| | | Avoid Bad News at Application Submission Time: Complete Financial Conflict of Interest in Research Disclosure Form and CITI Training Federal regulations require all investigators who submit grant applications to Public Health Service agencies (AHRQ, ATSDR, CDC, FDA, HRSA, HIS, NIH, OIG, SAMHSA) to have completed a Financial Conflict of Interest in Research Disclosure Form and the 30-minute CITI training module on Financial Conflict of Interest before submitting an application to a PHS agency. Clemson University cannot submit applications if the PI has not completed the disclosure form or the CITI training and received certification by the Clemson University Conflict of Interest in Research Office. These requirements apply to all individuals on a project who are responsible for the design, conduct or reporting of the research. This could include faculty, post-docs, grad/undergrad students, advisors and staff. Forms, links and more information available at: http://www.clemson.edu/research/sponsored/coi.html | |
Subaward or Vendor: Which to Choose? 
| | | |
Frequently, there is confusion about how to administratively categorize collaborators who work with CU faculty on sponsored programs: do we issue a subaward, or do we just pay an invoice outright? The decision can have significant ramifications from a federal auditing standpoint, and if the wrong mechanism is chosen, institutions can incur substantial fines and be labled as a “high-risk” university, jeopardizing future funding for all investigators at that institution. Consider this scenario: Clemson University Professor Dr. Gretta Grant is applying to the National Institutes of Health to support her research project that explores the impact of soda consumption on childhood obesity. Her literature search identifies Dr. Bubbles Fizz, of Harvard University, as the recognized expert in adolescent soda consumption. She would like for Dr. Fizz to study and analyze the soda consumption patterns of high-school age teenagers to complement her own, similar study of grade-school age children. Dr. Grant will also take blood samples from 100 children at a local elementary school who have consumed 3 glasses of soda, and from 100 children at another local elementary school who have not consumed any soda. She will send the samples to Dr. Beaker at Biomedical Testing Services, Inc., Dr. Beaker will drop a saline solution on each sample, measure and record the level of fat-producing cells, and return the data to Dr. Grant for her analysis. Who is the subaward recipient and who is the vendor? Harvard University (Dr. Fizz) is the subaward recipient, because she has a specific and unique expertise, is conducting a specific Scope of Work that is within her area of expertise as applied to Dr. Fizz’s research question, and her analysis could impact the programmatic effort of the project, meaning that her unique intellectual contribution could impact the results and conclusions of the larger study. Dr. Beaker is the vendor, because he is not providing any analysis, is providing the same service that is available to any customer who walks in the door, and is making no unique intellectual contribution to the project. Selecting the correct relationship can be confusing at times, but the Office of Sponsored Programs can make this process much easier. Please consult with your grant coordinator and OSP as early as possible in the grant application process in order to make the correct determination. | |
National Science Board Extends Deadline for Comments on Administrative Burden | 
| | |
Principal Investigators on federally-funded grants now have until June 7th to provide their insights on the administrative burden of federal grants. The NSB Task Force has released a Request for Information (RFI) seeking recommendations from principal investigators for reducing the administrative workload associated with their Federal awards. Responses to the RFI will be considered as the Board develops recommendations to ensure investigators’ administrative workload is at an appropriate level. Over the past decade two Federal Demonstration Partnership (FDP) Faculty Workload Surveys indicate that administrative burdens associated with Federal research funding consume roughly 42% of an awardee’s available research time. The National Science Board (NSB), which establishes the policies of the National Science Foundation (NSF) and recommends and encourages the pursuit of national policies for the promotion of research and education in science and engineering, recently established a Task Force on Administrative Burdens that is charged with examining faculty administrative workload as it relates to federally sponsored research. The Task Force is also interested in identifying opportunities to reduce burden while maintaining accountability and oversight. | |
NSF Applications: Products and Page Numbers Effective January 14, 2013, the National Science Foundation’s revised Proposal Preparation Guide took effect. Among the major changes included in the revised requirements was the replacement term “Products” for “Publications” on the NSF Biosketch, to more accurately reflect the changing nature of scientific research. “Products” may include patents, data sets, software and copyrights, in addition to publications. Invited lectures and unpublished articles should not be included. As we all know, the federal funding environment is incredibly competitive. Following NSF’s new guidelines demonstrates that the University, and you, the investigator, are up to date on current rules and regulations, which should inspire confidence that we will carry out a funded project in a similar fashion. Although not a new requirement, keep in mind that all uploaded files to an NSF application must be paginated. Rule of Thumb: Stand out from the crowd with fascinating science, not a non-compliant application! | |
| |
|
|
