Sign Up to receive free weekly articles like these

Grant Clinic:

Stab in the back?
Co-investigator now wants greater % of effort than agreed

Reader Question: I plan to apply for an R21 exploratory grant with a two-year budget of $100,000. A co-investigator I expected to include at 5% effort now tells me the 5% is insufficient for the amount of work she will do. How can I resolve this amicably, so that the helper either is happy with 5% or declines to participate so that I can choose someone else?

Expert Comments:

First, step back and try to remove anger from the equation. Bringing anger into it rarely will resolve this kind of problem. It is important to realize that her request can be boiled down to a conflict between her perceived needs and your own perceived needs. Sometimes such conflicts can readily be resolved, and sometimes they can’t.

When you asked your colleague to join your proposal at 5% effort, are you sure she was aware exactly what and how much effort and output you expected from her? Typically a 5% role is small (e.g., simply acting as a consultant). In order to expect a real role with significant inputs of time and effort, one usually puts the collaborator on for 10% effort or more. If you expect a significant contribution from her, that may be why she is asking for more effort.

It is easy in the rush of grant preparation to overlook the need to be crystal clear about expectations. A scenario that I’ve encountered more than once is a PI making a short phone call or e-mailing a colleague and simply asking, “Hey, do you want to be on this project? I’ll put you on for 5%,” followed by a quick description of the project. Said colleague replies, “Sure, sounds like an interesting project, and I have 5% time to spare.” While that is a common occurrence, it also commonly produces misunderstandings like this one.

At the outset, your colleague may not have carefully considered what was being asked of her. Often it is after some reflection that a collaborator fully realizes the amount of time and resources they will need to commit. Your colleague may finally have realized that she could not do all the work entailed with only 5% effort. If that is the case, it is an honest mistake that arose from a lack of adequate communication and planning by both parties. Your responsibility was to spell out exactly what you expected, and hers was to think more carefully before agreeing to it.

Differing expectations arising from lack of adequate communication often cause misunderstandings. Therefore, if you want to fix this, you should have a clear and honest discussion with her about your expectations and her reason for asking for more salary coverage. If you do that with the intention of making things work (rather than with anger), you are likely to find a mutually acceptable solution.

You may want to tell her that this project will lead to larger future projects and that, although you don’t have additional money to offer now, you intend to increase her effort on any future grant awarded.

If that doesn’t work, then you’ll need to revisit your budget. Budgets are based on projections — and projections are not as inflexible as you might think. While it may seem the budget is too tight to change, you could shorten the project by one month, resulting in a considerable savings. Then you could ask for your colleague to work on an accelerated schedule to get her results to you. Another possibility is to approach your department for supplementary funds. Or you could scale back an experiment.

While an R21 budget is tight, there is almost always a way to make things work out — if you have the will to do so.

You should ask yourself, “Do I want a long-term relationship with this collaborator?” If you put her on the grant simply to improve the chances of success, then maybe it is not quite so vital to keep her as a collaborator — though you should still try to defuse this amicably. But if you need her skills and expertise, it becomes more important to try to make the collaboration work, using one of these approaches.

Because you’re both scientists, you probably like solving problems. Therefore, think of this as a scientific challenge — to find a solution that maximizes the future benefit for both you and your collaborator. Those solutions are always the best kind.

Comments by Morgan Giddings, PhD, is an associate professor of microbiology & immunology, biomedical engineering, and computer science at the University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill. She also advises young scientists on maximizing their career, along with providing a free report on five tips to a successful science career on her blog at http://morganonscience.com.

Enjoy this article? Sign Up to receive these free every week

Do lab animal regulations and compliance issues concern you? You should see our NEW sister e-newsletter, Lab Animal e-Alert, which is devoted exclusively to providing Principal Investigators WEEKLY alerts on the welfare and regulatory compliance issues pertaining to laboratory animal research. It is distributed worldwide, without charge, to hundreds of thousands of Principal Investigators whose research involves animals. Just register your email to get your issues flowing.