In 2021, we wrote that appropriately acknowledging NIH grant support allows us to properly assess award outputs and make recommendations for future research directions. This post revisits the issue as a reminder for the research community about the importance of properly citing NIH grant support and accurately representing funding support for the published study.
We released our final Guide Notice clarifying NIH’s long-standing policy on foreign subaward and consortium written agreements. Here, we talk about the origins of this notice, consideration of and changes made in response to public comment, the final oversight and compliance requirements, and how these efforts will ensure NIH remains a proper steward of taxpayer support.
We are pleased to announce that the NIH Grants Policy Statement was recently updated, replacing the December 2021 version as standard terms and conditions of award. Consistent with longstanding federal regulations, institutions receiving NIH support will now be required to have internal controls to assure compliance with terms and conditions of award. These internal controls include behavioral codes of conduct to assure safe and healthful working conditions for their employees and foster work environments conducive to high-quality research.
Inclusion plans. You have questions. We have answers. Join us for this NIH All About Grants podcast miniseries to learn about preparing inclusion plans as part of your application (Part 1) and what happens during peer review and post-award (Part 2).
Imagine this scenario. In the hustle to publish a paper, you accidentally forgot to cite the underlying NIH support. Or, the opposite, you opt to include that other grant in the acknowledgements that did not have anything to do with the work. No problem, right?
Well, it could be. Accurately and precisely acknowledging NIH funding allows us to properly assess award outputs and make recommendations for future research directions. It is also a term and condition of award outlined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement. Since the Stevens Amendment passed in 1989, recipients have been required to acknowledge federal funding when publicly communicating projects or programs funded with HHS funds.
So you have confirmed that you are doing human subjects’ research after listening to the first podcast in our human subject mini-series. And you have a clear human subjects’ protection and monitoring plan developed for your application after tuning in to the second episode in the series. What should you keep in mind after the award is made? Tune in to this NIH All About Grants podcast episode for tips about important post-award requirements, annual progress reporting, engaging your IRB and NIH when a protocol change is needed, and more.
Several months ago, we learned in the press that an NIH-supported investigator was banned from his university campus pending an ongoing investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct. The institution, which was the recipient of the awards in which this investigator was designated as principal investigator (PI), had not informed us of this situation. Once aware, we contacted senior institutional officials to discuss the need to ensure the effective stewardship of the award under these circumstances. We requested that the institution provide us with alternative plans for conducting the research given that this individual would no longer serve as PI and would have no other involvement in the NIH-funded research, and we reminded them (as we recently reminded the community and as reiterated below) that they are responsible for notifying NIH of any change in status that might affect the ability of an individual identified as key personnel to conduct NIH-supported research.