How PIs and the NIH Communicate: eRA Commons and Progress Reports

Susan McCarthy DCB New Grantee Workshop March 15, 2013

What do PIs and the NIH communicate about?

Things about you, the PI: information flow is from the PI to the NIH

Things about your research: information flow is bi-directional Status updates on applications and grants:

information flow is from NIH to PI Public Access notification for publications:

information flow is from PI to NIH eSNAP yearly Progress Reports on funded research:

information flow is from PI to NIH

What does the NIH need to know about you?

Things about you, the PI: information flow is from the PI to the NIH, via the “Personal Profile” section of eRA Commons Your name, your degrees, your institution, your

department, your academic rank, your address, your phone number, your email, etc, etc, etc.

If we can’t find you, we can’t pay you, so please keep the info current.

What does the NIH need to tell you?

Status updates on your applications and grants: information flow is from the NIH to the PI, via the “Status” section of eRA Commons Documents received/accepted, study section

assignment, study section SRO, NIH IC assignment, NIH Program Director/Officer, score, Summary Statement, Notice of Grant Award, etc.

Check it regularly, so you can see that things are moving through the system as expected.

What does NIH need to know about your research?

Things about your publications: information flow is from the PI to the NIH, via the NIH Public Access reporting system and a “My NCBI” account link to the “Publication Details” site within the “Personal Profile” section of eRA Commons

Upon acceptance for publication, a manuscript/paper derived from NIH-funded research needs to be entered into the NIH Public Access System, which generates an ID number that is included in subsequent applications, the yearly grant progress report, the final grant report, etc.

Just do it…

What does NIH need to know about your research?

Things about your progress (both published and unpublished) over the most recent funding period: information flow is from the PI to the NIH, via the eSNAP section/function of eRA Commons

The eSNAP entry includes info in addition to your scientific progress report: approval certifications, other support, personnel, effort levels, etc., which Brett Hodgkins will address

I’ll highlight elements of the scientific write-up.

What’s “Normal” for an R01 Progress Report?

Most are about 2-5 pages Most list and follow order of Specific Aims Some have figures, some don’t All discuss successes, some discuss problems/failures Some present (minor) modified plans --

some in past tense, some in future tense Most take the PI a day or two to prepare --

not an hour and not a week

What’s “Not Normal” for an R01 Progress Report?

“Too much” data/progress

Is this really an accounting of just one year of progress? Does it make clear what is prior years’ vs. most recent year’s progress?

Is this really an accounting of progress from just this grant? Does it make clear whether some data come from other funding to PI’s lab, which may synergize with this project?

What’s “Not Normal” for an R01 Progress Report?

“Too little” data/progress Is this really an accurate account of PI’s total progress for

the grant’s most recent year? Will require contact with PI to answer this.

If No, then PI needs to revise to provide sufficient information on progress, results, difficulties, etc.

If Yes, then PD and PI need to discuss problems PI is encountering, PI’s plans for getting back on track, what PD can do to help, etc., especially for New PIs.

PD should explore/consider whether this is a recurring issue with this grant and/or PI.

What are some special cases?

Grants requesting/proposing a change in scope Significantly increasing the work proposed, due to rapid

progress, free labor, etc. Significantly shifting the work proposed, due to new

techniques, reagents, collaborators, etc. Increases and shifts may require new IRB, IACUC,

and/or biohazard approvals Decreasing the work proposed, due to major budget cuts

(normally occurs when the grant is initially awarded) These changes require pre-approval by the NIH

What are some special cases?

Grants with supplements requiring progress reports Administrative supplements, in response to a PA or initiated by PI:

for new research opportunity within the scope of parent project; reviewed by NCI, pretty rare

Diversity training supplements: for students, post-docs, junior faculty, re-entry, etc.; reviewed by NCI, will be outlined by Sanya Springfield

“Revision” supplements: major increase in scope and funding of grant; reviewed by study section, very rare

Report should describe progress and plans, plus relationship to parent grant