions
Return to Multiple Principal Investigator Home Page

Multiple Principal Investigators

Frequently Asked Questions
Posted: April 11, 2006
Revised: September 5, 2007

A. General Questions

  1. What is the definition of Principal Investigator (PI)?
  2. Why is NIH planning to allow multiple Principal Investigators on individual research awards?
  3. To what specific type of research efforts is the multiple-PI model aimed?  Can you provide examples of research teams to which this model would, and would not, apply? 
  4. To which grant mechanisms will this apply?  Will it be piloted first before applying it more broadly? 
  5. How would the multiple-PI model enhance research conducted within a single institution? Why not limit this model to team science conducted across several institutions?
  6. Why not restrict the model to only those grants with direct costs exceeding $500K? 
  7. Why not simply have applicants use the Program Project Grant (P01) mechanism instead of developing this new model?


B. Principal Investigator Roles and Responsibilities

  1. How will Principal Investigator (PI) be defined on a multiple PI grant? Will the role of the PI be diminished?
  2. Can only senior investigators be a PI?  Can a new investigator be a PI?  Can a postdoctoral fellow be an investigator?
  3. Is there a minimum person-months requirement to qualify to be a PI?
  4. Will there be a ceiling on the number of PIs?  This could result in a large number for the overall grant.
  5. Allowing multiple PIs may make it difficult to differentiate between the responsibilities of PIs, Co-PIs, and/or collaborators. 
  6. Can there be a Lead PI within the Multiple PI model?
  7. Without a single, designated person in charge, how will decisions be made?  Decisions by committee may not work well in research endeavors.  If one PI moves, or doesn't produce, who will assume responsibility? 
  8. What is the role of the Contact PI?   Could the Contact PI have responsibility for overall project management (i.e., functioning as a “Lead PI”)? Or will the role of the Contact PI be reduced to that of a clerk?
  9. Does scientific advice or consultation alone qualify someone for PI status?
  10. Since co-investigators now can have PI status, won't most applications use the multiple PI model?  Many participants will want to have PI status.
  11. How will issues of potential abuse and coercion be handled?  For example: some investigators may join a research team only if given PI status.  Other applicants may “pad” a grant application by listing senior investigators as PIs.
  12. The NIH makes an effort to recruit new PIs to science.  Do new investigators have an advantage or disadvantage in multiple PI applications?
  13. I submitted a single PI application that was not funded. Can I include an additional PI when I submit a Resubmission (revised/amended) application? (Question Added: 01/16/2007)


C. Allocation of Funds

  1. Why will the NIH permit funds to be allocated to the individual PIs?  It would seem that allocation of funds in this manner could undermine the research effort by fragmenting the team.
  2. Allocation of funds may be a good idea at the institutional level, but what is the benefit of having NIH impose additional layering?  Some institutions are already apportioning credit and dollars internally.
  3. Instead of allocating funds to the individual PIs, why not simply credit all PIs through an expansion of CRISP, without linking to dollars? 
  4. Will budget allocations to the individual PIs be permitted, but not required?
  5. Will allocation of funds make it more difficult to move money within a project?  Will it facilitate or interfere with team science? Will allocation of funds create the need for new and difficult business processes for the grantee? The institutions need flexibility to move funds where needed, quickly and without burdensome paperwork.


D. Grant Application Format and Content

  1. How will the application format and content differ from the single PI application?
  2. What information should a leadership plan contain?
  3. Does a competing revision application (previously called supplement) to a Multiple PI parent grant need to use the same Contact PI? (Question Added: 09/05/2007)
  4. Can a competing revision application include Multiple PIs even if the parent grant was not originally reviewed/approved as a Multiple PI project? (Question Added: 09/05/2007)
  5. Can a competing revision application to a Multiple PI parent grant, include additional PIs? (Question Added: 09/05/2007)
  6. I'm preparing a resubmission application. The previous version was a single PI only, but now I want to submit it using the Multiple PI model. Is this still a resubmission or is this now a "New" application? Same question applies to a renewal application that was previously funded as a single PI. Is this a renewal or new application? (Question Added: 09/05/2007)
  7. For applications involving more than one PD/PI, when determining if a modular budget can be submitted is it $250,000 per PI or $250,000 for the entire project? (Question Added: 09/05/2007)


E. Peer Review Process

  1. What additional review criteria will be applied? 
  2. Will there be special review criteria for competing continuation (Type 2) applications?
  3. Why would the reviewers need to see the Leadership Plan? Shouldn't the Leadership Plan be tentative and subject to change along with the direction of the science?  Could the Leadership Plan be submitted for only those applications with fundable scores, just-in-time? 
  4. The Leadership Plan has several components and requirements.  Is each component weighed equally?  What impact would one or more deficiencies have on the Leadership Plan and on the (final score of the) entire application?
  5. What happens if one or more PIs are not well qualified for the role according to the stated criteria?  Will this affect the score?  Can a review committee recommend removal of a PI?
  6. What happens if the proposed research or aims of one of the PIs is recommended for deletion from the proposal in the course of Peer Review?
  7. The application has an outstanding Research Plan and/or outstanding multiple PIs but Leadership Plan is weak or they failed to include Section I (Leadership Plan).  How does this affect the score?
  8. Will the study section review the application on its own merit, or could the reviewers recommend that a Multiple PI application be re-submitted as a single PI application?  Conversely, could a “team science” application with a single PI receive criticism (and a worse score) for not using the Multiple PI model?
  9. Will all PIs receive all review process information?
  10. Can the contact PI request additional person-months effort for the additional responsibilities?
  11. Is the Leadership plan part of the page limitation for the Research plan?


F. NIH Funding Policies

  1. It is possible that this model will result in larger grants.  Will the NIH Institutes and Centers have additional funds to support the Multiple PI model?  Will all NIH Institutes and Centers have similar funding policies regarding these applications?
  2. Will this become NIH's favored research model, thereby rewarding big science and putting small science at a disadvantage?


G. Post-Award Issues

  1. Does the increased oversight by NIH run counter to modular grants and expanded authority, both of which give PIs more flexibility?
  2. The multiple-PI model appears to require increased oversight and tracking by the NIH.  How will NIH ensure that this additional administrative layering does not impede research? 
  3. Will there be one competing continuation (type 5) application and progress report for the overall project, or will each PI be required to submit an individual report?
  4. If funds are allocated among the PIs, could one PI be given sole authority to reallocate money? 
  5. How will data sharing and issues of confidentiality be handled without having one person in charge?
  6. Can a grant with a single PI add an additional PI during a non-competing year to become a multiple PI project? (Question Added: 01/25/2007)


H. Questions Specific to the Issue of Applications from Multiple Institutions

  1. In what format will multiple institution projects be submitted?
  2. Can a project supported through a multiple-PI award include subcontracted sites to the primary site? 
  3. Can one institution be designated as the lead?
  4. Without a single PI, who will oversee the various sites in a multi-site project (In addition to the science, this would include personnel issues, conduct, etc.)?
  5. If the dollars are fluid and subject to reallocation across the participating institutions, how would facilities and administrative (F & A) costs be managed?


I. Departmental Ranking Tables

  1. If these tables are eliminated, what other tools will the NIH make available to allow institutions to determine their relative ranking?

A. General Questions
  1. What is the definition of Principal Investigator (PI)?
    The Principal Investigator or  Project Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) is defined as:


    A PD/PI is/are the individual(s) judged by the applicant organization to have the appropriate level of authority and responsibility to direct the project or program supported by the grant.  The applicant organization may designate multiple individuals as PD/PIs who share the authority and responsibility for leading and directing the project, intellectually and logistically.  Each PD/PI is responsible and accountable to the applicant organization, or, as appropriate, to a collaborating organization, for the proper conduct of the project or program including the submission of all required reports.”

    The presence of more than one identified PD/PI on an application or award diminishes neither the responsibility nor the accountability of any individual PD/PI.
  1. Why is NIH planning to allow multiple Principal Investigators on individual research awards?
    This effort represents an NIH Roadmap initiative (see http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/interdisciplinary/) as well as a response to a Federal-wide directive to formally allow more than one Principal Investigator (PI) on individual research awards.  As part of the implementation plan, a Request for Information (RFI) was issued by the NIH to solicit input on policies and issues of special interest to the health-related research community.

    The policy, once implemented, will offer new approaches to maximize the potential of “team science” efforts. The multiple Principal Investigator (PI) model will supplement, and not replace, the traditional single Principal Investigator (PI) model.  Although the single-PI model clearly continues to work well and encourages creativity and productivity, it does not always encourage multidisciplinary efforts and collaboration. Increasingly, health-related research involves teams that vary in terms of size, hierarchy, location of participants, goals, disciplines, and structure. In fact, a major recommendation from the 2003 “NIH Bioengineering Consortium Symposium on Catalyzing Team Science”  http://www.becon.nih.gov/becon_symposia.htm was to allow more than one PI on individual grants.

    The selection of the multiple-PI versus single-PI option will be the decision of the investigators and their institutions, and it must be based on the needs of the research proposed. Although the number of applications submitted using the multiple-PI model is expected to be relatively small compared with those within the traditional single-PI format, we know that the impact of the research supported through multidisciplinary efforts can be great.  Additional information about the rationale and expectations associated with the Multiple-PI initiative can be found at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/multi_pi/index.htm.
  1. To what specific type of research efforts is the multiple-PI model aimed?  Can you provide examples of research teams to which this model would, and would not, apply?  
    The selection of either the single-PI or multiple-PI option should be based on the research proposed, to ensure optimal facilitation of the science. The multiple-PI option can encourage multidisciplinary and other types of “team science” projects that are not optimally served by the single-PI model.  Projects suitable for the multiple–PI model could include as few as two Principal Investigators who are jointly responsible for the scientific and technical direction of the project. An example of a multiple-PI project would be a jointly-directed obesity research effort directed at a series of phenotypes to investigate the primary effect of specific alleles and the functional consequences of these variants.  In this example, experts in imaging, clinical obesity research and metabolism might work together as equal partners in the direction of the project.  However another applicant with similar goals might structure the roles of similar investigators as is currently done, that is to providing consultation, collaboration and services (e.g., MRI) instead of sharing in the scientific direction of the project.  In the latter case the traditional single-PI model would be the appropriate model.  Multiple PI models also may apply to resource-related projects, training grants and other types of NIH supported activities.  The full range of such activities will be announced in the near future. 
  2. To which grant mechanisms will this apply?  When will the multiple-PI model be available? 
    Beginning with research grant applications submitted for February 2007 receipt dates, the NIH will allow applicants and their institutions to identify more than one Principal Investigator (PI).  The Multiple PI option will be extended to most research grant applications submitted electronically through Grants.gov (http://www.grants.gov/) using the SF424 R&R application package.  Grant applications that will accommodate more than one PI beginning in February include:  R01, R03, R13/U13, R15, R18/U18, R21, R21/R33, R25, R33, R34, R41, R42, R43, R44, and C06/UC6 (see http://era.nih.gov/ElectronicReceipt/strategy_timeline.htm).   Some types of applications including individual career awards (K08, K23, etc.), individual fellowships (F31, F32, etc.), Dissertation Grants (R36), Director’s Pioneer Awards (DP1), and Shared Instrumentation Grants (S10) will not accommodate more than a single PI.  The restriction to a single PI will be described in announcements for those programs.    
    The NIH will extend the multiple PI option to most research grant applications when they transition to an electronic format.   Some paper applications submitted on PHS 398 application forms also will allow inclusion of more than one PI, but only when the multiple PI option is clearly specified in the soliciting Request for Applications (RFA) or Program Announcement (PA).  Other paper applications listing more than one PI may be delayed in the review process or returned to the applicant.  
  1. How would the multiple-PI model enhance research conducted within a single institution?    Why not limit this model to team science conducted across several institutions?
    The multiple-PI principles are based on the proposed project, not on the number of performance sites or the number of participating institutions.  Many projects benefit from collaboration and formalizing the recognition of all the PI level participants will remove some of the barriers.  The need for formal recognition of PIs applies to team science projects within single institutions as well as to those conducted through multiple institutions. 

  2. Why not restrict the model to only those grants with direct costs exceeding $500K?  
    Team science is not synonymous with large-cost science.  Limiting the multiple-PI option to large grants could miss important multidisciplinary research opportunities involving less expensive projects.

  3. Why not simply have applicants use the Program Project Grant (P01) mechanism instead of developing this new model? 
    The multiple-PI model is not mechanism-based.  Although the range of mechanisms eligible for the multiple-PI option will be limited initially (see Question A.3 above), in the future it will be available for almost all NIH mechanisms. The P01 award is for the support of broad-based multidisciplinary and often multifaceted research projects that involve distinct subprojects that address a well-defined major objective or central theme. Clearly, there are examples of P01 grants that could benefit from the multiple-PI model in the same way as single component research projects.  Limiting the multiple-PI option to large, multiple-component grants could miss important research opportunities.

B. Principal Investigator Roles and Responsibilities

  1. How will Principal Investigator (PI) be defined on a multiple PI grant? Will the role of the PI be diminished?
    The “Principal Investigator,” “Program Director” or “Project Director” is defined the same way regardless of the number named on a particular application or award.  See Question A.1. above.  The presence of more than one identified PI on an application or award diminishes neither the responsibility nor the accountability of any individual PI. Each PI is responsible and accountable for all components of the project.

  2. Can only senior investigators be a PI?  Can a New Investigator be a PI?  Can a postdoctoral fellow be an investigator?
    All investigators designated as PI must meet the definition of PI described in the answer to Question A.1., above.  All PIs must have an identified leadership role on the project and must be designated in a PI role type by the applicant institution.  Some institutions do not consider postdoctoral fellows to be eligible for a PI role type. 

    The multi-PI option is designed to facilitate scientific collaboration and to recognize all members of the leadership team.  It is not designed to create a new stage in the career development of junior investigators.  All listed PIs must assume a leadership role and must have the full support of their institution in the indicated role.  Peer review will examine the roles and responsibilities, governance and organizational structure of the proposed leadership team and will determine whether team members have the necessary expertise to carry out the proposed project.  A new investigator can be a PI on a multiple PI application and award. 
  1. Is there a minimum person-months requirement to qualify to be a PI?
    No, there is no minimum person-months requirement for individuals identified as PIs.  The reviewers will assess whether the level of effort is adequate to achieve the proposed goals.  If there are deficiencies in this regard, it will negatively impact the score. 

  2. Will there be a ceiling on the number of PIs?  This could result in a large number for the overall grant.
    No upper limit is currently planned for the number of PIs.  Although there is no upper limit to the number of PIs, the involvement of each PI should be justified by the aims of the project.  In addition, anyone designated as a PI must meet the criteria given in Question A.1 above.  A proposal that involves PIs that appear to have questionable qualifications and expertise or insufficient contribution or role will not fair well in the review process.   In most cases, single project grant applications (e.g., R01, R21) will have two to three PIs depending upon the work scope when using the multiple PI option.

  3. Allowing multiple PIs may make it difficult to differentiate between the responsibilities of PIs, Co-PIs, and/or collaborators.  All investigators designated as PI should meet the definition described in A.1, above. The review committee will examine the application as submitted so the roles of each named PI or collaborator must be clear and must make sense considering the project described.  Only the applicants’ institutions can decide who should be a PI. It will not be appropriate for individuals who would normally be listed as co-investigators to be elevated to PI status.  The multiple-PI option is reserved for team science efforts and will need to be justified in the Leadership Plan in the application.  The NIH has no plans to recognize the “Co-PI” designation.

  4. Can there be a Lead PI within the Multiple PI model
    Yes, but that designation is not recognized by the NIH.  All PIs have equal responsibility and accountability for the project.  The structure and interaction of the PI team will be left up to the PIs and the applicant institution.  All PIs must be qualified to serve as PIs and will share responsibility for the project.  There may be an identified leader of the project or a coordinator of the overall team.  That person need not be the Contact PI.   It is possible that smaller teams composed of PIs of equal rank within the institution may function best as an equal partnership without an identified coordinator.  Larger teams may benefit from identifying a spokesperson or coordinator responsible for organizing the leadership team.   In all cases, the roles and responsibilities of the PIs must make sense in relation to the project and should be clearly identified in the Leadership Plan. 

  5. Without a single, designated person in charge, how will decisions be made?  Decisions by committee may not work well in research endeavors.  If one PI moves, or doesn’t produce, who will assume responsibility?
    The NIH will ask for a Leadership Plan in every application proposing a multiple PI approach.  The leadership plan should describe the roles and areas of responsibility of the named PIs, the process for making decisions on scientific direction, allocating resources, resolving disputes that may arise, and other information related to the management of the proposed team science project.  The purpose of the Leadership Plan is to facilitate and enhance scientific productivity and to protect the project in the case of disagreements. This approach is currently used for cooperative agreements and various types of multi-project grants.  It may be necessary to identify a single individual who can coordinate the project or serve as a tie-breaker in case of disagreements.  Another option is to refer disagreements to an arbitration committee or a designated senior official at the institution.  If a PI moves or leaves the project team, the NIH must be notified.  The process and the threshold for notification of the NIH for changes in the PIs and other key persons is exactly the same as it is for single PI projects. 

  6. What is the role of the Contact PI?   Could the Contact PI have responsibility for overall project management (i.e., functioning as a “Lead PI”)? Or will the role of the Contact PI be reduced to that of a clerk?
    When multiple PIs are proposed, NIH requires identification of one PI who will be designated as the "Contact PI."  This person will be responsible for communication between the PIs and the NIH.  Serving as Contact PI confers no special authorities or responsibilities within the project team.  In many ways, a contact PI is analogous to a corresponding author on a publication.   The Contact PI must serve as a real PI and must meet all eligibility requirements for PI status.  In those projects where there is an identified project coordinator, the coordinator could serve as contact or that role could be assigned to another PI.  It will be possible, and may even be desirable, for the grantee institution to periodically designate a change in Contact PI. For example, it may be desirable to rotate the role of Contact PI among the multiple PIs on an annual basis at the time of grant renewal.

  7. Does scientific advice or consultation alone qualify someone for PI status?
    No, scientific advice or consultation alone does not qualify someone as a PI.  The PIs must share responsibility for the scientific and technical direction of the project as a whole and will remain accountable to the grantee organization and to the NIH for the proper conduct of the project or activity as described in the definition described in A.1, above. 

  8. Since co-investigators now can have PI status, won’t most applications use the multiple PI model?  Many participants will want to have PI status.
    It is certainly not the intent for co-investigators to be routinely elevated to PI status.   Most investigator initiated research grants are one investigator’s scientific ideas.  The multiple-PI option is reserved for team science efforts in which the PIs share responsibility and authority for the scientific and technical direction of the project and accountability to the grantee organization and to the NIH for the proper conduct of the project or activity.  Multiple-PI applications will need to justify use of this approach in a clear and convincing manner, and this will be addressed in the peer review process. The NIH expects that the number of applications that involve multiple PIs will be small compared to the overall portfolio.

  9. How will issues of potential abuse and coercion be handled?  For example: some investigators may join a research team only if given PI status.  Other applicants may “pad” a grant application by listing senior investigators as PIs.
    The NIH cannot address the politics within applicant institutions.  However, the multiple-PI application instructions and the peer review criteria will be clear.  All PIs must have a defined role on the project and must provide a convincing case that they will function as a part of the leadership team.  The PIs must share responsibility for the scientific and technical direction of the project as a whole and will remain accountable to the grantee organization and to the NIH for the proper conduct of the project or activity.  This must be clearly and convincingly presented in the Leadership Plan section of the grant application which will be considered by the peer review.

  10. The NIH makes an effort to recruit new PIs to science.  Do new investigators have an advantage or disadvantage in multiple PI applications?
    New investigators are encouraged to submit grant applications in a number of ways by NIH policies.   If all the PIs on an application involving multiple PIs are new investigators, the Yes box for New Investigators should be checked (see SF424 (R&R) application Guide, Version 2, Page I-79 at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/424/SF424_RR_Guide_General_Ver2.pdf ).  Such applications will be considered for new investigator incentives in the same way as single PI applications from new investigators.  Since new investigator incentives (described at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/new_investigators/resources.htm) are applied to applications rather than individual PIs, an application that includes a new investigator teamed with an established investigator should check the No box for new investigators.  Accordingly, the application will not receive special considerations normally accorded an applications from a new investigator. 

    Consistent with the policy that all PIs on a multiple PI grant will have all the authorities and responsibilities assumed by PIs on single PI grants, an individual who serves as a PI on an R01, for example, awarded as a multiple PI grant will no longer be classified as a new investigator on subsequent applications.  The policies described for New Investigators in the SF 424 Application Guide apply whether the individual is a PI on a single PI R01 or a multiple PI R01.  (see new investigators at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/424/SF424_RR_Guide_General_Ver2.pdf)   
  1. I submitted a single PI application that was not funded. Can I include an additional PI when I submit a Resubmission (revised/amended) application? (Question Added: 01/16/2007)
    Yes. If you become the Contact PI on the revised application, you can add additional PIs to the leadership team. Remember that all PIs must have a PI Role Type in the NIH Commons and that a Multiple PI application must include a Leadership Plan. You should also mention the addition of the new team members when you describe the nature of the revisions in the Introduction section of the amended application.

    If the added team member will be the Contact PI on the resubmission application, you will be required to indicate a change in PI on the PHS398 Checklist component; indicating yourself as the “former PI”. However you must still list yourself as one of the collaborating PIs in the Senior/Key Person Component by making sure you are also assigned the PD/PI Project Role.

C. Allocation of Funds

  1. Why will the NIH permit funds to be allocated to the individual PIs?  It would seem that allocation of funds in this manner could undermine the research effort by fragmenting the team.  Experience suggests that institutional recognition of faculty and staff for the purpose of promotion, tenure, and space allocation frequently includes an assessment of the ability to attract externally-sponsored research awards and the financial impact of those awards. In many institutions, clear assignment of funds may determine credit and clarify relationships between PIs.  Accordingly, there is concern that a PI who simply receives credit as a PI without the designation of a specific budget may not have PI status in his or her institution .  This might result in the undesirable formation of multiple classes of PIs.  Accordingly, the NIH will permit applicants to request allocation of funds to individual PIs in the leadership plan.  When the NIH opens up most research project grants to the Multiple PI option beginning in February 2007, the NIH will recognize requested allocations to specific components of the project and associated PIs using an informal footnote on the Notice of Grant Award (NGA).  The NGA will indicate that the institution and the PIs have requested allocation in a manner previously indicated in the application that may be adjusted at the time of award.  The institution may then set up special accounts to reflect that the information in the footnote.  The footnote does not imply that institution must implement this allocation and the NIH has no plans to track the allocation requested .     

    NIH is aware that the costs of research do not necessarily represent the intellectual contribution of collaborators.  Some institutions may choose not to use the financial metrics in decisions about advancement in favor of more sophisticated ways to assess a PI’s contribution to scientific knowledge. 
  1. Allocation of funds may be a good idea at the institutional level, but what is the benefit of having NIH impose additional layering?  Some institutions are already apportioning credit and dollars internally. 
    The NIH will consider other apportionment options after the roll-out of the multiple PI option beginning in February 2007.  It is possible that formal apportionment of funds to components of the project and the associated PIs is necessary for full recognition as a PI in some institutions.  The NIH will assess the need for formal apportionment options and if desired by a substantial segment of the research community, the NIH will develop a business model and electronic systems to accommodate such designations.  At this time, the NIH  recognizes that formal apportionment may require reports on those budgets and NIH approval to move funds between budget lines when they exceed certain thresholds. 

    The NIH understands that projects benefit from the ability to re-allocate resources in response to the changing directions and needs of the research project.  The re-allocation of funds during the project period will be via a joint decision of the PIs, and the process should be described in the Leadership Plan section of the application.   If formal allocation schemes, such as separate accounts and linked awards, are implemented in the future these may entail additional levels of NIH’s oversight regarding re-allocation and re-budgeting. 
  1. Instead of allocating funds to the individual PIs, why not simply credit all PIs through an expansion of CRISP, without linking to dollars? 
    As explained in the two preceding questions and answers, many researchers and administrators have indicated that budget allocation is important for proper crediting of their role as PI.  The Multiple PI initiative included development of the capacity to display the names of all involved PIs in NIH’s “Computer Retrieval of Information of Scientific Projects (CRISP) at http://crisp.cit.nih.gov/,.  In addition, all PIs will be named on the Notice of Grant Award.  In many cases this will provide appropriate documentation for full crediting.  At some institutions, however, there may be a need to document the allocation of funds as well.      

  2. Will budget allocations to the individual PIs be permitted, but not required?
    Allocation of funds by the grantee institution will be permitted, but not required.  For PIs at a single institution, NIH will indicate an informal allocation of funds to components of the project and associated PIs by simply stating the requested apportionment as a footnote on the Notice of Grant Award (NOGA).  The NIH will not determine whether the institution implements the requested allocation nor will the NIH track the allocation in subsequent reports.   Following the initial implementation of the policy employing informal footnotes, the NIH will assess the need to develop additional options for allocation of funds based on comments and advice from the research community. 

    For projects that include PIs at multiple institutions, initially, funds will be allocated to collaborating institutions using subcontracts.  The NIH is convinced that projects spanning more than one institution could also be managed using linked awards to fund the components of the project that occur at different institutions.  Building systems to accommodate such linked awards will require developing an appropriate business model and modification of the various electronic systems necessary to receive applications for collaborative projects and make linked awards.  This process will take several months.  Time lines for linked awards will be announced in the future.  In the meantime, projects that span more than one institution will be managed using subcontracts.
  1. Will allocation of funds make it more difficult to move money within a project?  Will it facilitate or interfere with team science? Will allocation of funds create the need for new and difficult business processes for the grantee? The institutions need flexibility to move funds where needed, quickly and without burdensome paperwork.   
    Projects that do not specify an allocation and those that request informal allocation of funds as described in C.1. above will offer PIs maximum flexibility to re-allocate resources in response to the changing directions and needs of the research project.  More formal allocation options that may be considered in the future will probably involve additional NIH oversight regarding re-allocations after the award is made. 

D. Grant Application Format and Content

  1. How will the application format and content differ from the single PI application? 
    Application forms used for Research Project Grants (RPGs) including the Public Health Service (PHS) 398 and the Standard Form (SF) 424 Research and Related (R&R) forms accommodate multiple PIs.  Those forms can be found at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/forms.htm.  Instructions for including more than one PI and the completion of the Leadership Plan is described in both application sets.   In addition, all RFAs and PAs that permit multiple PIs will include special application preparation instructions and peer review criteria to accommodate multiple-PIs. The Multiple PI option will be extended to most other applicable applications and awards as they transition to SF424 electronic grant application forms beginning in February 2007. It is also possible that some paper applications submitted in response to specific RFAs and PAs after February 2007 will offer the Multiple PI option.  The ability to accommodate multiple PIs in paper applications will be described in relevant PAs and RFAs. 

  2. What information should a Leadership Plan contain?
    For applications designating multiple PDs/PIs, a new section of the research plan, entitled “Multiple PD/PI Leadership Plan” (section 14 of the Research Plan Component in the SF424 (R&R) or Section I of the Research Plan in the PHS 398), must be included. A rationale for choosing a multiple PD/PI approach should be described. The governance and organizational structure of the leadership team and the research project should be described, including communication plans, process for making decisions on scientific direction, and procedures for resolving conflicts. The roles and administrative, technical, and scientific responsibilities for the project or program should be delineated for the PDs/PIs and other collaborators.

    If budget allocation within the grantee institution is planned, the distribution of resources to specific components of the project or the individual PDs/PIs should be delineated in the Leadership Plan. In the event of an award, the requested allocations will be reflected in a footnote on the Notice of Grant Award that indicates the allocations requested by the institution.

  3. Does a competing revision application (previously called supplement) to a Multiple PI parent grant need to use the same Contact PI? (Question Added: 09/05/2007)
    Yes. Our data system links incoming revision applications to the parent record by PI name; therefore, maintaining the same contact PI is critical to making sure the applications are appropriately joined.

  4. Can a competing revision application include Multiple PIs even if the parent grant was not originally reviewed/approved as a Multiple PI project? (Question Added: 09/05/2007)
    Yes. A revision application expands the scope of the previously approved project. Therefore, that expansion may include a change in the model used from a single PI to Multiple PI. However in this case, a leadership plan will be required as part of the revision application so that the Multiple PI approach can be clearly described.

  5. Can a competing revision application to a Multiple PI parent grant, include additional PIs? (Question Added: 09/05/2007)
    Yes. A revision application expands the scope of the previously approved project. Therefore, that expansion may include an expansion of the PI team. However in this case, a revised leadership plan will be required as part of the revision application so that changes in leadership can be clearly described.

  6. I'm preparing a resubmission application. The previous version was a single PI only, but now I want to submit it using the Multiple PI model. Is this still a resubmission or is this now a "New" application? Same question applies to a renewal application that was previously funded as a single PI. Is this a renewal or new application? (Question Added: 09/05/2007)
    In most cases changing from single PI to Multiple PI would not in itself change the scope of the application enough for it to now be considered "New". Those applications would still be considered resubmissions or renewals respectively.

  7. For applications involving more than one PD/PI, when determining if a modular budget can be submitted is it $250,000 per PI or $250,000 for the entire project? (Question Added: 09/05/2007)
    The $250,000 modular limit is based on the dollar level of the entire application, regardless of how many PD/PIs are involved.

E. Peer Review Process

  1. What additional review criteria will be applied
    As in the review of the traditional single-PI application, peer reviewers will consider whether the designated PIs have appropriate training and experience to carry out the proposed study. Therefore, there will be no “additional review criteria.”  The following NIH review criteria will be in effect for most unsolicited RPGs beginning in February.  These criteria will accommodate applications that include multiple PIs as well as those that involve a single PI. 

    Significance . Does this study address an important problem? If the aims of the application are achieved, how will scientific knowledge or clinical practice be advanced? What will be the effect of these studies on the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?

    Approach: Are the conceptual or clinical framework, design, methods, and analyses adequately developed, well integrated, well reasoned, and appropriate to the aims of the project? Does the applicant acknowledge potential problem areas and consider alternative tactics? For applications designating multiple PDs/PIs, is the leadership approach, including the designated roles and responsibilities, governance and organizational structure consistent with and justified by the aims of the project and the expertise of each of the PDs/PIs?

    Innovation: Is the project original and innovative? For example: Does the project challenge existing paradigms or clinical practice; address an innovative hypothesis or critical barrier to progress in the field? Does the project develop or employ novel concepts, approaches or methodologies, tools, or technologies for this area?

    Investigators: Are the PD/PI(s) and other key personnel appropriately trained and well suited to carry out this work? Is the work proposed appropriate to the experience level of the PD/PI(s) and other researchers? Do the PD/PI(s) and investigative team bring complementary and integrated expertise to the project (if applicable).

    Environment: Do(es) the scientific environment(s) in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Do the proposed studies benefit from unique features of the scientific environment(s), or subject populations, or employ useful collaborative arrangements? Is there evidence of institutional support?
  1. Will there be special review criteria for competing continuation (Type 2) applications?
    The review criteria shown in E.1., above, will apply to all competing applications including competing renewal applications and revised applications.  A competing renewal submitted as a multiple-PI application requesting support for a project that was previously supported through a single-PI award should state the changes in the project’s direction and management that led the PIs to now propose the multiple-PI model.  In addition, the application should state how the research will be enhanced through the multiple-PI approach.

  2. Why would the reviewers need to see the Leadership Plan? Shouldn’t the Leadership Plan be tentative and subject to change along with the direction of the science?  Could the Leadership Plan be submitted for only those applications with fundable scores, just-in-time? 
    Although the Leadership Plan is subject to change, its inclusion within the grant application will provide the reviewers with important information on the proposed approach of the project as well as the roles of the PIs.  The Leadership Plan must be included in the application to facilitate peer reviewers’ understanding of the complexities of the science and of project management.

  3. The Leadership Plan has several components and requirements.  Is each component weighed equally?  What impact would one or more deficiencies have on the Leadership Plan and on the (final score of the) entire application?
    The Leadership Plan describes the roles and areas of responsibility of the named PIs, the process for making decisions on scientific direction, allocating resources, and resolving disputes that may arise.  The reviewers have to assess the impact of the deficiency as it relates to the research objectives and to the goals of the project.  For example, a poor leadership structure or description will negatively affect both single and multiple PI projects especially where strong collaboration and communication is necessary.

  4. What happens if one or more PIs are not well qualified for the role according to the stated criteria?  Will this affect the score?  Can a review committee recommend removal of a PI?
    Similar to a single PI application, the qualifications of PI in the multiple-PI application will impact the review and priority score.  All listed PIs must meet the qualifications included in the PI definition.  All PIs must have a clearly identified role on the project.   Reviewer comments are included under the “Investigator” criteria and in the evaluation of the leadership approach under the “Approach” criteria. The review committee will not recommend adjustments of the leadership configuration in order to improve the quality of a project.  As in single PI applications, reviewers will judge the quality of the application as submitted.  The inclusion of individuals who do not appear to be qualified as PIs or have ambiguous roles on the project or within the leadership team will be reflected in the score. 

  5. What happens if the proposed research or aims of one of the PIs is recommended for deletion from the proposal in the course of Peer Review?
    There is a possibility that peer review may recommend deletion of the specific aims and budget of one of the PIs because of major deficiencies.  This decision would also impact the priority score and effectively eliminate the PI’s effort.  This is the one case where a peer review committee recommends deletion of a PI.

  6. The application has an outstanding Research Plan and/or outstanding multiple PIs but Leadership Plan is weak or they failed to include Section I (Leadership Plan).  How does this affect the score?
    Reviewers will base the final score of an application on all five review criteria (significance, approach, innovation, investigators, and environment).  The same consideration and evaluation is expected for applications with multiple PIs as with single PIs.  The quality of the Leadership Plan will be considered by the reviewers as part of the assessment of the overall approach and will be incorporated into the scientific and technical merit determination.   A missing or inadequate leadership plan will detract from the overall score.

  7. Will the study section review the application on its own merit, or could the reviewers recommend that a Multiple PI application be re-submitted as a single PI application?  Conversely, could a “team science” application with a single PI receive criticism (and a worse score) for not using the Multiple PI model?
    Each application will continue to be reviewed on its own merit, as submitted by the PI(s).  Reviewers are instructed that it is not their role to advise the applicant or to redesign the proposed project or to suggest other ways of conducting the research.  Following receipt of the summary statement for an application that is unlikely to be funded, applicants are always encouraged to contact their NIH Program Officials.  Program Officials can discuss the advisability of resubmission and possible revisions, based on comments in the summary statement.

  8. Will all PIs receive all review process information? 
    Yes, all PIs, if they are listed in NIH Commons in a PI role, will have access to all the information that is now available to single PIs.  All PIs will be able to view summary statements and status reports in NIH eRA Commons system https://commons.era.nih.gov/commons/.  It will be essential for all named PIs on multiple-PI applications to establish accounts in Commons as PIs prior to the submission of the application.  For instructions on registration with eRA commons, see http://era.nih.gov/ElectronicReceipt/preparing.htm.    

  9. Can the contact PI request additional person-months effort for the additional responsibilities?
    Yes, the level of effort in person-months should appropriately reflect the time commitment required by the proposed project. It is not anticipated that serving as Contact PI will entail additional effort, but that may vary from project to project.  Because, many projects already involve collaborative efforts, the NIH does not expect large increases in the total level of effort required for research projects.  Nevertheless, the level of effort should be based on the best estimate of the time required to conduct the proposed project considering of the roles and responsibilities described in the Leadership Plan.

  10. Is the Leadership plan part of the page limitation for the Research plan?
    No, the Leadership Plan is described in a separate section of the grant application (Section I in the PHS 398 application and as Item 14 in the Research Plan Section of the SF 424 R&R) and is not subject to a page limitation.

F. NIH Funding Policies

  1. It is possible that this model will result in larger grants.  Will the NIH Institutes and Centers have additional funds to support the Multiple PI model?  Will all NIH Institutes and Centers have similar funding policies regarding these applications?
    The NIH does not intend for the multiple-PI model to result in larger grants (see Question A.5).  Some teams of researchers who in the past submitted their proposals as single-PI applications may find that the multiple-PI option is better suited to a future proposal.  In addition, investigators who in the past did not pursue NIH funding at all, due to perceived constraints of the single-PI model, may for the first time wish to seek NIH support for their multidisciplinary, team science efforts.  In either case it does not necessarily follow that grants will have larger budgets.  Grants with an increased work scope caused by merging two related research projects in one grant application will not fare well in peer review.

    The NIH Institutes and Centers (ICs) are aware of the need to anticipate the submission of large grant applications and to manage large awards.  The official NIH policy http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-02-004.html requires applicants planning to submit an investigator-initiated new, competing continuation, competing supplement, or any amended/revised version of the original application requesting $500,000 or more in direct costs for any year to contact NIH IC program staff 6 weeks before submitting the application.  Discussions with program staff should occur as plans for the study are being developed. This applies to both single-PI and multiple-PI applications.

    It is probable that some ICs will announce specific initiatives to encourage multidisciplinary team science and some of these may have special budget guidelines.  Potential applicants are encouraged to contact their NIH program directors and to access the IC’s websites http://www.nih.gov/icd/ for Institute-specific programs.   The NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/index.html includes all Funding Opportunity Announcements including Requests for Applications (RFAs) and Program Announcements (PAs), some of which will be directed toward multidisciplinary team science.  
  1. Will this become NIH’s favored research model, thereby rewarding big science and putting small science at a disadvantage?
    No.  The model is aimed specifically at those team science projects that do not fit into the single-PI model.  It is designed to supplement, and not replace, the traditional single-PI model.  Moreover, team science is not synonymous with large science.  Although there may be specific exceptions, the NIH does not expect the average cost of a grant to increase when the multiple-PI option is used.

G. Post-Award Issues

  1. Does the increased oversight by NIH run counter to modular grants and expanded authority, both of which give PIs more flexibility?
    No.  The PIs supported under the multiple-PI model will have no less flexibility than PIs of single-PI awards.  Most of the oversight requirements should be met through the noncompeting continuation (Type 5) application. 

    Monitoring the awards will be facilitated through enhancements to NIH’s administrative databases and modification of reports, including such as those available through the NIH commons https://commons.era.nih.gov/commons/.   

    Changes in PIs during the award period, including substantial changes in level of effort will require prior approval from the NIH in the same way that such changes are currently required. 
  1. The multiple-PI model appears to require increased oversight and tracking by the NIH.  How will NIH ensure that this additional administrative layering does not impede research?  For example, what documentation will be needed to revise the Leadership Plan, post-award? 
    It is understood that investigators supported through grants must have maximum flexibility to respond to new scientific opportunities, within the overall scope of the funded project.  The NIH is trying to keep any additional tracking or reporting requirements to a minimum in order to ensure that the multiple-PI model is attractive to institutions and PIs. Re-allocation of funds and even revisions to the Leadership Plan during the project period will be via a joint decision of the PIs and their institution(s).  These changes will be implemented at the institutional level, with no need for approvals by NIH, beyond the normal requirements for any grant.  NIH plans to simply track most revisions through the noncompeting continuation (Type 5) application, as it currently does for changes to the scientific direction that are within the scope of the funded project.

  2. Will there be one competing continuation (type 2) application and progress report for the overall project, or will each PI be required to submit an individual report?
    There will be a single competing continuation application and a single progress report for multiple PI applications.  During the initial roll-out of multiple PI in February 2007, the NIH will use subcontracts to handle projects that involve more than one institution.  Accordingly, even when more than one institution is involved there will be only a single application for competing and non-competing renewal.  In the future, it may be possible to manage linked awards for multiple PI grants that involve more than one institution.  When linked awards become available, it is anticipated that there will be separate competing applications and progress reports but the project will continue to be reviewed as a whole. Policies associated with linked awards will be announced in the future.    

  3. If funds are allocated among the PIs, could one PI be given sole authority to reallocate money?
    No.  A basic principle of the multiple-PI model is that each named PI is equally responsible and accountable for the research project.  Re-allocation of funds must be via a joint decision of the PIs, and the process for re-allocation should be included as part of the approach described in the Leadership Plan.

  4. How will data sharing and issues of confidentiality be handled without having one person in charge?
    The Leadership Plan should outline the governance and organizational structure of the research project, including communication plans and procedures for resolving conflicts.   This includes data sharing and confidentiality policies; the presence of more than a single PI does not excuse the PIs from official requirements.  Note that the NIH policy on data sharing applies only to applications with large budgets http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/index.htm).  NIH policy states that applications requesting $500,000 or more in direct costs for any single year are required to include a plan for data sharing or to state why data sharing is not possible.  Data sharing must be addressed in the Significance and Budget sections of the application, and a description of the data sharing plan (or an explanation for its absence) must appear at the end of the Research Plan section.

  5. Can a grant with a single PI add an additional PI during a non-competing year to become a multiple PI project? (Question Added: 01/25/2007)
    No. The NIH requires input from peer review to judge the appropriateness of the multiple PI approach using the review criteria described in Question E-1.  As in the past and with prior approval from the NIH, a PI can replace an existing PI on a single-PI project or a multiple PI project as described in the section of the Grants Policy Statement called “Change in Status, Including Absence, of Principal Investigator and other Key Personnel”.

H. Questions Specific to the Issue of Applications from Multiple Institutions

  1. In what format will multiple institution projects be submitted?
    Multiple PIs at different institutions will collaborate on the development of a single application during the initial roll-out in February 2007.  Awards will be administered using the traditional subcontract approach.  In the future, the NIH anticipates that projects that span more than one institution could be managed using linked awards.  The availability of that option will be announced at some point in the future. 

  2. Can a project supported through a multiple-PI award include additional subcontracted sites?
    Yes.  Multiple PIs at different institutions will be able to use the traditional subcontract mode.   In the future, such projects may be administered using linked awards.   

  3. Can one institution be designated as the lead?
    Yes, the institution submitting the application will be considered the lead institution.  The Contact PI must be located at the institution submitting the application.  The other collaborating institutions will be supported through subcontracts at the time the multiple PI option becomes available in February 2007.  It may be possible to use linked awards at some point in the future.  When linked awards become available, collaborating institutions will have to work together to consider the development of application(s) and  how the project will be carried out.

  4. Without a single PI, who will oversee the various sites in a multi-site project (In addition to the science, this would include personnel issues, conduct, etc.) 
    The process for this oversight should be described in the Leadership Plan.  In this section of the application the governance and organizational structure should be tailored to the research project.   

  5. If the dollars are fluid and subject to reallocation across the participating institutions, how would facilities and administrative (F & A) costs be managed?
    Budgets including F&A costs associated with subcontracts will be determined according to existing policy.  Changes in the allocation and the size of subcontracts will be handled in the same way as on single-PI awards.   

I. Departmental Ranking Tables

  1. If these tables are eliminated, what other tools will the NIH make available to allow institutions to determine their relative ranking?
    With the advent of awards that include more than one PI scattered across different departments, it will be impossible to attribute costs to any specific department within a medical school.  Accordingly, the NIH will stop publishing Departmental Ranking Tables for medical schools.   It is possible that lists of awards with departmental affiliations will be made available so that institutions can calculate the total number of awards to specific departments and based on their own data can calculate the amounts associated with those awards.   

Comments or Questions?

Home | Contact Us | Site Map | Search | Help Downloading Files
Disclaimer | Privacy Notice | Accessibility | FOIA | Print Version


Top of Page               

Page Last Reviewed: September 5, 2007
Content Manager: multi_PI@mail.nih.gov
Technical Issues:   E-mail OER Webmaster

National Institutes of Health - Home Page    Department of Health and Human Services - Home Page    USA.gov - Government Made Easy    Grants.gov - Home Page