phd student pi

What is a Principal Investigator (PI) and who is eligible?

What is a Principal Investigator (PI)?

A Principal Investigator or PI is the individual responsible for the preparation, conduct, and administration of a research grant, cooperative agreement, training or public service project, contract, or other sponsored project.

Who is eligible to be a Principal Investigator?

Before you begin to develop a proposal, it is important to be sure you are eligible to serve as a Principal Investigator at UMass Amherst.

Anyone holding the following positions may be designated as PIs in applications for sponsored projects:

All tenured and tenure-track Assistant, Associate, and Full Professors and Librarians

All Research Assistant Professors, Research Associate Professors, Research Professors, Extension Specialists, and Clinical Professors

All Adjunct, Visiting, Emeritus, Lecturers or other faculty at UMass Amherst who have the approval of their Department and the approval of the Dean of the relevant School or College.​​​​ PIs in this category should either include a Co-PI from appointment types described in 1 and 2 above; or provide a signed memo where the Chair and Dean shall accept full fiscal and administrative liability and responsibility for the actions of the Principal Investigator included in this category.

All Post-Doctoral Fellows who have the approval of their Department and the approval of the Dean of the relevant School or College. The Post-Doctoral Fellow’s mentor must be included as a Co-PI.

All Professional Staff who are not also students with the approval of their Department and the approval of the Dean of the relevant School, College, or Vice Chancellor.

Who is eligible to be a Co-Principal Investigator?

Any UMass researcher who is eligible to be a PI is also eligible to be a Co-PI. Collaborators from other institutions who do not hold appointments at UMass Amherst may nominally be listed as Co-PIs of a particular sponsored project if they serve as PI of a subcontract ; however, non-UMass faculty or staff would not be considered to be co-PIs of UMass. Individual collaborators from other institutions may also serve as consultants on sponsored projects, when appropriate, without PI or co-PI status.

What about Undergraduate and Graduate Students?

Undergraduate and Graduate students may not be designated as PIs. However, when a Sponsor’s guidelines require a student to be listed as PI in the proposal, the student’s mentor/advisor will be the PI of record in the University's electronic research administration system and will be responsible for the conduct and oversight of the project.

*Please note that the information above is intended as an FAQ only and may not be exhaustive. Please read  Roles and Responsibilities of Principal Investigators and Co-Investigators , as approved by the Research Council and the Faculty Senate, for more information. The Office of Pre-Award Services (OPAS) staff is available to assist with proposal development and review.

Search form

Quick links.

• R&E Help Desk
• OPAS Reviewer Assignments
• Request Proposal Support Services
• Proposal Preparation Guide
• Request new Sponsor
• Request new Organization (i.e. Subcontractor)
• Approver Change Form

©2024 University of Massachusetts Amherst • Site Policies • Site Contact

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• PLoS Comput Biol
• v.16(2); 2020 Feb

Ten Simple Rules to becoming a principal investigator

John s. tregoning.

1 Department of Infectious Disease, St Mary’s Campus, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom

Jason E. McDermott

2 Biological Sciences Division, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington, United States of America

3 Department of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology, Oregon Health & Sciences University, Portland, Oregon, United States of America

Introduction

The biggest choke point in an academic career is going from postdoc to principal investigator (PI): moving from doing someone else’s research to getting other people to do yours. Being a PI is a fundamentally different job to being a postdoc; they just happen to be in the same environment. It is not an easy transition. It draws on few of the skills you learn at the bench, and the odds are clearly not ever in your favor. So, calling this article Ten Simple Rules is obviously a simplification. It is more accurate to call them ten tricky steps.

In this article, we use PI to mean anyone who runs their own research group using funding that they have been awarded to answer their own questions. PI encompasses a number of different job titles depending on where the research is performed: fellow, lecturer, reader, associate professor, and senior scientist. One test is whether you can describe the people working for you as the X group, in which X is your surname. The normal route from undergraduate to lab head involves a PhD, one or more postdoc positions, and then PI. Given the diversity of ways to be a PI, the final step up from postdoc takes a number of forms. In the United Kingdom, this tends to be either an individual fellowship or a lecturer position, and in the United States, it generally starts with an independent position with associated funding—either as a start-up package or funded grant.

The aim of this article is to identify some of the broader skills (rules 1–4) and behaviors (rules 5–10) that can help with getting a PI position. It is meant as advice not instruction. As you will see, we are advocating the development of social intelligence, which is as useful in the world outside academia as within it.

Rule 1: Have ideas

Creativity is central to being a PI—seeing new connections, thinking of new ideas, and using current understanding to develop future plans. Unfortunately, creativity is incredibly nebulous and can feel at odds to the scientific process ( Fig 1 ). Be receptive to ideas whenever they come, especially as they often come at the most inconvenient of times—when dropping the kids off or at 4:00 in the morning. Find ways to capture these flitting ideas. Accept that there are few truly novel ideas: Reading around will provide you with inspiration for your own problems. Whilst it is more about making things than doing science, Every Tool’s A Hammer captures what it is to be creative [ 1 ].

Ideas in the scientific space take a while to nucleate, but are ephemeral, like bubbles. When fully formed, good ideas will survive scrutiny and questioning. But be careful about exposing them to others too early. Criticism, however well-meaning, can burst half formed ideas.

Learn to accept that ideas do not just come by themselves and allow them time to develop: It is entirely normal to have more bad ideas than good ones. Even if the net product from the day is a waste bin full of paper and some tea-stained scribbles—having a creative process, whatever that is, is very important ( Fig 2 ). At some point, these scribbles do turn into ideas, but there is no magic wand. One analogy is of a nucleation point: initially there is a swirling mass of ideas with no form, and eventually they coalesce into something. Caffeine helps.

Writing is a part of the job, and it is important to have a process that helps you write (and good time-management skills around that process as well).

Discussing the idea with other people is vital, not just to shape the idea but also to find the right home for it. However, the timing of discussion is critical. Ideas are really fragile: Feedback at early stages will often focus on negatives, not the potential, and many a good idea has ended up in the bin due to early “help.” Stephen King advises developing the initial idea with the door closed and only opening the door when the idea is mostly formed [ 2 ].

Rule 2: Publish papers

Have no illusion: The main thing you need on your curriculum vitae (CV) is papers ( Fig 3 ), preferably first-author papers and ideally first-author papers in which you are the corresponding author, with the occasional last author paper thrown in for good measure. Papers are both the imprint we leave on the scientific world and the genealogy by which other people can track our pedigree. A recent analysis identified papers as the single most important factor in getting tenure [ 3 ].

Every successful PI has a “graveyard” of uncompleted and/or unsuccessful ideas. The trick is to have a lot of things going forward to make sure some survive.

While first-author papers are the gold standard, you also need breadth and depth in your publications. Look for opportunities to contribute to other people’s work. Coauthored papers are important; they demonstrate an ability to collaborate as part of a team and can lead to roles in larger grants. One approach is to take advantage of what Dr. Tregoning calls “top drawer specials.” Nearly every PI will have projects that never quite make it, due to people leaving or research priorities changing. Often all that is required is for someone to pull preexisting data into paper form. Completing these side projects whilst waiting for your main project to bear fruit is a very efficient way of CV boosting and practicing your writing.

You also need some evidence that you can get grants. Unfortunately, getting grants can feel like a catch-22 for early career researchers. You cannot become a PI till you get grants; you cannot get grants until you become a PI. This is a tricky but not insurmountable problem. There are some smaller pots of money that you can apply for, including travel grants and (sometimes) internal funding schemes. At the very least, be involved in grant writing. Learn the process, so it doesn’t come as a horrible shock. If you do contribute to a grant from your current lab, ensure that you are named on it in some role.

Whilst there is no way that you can get an academic post without papers, papers alone are not sufficient: There are many people with great CVs and no tenure. There are other skills and behaviors that you need.

Rule 3: Research what the job involves and learn to juggle

Before losing sleep about not becoming an academic, understand what an academic career involves. Spoiler alert: It is mostly juggling ( Fig 4 ). Before becoming a PI, Dr. Tregoning drew heavily from fiction to form vague and entirely wrong ideas of the role, with elements of Hogwarts, Jordan College in Lyra’s Oxford (from His Dark Materials ), and the Jurassic Park cloning lab (before the dinosaurs escaped). However, a closer parallel is that you are an entrepreneur running your own business within an organization that provides some core support services.

As a lab head, your duties may stretch your abilities to accomplish things. Be aware that if you are viewed as successful, you will be asked to take on even more.

As the head of a lab, you are responsible for fundraising, fund managing, purchasing materials and equipment (some of which is extremely specialist, even unique), training and managing staff working with dangerous materials, publicizing the current research, and planning future research. As a teacher you are expected to inspire and educate the next generation with a range of teaching styles that are appropriate for either 300 students in a lecture or for a single student, as a mentor. On top of this, you are expected to help with the administration of a large complex organization with upwards of 10,000 staff. Hiring good people can help to distribute some of this load. Dr. Hope Jahren in Lab Girl captures much of the joy and pain of an academic career [ 4 ].

No two academic careers are the same. This is one of the best aspects of the job. We are given (some) flexibility to choose our own routes. Whilst there are core elements—teaching, research, and administration—the make-up of each person’s role can be very different. This will vary by individual and institution: Some places are research only, and some are focused on teaching. Spend some time thinking about what type of academic you might want to be and where your strengths lie so you can best prepare. But also try everything out: You might discover a previously unknown talent for steering committees, designing curricula, or community outreach.

Rule 4: Develop your skills

The skills you learn in the lab during your PhD and postdoc are by and large irrelevant to those necessary to run a lab. While you will get your next job based on your CV (your previous employer and your publications), you will only succeed in your next job based on your ability to do a range of other things [ 5 ]. The biggest difference is lab and technical work. As a PI, the amount of time you spend doing raw science (be it in a wet lab, in a field, or at a computer) dramatically decreases. This can be tricky to come to terms with, but as the leader of the group, your main responsibility is to support your team. Invest some time in developing skills outside the lab. To get more of a sense of the skills needed to run a lab, read At the Helm [ 6 ].

The most important skill is learning to write well. The time that you no longer spend generating data is quickly filled by time writing grants and papers. Writing science well is not trivial. There are many resources that can support you in learning to write, including Stephen King’s On Writing [ 2 ], Roy Peter Clark’s Writing Tools [ 7 ], and Joshua Schimel’s Writing Science [ 8 ]. There are also academic articles—including some excellent 10 Simple Rules [ 9 ]. If you do not have time to read these, take George Orwell’s advice from “Politics and the English Language” and never say anything that is outright barbarous [ 10 ]. Nothing beats practice and feedback. Bear in mind, there are other ways to present your ideas [ 11 ].

The other critical skill is learning how to work with people. Get management experience before you go live with your own lab: That way, your early mistakes don’t affect you long term. The easiest way is to do this is outside science, which can come in many forms—working in a shop, volunteering at a shelter, running a children’s football team, or even joining the army [ 12 ], which may seem a bit extreme, but it gives you a chance to explore what works and what doesn’t. Working with students is another rewarding way of developing your management skills. Likewise, ask your postdoc mentor if you can take on management responsibilities in your current lab.

Rule 5: Focus on the prize

A lot of becoming a PI boils down to attitude: A major defining quality is relentless perseverance in the face of the odds. Your initial plan about how you’re going to get there is usually a lot simpler and easier than the course you will eventually take, but don’t give up ( Fig 5 ). Whilst you have limited hours in the day and, unfortunately, a limited time from getting your PhD to getting onto the tenure track, the solution isn’t only working harder. Focus on the things that help you cross the line. In order to do this, you need to identify what these key things are and be able to evaluate the benefit per unit of time invested.

Generally, your plan seems a lot more straightforward than the way things actually happen. It’s important to remain flexible about how you achieve your goals and, indeed, what those goals actually are. But also remember that other people’s paths were not necessarily as smooth as they appear.

Make the most of your time: Think about what you are being asked to do and how it helps you become a PI. For example, be selective about the work you do: Don’t start any work unless you can see the route to publication. One of the major skills is learning to say no, even if the opportunity is really shiny ( Fig 6 ). This can be tricky when working for someone else who has ten scatty ideas that go nowhere for every one that makes the final draft. You have to be choosy and occasionally say no if the project looks like a dead end. Of course, there is a fine line between being self-driven and self-centred; you still need to do things that contribute to the smooth running of the lab you find yourself in. This extends into faculty positions. Being collegiate makes you more employable: No one wants to work with “that person” with a reputation for selfishness.

The ability to say “no”—even when the opportunity seems exciting—is a must for PIs.

Be aware that what others show to the outside world isn’t the whole truth. Professor Alice Prince at Columbia recently described how her National Institutes of Health (NIH) biosketch was a poor reflection of the person she is [ 13 ]. Going from a successful PhD studentship in a big lab to a postdoc in an even bigger lab, followed by a fellowship, with Cell , Nature , and Science (CNS) papers every step of the way is still perceived as the only route to being a PI. But very few people take this route; doing a muddle of short-term contracts is a much more realistic route. Trust us: It is possible to get a PI job without publishing in Nature (the authors submit their Google Scholar profiles as evidence: JST and JEM ).

Rule 6: Bounce back from failure

No matter how focused you are, you are going to fail. One of the most common experiences of being an academic is failure. You will fail on your path to becoming a PI, and you will fail once you become a PI. It is not the failing that matters; it is how you bounce back again ( Fig 7 ). No one succeeds all the time; to use a sporting analogy, Babe Ruth had a batting average of 0.342—meaning he missed the ball 65% of the time—Lionel Messi requires 5.79 shots per goal, and Serena Williams misses 40% of her first serves. Likewise, a PI who gets more than 20% of their grants funded is a superstar. Learning coping strategies is vital. Some of the things that help are as follows:

Persistence and perseverance are two qualities that are vital to becoming and being a PI. You should stand up for and argue your point but remain aware that you could be wrong.

Reflective practice

Carol Dweck’s brilliant book, Mindset [ 14 ], can help you to fail better. She suggests reframing failure as a learning opportunity. After the initial mourning period, look again at rejected papers and grants in the light of the reviewer’s feedback and see what you can improve.

Revise, recycle, and resubmit

Any single rejection is not the end of the idea. Many grant applications require a resubmission. In 2015, NIH R01-grant success rate was at approximately 30% for resubmissions, compared with 10% for original submissions [ 15 ]. And even if your grants are not funded, there are ways to get the work done, chopping them into new projects or running them on the side of other funded things. Likewise, no single journal is perfect, and with the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) advocating for a shift from impact factor, it is worth considering on what other grounds your work will be evaluated [ 16 ].

Learn to roll with reviewers’ punches

Flawed as it is, the peer-review system is the least worst, and we are stuck with it for now. Remember, reviewers don’t reject your work because they hate you. Stand in the reviewer’s shoes: They have to make decisions on a large number of grants from a multitude of subjects in limited time. Sometimes, your work may not make the cutoff, and coming back a second time with new data may be enough to get you over the line.

Depersonalize it

It is important to separate your personal worth from your successes and failures at work. Failure and the resultant iterations and corrections are part of creativity. Depersonalizing failure allows you to accept constructive criticisms and move both your ideas and yourself forward [ 17 ].

Rule 7: Develop your brand

We have two things to sell, our ideas and ourselves. Of the two, the main product we sell is ourselves, which (at work at least) is defined by our CV: what we have worked on and who we have done it with and where. Develop a single memorable “personal brand,” which can be used when meeting potential collaborators, conference organizers, and funders. Have a single line “elevator pitch” that summarizes what you do, backed up with an exciting case study. The brand includes the types of research you aspire to do and the initial projects you might run. The hope is that by pitching this brand successfully you will be at the forefront of people’s thoughts when they are putting together grants, consortia, or seminars. Your brand could even help you end up in front of that elusive tenure-track or lectureship appointment committee. Part of this brand development is identifying your strengths and honing them. Whilst you shouldn’t ignore your weaknesses, your strengths are the foundation on which you build your career. The brand is no longer limited to papers and conferences. It is possible to reach whole new audiences through social media [ 18 ]—though be aware the boost in connectivity may not compensate for the time lost down the rabbit hole.

Rule 8: Believe in yourself

Developing your brand is easier said than done, in part because of the curse of imposter syndrome [ 19 ], in which you doubt your own talents and fear that you will be revealed as a fraud ( Fig 8 ). Nearly everyone in academia suffers from it to some degree or other. The process of peer review is a major contributor: You and your work are routinely judged by others and, given the high failure rate, are going to be found wanting, often.

You can make one of these lab coats for yourself by trying to remember that everyone in science experiences imposter syndrome to some extent and that questioning yourself, your perspective, and your position is actually an essential part of the scientific process.

At the end of the day, academia is just a job, a fascinating and fun job that can occasionally take up every single second you have but ultimately just a job. There is no value in becoming a PI at any cost. Ensure you live a life outside work, for your own mental health and for that of your team. Academic burnout is very real; it is okay to take a break to reset stress levels: for example, Dr. Tregoning runs [ 20 ]. Sometimes stepping back a bit can even help in terms of creativity and headspace. Likewise, if you work every hour of the day to become a PI, there is no spare capacity when life inevitably doesn’t run smoothly.

Rule 9: Build a network of mutually supportive people

Networking is central to being a PI. The best way to do this is to meet people face to face: Get out there and break bread. Carry business cards at all times. Go to conferences, consortia, and congresses: Plan who you want to meet at the conferences, even email them in advance to arrange time at the meeting. Often, smaller conferences can give you better chances to meet people. But be aware that talks aren’t the only part of the conference; the social events are great places to meet people and to learn. Networking isn’t limited to networking up; network sidewise with your peers and down with the people who you are training. Virtual networking can help: This paper is the offspring of a Twitter conversation.

The other consideration is choosing the right boss and environment to work in. The ideal boss is supportive, enabling, and generous in credit. If you can’t find that, find someone who will let you get on with things independently so you can develop your own ideas. At the very least, avoid bosses who will wittingly or unwittingly damage your career. Try to discover what flavor a potential boss might be before committing to work for them; discrete questions when you visit a lab for an interview can be helpful.

Ultimately, nobody can succeed on their own ( Fig 9 ). There are many functional reasons to build up a network of people: Other people have different skills, expertise, and access to equipment or reagents. Many of the best things that happen are often random offshoots from chance meetings, for example, papers that sprang from discussions with the external examiner at a viva or collaborations formed at conference bars.

Remember that sometimes you need the cheering section and sometimes you are the cheering section for others. PI, principal investigator.

But, more importantly, network because working on your own is rubbish, boring, and sad. Nurture your colleagues at every step of the way. Be kind wherever possible [ 21 ]. You could probably succeed by pursuing a divide and conquer, winner takes all attitude, and you could probably name people who have done this. But don’t; as then, everyone loses.

Rule 10: Know when to quit

Disclaimer: Even if you follow these 10 rules, there is no guarantee you will end up running your own lab. Knowing when to cash out is as true for scientific dead-ends as career ones. Chasing after something long after it has eluded you is not going to add to your overall life happiness.

Remember that academia isn’t the only job. There is the perception that becoming a PI is the one true path. As a PhD student, it is easy to say that your dream goal is to become a PI. This is mostly groupthink resulting from the lack of visible alternatives. Within the university system, the most visible individuals who are successful are the PIs; the people who are succeeding in other careers have by necessity left the university system. Becoming a PI is merely one career path amongst several that are available to scientifically trained graduates, all of which will value the skills you have developed along the way. Make sure that in upskilling you consider employability outside the sector or giving yourself an edge within the sector; this is part of the reason the authors started blogging and drawing: It was a new thread drawn from skills we enjoyed that gave us a different dimension [ 22 ].

Deciding when enough is enough is the hardest rule and is in direct conflict with Rule 6 about learning to fail. This is a decision only you can make, but don’t rush it as it is not unusual to want to quit often.

It has not been easy to condense how to become a PI into Ten “Simple” Rules, particularly when there are so many tensions—being focused on yourself without being selfish, being resilient in the face of failure but knowing when to quit, and gaming it without being cynical. Notable absentees from this list are technical expertise, hard work, and knowledge of the field: These are a given, but there are more people who are hardworking, skillful, and knowledgeable than there are PI jobs. There is clearly a role for luck, but you need to be prepared to exploit opportunities.

Ultimately, if becoming a PI is what you want to do, do not let anyone (including yourself) put you off. Yes, the odds are against you, with a recent study reasserting the low rate of postdocs who become tenure-track faculty [ 23 ], but there are jobs with worse, steeper pyramids. Tracking the likelihood of reaching the top in other careers is one way to normalize academia: for example, acting—of the 300 million people in the US only 51,000 people work as actors (Actors’ Equity Association figures 2017). Likewise, while nearly every child in England plays soccer at some point in their childhood, only 22 of them make the national teams. Compared to these horrific odds, academia is relatively easy: 15% of the roughly 20,000 postdocs employed in the US will end up in a tenure-track academic position [ 24 ].

Ultimately, it is social intelligence (sometimes referred to as ‘soft skills’) that can make the critical difference. The good news is that you are already developing a lot of these skills by stealth: Time management, working with people, and juggling priorities are all part of being a postdoc. Even better, these leadership skills—being more resilient, being kind, looking after yourself and your colleagues, and focusing on your goals—apply to all jobs. So even if your academic aspirations don’t play out, you will be in a position to succeed in any role.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Emily Graham (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory) for the invaluable feedback.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this study.

Tips for a better grad student-PI relationship

“It’s important that you and your PI (principal investigator) get along, but it’s more important that you and your PI be productive together.”

This useful piece of advice was given to me by a postdoc, during my Ph.D. For a grad student, a PI is many things: a teacher, a mentor, a role model, and a critic.  For a PI, a grad student represents a student, an employee, a mentee and a fellow researcher. With so many expectations, the PI-grad student relationship can be a complicated one.

Having navigated these somewhat murky waters, I hope that these tips help current grad students develop a more productive working relationship with their PIs.

• Choose Wisely: One of the most important decisions during grad school is choosing a thesis lab and PI. While making this decision, keep in mind how you and your PI work and communicate. Recognizing each other’s working styles early on and figuring out if those styles are compatible, will help you develop a more productive relationship.
• Improve productivity: Once you have chosen your thesis lab, the next step is making sure you are productive in the lab. Every PI wants productive grad students. Spending too much time on standardizations and optimizations derails timelines and hampers lab productivity. Making sure that you are organized and managing your time efficiently in the lab, will go a long way in improving your relationship with your PI. Using video-publications to learn techniques saves time and improves lab productivity. Work hard and work smart!
• Communicate effectively: Communication is key! It's a cliche, but it’s true. It is important for you to recognize your PI’s communication style and adapt to it. For example, some PIs prefer an open door policy and some prefer appointments. Figure out which policy your PI prefers and follow it. Similarly, make it simple for your PI to communicate with you. Be straightforward about your needs and expectations.
• Brainstorm and troubleshoot: Your project’s success is important to both you and your PI. Keeping your PI in the loop for both successes and failures is important. Try to troubleshoot failed experiments together. The reason you joined the lab was to be guided by one of the leading minds in the field, so exploit that opportunity. Brainstorming with your PI helps them keep abreast of your progress and roadblocks. This also helps them appreciate your research and your critical thinking abilities.
• Pick your battles: While you and your PI might share the perfect work relationship, you will not always see eye to eye. It is common to have different opinions on the direction projects should take, the next best experiment, writing the manuscript etc. How these differences are resolved to define your relationship more than those pleasant beers shared at TGIF sessions. Think hard about the battles you pick. When you do pick a battle to fight, make sure you present your case with respect, tact, and facts.

Every grad student will have a different story and a different relationship with their PI. During your PhD, you will learn and grow a lot and your PI plays a big role in this professional development. Learning from your PI’s scientific expertise and critical thinking skills, will give you the scientific foundation that you came to grad school for.

Related Posts

We use cookies to enhance your experience on our website.

By continuing to use our website or clicking “Continue”, you are agreeing to accept our cookies.

The basis for determining who is eligible to be a Principal Investigator (PI) is grounded in who may receive funds through a grant, contract, or other funding mechanism on behalf of the University.

Who may be listed on an IRB application follows these same guidelines however there are some exceptions.  Those who are not PI eligible may still serve as a PI on an IRB application however there must also be a faculty sponsor listed. This is particularly true when the PI on the IRB application is a student.

PI eligibility is generally delegated to the Schools who have developed eligibility criteria for their faculty as well as specific procedures for granting exceptions to their criteria. Below you will find policies relevant to who may serve as a PI as well as the process to grant an exception to these policies.

Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS)

According to FAS policy, only teaching members of the Faculty and a select number of other academic appointees are considered to be PI eligible.  Please read the PI eligibility policy including a list of who is eligible.

The FAS has also established a process by which “Harvard appointees who are not otherwise PI-eligible may on occasion be authorized to serve as PI with approval by the appropriate Divisional Dean. The department chair or center director can submit such requests using the PI Rights Questionnaire form [found on their website], and the justification must be compelling.”

Central Administration

Generally, only those who have an academic appointment may be considered PI eligible.  However, there may be circumstances when individuals that do not have an academic appointment who report to the University Central Administrative Unit may have the opportunity to seek external funding for special projects that contribute towards the goals or the mission of the individual’s unit.  The Office of the Provost for Central Administration has developed a process for such circumstances. Please read the Policy for Granting Non-Academic PI Eligibility . Use the Request For Granting Non-Academic PI Status (PDF) form with this process.

Graduate Schools

The Harvard Graduate Schools have incorporated different policies and procedures for determining PI eligibility.  Some schools maintain a list of names of those that are eligible while others create policies according to faculty rank or title. Given the variability, it is recommended that researchers check in with their respective school.

Undergraduate students, Graduate Students, and Post-Doc’s

As previously mentioned, those that are affiliated with Harvard University Area, including undergraduate students, graduate students, or post-doctoral researchers, are permitted to be a PI on an IRB application however this designation is only valid if a PI eligible Faculty Sponsor is also listed on the IRB application. 

What does it mean to be a Faculty Sponsor?

A Faculty Sponsor sponsors the PI who is listed on the IRB application, confirms oversight of the research, and ensures that the PI complies with all IRB requirements. For more information on what it means to be a faculty sponsor, please see the Faculty Sponsor - Ancillary Review Type Reference form found in the Ancillary Review and Other Reference tab in the ESTR library.

What if my Faculty Sponsor is not PI eligible?

There may be times when the best person to oversee a student’s research is not considered PI eligible. For example, faculty classified as lecturers, or similar titles, may serve as senior thesis advisors however they are ineligible to be named as a faculty sponsor on a student project as they are not considered PI eligible.

The FAS has “established a guideline that establishes a process for waiver for a particular lecturer, or other faculty appointment holder, to be PI eligible for the limited purpose of serving as a faculty sponsor for undergraduate student human subject research protocol submissions.”  Please see the Waiver for PI Status for Human Subject Research Policy as well as the Waiver of PI Status for Human Subject Research Request Form for more information.

• Research Policies

Principal Investigator Status

The term Principal Investigator (PI) is used to identify a researcher with primary responsibility for a research project. In various contexts, the specific purpose, eligibility criteria and responsibilities of PI status may vary.

Principal Investigator Status for Grants

The term Principal Investigator (PI) is used most commonly to identify the individual who is responsible for a sponsored research project (grant). This responsibility includes both leadership of the scientific/technical aspects of the project and compliance with the financial and administrative aspects of the award. Tenured faculty, tenure-track faculty, and employees with Research Professor track titles or Permanent PI status are automatically eligible to serve as sponsored project PIs. Research Professors must apply for and acquire Permanent PI status in order to obtain access to VCR Research Committee funding.

The following documents describe the procedures by which other academic staff may also be authorized to serve as PIs in this context.

The Chancellor has delegated the Vice Chancellor for Research (VCR) authority to grant approval for academic staff members to serve as principal investigators on extramural grants and contracts. Under present VCR rules, an academic staff member may serve as Principal Investigator (PI) on proposals and awards by requesting Limited PI Status on a project-by-project basis as described below, or, if eligible, by requesting Permanent PI Status.

One-Time Limited PI Request Procedures

• Request for Limited PI Status form should be completed for each proposal. (Make sure you use the Adobe toolbar when saving the document so that the words you added to the document are saved. This toolbar has the icons in it and appears below the pulldown menus in your browser.)
• Upload form as attachment in RAMP.
• The Chair/Director and Dean will approve the request by approving the RAMP record.

Blanket Limited PI Request Procedures

Schools/colleges/divisions may approve limited PI status for an individual for a defined period of time at the request of a department/center. This would allow an investigator to submit proposals in a single category (i.e., research or outreach) without including full documentation every time. Typically, the request is made by routing a hard copy signed by the chair of the completed Request for Blanket Limited PI Status to your school/college dean’s office staff prior to the submission of any proposals. Staff approved for this “blanket” option should include information via the Add Comment activity in RAMP that the individual is approved for blanket status and state the end date of the current approval. Please check with your Dean’s/Divisional Office for further guidance. The department/center and school/college/division must internally track the individuals for whom they have approved this arrangement and the approved time frames. Each limited PI’s qualifications and demonstrated abilities to meet programmatic objectives and carry out administrative management of projects must be re-evaluated at least once every three years. Blanket Limited PI status does not carry eligibility for VCR Research Committee funding.

Eligibility Guidelines

Generally, the faculty of the staff member’s department will have voted to grant PI status to the individual. This vote, and the justification provided on the Limited PI Status Form should address the following criteria at a minimum:

• Record of increasing responsibility serving as Co-Investigator or collaborator on grants or contracts awarded to and carried out at UW–Madison.
• meeting stated programmatic objectives of projects
• administrative management of projects (financial and personnel management).

Additional Qualification Guidelines by Title

Staff having the qualifications listed in sections A through D below are generally considered to be in appropriate positions to request Limited PI status. Research Professors do not require approval to submit proposals.

A. Research Academic Staff Qualifications:

• Earned research doctorate (PhD) or other terminal degree in the field, such as an MFA, AND
• Holds an academic staff appointment in the following series: Scientist, Innovator, or Researcher.

B. Clinical Health Sciences (CHS) Academic Staff Qualifications:

• Earned MD or equivalent terminal degree, AND
• Holds an academic staff appointment in the Professor (CHS) series.

C. Clinical Academic Staff Qualifications:

• In the Medical School, a MD is required.
• In Veterinary Medicine, a DVM is required.
• In Pharmacy, a Doctor in Pharmacy or Masters in Pharmacy is required.
• In Nursing, a PhD, DNSc, DSN, or EdD are required, AND
• Holds an academic staff appointment in the Clinical Instructor or Professor series.

D. Emeritus Faculty Qualifications:

• Has been granted emeritus professorial status by UW–Madison.

Academic staff members who do not meet these qualifications may also be granted Limited PI Status at the discretion of the Dean or designee for circumstances in which the project is most appropriately directed by a person in the academic staff member’s role (i.e., an Outreach Manager directing an outreach project).

Undergraduate students, graduate students, postdoctoral scholars, visiting professors, visiting academic staff and those with adjunct appointments are not eligible to apply for limited PI status. For these individuals, it is suggested that an appropriate faculty member serve as PI, and the student, postdoctoral or visiting scholar or adjunct be listed as Co-Investigator. Exceptions will be granted when the visiting title is temporary pending resolution of a visa issue. In addition, postdoctoral scholars may be listed as PI when it is expected that, should the grant be awarded, they would move from the employee-in-training category into an appropriate research academic staff or faculty position. Such proposed change in status requires their department’s approval and their Dean’s or designee’s approval prior to the submission of a limited PI status request, and should be documented in a brief memo uploaded as an attachment to the RAMP record.

ECC/Effort Reporting and Limited PI Status

Individuals pursuing Limited PI Status should refer to the UW–Madison ECC and Payroll Certification Guidelines regarding activities that can and cannot be allocated to sponsored projects. Note that salary for proposal writing activities must be supported by non-sponsored funding. For further information regarding the level and duration of non-sponsored funding required, please contact your chair/director or school/college/division office.

Permanent Principal Investigator Status for Academic Staff

Many UW–Madison academic staff members have strong research records, including those who have requested and been granted Limited PI Status on multiple occasions and successfully carried out competitive externally funded research grants. This document outlines a process whereby these experienced academic staff members may request Permanent PI status not tied to a specific project.

Academic staff members granted Permanent Principal Investigator status will no longer need to request permission to serve as a PI each time they submit a grant proposal. In addition, academic staff members granted Permanent Principal Investigator status through this process have access to VCR Research Committee funding.

Academic staff members who believe they meet the criteria for Permanent PI status may apply by submitting the materials described in this Checklist to their Department Chair or Center Director for consideration.

Applications supported by the Chair/Director and School/College/Division Dean’s Office should be submitted to the Principal Investigator Committee c/o Kathleen Ruby ; please submit the full application as a single pdf file attached to an email message. Deadlines for submission to the committee are: October 15 and February 15 of each year. (A list of current members of the Principal Investigator Committee is available on the Secretary of the Faculty’s committee rosters page ).

For purposes of the criteria for Permanent PI status, a research contract involves a systematic investigation, including research development, testing and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.  Scholarly publications are assumed and Intellectual Property may result from the research.

In contrast, service contracts (agreements) are contracts in which the University provides a routine service which meets predefined specifications with no novel or creative input by a University member. The activity does not add to the body of fundamental knowledge in a given field. Scholarly publications and Intellectual Property are not expected, therefore, service contracts do not meet the criteria for Permanent PI Status.

The Vice Chancellor for Research will make the final determination about whether a contract meets the University’s criteria for a research contract or a service contract.

The PI Committee is advisory to the Vice Chancellor for Research who has authority to approve or deny requests for Permanent PI Status.

Please consult with your dean’s office prior to preparing an application; some schools/colleges/divisions have additional criteria for recommendation of Permanent PI status.

Criteria for Permanent Principal Investigator (PI) Status

I.  Any academic staff member who has fulfilled one of the following research accomplishments at UW–Madison may be eligible for Permanent PI status (emeritus faculty/staff are not eligible to apply for or retain Permanent Principal Investigator status):

• successfully served at least twice as a Principal Investigator on nationally or internationally competitive research grants and/or research contracts awarded to and carried out to completion at UW–Madison. Competitive renewals meet the criteria for two grants.  The two grant criteria can also be met by serving at least once as Principal Investigator AND at least once as Co-Principal Investigator, or
• successfully served at least once as Principal Investigator on a nationally or internationally competitive research grant and/or research contract awarded to and carried out to completion at UW–Madison having a duration of 5 years or more, or
• secured and successfully administered at least 2 competitive externally funded research grants or research contracts awarded to and carried out to completion at UW–Madison that are not internationally or nationally competitive but which show compelling evidence of high achievement and recognition in his/her discipline.  The two grant criteria can also be met by serving at least once as Principal Investigator AND at least once as Co-Principal Investigator.

The term Principal Investigator is used to identify the individual with primary responsibility for a research project including leadership of the scientific and technical aspects of the project and compliance with the financial and administrative aspects of the award.

II.  Applicants must demonstrate a solid record of research accomplishment that is highly regarded by scholars in their field and show considerable promise of continuing outstanding research. The PI Committee shall advise the Vice Chancellor for Research in making this determination in light of the following criteria:

• a significant record of published research in refereed journals/books, or an equivalent level of accomplishment disseminating the research findings through conference presentations and nationally distributed research reports.
• a record of successful administrative management of research grants and/or research contracts on which the academic staff member has served as Principal Investigator.
• evidence of successful completion of the stated objectives of research grants and/or research contracts on which the academic staff member has served as Principal Investigator. This evidence should be in the form of publications or written reports.
• the PI Committee will also weigh other evidence of scholarly impact, including; invitations to speak or consult; being invited to serve on or chair national review panels; invited publications; and invitations to apply for research funding.

The evidence must reveal a significant history of scholarly accomplishment that lends confidence that such activity will continue into the future.  The application must include a one-page statement by the applicant of his/her research goals for the next five years.

Academic staff having the qualifications listed in one of the sections 1 through 3 below are generally considered to be in appropriate positions to request Permanent PI status. Research Professors must apply for and acquire Permanent PI status in order to obtain access to VCR Research Committee funding.

• Holds an academic staff appointment in the following series: Scientist, Innovator, Researcher or Research Professor.

Academic Staff members who do not meet these qualifications may also be considered for Permanent PI status if they are supported by the Chair/Director and School/College/Division Dean’s office and have met the research accomplishments articulated in the previous section.

Process for Review of Permanent Principal Investigator Status

• A departmental or center recommendation for the granting of Permanent Principal Investigator status may indicate a commitment of department or center space, resources and administrative support for the candidate’s research grants.  Any departmental or center conditions for, or continuation of, Permanent PI Status must be articulated in the letter of recommendation.  Applications approved by the department or center shall be transmitted to the relevant School/College/Division Dean for review and signature (some schools/colleges/divisions may choose to submit a formal recommendation letter by the dean’s office at the time of approval; this should accompany the application), and then to the Vice Chancellor for Research c/o Kathleen Ruby . Supporting material and documentation are specified in the checklist attached to this document.
• Before approving or denying a request for Permanent Principal Investigator status, the Vice Chancellor for Research shall seek the advice of the PI Committee. The PI Committee will review the request for PI status according to the Criteria for Permanent Principal Investigator Status, above. The PI Committee will be chaired by a Divisional Associate Vice Chancellor for Research.  The PI Committee Chair will assign a member of the committee to be the primary reviewer of the application. The reviewer will contact and interview the applicant’s department chair or center director in order to clarify any ambiguities in the application and verify ongoing commitment of department or center space, resources and administrative support for the candidate. For academic staff who are not funded by nationally or internationally competitive grants, this interview will also provide an opportunity for the reviewer to learn about the funding mechanisms in the applicant’s discipline and to better assess the applicant’s academic stature. The reviewer also has the option to contact the applicant. The reviewer will then report to the full committee and lead a discussion of the application.
• If the Vice Chancellor for Research after receiving the advice of the PI Committee, approves the departmental/center recommendation he/she shall add the candidate’s name to the official list of Permanent PIs posted on the VCR website .
• If the Vice Chancellor for Research action is contrary to the recommendation of the PI Committee, he/she should so inform the PI Committee and allow it to reconsider its original decision. Such reconsideration and the pursuant conclusions shall be made known to the Vice Chancellor for Research within 30 days.
• The dean, department/center, and academic staff member shall be notified promptly of the final actions taken by the PI Committee and the Vice Chancellor for Research.
• If the Vice Chancellor for Research disapproves a departmental/center recommendation for Principal Investigator status, the academic staff member concerned may request, or the department/center with the consent of the academic staff member may request, a written statement of the reasons to be provided within 20 days and may seek reconsideration of the decision.

A Permanent PI who moves to a position in a different department/center and/or school/college/division, and who does not enter the tenure track, should obtain approval for the transfer of PI status from the new department/center and school/college/division prior to submission of proposals through the new unit. The Chair or Director of the new department or center should submit a letter requesting this transfer to the Dean or designee in the associated school/college/Division. The Dean or designee should respond to the Department Chair or Center Director and copy the Vice Chancellor for Research regarding the outcome of the request. If the transfer is approved, the Vice Chancellor for Research will revise the Academic Staff with Permanent PI Status list to show the individual’s new affiliation. If the transfer is not approved, the Vice Chancellor for Research will remove the individual’s name from this list.

• Utility Menu

FAS Research Administration Services

• Principal Investigator Eligibility

PI and Co-PI Guidelines for FAS and SEAS Researchers and Staff

For each sponsored award, it is customary to designate one person as the project’s Principal Investigator . This is the person who will bear primary responsibility for the project’s design, execution, and oversight as well as for all financial, administrative, and compliance matters.

Sponsors may use different terminology to refer to the leader or co-leaders of a project – Principal Investigator (PI), Project Director (PD), Co-Principal Investigator (Co-PI). In order to serve in any of these roles on an externally funded project, you will first need to determine your PI/Co-PI eligibility status.

What is the difference between a PI and a Co-PI?

Some sponsors allow more than one person to serve as Principal Investigator, often referred to as Co-Principal Investigators or Co-PIs, but will require one person to be designated as the primary point-of-contact for the award. This is the person who should be listed first as the lead PI in the proposal and in the Principal Investigator field in GMAS. Additional PIs, PDs, or Co-PIs should be noted in the proposal, where appropriate, and added to the GMAS Research Team.

Who can serve as a PI or Co-PI?

There are two distinct ways that an individual may be allowed to serve as a PI or Co-PI:

1) Eligibility through appointment * :

• Continuous PI Rights are granted to teaching members of the Faculty (e.g. Assistant/Associate Professors and tenured Professors) and a select group of academic appointees
• Li mited PI Rights are granted to individuals who hold specific academic or staff appointments and seek grant support for a limited scope of activities directly related to their area of expertise

* Note : All individuals holding Continuous or Limited PI Rights are required to take the FAS and SEAS Update for Faculty and Principal Investigators on-line course in the Harvard Training Portal. The Office of Sponsored Programs (OSP) will not approve the submission of new or competitive renewal proposals, the establishment of new At-Risk accounts, or the acceptance of new or competitive renewal awards until the evidence of training completion is provided.

2) Eligibility through exception approved by the cognizant office or unit’s authorized approver

• Exceptions are normally limited to a specific project or topic area
• In rare cases, exceptions may be granted on a continuing basis if an individual has a demonstrated record of successful project leadership and does not require significant oversight or departmental resources (space, administrative/financial support, etc.)

Please refer to the PI and Co-PI Rights Eligibility by Appointment/Position Matrix for a list of the academic appointments and staff positions granted Continuous or Limited PI Rights. Holders of appointments or positions not listed in the matrix who wish to serve as PI or Co-PI must submit an exception request.

How to Request Exceptional PI or Co-PI Rights

Whenever possible, researchers who do not hold Continuous or Limited PI Rights should partner with individuals who do hold PI Rights to produce a collaborative proposal. If this arrangement is not possible, approval must be sought to serve as PI or Co-PI by completing the following steps.

Requests should be initiated as soon as the need for Exceptional PI/Co-PI Rights has been identified but no later than ten (10) days prior to the sponsor’s deadline.

Process Steps:

1) Download and complete the PI Rights Questionnaire

2)Complete the FAS and SEAS Update for Faculty and Principal Investigators course in the Harvard Training Portal and save a copy of the course certificate. If the course has already been completed once, it does not need to be taken again when requesting additional PI or Co-PI Rights. Simply submit a copy of the previous completion certificate with the questionnaire.

3) Once the questionnaire and training have been completed, the form must be signed by the requestor’s FAS Department Chair, Center Director, SEAS Area Chair, or equivalent approver

4) Submit the signed form, along with a current CV and a list of current grants and pending proposals to the appropriate authorized approver:

If approved, a copy of the fully signed form will be returned to the department and the form should be uploaded to GMAS when the proposal is locked and routed for review by OSP and/or RAS.

Exception requests are carefully considered and are not automatically guaranteed. Sample reasons an exception may be approved include, but are not limited to:

• When a grant program states that the Project Lead/PI must be someone with an appointment title that does not normally hold continuous or limited PI Rights.
• When a grant program will only consider projects with a single PI and therefore partnering with another individual is not an option.
• When there is no ladder faculty member in the department conducting similar research who can reasonably be asked to serve as the lead PI of the proposed project.
• When the work is to be conducted at a remote field sight where the exception requestor will be the sole senior person on site.
• When the purpose of the exception is to allow a lecturer who will be advising a senior thesis writer, whose work involves human subjects, to sign off on the needed human subjects protocols.

What is a Co-Investigator and Is Approval Needed to Be One?

Sponsors may use the Co-Investigator (Co-I) role to classify individuals who will work closely with the project team in the development or execution of the project but do not share the same level of project responsibility and oversight borne by a PI or Co-PI.

Individuals who are not eligible, either by appointment or exception, to serve as PI or Co-PI may be listed as Co-Investigator, provided they meet the sponsor’s definition of this role and hold a current active Harvard appointment. An exception to serve as Co-Investigator does not need to be sought from an authorized approver, provided the lead Harvard PI agrees with the Co-I designation.

Required Disclosures for PIs, Co-PIs, and Co-Investigators

Researchers serving in the following roles on National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Science Foundation (NSF) projects are required to internally disclose their financial interests in the University’s Outside Activities and Interests Reporting (OAIR) system :

• Principal Investigators on proposal submissions to NIH and NSF
• Co-Principal Investigators on proposal submissions to NSF
• Co-Investigators on proposal submissions to NIH

To trigger the creation of a certification record in OAIR for researchers who are not normally required to submit annual disclosures under the University’s Conflict of Interest policy (i.e. anyone who is not a Harvard faculty member), the proposal record must first be created in GMAS. All Harvard PIs, Co-PIs, and Co-Investigators must be designated as Investigators by answering Yes to the Investigator question when adding them to the GMAS Research Team. Once GMAS passes the information to OAIR, the Investigator will receive an email from [email protected] with a link to their required certification for that project.

For more information regarding financial disclosure requirements, please consult the Conflict of Interest page of the RAS website.

Student and Postdoctoral Researchers

Student and postdoctoral researchers are not typically PI/Co-PI eligible unless they fall under one of the following two notable exceptions:

1) Graduate and postdoctoral fellowship applications

• Many graduate and postdoctoral fellowship programs require the student or postdoc to be assigned the PI role on the application. As long as the fellowship requires designation of a faculty mentor/sponsor responsible for oversight, PI Rights do not need to be formally requested.

2) NSF Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grant (DDRIG) and Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant (DDIG) proposals or equivalent

• NSF DDRIG and DDIG applications require the faculty mentor to serve as PI and the graduate student to serve as Co-PI. Exceptional Co-PI Rights do not need to be formally requested for these proposals.

All students and postdoctoral researchers submitting fellowship or NSF DDRIG/DDIG applications as a PI or Co-PI must take the FAS and SEAS Update for Faculty and Principal Investigators training course.

PI/Co-PI designation for the purposes of a fellowship or NSF DDRIG or DDIG application does not grant that individual the authority to serve as PI or Co-PI on other types of proposals. Reach out to your RAS Pre-Award contact if you have questions about whether PI or Co-PI Rights are needed for a specific application for graduate or postdoctoral funding.

If a student has a larger scale research project that does not fall under one of the two exceptions noted above, they must partner with a faculty member who agrees to serve as project PI. When this happens, the faculty PI will be responsible for project supervision, oversight, and reporting. When a faculty member PI signs off on a student-led project in GMAS, they are confirming their understanding of these expectations.

PI Rights for Human Subjects and Vertebrate Animals Protocols

Individuals who hold PI Rights within the FAS are eligible to serve as PI on human subject IRB and vertebrate animal IACUC protocols.

Those who are not PI eligible, including students, may still serve as a PI on an IRB application however there must also be a faculty sponsor listed. Read more about IRB PI Eligibility on the CUHS website.

Individuals who are not PI eligible may, on rare occasion, be authorized to serve as the PI on an IACUC protocol if there is a compelling justification. The Department Chair or Center Director can forward such a request to [email protected] .

PI or Co-PI Status for Non-Harvard Researchers

FAS and SEAS do not delegate PI or Co-PI responsibilities to individuals over whom it has little or no authority. As such, non-Harvard researchers may not be listed as PI, Co-PI, Co-I, or equivalent in a Harvard proposal unless they fall into one of the following two categories:

1) Subaward personnel

• Even though subaward personnel may be listed as PI or Co-PI on a Harvard proposal, the right to serve as PI or Co-PI must be granted to them by their home institutions. A Statement of Intent signed by a subrecipient’s institutional official serves as confirmation that personnel named as PI or Co-PI are approved to lead the project at their institution.
• Harvard’s oversight and authority over subrecipient personnel will be governed by the terms of the subaward agreement

2) Sponsor-required exceptions to satisfy the requirements of a specific program announcement

• For example, the NSF GOALI (Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry) program requires that a Co-PI from an industry partner institution be listed on the project
• If you are responding to a funding announcement that includes this type of requirement, please reach out to your RAS Pre-Award contact with questions about PI or Co-PI eligibility

PI and Co-PI Rights Eligibility by Appointment/Position Matrix

Click here for a printable PDF version of the matrix

[1] Links to other Harvard schools’ policies on PI Eligibility: Medical School , T.H. Chan School of Public Health , Graduate School of Education

[2] See Student and Postdoctoral Researchers section for more information

• Proposal Planning
• Systems Access
• Proposal Development Resources
• Budget Preparation
• Review & Submission
• Award Setup

Jimmy Matejek-Morris

... Read more about Jimmy Matejek-Morris

Katherine Zuccala

... Read more about Katherine Zuccala

Research Policy Handbook

Principal Investigator Eligibility and Criteria for Exceptions

Policy authority.

Senate of the Academic Council

Policy Contact

Now in Policy Details

Establishes the policy that principal investigatorship or co-principal investigatorship on externally funded projects is limited to members of the Academic Council and the Medical Center Line (MCL) faculty, with specific exceptions.

1. Principal Investigator Eligibility Policy

Eligibility to act as a principal investigator (PI) or co-principal investigator (Co-PI) on externally funded projects is a privilege limited to members of the Academic Council and to the MCL faculty. This policy limitation is in place because PIs are responsible for determining the intellectual direction of the research and scholarship, and for the training of graduate students.

The designation of "PI" or "Co-PI" for any member of the Academic Staff, or other individual who is not a member of the University's Academic Council or MCL faculty, requires specific approval by the relevant department chair, school dean and, in some cases, the Dean of Research, as described below.

2. Exceptions

There are three kinds of exceptions to the PI eligibility policy. The first and second deal with those situations in which exceptions may be granted by the department chair, and school dean or director of the SLAC National Laboratory if all of the prescribed conditions are in place. The third category of exception represents all other situations which require the approval of the department chair, school dean, and Dean of Research. Exceptions in this third category rarely will be granted.

A. Exceptions Subject to the Approval of the Department Chair and School Dean

Requests for PI eligibility for researchers who are not members of the Academic Council or the MCL faculty (e.g., Academic Staff members, Postdoctoral Scholars, Instructors or other researchers) in the following situations may be made on a case-by-case basis by the relevant member of the Academic Council or MCL faculty who has oversight responsibility for the proposed PI.

Such requests are subject to the written approval of the department chair and cognizant dean. (In those cases where the proposals arise from areas outside a school dean's jurisdiction, the Dean of Research will act as the equivalent of the school dean in approving such requests.) The approval of the department chair and the dean shall not be pro forma, but shall take into account the academic quality of the proposal, the qualifications of the proposed PI, and the relevance and importance of the proposal to other activities of the University. Such requests will be made only for a particular project with a specified project period. Documentation of the chair and dean's approval must accompany proposals submitted to the Office of Sponsored Research.

1. Conferences, Exhibits, Workshops or Public Events

Researchers who are not members of the Academic Council or the MCL faculty may be approved to serve as PIs on externally sponsored projects whose sole purpose is to fund short conferences, exhibits, workshops, or other public events of a character appropriate to the University.

2. Specific Projects Which Are Part of Large Interdisciplinary Programs

Researchers who are not members of the Academic Council or the MCL faculty may be approved to serve as PIs on projects within the scope of a large interdisciplinary program. For this purpose a "large interdisciplinary program" is defined as a research program which: a) is directed by a member of the Academic Council or MCL faculty, b) has an expected duration beyond the involvement of any individual faculty participant, c) has more than one faculty member involved, and d) requires expertise in more than one discipline or technical area. All of the following conditions must be met in order for the department chair and school dean to approve PI exceptions in such cases:

The proposed project must be a demonstrably important component of the success of the overall interdisciplinary program, as defined above

There is no member of the Academic Council or MCL faculty associated with the  large interdisciplinary project who is qualified to take responsibility for the scientific direction of the prospective research project

No incremental space will be required for the project

For each graduate student participating on the project, a qualified faculty member has been identified to assure that the student's research program and the education derived from it are consistent with the degree for which the student is a candidate

Exceptions approved under this provision will be reported to the Dean of Research on an annual basis.

3. Career Development Awards

Researchers who are not members of the Academic Council or the MCL faculty may be approved to serve as PIs on a class of projects generically referred to as Career Development Awards, whose stated purpose is to advance the individual's scientific career. Such petitions may be approved if the project is to be carried out under the mentorship of an established faculty or MCL investigator who is named in the proposal, and if the project can be conducted within the overall intellectual scope and laboratory space of the faculty mentor. Often in these cases the awards cover only the individual's salary and incidental expenses, but not incremental staff or students.

Career Development PI Waiver requests are subject to the following:

Written approval of the faculty supervisor (who must be a member of University Tenure Line, Medical Center Line, or Nontenure Line professoriate), the relevant department chair, center or institute director (if no departmental resources are to be used), and the appropriate school Dean’s Office.

• A guarantee of space and resources for the duration of the grant by the faculty mentor or department chair.
• The understanding that the grant may not, under any circumstances, support a graduate student.  If the grant will have funding to appoint a postdoctoral scholar, the waiver recipient would be responsible for the day-to-day research supervision of the work of the postdoctoral scholar; however, the overall career mentoring of the supported postdoctoral scholar would be the responsibility of an Academic Council or Medical Center Line faculty member.

4. Expanded Career Development Awards

Expanded Career Development Award Exceptions for MD and MD/PhD Fellows and for PhD Postdoctoral Fellows in the School of Medicine are a very specific category of Career Development PI waivers.  The School of Medicine Dean may approve a limited number of selected exceptional MD, MD/PhD clinical fellows, and PhD postdoctoral fellows with two or more years of research training to serve, with written agreement of their faculty mentor and relevant department chair, as PI for an extramural “R”-type or comparable "non-traditional" career development research award on a one-time basis without possibility of grant renewal.    This one-time opportunity is restricted to only one grant application per applicant and its allowable resubmissions, with no possibility of additional applications or resubmissions beyond those allowable for the specific grant application.

Expanded Career Development Award exception requests are subject to the following:

• Candidates must have two or more years of research training.  In addition, applicants should have a research record (publications and prior research training) that is consistent with their having a reasonable chance of success on the grant application in order to receive this specific expanded PI career development waiver opportunity.
• Written approval of the faculty supervisor (who must be a member of University Tenure Line, Medical Center Line, or Nontenure Line Research professoriate), the relevant department chair, center or institute director (if no departmental resources are to be used), and the School of Medicine Dean’s Office.
• Signature of the postdoctoral trainee to document understanding of the terms of the waiver, including that there is no possibility of renewal if awarded, and no possibility of subsequent submissions (beyond those allowable for the specific grant application) should the application be unsuccessful.
• The endorsement and approval of a standing independent faculty review committee, reporting to the Senior Associate Dean for Research at the School of Medicine, that concludes that the postdoctoral candidate is exceptional and has the training, experience, preliminary data and publication track record to indicate that the grant application has a reasonable chance for a positive review and potential funding.

5. Pending Appointments for New Faculty

Faculty whose appointment start date is in the future may apply for proposals through Stanford provided the project period start date is not prior to the appointment start date and the appointment has been approved by the Provost. In addition, an award cannot be accepted until the member’s appointment has begun.

6. Clinical Educators in School of Medicine (PILOT)

During a five year pilot period of June 11, 2020 – June 10, 2025, School of Medicine Dean or designee may approve Clinician Educators (CE) to be PIs on research proposals under the following conditions:

•  The CE PI waiver would be dedicated specifically for the conduct of clinical trials and patient care related clinical research.
• Only Clinician Educators who are at the rank of Clinical Assistant Professor or above are eligible.
• Only Clinician Educators who are Full-Time are eligible.
• The following CE PI waiver eligibility criteria also apply:
• They are reviewed on a case-by-case basis;
• There is a defined programmatic need which is Clinical Trials and Patient Care related Clinical Research;
• The Departmental Chair confirms that the proposed PI has the requisite qualifications to direct the project and provides assurance that the work will be conducted in accord with the standards of excellence of the University (the qualifications of the proposed PI are also reviewed independently by the School of Medicine Senior Associate Dean for Research Office, including evidence that all appropriate PI trainings have been completed); 
• No incremental space is required for the project;
• The proposed project is term limited;
• The PI cannot mentor graduate students.

7. Specific Projects Which Are Part of a Shared Facility or Service Center (PILOT)

During a five year pilot period of April 22, 2021-April 21, 2026, MD or PhD-level researchers and staff who are not members of the Academic Council or the Medical Center Line (MCL) faculty may be approved to serve as PIs on projects within the scope of a shared facility or service center. For this purpose a "shared facility" or “service center” is defined as a center providing critical research infrastructure to the broader Stanford community, as follows: The shared facility or service center must:

• have an expected duration beyond the involvement of any individual faculty participant,
• have users spanning many (e.g., three or more) departments

For approval of PI exceptions in such cases the following criteria must be met:

• Only shared facility/service center MD or Ph.D.-level staff are eligible.
• The PI waiver would be dedicated specifically for funding opportunities in support of the shared facility/service center. 
• There is a defined programmatic need of the shared facility/service center;
• There is no member of the Academic Council or Medical Center Line (MCL) faculty associated with the shared facility/service center who is qualified to take responsibility for the scientific direction and has the capacity to lead the prospective research project.
• Waivers are reviewed on a case-by-case basis;
• The Faculty Lead of the shared facility/service center confirms that the proposed PI has the requisite qualifications to serve as PI on the specific project;
• The Faculty Lead of the shared facility/service center provides assurance that the work will be conducted in accord with the standards of excellence of the University; and,
• The Faculty Lead of the shared facility/service center confirms all appropriate PI trainings have been completed;
• The shared facility/service center Faculty Lead, the Center Advisory Board (if one exists), and the School Dean or designee (if applicable) all agree on the selection of the PI;
• The research or development to be conducted must be conducted within the shared facility/service center and affiliated locations only; 
• For each graduate student participating on the project, a qualified faculty member is identified to assure that the student's research program and the education derived from it are consistent with the degree for which the student is a candidate.
• Exceptions approved under this provision will be reported to the Vice Provost and Dean of Research or their designee on an annual basis, who will provide annual updates to C-Res.

B. Exceptions for Senior and Distinguished Staff Scientists or Engineers of the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory

The SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory (SLAC) is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy operated by Stanford University under contract with the Department of Energy.  SLAC performs mission-driven basic research in particle physics, astrophysics, and photon science including synchrotron radiation.  As an affiliated academic unit of Stanford University, research conducted at SLAC is subject to Stanford University’s policies concerning the conduct of research.

The Director of SLAC is responsible both for the administration and operation of SLAC as a national laboratory and for academic matters arising from SLAC’s role as an affiliated academic unit.

SLAC Distinguished Staff Scientist or Engineer and Senior Staff Scientist or Engineer positions are reserved for individuals who have achieved recognition of research leadership nationally or internationally.  Distinguished Staff Scientists or Engineers are appointed by the SLAC Director and Senior Staff Scientists or Engineers are appointed by the Associate Laboratory Director of a particular directorate based on recommendations by a SLAC Appointments and Promotions Committee.

To carry out SLAC’s research mission, the SLAC Director may approve SLAC Distinguished and Senior Staff Scientists or Engineers to be PIs on non-DOE funded research proposals.

PI requests from SLAC Distinguished Staff Scientists or Engineers and Senior Staff Scientists or Engineers are subject to the following conditions:

The proposed research must be judged by the SLAC Director to be programmatically relevant to SLAC’s mission.  Proposals that are not deemed to be consistent with SLAC’s mission will not be approved.

The proposed research must be carried out on the SLAC site and not require utilization of space on the Stanford campus.

A member of the Academic Council must serve as mentor for any Stanford graduate students or postdoctoral scholars involved in the proposed research.

The research must be conducted in accord with the University’s policies concerning the conduct of research and approved PIs must receive PI training.

PILOT: During a five year pilot period of June 11, 2020 – June 10, 2025, SLAC Director may approve continuing SLAC Staff Scientists and Engineers to be PIs on non-DOE funded research proposals under the existing criteria and conditions for Distinguished and Senior Staff Scientists and Engineers as described above.

C. Rare Exceptions Subject to the Approval of the Department Chair, School Dean and Dean of Research

In addition to the foregoing, rare exceptions to the PI eligibility policy may be made at the discretion of the Dean of Research in unusual and non-recurring situations that meet a particular need or opportunity for the University. Such requests will be considered only for a specific project with a specific project period. Examples of rare exceptions that have been granted are: proposals submitted by visiting faculty members and other senior visitors for a limited period of time; proposals submitted by a faculty candidate selected by a department but not yet approved by the Provost, Advisory Board, and President; permission for administrators to submit proposals in support of a project in their area (e.g., the museum or the Stanford University Press); special cases of sponsored instruction; and situations where an Academic Council or MCL faculty investigator ceases to be available and it is necessary for the proposed PI to oversee an orderly phase out of a project.

Requests for such exceptions should be made by a member of the Academic Council or MCL faculty on behalf of the proposed PI. Such requests are subject to the approval of the cognizant department chair, school dean, and the Dean of Research.

In all cases, the following six criteria must be met:

Criteria for Granting Rare Exceptions

The proposed research must meet a programmatic need of Stanford. Meeting a programmatic need means addressing an area of investigation that is not currently covered at Stanford and is endorsed by a sponsoring member of the Academic Council or MCL faculty as directly relevant to and supportive of the research or teaching programs of the faculty. Research that may be important in its own right and for which outside funding is available will not be judged as meeting the programmatic need criterion unless it facilitates the ongoing objectives of the University in an identifiable and direct way.

The proposed research cannot be funded and/or conducted effectively at Stanford unless the proposed individual is the PI. Among other things, this generally will mean that there is no member of the Academic Council or MCL faculty available to take the responsibility for the scientific direction of the project.

The proposed PI's qualifications to direct the project provide assurance that the work will be conducted in accord with the standards of excellence of the University.

No incremental space will be required for the project.

For each graduate student participating in the project, a qualified faculty member has been identified to assure that the student's research program and the education derived from it are consistent with the degree for which the student is a candidate.

The research must be designed and conducted in such a way that work can be discontinued when programmatic need ends or if the sponsoring faculty member ceases to be available.

Exceptions to the PI eligibility policy will be rare in situations other than those described in Section 2.A and 2.B above. A written copy of any such requests, along with the justification and approvals of the sponsoring faculty member, the chair, school dean, and Dean of Research should accompany the sponsored project proposal submitted to the Office of Sponsored Research.

3. Project Designations Other Than Principal Investigator

Establishment of project teams is the Principal Investigator's responsibility. In this regard, the PI will consider such factors as project requirements, sponsor guidelines related to key project personnel, and the qualifications and contributions of participating researchers, among other factors. Stanford University considers co-principal investigators (Co-PIs) to be equivalent to principal investigators in all regards; eligibility for co-principal investigator status is therefore the same as for principal investigator status, as defined in this policy. Other project designations are at the discretion of the Principal Investigator, and may include, for example:

A. Associate Investigators

In circumstances where this designation would be consistent with sponsor guidelines, the PI may designate members of the Academic Staff-Teaching (AS-T, Lecturers and Sr. Lecturers), Academic Staff-Research (AS-R, Research Scientists, and Sr. Research Scientists, Sr. Research Engineers, and Sr. Research Scholars), Academic Staff - Libraries (Assistant Librarians, Associate Librarians, Librarians, Senior Librarians), Postdoctoral Scholars, Instructors or other researchers as "Associate Investigators" on sponsored projects.

B. Co-Investigators

Senior members of the Academic Staff-Research (Sr. Research Scientists, Sr. Research Engineers, and Sr. Research Scholars) and senior members of the Academic Staff - Libraries (Librarians or Senior Librarians) may also be designated by their Academic Council or MCL faculty supervisors as "Co-Investigators" on those externally-funded projects in which such senior Academic staff members (Research or Libraries) carry substantial project leadership roles. It is not expected that this designation will normally be used for Postdoctoral Scholars, Instructors or other researchers, although such designation may be used in cases where the researcher is performing in such a role and the designation is allowed by the sponsor.

The PI Eligibility and Criteria for Exceptions policy, including all modifications, should be reviewed by the appropriate body of the Senate of the Academic Council in a period not more than five years from November 1991, and thereafter periodically at intervals not to exceed ten years.

Current Version: 04.22.21

Original Version: 03.07.75

Research Management Group

Pi eligibility and waiver process.

The Research Policy Handbook ( section 2.1 ) specifies the eligibility to serve as Principal Investigator (PI) on a sponsored project. This webpage includes the criteria for obtaining PI waivers for those without PI eligibility, the various types of PI waiver exceptions, and the procedures and templates for preparing PI waiver requests.  All PI waivers in the School of Medicine require review by your RMG institutional official. 

• Waivers for Industry-Sponsored Clinical Trials should be submitted to your  Clinical Trials Research Process Manager (CT RPM) .  
• Waivers for Data Use and Material Transfer Agreements (for Clinical Educators only) should be submitted to RMG’s CT Intake Team at   [email protected] .
• Waivers for all other Grants and Contracts should be submitted to your  Research Process Manager (RPM) .  

Any questions should be directed to your assigned CT RPM or RPM. For information regarding PI Waivers for Stanford internal funding opportunities, please review the information here:  Internal Pilot or Seed Grant Waiver .

PI waivers are not needed for Fellowships, but are needed for mentored career development grants.  

Determine PI eligibility

Eligibility to act as a PI or co-principal investigator (Co-PI) on externally funded projects is a privilege limited to members of the Academic Council and to the University Medical Line faculty. This policy limitation is in place because PIs are responsible for determining the intellectual direction of the research and scholarship, and for the training of graduate students.

The designation of PI or Co-PI for any member of the Academic Staff, or other individual who is not a member of the University's Academic Council or University Medical Line faculty, requires specific approval by the relevant department chair, school dean and, in some cases, the Dean of Research, by obtaining PI Waivers as described under PI Waiver exception categories.   

Process to request a PI waiver

Waivers must be obtained before submitting a proposal for a sponsored project or entering into an agreement.

• The categories of PI waiver exceptions offered under RPH 2.1 are provided below for your review.
• Once you’ve made a determination of the applicable PI waiver exception category, obtain the associated PI waiver template from the Resources section on this webpage.
• Submit the PI waiver signed by your Department Chair with the required attachments to your RPM or CT RPM  at least 5 - 7 business days prior to the sponsor deadline.  It is recommended that the PI waiver request is submitted at least two weeks prior to the sponsor deadline.
• The RPM or CT RPM reviews the request, submits the request to the School of Medicine Senior Associate Dean for Research for final review and approval, and then notifies the requestor of the outcome.

PI waiver exception categories

Please expand the PI waiver exception categories below for more information and guidance. There is also a chart provided below that contains eligibility for waiver types by different positions at Stanford.

Career Development Awards: non-Clinical Fellow and Residents

Researchers who are not members of the Academic Council or the University Medical Line faculty may be approved to serve as PIs on a class of projects generically referred to as Career Development Awards, whose stated purpose is to advance the individual's scientific career. Such petitions may be approved if the project is to be carried out under the mentorship of an established faculty investigator, who is named in the proposal, and if the project can be conducted within the overall intellectual scope and laboratory space of the faculty mentor. Typically, in these cases the awards cover only the individual's salary and incidental expenses, but not incremental staff or students. Please refer to RPH 2.1 for Stanford policy regarding PI eligibility.

Exception requests are subject to the following:

• Written approval of the faculty supervisor (who must be a member of University Tenure Line, University Medical Line, or Nontenure Line Research professoriate), the relevant department chair, center or institute director (if no departmental resources are to be used), and the School of Medicine Dean’s Office.
• A guarantee of space and resources for the duration of the grant by the faculty mentor or department chair.
• The understanding that the grant may not, under any circumstances, support a graduate student.
• Approval of the GME Resident / Clinical Fellow form when applicable.

If the grant proposes funding to appoint a postdoctoral scholar, the PI would be responsible for the day-to-day research supervision of the work of the postdoctoral scholar. However, the overall career mentoring of the postdoctoral scholar would be the responsibility of an Academic Council or University Medical Line faculty member.

Career Development PI Waiver Template: non-Clinical Fellow and Residents

Career Development Awards: Clinical Fellow and Residents

Career Development PI Waiver Template - Clinical Fellows & Residents

GME Resident / Clinical Fellow Form:  Download Fillable Form

• Clinician Educator

During a five year pilot period of June 11, 2020 – June 10, 2025, School of Medicine Dean or designee may approve Clinician Educators (CE) to be PIs on research proposals under the following conditions:

• The CE PI waiver would be dedicated specifically for the conduct of clinical trials and patient care related clinical research.
• Only Clinician Educators who are at the rank of Clinical Assistant Professor or above are eligible.
• Only Clinician Educators who are Full-Time are eligible.
• The following CE PI waiver eligibility criteria also apply:
• They are reviewed on a case-by-case basis;
• There is a defined programmatic need which is Clinical Trials and Patient Care related Clinical Research;
• The Departmental Chair confirms that the proposed PI has the requisite qualifications to direct the project and provides assurance that the work will be conducted in accord with the standards of excellence of the University (the qualifications of the proposed PI are also reviewed independently by the School of Medicine Senior Associate Dean for Research Office, including evidence that all appropriate PI trainings have been completed); 
• No incremental space is required for the project;
• The proposed project is term limited;
• The PI cannot mentor graduate students.  

CEs may apply for PI waiver for a Data Use Agreement (DUA) using the template in the section below.

Clinician Educator PI Waiver Template

Data Use Agreements or Material Transfer Agreements (for Clinician Educators only)

Clinician Educators  at the level of Clinical Professor, Clinical Associate Professor, or Clinical Assistant Professor are eligible to apply for a PI waiver for a Data Use Agreement (DUA) or Material Transfer Agreement (MTA). 

Postdocs, Academic Research Staff, Instructors, and Clinical Instructors  who have obtained a PI waiver for an externally sponsored project may act as PI on a DUA/MTA that is associated with that award.  No additional waiver required. Otherwise, a faculty member will need to act as PI of the DUA or MTA.

PI Waiver Process for DUAs/MTAs:

• Download the PI Waiver Template below entitled Clinician Educator Data Use Agreement/Material Transfer Agreement PI Waiver Template
• Complete the PI waiver request using the template
• Combine the waiver letter, biosketch and a description of the project, scope of work, and/or protocol that will use the data   into one PDF .
• Obtain signature of the Division Chief and Department Chair
• Please enter RMGwaiver DUA/MTA  at the beginning of Subject Line followed by applicant’s last name
• Clinician Educator Data Use Agreement/Material Transfer Agreement PI Waiver Template
• Conferences, Exhibits, Workshops or Public Events

Researchers who are not members of the Academic Council or the University Medical Line faculty may be approved to serve as PIs on externally sponsored projects whose sole purpose is to fund short conferences, exhibits, workshops, or other public events of a character appropriate to the University. Please refer to  RPH 2.1  for Stanford policy regarding PI eligibility.

Grants to fund travel to conferences also would meet the criteria.

Conferences, Exhibits, Workshops or Public Events PI Waiver Template

• Early PI ship

Faculty whose appointment start date is in the future may apply for a waiver to submit proposals through Stanford during the interim provided the project period start date is not prior to the appointment start date, and the appointment has been approved by the Provost. In addition, an award cannot be accepted until the member’s appointment has begun. Please refer to  RPH 2.1  for Stanford policy regarding PI eligibility.

Early PI ship PI Waiver Template

Specific Projects Which Are Part of Large Interdisciplinary Programs

Researchers who are not members of the Academic Council or the University Medical Line faculty may be approved to serve as PIs on projects within the scope of a large interdisciplinary program. For this purpose a "large interdisciplinary program" is defined as a research program* which: a) is directed by a member of the Academic Council or University Medical Line faculty , b) has an expected duration beyond the involvement of any individual faculty participant, c) has more than one faculty member involved, and d) requires expertise in more than one discipline or technical area. Please refer to  RPH 2.1  for Stanford policy regarding PI eligibility.

*the program must be already existing at Stanford prior to the PI waiver request

All of the following conditions must be met in order for the department chair and school dean to approve PI exceptions in such cases:

• The proposed project must be a demonstrably important component of the success of the overall interdisciplinary program, as defined above.
• There is no member of the Academic Council or University Medical Line faculty associated with the large interdisciplinary project who is qualified to take responsibility for the scientific direction of the prospective research project.
• No incremental space will be required for the project.
• For each graduate student participating on the project, a qualified faculty member has been identified to assure that the student's research program and the education derived from it are consistent with the degree for which the student is a candidate.
• Exceptions approved under this provision will be reported to the Dean of Research on an annual basis.
• Specific Projects Which Are Part of a Large Interdiscplinary Program PI Waiver Template
• Rare Exception

In addition to the foregoing, rare exceptions to the PI eligibility policy may be made at the discretion of the Dean of Research in unusual and non-recurring situations that meet a particular need or opportunity for the University. Such requests will be considered only for a specific project with a specific project period. Examples of rare exceptions that have been granted are: proposals submitted by visiting faculty members and other senior visitors for a limited period of time; proposals submitted by a faculty candidate selected by a department but not yet approved by the Provost, Advisory Board, and President; permission for administrators to submit proposals in support of a project in their area (e.g., the museum or the Stanford University Press); special cases of sponsored instruction; and situations where an Academic Council or University Medical Line faculty investigator ceases to be available and it is necessary for the proposed PI to oversee an orderly phase out of a project.
 Please refer to  RPH 2.1  for Stanford policy regarding PI eligibility.

Requests for such exceptions should be made by a member of the Academic Council or University Medical Line faculty on behalf of the proposed PI. Such requests are subject to the approval of the cognizant department chair, school dean, and the Dean of Research.

In all cases, the following six criteria must be met:

Criteria for Granting Rare Exceptions

• The proposed research must meet a programmatic need of Stanford. Meeting a programmatic need means addressing an area of investigation that is not currently covered at Stanford and is endorsed by a sponsoring member of the Academic Council or University Medical Line faculty as directly relevant to and supportive of the research or teaching programs of the faculty. Research that may be important in its own right and for which outside funding is available will not be judged as meeting the programmatic need criterion unless it facilitates the ongoing objectives of the University in an identifiable and direct way.
• The proposed research cannot be funded and/or conducted effectively at Stanford unless the proposed individual is the PI. Among other things, this generally will mean that there is no member of the Academic Council or University Medical Line faculty available to take the responsibility for the scientific direction of the project.
• The proposed PI's qualifications to direct the project provide assurance that the work will be conducted in accord with the standards of excellence of the University.
• No incremental space will be required for the project. For each graduate student participating in the project, a qualified faculty member has been identified to assure that the student's research program and the education derived from it are consistent with the degree for which the student is a candidate.
• The research must be designed and conducted in such a way that work can be discontinued when programmatic need ends or if the sponsoring faculty member ceases to be available.
• Exceptions to the PI eligibility policy will be rare in situations other than those described in Section 2.A and 2.B [DL1]. A written copy of any such requests, along with the justification and approvals of the sponsoring faculty member, the chair, school dean, and Dean of Research should accompany the sponsored project proposal submitted to the Research Management Group.

Rare Exception PI Waiver Template

Specific Projects Which Are Part of a Shared Facility or Service Center

During a five year pilot period of April 22, 2021-April 21, 2026, MD or PhD-level researchers and staff who are not members of the Academic Council or the University Medical Line faculty may be approved to serve as PIs on projects within the scope of a shared facility or service center. For this purpose a "shared facility" or “service center” is defined as a center providing critical research infrastructure to the broader Stanford community, as follows: The shared facility or service center must:

• have an expected duration beyond the involvement of any individual faculty participant,
• have users spanning many (e.g., three or more) departments

For approval of PI exceptions in such cases the following criteria must be met:

• Only shared facility/service center MD or Ph.D.-level staff are eligible.
• The PI waiver would be dedicated specifically for funding opportunities in support of the shared facility/service center. 
• There is a defined programmatic need of the shared facility/service center;
• There is no member of the Academic Council or University Medical Line faculty associated with the shared facility/service center who is qualified to take responsibility for the scientific direction and has the capacity to lead the prospective research project.
• Waivers are reviewed on a case-by-case basis;
• The Faculty Lead of the shared facility/service center confirms that the proposed PI has the requisite qualifications to serve as PI on the specific project;
• The Faculty Lead of the shared facility/service center provides assurance that the work will be conducted in accord with the standards of excellence of the University; and,
• The Faculty Lead of the shared facility/service center confirms all appropriate PI trainings have been completed;
• The shared facility/service center Faculty Lead, the Center Advisory Board (if one exists), and the School Dean or designee (if applicable) all agree on the selection of the PI;
• The research or development to be conducted must be conducted within the shared facility/service center and affiliated locations only; 
• For each graduate student participating on the project, a qualified faculty member is identified to assure that the student's research program and the education derived from it are consistent with the degree for which the student is a candidate.
• Exceptions approved under this provision will be reported to the Vice Provost and Dean of Research or their designee on an annual basis, who will provide annual updates to C-Res.

Specific Projects Which are Part of a Shared Facility or Service Center PI Waiver Template

Expanded Career Development Awards

On April 26, 2018, the University Faculty Senate approved the continuation of the Expanded Career Development PI Waiver Program for the individuals in the following School of Medicine positions who meet the eligibility and consideration criteria to request approval to be the PI for an R01- or R21- type federal or non-federal research grant. Individuals in other schools are not eligible for this waiver program. Please refer to  RPH 2.1  for Stanford policy regarding PI eligibility.

This ONE-TIME ONLY opportunity is restricted to only one grant application and its allowable resubmissions, with no possibility of additional applications or resubmissions beyond those allowable for the specific grant application.

Individuals in these School of Medicine positions who meet the eligibility criteria below may request this type of waiver:

• Postdoctoral Fellows with M.D. or M.D./Ph.D. and Ph.D. degrees
• Instructors with M.D., M.D./Ph.D., and Ph.D. degrees

School of Medicine positions that are NOT eligible to request this type of waiver:

• Individuals in Clinical Educator positions (i.e., Clinical Instructors)
• Individuals in Academic or Research Staff positions (i.e., basic research scientist, research associate positions)

Number of approved waivers permitted per year:

The Faculty Senate limits the number of approved waivers permitted per year for each of these School of Medicine groups to:

• 10 approved waiver requests for Postdocs & Instructors with M.D. and M.D./Ph.D. degrees
• 10 approved waiver requests for Postdocs & Instructors with Ph.D. degrees

Types of Grants and Minimum Dollar Threshold:

A R01-type or a R21-type grant: is an extramural independent research grant that is either a federal or non-federal [i.e., foundation or association] that provides at least $125,000 in direct costs per year for at least two years.  Note: it is expected that the funding provided is not intended to primarily support the PI's salary but includes support for research expenses related to the research scope of work.

Eligibility Criteria:

• School of Medicine Postdoctoral Fellows with M.D. or M.D./Ph.D. and Ph.D. degrees
• School of Medicine Instructors with M.D., M.D./Ph.D., and Ph.D. degrees
• Candidates must have two or more years of research training
• In addition, applicants should have a research record (publications and prior research training) that is consistent with their having a reasonable chance of success on the grant application in order to receive this specific PI career development waiver opportunity.
• Written approval with signatures of the faculty advisor and department chair/ institute or center director are required to document that the individual will be assigned the appropriate space and other resources necessary to support the work described in the grant application for the duration of the grant period, should it be awarded.
• Signature of the PI waiver candidate is required to document that s/he understands the terms of the waiver, including that there is no possibility of renewal if awarded, and no possibility of subsequent submissions (beyond those allowable for the specific grant application) should the application be unsuccessful.
• If the Postdoctoral scholar is successful in receiving an award, the department must appoint him/her as an Instructor.
• University policy does not permit graduate students to be supported on any grant awarded under this PI career development waiver exception. However, the grant may have funding to appoint a postdoctoral fellow. If so, the PI would be responsible for the day-to-day research supervision of the work of the postdoc. However, the overall career mentoring of the postdoc would be the responsibility of an Academic Council or University Medical Line faculty member.

Expanded Career Development PI waiver request deadlines, instructions and memo/template:

Please send your Expanded Career Development PI waiver request packet to Chelsey Perry  (not to your RPM).  Chelsey will distribute your packet to the faculty review committee.

Please note: this is separate from the routine Career Development PI waiver request that is needed for each mentored career development award and is submitted through your RPM.

Required Steps:

Step 1: The Primary Mentor should discuss the candidate and the waiver with his/her department chair to determine eligibility and department support.

Step 2: Prepare and submit the waiver request packet:

Please send ONE PDF file containing the following, in the order listed below, via email attachment to:

Chelsey Perry Senior Program Manager Research Management Group 

2.1. Expanded Career Development PI Waiver Cover Memo.  Download, complete, and obtain all of the necessary signatures on the required PI Waiver Cover Memo . The Expanded Career Development PI Waiver Cover Memo must be completed and signed by:

• PI: Instructor, Postdoctoral Fellow
• His/her mentor
• Hhis/her division chief (if applicable)
• His/her department chair.

2.2. PI Waiver prepared by your mentor and co-signed by your mentor, your division chief and your department chair.  Download and complete the Expanded Career Development PI waiver template .

2.3.  2 page description of your research project  - include project title, bold headings (i.e., goal, aims, etc.), and references

2. 4. Applicant's biosketch

Selection process:

The proposals will be distributed to an internal School of Medicine review committee. That committee will decide whether the applicant will receive approval for their PI waiver. After the internal review committee and Dr. Ruth O'Hara, Senior Associate Dean for Research, have completed their review, Chelsey will subsequently distribute copies of the Expanded Career Development PI Waiver request forms to each faculty mentor indicating whether or not the request was approved. 

PI Waiver Cover Memo

Expanded Career Development PI waiver template

PI Waiver Templates:

• Career Development :  non-Clinical Fellows & Residents
• Career Development: Clinical Fellows & Residents
• Clinician Educator Data Use Agreement/Material Transfer Agreement
• Specific Projects Which Are Part of a Large Interdisciplinary Program
• Specific Projects Which are Part of a Shared Facility or Service Center

Expanded Career Development Templates:

• Cover Memo Template
• PI Waiver Template

GME Resident / Clinical Fellow Form: Download Fillable Form

PI Waiver eligibility by position

*with an approved GME Resident / Clinical Fellow Form **if the sponsor eligibility criteria confirms that graduate students are eligible for the specific program

RPH 2.1 Principal Investigator Eligibility and Criteria for Exceptions

The female Scientist

Approaching a PI – a Guide for Undergraduates in STEM!

Your inexperience can be a huge asset. You have a lot of questions to ask. These questions may never have been asked before! You have fresh curiosity on your side. You are not influenced by the status quo or ‘established’ way of thinking or doing things.  Academia can be tribal about ideas so the more objective and unbiased about the work you can be, the better.

16. December 2018

Response from a PhD Student…

As a young woman who has gone through the UK school system, 4 years at university to get in integrated masters, and is now well into the second year of a STEM PhD, I feel I have some anecdotal advice I can share! But in the end, researchers are people and all people are different. So take every situation as it come.  But here are some of my key findings from my 8 year quest for experience and connection in the academic world…

Q1. How do you approach a PI for a placement to get experience, if you don’t have any experience? What do you do if you feel you have nothing to offer?

Firstly, you don\’t have to approach a PI.   You could approach anyone, a PhD student, PostDoc, any kind of researcher.  You do not have to go straight to the head of a lab or research group.  Working with a PhD student can be great because they may have more time for you and will be heavily invested in your success!

Do not underestimate the experience you have and the opportunities you are given to do independent work during your undergraduate degree.  Done a 2000 word essay on a topic of your choice? This is a chance to to show you can work independently and get used to reading papers, and looking for patterns in those papers. Transferable skills are real. You’ve been trained to learn fast and work consistently to a high standard – that’s very valuable.

Do your homework on the research you are claiming to be interested in. For your own good. The practical work involved in lots of research is not very obvious on the surface. Do you really want to spend 3 weeks of summer counting sand grains?  My answer was yes, totally!

\”I love sand too!\”

Have a plan B. You may notice lots of papers from the same research area have the same people listed as authors, but in different orders. Look at where those authors are based: this might give you an idea of which universities are doing similar research.  So if one turns you down, you could ask them if they think their collaborator might take you on…

You’re cheap labor. Taking you on for a placement is a great way for a PI to get a load of data collected which will potentially be publishable. For a relatively small investment on their part, the PI could get some great outputs from you in return. 

You’re an investment for the future.  Research groups are always on the look-out for new people at all levels, and probably have a game plan thinking about 5 years ahead.  A PI might be working on a grant application which includes money for a PhD studentship, so taking you on for a couple of weeks would be a great way to do an extended interview without you even knowing.

It’s flattering and exciting to be approached by someone who is just as interested in the tiny part of the science world as you are! Especially lecturers work very hard to make their material engaging and accessible. So if someone actually gets it AND is still interested, that is such a good thing to hear.  

Q2. When and how should I approach a PI.

To get my undergraduate summer placement I approached a lecturer at the end of the final lecture of the term and asked if I could do a placement. For my masters dissertation I first emailed a researcher, then had a meeting in their office, then a week later changed my mind and turned them down. A week later I went on group fieldwork, got chatting to a lecturer on the fieldwork and realised his dissertation topics sounded perfect. I didn’t say anything in that moment. But after the fieldwork I sent and email and they were delighted to accept me after the conversation we had already had.  

I turned it down.

For my PhD I sent a speculative email to a researcher I had never met at an institution on the other side of the country. In my email I detail my experience, and quoted specific papers which made me interested in their work. I got a one line email reply saying “Yes – that sounds great. When should we meet?”. So there are many ways to do it. I don’t think a conventional way exists. You have to go for it sometimes. However, I have sent probably hundreds of emails to academics and got a stiff ignoring, or a polite email saying no, we already have someone, or I have realised it was the wrong thing for me anyway. It is not luck, it’s persistence.   

Respect their time.

In terms of ‘when’, I would say approach them as soon as you have decided it is a good idea.  No need to be too hasty. Make sure you really want it. Then go for it. I would always include my CV in the first email so they can see it immediately without having to ask for it. It cuts out one more email for your day and theirs. Respect their time. If you can look up funding deadlines for your relevant society or university, even better.  Spend a few hours searching the web and you will find something to apply for.

Q3. How can you prepare for a PhD?

• Learn to use a reference manager!

I don’t think there can be rules for this. A PhD is very personal. PhD topics are so different. The most important things about the PhD are: you, the supervisor and the topic. If you don’t like working independently – it won’t work.  If you don’t work hard on a solid supervisor relationship – it won’t work. If you don’t like the topic – it won’t work. So learn from your dissertation relationships and actively think about your working/learning style.

Otherwise, some quick tips:

• Learn that good enough is good enough, stop putting yourself down and be your own best friend.  
• Mediocre words are better than no words – you can redraft again and again.
• Be aware of impostor syndrome.
• Work like it’s your job.  You can run your own schedule (which is amazing), but this does not mean working all the time. You may have to unlearn some bad habits picked up from UG deadlines.
• Start saving your work properly – like, right now.
• Keep a work diary. When you work alone you soon forget what you’ve already achieved and what you need to get done.
• Ask questions. I was terrified to ask questions for most of my UG. Even when I knew this was holding me back. Find the strength, one question at a time.
• Find a mentor.  You will always need someone to advise you and advocate for you. They are golden.  
• Save some money – if you can.  You may not find the right PhD for 6 months after you finish your UG course and many PhD start in January.  You will be thankful for any help you can give yourself.
• Start looking for PhDs early. There are many different way to find a PhD and they all work on different time scale which are not always transparent. Many deadlines are in January.  

Ultimately, you should be very honest about your abilities, interests and goals.  This includes explaining your strengths and pointing out what you do not know. There is nothing worse than being left in a lab or an office for a day with no clue what you’re doing. That will waste everyone’s time.  Do not be afraid to explain this is part of a long term goal to go into research. This will probably strengthen your case that this is an important stepping stone.

Finally, if you do approach a PI and they are keen for you to work with them, but you no longer feel like it’s a good fit/ you’re no longer happy with the arrangement/ something else comes up, do not be afraid to change the plans. They do not own you. Providing you say this early enough in the process and this is especially okay if you are not being paid.  As in any situation, honesty with a big helping of politeness goes a long way.

• StartMyResearch
• Training Login
• IACUC Login
• Can a student serve as a principal investigator, multiple-principal investigator, or co-principal investigator?
• Research Administration

No. Students may not serve as either a Principal Investigator, Mulitple-Principal Investigator, or Co-Principal Investigator. In the event a graduate fellowship is awarded as a grant, the Dean of the Graduate College, the Dean’s designee, or the student’s faculty advisor shall be designated as the Principal Investigator. Even if a sponsor requires that the student’s name be listed as Principal Investigator externally, the university still will not permit the student to serve as PI internally. However, these students can be listed as Co-I to help track these projects.

Related Terms

• Business Policies & Guidelines
• Sponsored Programs Administration
• Cost-Sharing Guidelines
• Faculty Start-Up and Recruitment Funding
• Summer Salary and Effort Reporting Guidance - 2023
• Non-Disclosure Agreements
• Research Administration FAQs
• Data Sharing and Transfer Guidance

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• CAREER FEATURE
• 25 April 2022

How to handle a supervisor’s sudden departure

• Nikki Forrester 0

Nikki Forrester is a science journalist based in West Virginia.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

“I don’t want to be here, and I can’t get out,” says a geosciences student who started her PhD programme in 2015 and has no clear end in sight. “I want to find a postdoc and get the mentorship experience I’m not getting currently, but I can’t finish my dissertation.”

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Nature 604 , 787-789 (2022)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-01116-0

Related Articles

Why you need an agenda for meetings with your principal investigator

• Research management

How I run a virtual lab group that’s collaborative, inclusive and productive

Career Column 31 MAY 24

Defying the stereotype of Black resilience

Career Q&A 30 MAY 24

How I overcame my stage fright in the lab

Career Column 30 MAY 24

Researcher parents are paying a high price for conference travel — here’s how to fix it

Career Column 27 MAY 24

How researchers in remote regions handle the isolation

Career Feature 24 MAY 24

Global Talent Recruitment (Scientist Positions)

Global Talent Gathering for Innovation, Changping Laboratory Recruiting Overseas High-Level Talents.

Beijing, China

Changping Laboratory

Postdoctoral Associate - Amyloid Strain Differences in Alzheimer's Disease

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Postdoctoral Associate- Bioinformatics of Alzheimer's disease

Postdoctoral associate- alzheimer's gene therapy, postdoctoral associate.

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

About PI Review

The website.

Founded in July 2021, PI Review is designed for graduate students to write reviews for their academic advisors or Principal Investigators (PIs). Our goal is to help future graduate students to choose their PhD advisors.

Anyone who has conducted research with the PI is welcome to write a review. However, if you are a student who only takes classes with the professor, you are not encouraged to write a review on this website. You can use other websites such as “Rate My Professors” instead.

This is a nonprofit website. You don’t need to pay for accessing our website, creating an account and posting content. You also own the copyright of the reviews you write on our website.

Jingning was a PhD student in NanoEngineering at UC San Diego (UCSD). She obtained her B.S. in Physics from the University of Science and Technology of China (USTC). Jingning is also a Co-Founder of USTC iCourse.club , a popular course rating website in China, which has more than 6,600 users and 16,300 reviews as of May 2022.

Jingning has spent more than 400 hours developing this website since May 2021. She is responsible for the product design, front-end and back-end development, also the website content (like this page).

Hao Cui is a Ph.D. student in Networked Systems at the University of California, Irvine. He is skilled in C/C++ and Python programming, image processing and Linux administration. Hao joined PI Review in July 2021, and is mainly responsible for server operation, maintenance, and unit-test, as well as web development.

The Motivation

In 2019, Jingning was admitted as a PhD student by UCSD. However, her PhD study didn’t go very smoothly. After the first year, her PI didn’t have enough funding to support PhD students and her department did not provide her with a promised TAship. She had to switch to a new lab. Even though she did a lot of research about the new PI and tried very hard to get into the new lab, things just didn’t work out for her. During the last two years at UCSD, she knew a lot of PhD students who have been struggling like her because they didn’t get enough support from their PIs or their departments. Many of them eventually had to quit their PhD. Therefore, she believes choosing a good and matched PI is the most important thing for PhD students. That’s why she built this website to help prospective graduate students.

Please login

You must be logged in to take this action.

Click buttons below to login or signup a new account.

• School of Engineering and Applied Sciences >
• Prospective Students >
• Accepted Graduate Student Information

Newly Admitted Graduate Students

You earned a seat at UB because of your potential—to develop your future, to help shape UB, and to contribute your unique gifts to the world. From the extraordinary pool of talented students who applied this year, in the end, we were looking for you. We are so excited to welcome you to UB!

Why choose UB's School of Engineering and Applied Sciences?

We are at the forefront of the ai revolution.

With deep and decades-long leadership in artificial intelligence and data science, the University at Buffalo is home to Empire AI, a $400 million consortium that will put New York State at the forefront of the AI revolution .

UB is also home to a world-renowned Institute for Artificial Intelligence and Data Science  and a National Artificial Intelligence Research Institute .

Latest Empire AI News

We're here to support you every step of the way

Professional Development

Resources for Entrepreneurs and Intrapreneurs

Health & Wellness Resources

Support for Women in STEM

Support for Students of Color

Support for the LGBTQ+ Community

Accessibility Resources

Career Resources

Scholarships, Fellowships and Awards

Graduate Internships & Outcomes

You fit right into our network of success.

Our graduates are employed at top companies and universities around the world. Our network includes:

• General Electric
• Lockheed Martin
• Northrop Grumman
• Pfizer Inc.

Buffalo is beautiful year-round

From architectural tours to avant-garde theater, gallery walks to gondola rides, Shakespeare in the Park to Shark Girl, there is no shortage of things to do in and around Buffalo. Plus, our four spectatular seasons do not dissapoint.

Orientation and onboarding events

Attend one of our upcoming events, watch onboarding videos, or take a virtual tour .

In addition to the optional events below, the school and academic departments will hold mandatory orientations this August. Keep an eye on your email to register for orientations!

Connect with us

Chat with ambassadors and other graduate students on Discord

All admitted students are invited to  join our Discord channel!  Discord is a chat-based platform where you can post questions and chat live with whoever is online. Our Discord channel allows you to chat with our ambassadors, academic coordinators and admissions staff, and connect with other students in your program.

Find us on social media

Download digital swag and show off your ub pride, facebook banner.

Instagram Banner

LinkedIn Banner

Homero F. Carrión Cabrera

Civil engineering student

Rajarajeswaran Chandramohan MS Sustainable Transportation and Logistics, Class of 2021

Jingye Tan Mechanical engineering student

Shardul Suryakant Rane Engineering Science MS Data Science, Class of 2021

Wei-Chiao Huang Biomedical engineering student

Yiqi Chen PhD student, Chemical and Biological Engineering, Class of 2021

Payam Ghassemi

Mechanical engineering student

Archita Pathak PhD candidate, Computer Science and Engineering

Hemendra Nath Jaiswal Electrical engineering student

Yong Hu Mechanical engineering student

Angshuman Deka Mechanical engineering student

Kyle Weeks Biomedical engineering student

Ogechi Ogoke Chemical and biological engineering student

Olivia Licata Materials design and innovation student

Zipeng Guo Industrial engineering student

Achira Boonrath Aerospace engineering student

Gurkiran Gurkiran Sustainable Transportation and Logistics student

Cameron Grace Aerospace engineering student

Lexi Nordmann Mechanical engineering student

Qiuxing Chen Engineering education student

Print-a-Bull Pride Props

Zoom Backgrounds

Secure your seat in SEAS

Talented. Passionate. Diverse. Creative. Driven. These are just a few words that describe our newly admitted students, and you’re one of them. You earned a seat at UB because of your potential—to develop your future, to help shape UB, and to contribute your unique gifts to our larger society. This is UB’s tradition of excellence, and we’re so proud that you’re part of it.

Now, it’s time to officially become a UB graduate student. Follow these important steps.

How to develop a researcher mindset as a PhD student

Entering the postgraduate sphere is a whole new ball game. Shaif Uddin Ahammed shows how to hone a PhD mindset

Shaif Uddin Ahammed

• More on this topic

Created in partnership with

You may also like

Popular resources

.css-1txxx8u{overflow:hidden;max-height:81px;text-indent:0px;} Students using generative AI to write essays isn't a crisis

How students’ genai skills affect assignment instructions, turn individual wins into team achievements in group work, access and equity: two crucial aspects of applied learning, emotions and learning: what role do emotions play in how and why students learn.

Life as a PhD student is challenging – and one of the most testing aspects of it is the change in mindset it requires. 

You switch from being a consumer of knowledge to a producer of knowledge. In other words, you transition from passively absorbing information to actively generating new insights through original research. To do that, you have to develop the mindset of a researcher. Here, I’ll reflect on my own academic journey and experiences of supervising others, to share my thoughts on how to do just that.

Have a career plan

A PhD can be long and the prospect of writing a thesis is daunting. It can even be distracting, because you’re leaving the very idea of long-term goals on the back burner.

• Viving la viva: how to answer viva questions
• What I have learned on the journey towards commercialising my PhD
• Five tips for surviving your doctorate after moving over from industry

That’s exactly why it’s worth having a career plan. It will remind you why you’re doing all of this and carry you through the more draining aspects of your studies and research. Trust me, this will help. 

But there’s a difference between simply having goals and having a plan. A plan involves steps to help you achieve the goals you’re aiming towards and gives you boxes to tick. For example, your plan could involve attending conferences, publishing articles and teaching and supporting students. It should also identify skills gaps and outline plans to address them. 

Make sure your targets are realistic and achievable, and discuss them with your supervisor, who will guide you accordingly. Having a well-considered plan will help to motivate you and provide a map to help you chart your progress. Aside from anything else, this is important in helping you maintain a healthy work-life balance. 

Take every opportunity that you can to learn

If you’re studying towards a PhD, you have already demonstrated a desire to learn. Make sure you now take every opportunity to do so and that you learn from sources beyond your supervisor or supervisory team. 

Postgraduate research students can attend regular events and workshops organised by the academic skills teams and career advisors within their universities. By leveraging these resources, you can develop the knowledge and skills required to complete your doctoral degree and also learn about the skills required to secure a job with potential employers. 

It is particularly important to attend workshops organised by the university’s doctoral school. I would strongly urge you not to ignore these sessions. Some students choose to select only those workshops they believe will be beneficial, but attending all workshops – particularly in the early stages of your degree – will help you to develop skills and knowledge that could prove vital in the future. 

For instance, if you are a qualitative researcher, you might choose only to attend workshops related to qualitative research. However, in a future job you might need to teach quantitative methodology or be involved in research using quantitative methods. So it’s good practice not to be selective and to attend all workshops, allowing you to gain wider knowledge and develop networks with individuals from diverse backgrounds.

Involve yourself in academic activities

In research-related careers, applicants are generally expected to have experience of teaching, so it’s hugely important to actively seek teaching and supervisory opportunities both within your university and outside of it. You should also engage in grant applications with others, including your supervisory team – this will provide hands-on experience of the daily challenges faced by academics. 

Many PhD students – and even some supervisors – think these activities could delay the completion of a doctoral degree, but they really do help you to acquire the skills you will need going forward. Supervising undergraduate and postgraduate students will offer insight into mentoring and managing expectations, including those of your supervisor. Involvement with teaching and assessments will give you an intuition when it comes to academic life, and the opportunity to directly apply new skills with the students you work with. This will foster the mindset that you are not only a PhD student but also an active academic. 

Attend conferences and engage with journals

Seek out opportunities to publish in academic journals and attend relevant conferences. If you don’t, your work might not have the desired impact, regardless of its merit. 

Conferences offer a platform for feedback, peer review opportunities, research visibility and invaluable networking. Similarly, involvement in publications and conferences can inspire new ideas and perspectives for research.

The PhD journey is never an easy one, given the number of commitments involved. Remind yourself that you are a researcher and an academic, and that your work has the potential to shape knowledge and understanding for years to come. Research is challenging – but if you’re in a position to study for a PhD, that means you already have the tools to overcome them. 

Shaif Uddin Ahammed is programme leader of MSc International Management and lecturer in strategy and leadership at the University of the West of Scotland. 

If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter .

Students using generative AI to write essays isn't a crisis

Eleven ways to support international students, indigenising teaching through traditional knowledge, seven exercises to use in your gender studies classes, rather than restrict the use of ai, embrace the challenge, how hard can it be testing ai detection tools.

Register for free

and unlock a host of features on the THE site

Florida State University

FSU | The Graduate School

Main navigation Pulldown

The graduate school.

• Prospective Students
• Graduate Admissions

International Admissions

We are now accepting Graduate applications for Fall 2024, and Spring 2025.* *Please contact your department for application open terms and deadlines.

Our community welcomes you

Each year, the university enrolls approximately 1,700 international students. We are proud to offer extensive support and services to our international population. International applicants should plan to apply early so they have ample time to obtain their immigration documents and make living arrangements in the U.S. Any F-1/J-1 students planning to obtain their I-20/DS-2019 should contact the Center for Global Engagement at [email protected] . Please check with your department regarding deadlines. 

International Admissions Requirements

In addition to meeting graduate university admissions requirements, international applicants must also meet the following University requirements to be considered for admission. 

English Language Proficiency Requirement

Official English Language Proficiency results are required of all international applicants whose native language is not English. The following are the minimum scores required for admission to the University, although some departments require higher scores at the graduate level: 

Internet based TOEFL ( IBTOEFL ): 80 

Paper based TOEFL ( TOEFL ): 550 

International English Language Testing System ( Academic IELTS ): 6.5 

Pearson Test of English ( PTE ): 55 

Duolingo : 120 (Summer 2022 and Forward)

Cambridge C1 Advanced Level : 180  (Fall 2022 and Forward)

Michigan Language Assessment : 55  (Fall 2022 and Forward)

Although official scores are required, most departments will begin to review your application with self-reported scores, while they are waiting for the official scores to arrive. You can self-report your scores on your Online Status Page, after you submit your application. 

The English Language Proficiency requirement can be waived, at the University-level, for applicants who have earned a minimum of a BA or higher in the US or in an English-Speaking Country. Please note, your department may still require proof of English-Language proficiency. *A variety of countries are exempt from the English language proficiency requirement.

Transcript and Credential Evaluation Requirements

All transcripts/academic records that are not in English must be accompanied by certified English translations. 

To be considered "certified," documents should be true copies that are signed and dated by an educational official familiar with academic records. Any translated record should be literal and not an interpretive translation. Documents signed by a notary or other public official with no educational affiliation will not be accepted. 

If the transcript/academic record does not indicate the degree earned and date the degree was awarded, separate proof of degree is required. 

International applicants or degrees earned from international institutions must submit their official transcripts through the SpanTran pathway portal, or from another NACES approved evaluator. SpanTran has created a custom application for Florida State University that will make sure you select the right kind of evaluation at a discounted rate. Florida State University recommends SpanTran as our preferred credential evaluation because it offers an easy way to streamline the application process.

Please read more about our general transcript requirements on our  Graduate Admissions page. 

International Transfer Credit

International transfer credit is awarded for coursework completed at an accredited (recognized) institution of higher learning. No credit is awarded for technical, vocational, or below-college-level coursework, or courses completed with grades below "D-." An official course-by-course evaluation is required for all academic records from non-U.S. institutions. We recommend the evaluation be done by a member of the  National Association of Credential Evaluation Services . 

SUPPORT TO HELP YOU THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS.

The Center for Global Engagement (CGE) and its staff are here to serve international students and their families. They may advise you about:

• F and J visa requirements
• Cultural adjustment
• Employment matters
• Housing assistance
• Assistance with personal concerns
• Maintaining your visa status

Many academic programs only accept applications for a specific admit term. Contact your academic department to determine which admit term to apply. It is recommended that you submit your application as soon as the admit term opens. CGE also assists students throughout the New International Student Checklist and Process . You may learn more about what CGE has to offer by emailing [email protected] . 

Center for Intensive English Studies

Need to improve your English skills? FSU’s Center for Intensive English Studies can help! At CIES, you will be given personalized instruction by highly qualified teachers in a safe, friendly environment.

Please note that admission to and completion of the CIES program does not necessarily guarantee admission to the University as a degree-seeking student.

CIES also offers:

• TEFL certification  opportunities
• Credit-bearing courses and workshops  to enhance your English speaking ability

Learn more about how the Center for Intensive English Studies can help you.  

Florida State University is required by U.S. federal regulations to verify the financial resources of each applicant prior to issuing the Form I-20. If granted admission to the University, an email with instructions on how to complete the I-20 will be sent from the Center for Global Engagement (CGE). You will provide information verifying your financial support (bank statements, award letters, scholarships, etc.) through the I-20 application. FSU requires proof of financial support for the first year of study and demonstrated availability of funds for the length of your academic program

Estimated International Student Costs:

For more information on estimated costs of living and the I-20 process, please visit  CGE’s website .  

I-20 Application

Shortly after admission, students will receive an email with instructions for completing the online I-20 application to demonstrate proof of adequate funding. Florida State University is required by U.S. federal regulations to verify the financial resources of each applicant prior to issuing the Form I-20. Applicants must show proof of financial support for the first year of study and confirm availability of funds for the length of the academic program.

For more information, contact the Center for Global Engagement at [email protected] .

US Federal Grants and Loans are not Awarded to International Students

Graduate students may apply to their respective departments for assistantships or fellowships, although funds are very limited. For further information, please contact your academic department directly. 

SPEAK (Speaking Proficiency English Assessment Kit) is a test for evaluating the English speaking ability of non-native speakers of English. At FSU, the SPEAK test is administered by the Center for Intensive English Studies to international students who have been appointed or will be appointed as teaching assistants in an academic department at Florida State University.

For more information, click here .

  Explore Funding Opportunities 

May the TOEFL be waived?

The TOEFL may only be waived as a test requirement if the student has received a bachelor's or master's degree from a U.S. institution.

Can you review my documents prior to applying?

Students must submit the application, application fee, and any required departmental materials for application materials to be reviewed.

Can the application fee be waived?

Unfortunately, the Office of Admissions is unable to waive the application fee payment for graduate applicants.  In order to complete your application for review, you must submit the application fee payment by logging in to your Application Status Check ,  along with any other documents required by the department. 

When will I receive a decision?

Applications are reviewed holistically by each graduate department. Please contact your department for information about decision timelines. Please note that the application must first be completed before it can be reviewed. Contact your department for more information.

Can the GRE be waived?

FSU is currently waiving the GRE requirement for most master’s and specialist programs through Fall 2026*. For more information on whether the requirement can be waived, please contact your graduate department. 

* Excludes the College of Business

What if I don’t meet the English Language Proficiency score requirements?

​​​​​​ The FSU Center of Intensive English Studies (CIES) offers comprehensive courses to help students improve their English skills. Students who complete the top-level of the CIES program will not have to take an English Language Proficiency test.

What is the F-1 visa/I-20 process?

• Students can learn more about the I-20 process here .
• Students can learn about the visa here .

Do you have funding available for International students?

• The Graduate School offers fellowship and grant opportunities for graduate students. For current FSU students, the  Office of Graduate Fellowships and Awards  assists in identifying and applying for external funding opportunities. In addition,  here is some more information  about additional funding opportunities for international students. 
• There may also be additional funding opportunities through your department. Please contact your graduate representative for assistance. If you do not know who to contact, please email us at [email protected] for assistance.

Are there on-campus housing opportunities?

University housing costs are not included in the tuition and fees at Florida State University. If you want the option of living on campus, you can apply for housing online as soon as you are officially admitted to FSU. Housing at university-owned residence halls and apartments fill quickly. You can also find off-campus housing options by clicking here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Ten Simple Rules to becoming a principal investigator

* E-mail: [email protected] (JST); [email protected] (JEM)

Affiliation Department of Infectious Disease, St Mary’s Campus, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom

Affiliations Biological Sciences Division, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington, United States of America, Department of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology, Oregon Health & Sciences University, Portland, Oregon, United States of America

• John S. Tregoning, 
• Jason E. McDermott

Published: February 20, 2020

• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007448
• Reader Comments

Citation: Tregoning JS, McDermott JE (2020) Ten Simple Rules to becoming a principal investigator. PLoS Comput Biol 16(2): e1007448. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007448

Editor: Fran Lewitter, Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, UNITED STATES

This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this study.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

The biggest choke point in an academic career is going from postdoc to principal investigator (PI): moving from doing someone else’s research to getting other people to do yours. Being a PI is a fundamentally different job to being a postdoc; they just happen to be in the same environment. It is not an easy transition. It draws on few of the skills you learn at the bench, and the odds are clearly not ever in your favor. So, calling this article Ten Simple Rules is obviously a simplification. It is more accurate to call them ten tricky steps.

In this article, we use PI to mean anyone who runs their own research group using funding that they have been awarded to answer their own questions. PI encompasses a number of different job titles depending on where the research is performed: fellow, lecturer, reader, associate professor, and senior scientist. One test is whether you can describe the people working for you as the X group, in which X is your surname. The normal route from undergraduate to lab head involves a PhD, one or more postdoc positions, and then PI. Given the diversity of ways to be a PI, the final step up from postdoc takes a number of forms. In the United Kingdom, this tends to be either an individual fellowship or a lecturer position, and in the United States, it generally starts with an independent position with associated funding—either as a start-up package or funded grant.

The aim of this article is to identify some of the broader skills (rules 1–4) and behaviors (rules 5–10) that can help with getting a PI position. It is meant as advice not instruction. As you will see, we are advocating the development of social intelligence, which is as useful in the world outside academia as within it.

Rule 1: Have ideas

Creativity is central to being a PI—seeing new connections, thinking of new ideas, and using current understanding to develop future plans. Unfortunately, creativity is incredibly nebulous and can feel at odds to the scientific process ( Fig 1 ). Be receptive to ideas whenever they come, especially as they often come at the most inconvenient of times—when dropping the kids off or at 4:00 in the morning. Find ways to capture these flitting ideas. Accept that there are few truly novel ideas: Reading around will provide you with inspiration for your own problems. Whilst it is more about making things than doing science, Every Tool’s A Hammer captures what it is to be creative [ 1 ].

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

Ideas in the scientific space take a while to nucleate, but are ephemeral, like bubbles. When fully formed, good ideas will survive scrutiny and questioning. But be careful about exposing them to others too early. Criticism, however well-meaning, can burst half formed ideas.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007448.g001

Learn to accept that ideas do not just come by themselves and allow them time to develop: It is entirely normal to have more bad ideas than good ones. Even if the net product from the day is a waste bin full of paper and some tea-stained scribbles—having a creative process, whatever that is, is very important ( Fig 2 ). At some point, these scribbles do turn into ideas, but there is no magic wand. One analogy is of a nucleation point: initially there is a swirling mass of ideas with no form, and eventually they coalesce into something. Caffeine helps.

Writing is a part of the job, and it is important to have a process that helps you write (and good time-management skills around that process as well).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007448.g002

Discussing the idea with other people is vital, not just to shape the idea but also to find the right home for it. However, the timing of discussion is critical. Ideas are really fragile: Feedback at early stages will often focus on negatives, not the potential, and many a good idea has ended up in the bin due to early “help.” Stephen King advises developing the initial idea with the door closed and only opening the door when the idea is mostly formed [ 2 ].

Rule 2: Publish papers

Have no illusion: The main thing you need on your curriculum vitae (CV) is papers ( Fig 3 ), preferably first-author papers and ideally first-author papers in which you are the corresponding author, with the occasional last author paper thrown in for good measure. Papers are both the imprint we leave on the scientific world and the genealogy by which other people can track our pedigree. A recent analysis identified papers as the single most important factor in getting tenure [ 3 ].

Every successful PI has a “graveyard” of uncompleted and/or unsuccessful ideas. The trick is to have a lot of things going forward to make sure some survive.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007448.g003

While first-author papers are the gold standard, you also need breadth and depth in your publications. Look for opportunities to contribute to other people’s work. Coauthored papers are important; they demonstrate an ability to collaborate as part of a team and can lead to roles in larger grants. One approach is to take advantage of what Dr. Tregoning calls “top drawer specials.” Nearly every PI will have projects that never quite make it, due to people leaving or research priorities changing. Often all that is required is for someone to pull preexisting data into paper form. Completing these side projects whilst waiting for your main project to bear fruit is a very efficient way of CV boosting and practicing your writing.

You also need some evidence that you can get grants. Unfortunately, getting grants can feel like a catch-22 for early career researchers. You cannot become a PI till you get grants; you cannot get grants until you become a PI. This is a tricky but not insurmountable problem. There are some smaller pots of money that you can apply for, including travel grants and (sometimes) internal funding schemes. At the very least, be involved in grant writing. Learn the process, so it doesn’t come as a horrible shock. If you do contribute to a grant from your current lab, ensure that you are named on it in some role.

Whilst there is no way that you can get an academic post without papers, papers alone are not sufficient: There are many people with great CVs and no tenure. There are other skills and behaviors that you need.

Rule 3: Research what the job involves and learn to juggle

Before losing sleep about not becoming an academic, understand what an academic career involves. Spoiler alert: It is mostly juggling ( Fig 4 ). Before becoming a PI, Dr. Tregoning drew heavily from fiction to form vague and entirely wrong ideas of the role, with elements of Hogwarts, Jordan College in Lyra’s Oxford (from His Dark Materials ), and the Jurassic Park cloning lab (before the dinosaurs escaped). However, a closer parallel is that you are an entrepreneur running your own business within an organization that provides some core support services.

As a lab head, your duties may stretch your abilities to accomplish things. Be aware that if you are viewed as successful, you will be asked to take on even more.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007448.g004

As the head of a lab, you are responsible for fundraising, fund managing, purchasing materials and equipment (some of which is extremely specialist, even unique), training and managing staff working with dangerous materials, publicizing the current research, and planning future research. As a teacher you are expected to inspire and educate the next generation with a range of teaching styles that are appropriate for either 300 students in a lecture or for a single student, as a mentor. On top of this, you are expected to help with the administration of a large complex organization with upwards of 10,000 staff. Hiring good people can help to distribute some of this load. Dr. Hope Jahren in Lab Girl captures much of the joy and pain of an academic career [ 4 ].

No two academic careers are the same. This is one of the best aspects of the job. We are given (some) flexibility to choose our own routes. Whilst there are core elements—teaching, research, and administration—the make-up of each person’s role can be very different. This will vary by individual and institution: Some places are research only, and some are focused on teaching. Spend some time thinking about what type of academic you might want to be and where your strengths lie so you can best prepare. But also try everything out: You might discover a previously unknown talent for steering committees, designing curricula, or community outreach.

Rule 4: Develop your skills

The skills you learn in the lab during your PhD and postdoc are by and large irrelevant to those necessary to run a lab. While you will get your next job based on your CV (your previous employer and your publications), you will only succeed in your next job based on your ability to do a range of other things [ 5 ]. The biggest difference is lab and technical work. As a PI, the amount of time you spend doing raw science (be it in a wet lab, in a field, or at a computer) dramatically decreases. This can be tricky to come to terms with, but as the leader of the group, your main responsibility is to support your team. Invest some time in developing skills outside the lab. To get more of a sense of the skills needed to run a lab, read At the Helm [ 6 ].

The most important skill is learning to write well. The time that you no longer spend generating data is quickly filled by time writing grants and papers. Writing science well is not trivial. There are many resources that can support you in learning to write, including Stephen King’s On Writing [ 2 ], Roy Peter Clark’s Writing Tools [ 7 ], and Joshua Schimel’s Writing Science [ 8 ]. There are also academic articles—including some excellent 10 Simple Rules [ 9 ]. If you do not have time to read these, take George Orwell’s advice from “Politics and the English Language” and never say anything that is outright barbarous [ 10 ]. Nothing beats practice and feedback. Bear in mind, there are other ways to present your ideas [ 11 ].

The other critical skill is learning how to work with people. Get management experience before you go live with your own lab: That way, your early mistakes don’t affect you long term. The easiest way is to do this is outside science, which can come in many forms—working in a shop, volunteering at a shelter, running a children’s football team, or even joining the army [ 12 ], which may seem a bit extreme, but it gives you a chance to explore what works and what doesn’t. Working with students is another rewarding way of developing your management skills. Likewise, ask your postdoc mentor if you can take on management responsibilities in your current lab.

Rule 5: Focus on the prize

A lot of becoming a PI boils down to attitude: A major defining quality is relentless perseverance in the face of the odds. Your initial plan about how you’re going to get there is usually a lot simpler and easier than the course you will eventually take, but don’t give up ( Fig 5 ). Whilst you have limited hours in the day and, unfortunately, a limited time from getting your PhD to getting onto the tenure track, the solution isn’t only working harder. Focus on the things that help you cross the line. In order to do this, you need to identify what these key things are and be able to evaluate the benefit per unit of time invested.

Generally, your plan seems a lot more straightforward than the way things actually happen. It’s important to remain flexible about how you achieve your goals and, indeed, what those goals actually are. But also remember that other people’s paths were not necessarily as smooth as they appear.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007448.g005

Make the most of your time: Think about what you are being asked to do and how it helps you become a PI. For example, be selective about the work you do: Don’t start any work unless you can see the route to publication. One of the major skills is learning to say no, even if the opportunity is really shiny ( Fig 6 ). This can be tricky when working for someone else who has ten scatty ideas that go nowhere for every one that makes the final draft. You have to be choosy and occasionally say no if the project looks like a dead end. Of course, there is a fine line between being self-driven and self-centred; you still need to do things that contribute to the smooth running of the lab you find yourself in. This extends into faculty positions. Being collegiate makes you more employable: No one wants to work with “that person” with a reputation for selfishness.

The ability to say “no”—even when the opportunity seems exciting—is a must for PIs.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007448.g006

Be aware that what others show to the outside world isn’t the whole truth. Professor Alice Prince at Columbia recently described how her National Institutes of Health (NIH) biosketch was a poor reflection of the person she is [ 13 ]. Going from a successful PhD studentship in a big lab to a postdoc in an even bigger lab, followed by a fellowship, with Cell , Nature , and Science (CNS) papers every step of the way is still perceived as the only route to being a PI. But very few people take this route; doing a muddle of short-term contracts is a much more realistic route. Trust us: It is possible to get a PI job without publishing in Nature (the authors submit their Google Scholar profiles as evidence: JST and JEM ).

Rule 6: Bounce back from failure

No matter how focused you are, you are going to fail. One of the most common experiences of being an academic is failure. You will fail on your path to becoming a PI, and you will fail once you become a PI. It is not the failing that matters; it is how you bounce back again ( Fig 7 ). No one succeeds all the time; to use a sporting analogy, Babe Ruth had a batting average of 0.342—meaning he missed the ball 65% of the time—Lionel Messi requires 5.79 shots per goal, and Serena Williams misses 40% of her first serves. Likewise, a PI who gets more than 20% of their grants funded is a superstar. Learning coping strategies is vital. Some of the things that help are as follows:

Persistence and perseverance are two qualities that are vital to becoming and being a PI. You should stand up for and argue your point but remain aware that you could be wrong.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007448.g007

Reflective practice

Carol Dweck’s brilliant book, Mindset [ 14 ], can help you to fail better. She suggests reframing failure as a learning opportunity. After the initial mourning period, look again at rejected papers and grants in the light of the reviewer’s feedback and see what you can improve.

Revise, recycle, and resubmit

Any single rejection is not the end of the idea. Many grant applications require a resubmission. In 2015, NIH R01-grant success rate was at approximately 30% for resubmissions, compared with 10% for original submissions [ 15 ]. And even if your grants are not funded, there are ways to get the work done, chopping them into new projects or running them on the side of other funded things. Likewise, no single journal is perfect, and with the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) advocating for a shift from impact factor, it is worth considering on what other grounds your work will be evaluated [ 16 ].

Learn to roll with reviewers’ punches

Flawed as it is, the peer-review system is the least worst, and we are stuck with it for now. Remember, reviewers don’t reject your work because they hate you. Stand in the reviewer’s shoes: They have to make decisions on a large number of grants from a multitude of subjects in limited time. Sometimes, your work may not make the cutoff, and coming back a second time with new data may be enough to get you over the line.

Depersonalize it

It is important to separate your personal worth from your successes and failures at work. Failure and the resultant iterations and corrections are part of creativity. Depersonalizing failure allows you to accept constructive criticisms and move both your ideas and yourself forward [ 17 ].

Rule 7: Develop your brand

We have two things to sell, our ideas and ourselves. Of the two, the main product we sell is ourselves, which (at work at least) is defined by our CV: what we have worked on and who we have done it with and where. Develop a single memorable “personal brand,” which can be used when meeting potential collaborators, conference organizers, and funders. Have a single line “elevator pitch” that summarizes what you do, backed up with an exciting case study. The brand includes the types of research you aspire to do and the initial projects you might run. The hope is that by pitching this brand successfully you will be at the forefront of people’s thoughts when they are putting together grants, consortia, or seminars. Your brand could even help you end up in front of that elusive tenure-track or lectureship appointment committee. Part of this brand development is identifying your strengths and honing them. Whilst you shouldn’t ignore your weaknesses, your strengths are the foundation on which you build your career. The brand is no longer limited to papers and conferences. It is possible to reach whole new audiences through social media [ 18 ]—though be aware the boost in connectivity may not compensate for the time lost down the rabbit hole.

Rule 8: Believe in yourself

Developing your brand is easier said than done, in part because of the curse of imposter syndrome [ 19 ], in which you doubt your own talents and fear that you will be revealed as a fraud ( Fig 8 ). Nearly everyone in academia suffers from it to some degree or other. The process of peer review is a major contributor: You and your work are routinely judged by others and, given the high failure rate, are going to be found wanting, often.

You can make one of these lab coats for yourself by trying to remember that everyone in science experiences imposter syndrome to some extent and that questioning yourself, your perspective, and your position is actually an essential part of the scientific process.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007448.g008

At the end of the day, academia is just a job, a fascinating and fun job that can occasionally take up every single second you have but ultimately just a job. There is no value in becoming a PI at any cost. Ensure you live a life outside work, for your own mental health and for that of your team. Academic burnout is very real; it is okay to take a break to reset stress levels: for example, Dr. Tregoning runs [ 20 ]. Sometimes stepping back a bit can even help in terms of creativity and headspace. Likewise, if you work every hour of the day to become a PI, there is no spare capacity when life inevitably doesn’t run smoothly.

Rule 9: Build a network of mutually supportive people

Networking is central to being a PI. The best way to do this is to meet people face to face: Get out there and break bread. Carry business cards at all times. Go to conferences, consortia, and congresses: Plan who you want to meet at the conferences, even email them in advance to arrange time at the meeting. Often, smaller conferences can give you better chances to meet people. But be aware that talks aren’t the only part of the conference; the social events are great places to meet people and to learn. Networking isn’t limited to networking up; network sidewise with your peers and down with the people who you are training. Virtual networking can help: This paper is the offspring of a Twitter conversation.

The other consideration is choosing the right boss and environment to work in. The ideal boss is supportive, enabling, and generous in credit. If you can’t find that, find someone who will let you get on with things independently so you can develop your own ideas. At the very least, avoid bosses who will wittingly or unwittingly damage your career. Try to discover what flavor a potential boss might be before committing to work for them; discrete questions when you visit a lab for an interview can be helpful.

Ultimately, nobody can succeed on their own ( Fig 9 ). There are many functional reasons to build up a network of people: Other people have different skills, expertise, and access to equipment or reagents. Many of the best things that happen are often random offshoots from chance meetings, for example, papers that sprang from discussions with the external examiner at a viva or collaborations formed at conference bars.

Remember that sometimes you need the cheering section and sometimes you are the cheering section for others. PI, principal investigator.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007448.g009

But, more importantly, network because working on your own is rubbish, boring, and sad. Nurture your colleagues at every step of the way. Be kind wherever possible [ 21 ]. You could probably succeed by pursuing a divide and conquer, winner takes all attitude, and you could probably name people who have done this. But don’t; as then, everyone loses.

Rule 10: Know when to quit

Disclaimer: Even if you follow these 10 rules, there is no guarantee you will end up running your own lab. Knowing when to cash out is as true for scientific dead-ends as career ones. Chasing after something long after it has eluded you is not going to add to your overall life happiness.

Remember that academia isn’t the only job. There is the perception that becoming a PI is the one true path. As a PhD student, it is easy to say that your dream goal is to become a PI. This is mostly groupthink resulting from the lack of visible alternatives. Within the university system, the most visible individuals who are successful are the PIs; the people who are succeeding in other careers have by necessity left the university system. Becoming a PI is merely one career path amongst several that are available to scientifically trained graduates, all of which will value the skills you have developed along the way. Make sure that in upskilling you consider employability outside the sector or giving yourself an edge within the sector; this is part of the reason the authors started blogging and drawing: It was a new thread drawn from skills we enjoyed that gave us a different dimension [ 22 ].

Deciding when enough is enough is the hardest rule and is in direct conflict with Rule 6 about learning to fail. This is a decision only you can make, but don’t rush it as it is not unusual to want to quit often.

It has not been easy to condense how to become a PI into Ten “Simple” Rules, particularly when there are so many tensions—being focused on yourself without being selfish, being resilient in the face of failure but knowing when to quit, and gaming it without being cynical. Notable absentees from this list are technical expertise, hard work, and knowledge of the field: These are a given, but there are more people who are hardworking, skillful, and knowledgeable than there are PI jobs. There is clearly a role for luck, but you need to be prepared to exploit opportunities.

Ultimately, if becoming a PI is what you want to do, do not let anyone (including yourself) put you off. Yes, the odds are against you, with a recent study reasserting the low rate of postdocs who become tenure-track faculty [ 23 ], but there are jobs with worse, steeper pyramids. Tracking the likelihood of reaching the top in other careers is one way to normalize academia: for example, acting—of the 300 million people in the US only 51,000 people work as actors (Actors’ Equity Association figures 2017). Likewise, while nearly every child in England plays soccer at some point in their childhood, only 22 of them make the national teams. Compared to these horrific odds, academia is relatively easy: 15% of the roughly 20,000 postdocs employed in the US will end up in a tenure-track academic position [ 24 ].

Ultimately, it is social intelligence (sometimes referred to as ‘soft skills’) that can make the critical difference. The good news is that you are already developing a lot of these skills by stealth: Time management, working with people, and juggling priorities are all part of being a postdoc. Even better, these leadership skills—being more resilient, being kind, looking after yourself and your colleagues, and focusing on your goals—apply to all jobs. So even if your academic aspirations don’t play out, you will be in a position to succeed in any role.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Emily Graham (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory) for the invaluable feedback.

• View Article
• Google Scholar
• 2. King S. On writing: a memoir of the craft. Scribner trade paperback edition. ed. New York: Scribner; 2010. x, 291 pages p.
• PubMed/NCBI
• 4. Jahren H. Lab girl. First edition. ed. New York: Alfred A. Knopf; 2016. 290 pages p.
• 6. Barker K. At the helm: leading your laboratory. 2nd ed. Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; 2010. xii, 372 p. p.
• 7. Clark RP. Writing tools: 50 essential strategies for every writer. College ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press; 2008. xv, 260 p. p.
• 8. Schimel J. Writing science: how to write papers that get cited and proposals that get funded. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press; 2012. xiv, 221 p. p.
• 10. Orwell G. Politics and the English Language. The Broadview Anthology of Expository Prose. Toronto: Broadview Press; 1946.
• 14. Dweck CS. Mindset: the new psychology of success. Updated edition. ed. New York: Random House; 2016. xi, 301 pages p.
• 20. Tregoning JS. Running up that hill. From Dr John Tregoning, Academic blog [Internet]. Available from: https://drtregoning.blogspot.com/2018/05/running-up-that-hill-running-pop-songs.html [cited 2020 Jan 17].

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

your money adviser

Interest on Federal Student Loans Is Rising to 6.53%

The rate for undergraduate loans is up from 5.5 percent this past school year and higher than it has been in more than a decade.

By Ann Carrns

This has already been a challenging year for college applicants, starting with the problems with a crucial federal form that delayed financial aid offers. Now, students and families have more to worry about: The cost of borrowing for college for the next school year is rising to the highest rate in more than a decade.

The interest rate on new federal student loans for undergraduates will be 6.53 percent as of July 1, up from 5.5 percent this year, the Education Department announced last week.

Rates on loans for graduate and professional students will rise to 8.08 percent. And rates on PLUS loans — extra financing available to parents of undergraduate students as well as to graduate students — will increase to 9.08 percent.

Rates on federal student loans are based on a formula, set by Congress, that takes the high yield on the 10-year Treasury note from an auction in May, plus a fixed, added rate, depending on the type of loan. The yield at the May 8 auction was 4.483 percent, plus an added 2.05 percent for undergraduate loans. (The yield last year in the Treasury auction was 3.448. Add-on rates are higher for graduate and PLUS loans.)

Interest rates generally have remained high as the Federal Reserve has battled inflation . Still, the new student loan rates seem especially steep compared with just a few years ago, said Mark Kantrowitz, a financial-aid expert. In the 2020-21 academic year, the rate on undergraduate loans was 2.75 percent. Still, rates were as high as 14 percent in the early 1980s, Mr. Kantrowitz said.

The new rates apply to loans borrowed from July 1 through June 2025 and remain fixed for the life of the loan. They don’t apply to loans that students have already taken out.

The increase translates into roughly an extra $5 in the monthly payment on $10,000 in debt over a 10-year repayment term, Mr. Kantrowitz calculated.

The rates are increasing amid rising concern about student debt and the high cost of college. As of early 2024, almost 43 million borrowers held an average of about $37,850 in federal student debt, according to Federal Student Aid , an office of the Education Department.

In a survey published Thursday by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, nearly half of American adults (47 percent) said a college degree was worth the cost but only if someone didn’t have to take out loans to attend. Fewer than a quarter (22 percent) said it was worth the cost even if someone had to borrow.

Pew also analyzed federal data and found that households headed by a young high school graduate had a typical net worth of $30,700 in 2022, compared with $120,200 for those headed by a young college graduate.

Michele Shepard Zampini, senior director of college affordability at the nonprofit Institute for College Access and Success, said students should keep the new federal loan rates — and borrowing for college — in perspective.

“The rates are higher than we’d like, but it’s not a deal breaker,” she said. “I’d never want to see someone not go to college just because it meant taking on federal student loans,” she added.

The institute advises borrowers to “borrow what you need” to cover costs and to participate fully in college, Ms. Zampini said. In general, you can borrow up to $31,000 in federal loans as an undergraduate student who is dependent on your family for support. (The amount you can borrow is capped each year, and limits are higher for independent students.)

Some students may try to borrow much less, thinking they can work more to cover costs. But that often “works to the detriment of the student,” Ms. Zampini said, because students may have to work so much they fall behind in their classes. “It’s definitely a balance.”

Students should compare the costs of different colleges and consider choosing less expensive alternatives — perhaps a state school rather than a private one — to manage their costs, Ms. Zampini said. Check a school’s graduation rates and career outlook. If students generally take longer than four years to graduate, the degree will cost more money. (One place to look this up is the Education Department’s online College Scorecard .)

The new, more generous federal student loan repayment plan, known as SAVE, offers a “safety valve” if you worry about affording your loan payments, Ms. Zampini said. With SAVE , which stands for Saving on a Valuable Education, payments are based on earnings and household size. After you make monthly payments for a certain number of years — as few as 10, depending on the amount borrowed — any remaining balance is forgiven.

For some low-income workers, payments under SAVE can be reduced to zero. And if a borrower’s monthly payment doesn’t cover the interest owed, the Education Department will cancel the uncovered portion of the interest. The loan balance doesn’t grow because of unpaid interest.

Saving in a 529 plan can help reduce the amount borrowed. A 529 plan is a tax-favored savings account intended to help cover the cost of college. Contributions to the accounts, named for part of the tax code, grow tax free and can be withdrawn tax free to pay for costs like tuition, housing, meals and books. (There’s no federal tax deduction for 529 contributions, but many states offer tax breaks.)

“529s are a good tool in the toolbox,” said Tony Kure, managing director for the northeastern Ohio market at the wealth management firm Johnson Investment Counsel.

Mr. Kure recommends opening a 529 when a child is born to give as much time as possible for the funds to grow before college. If you have more than one child, he advises opening a separate account for each.

Many 529 plans offer promotions or incentives to save during May, so now is a good time to research accounts if you’ve been considering opening one.

Here are some questions and answers about student loans:

How much should I borrow for college?

Aim for total student debt that is less than your expected annual starting salary, Mr. Kantrowitz said. If your debt is less than your income, he said, you should be able to repay your student loans in 10 years or less. To get an idea of what you might earn, check out the Labor Department ’s data on pay by occupation. Another place to look is a report on pay based on college majors published last year by HEA Group, a research and consulting firm.

Can I get better rates on private student loans?

Rates on some private student loans — those offered by banks rather than the federal government — may be competitive with the new federal rates for borrowers with stellar credit (scores of 780 or higher), Mr. Kantrowitz said. But private loans can be riskier because they lack the protections offered by federal loans, like the ability to seek a pause in payments during a financial setback, payment plans tied to your income and options to have some of the debt forgiven.

Can I deduct student loan interest on my federal tax return?

You can generally deduct up to $2,500 in interest paid on federal and private student loans, even if you don’t itemize on your return, Mr. Kantrowitz said.

A Guide to Making Better Financial Moves

Making sense of your finances can be complicated. the tips below can help..

Inheriting money after the death of a loved one while also grieving can be an emotional minefield, particularly for younger adults. Experts share ways to handle it wisely .

Either by choice or because they are priced out of the market, many people plan to never stop renting. Building wealth without home equity  requires a different mind-set.

You may feel richer as you pay your mortgage down and home values go up. As a result, some homeowners end up with a lot of home equity but low retirement savings. Here’s the problem  with that situation.

Can your investment portfolio reflect your values? If you want it to, it is becoming easier with each passing year .

The way advisers handle your retirement money is about to change: More investment professionals will be required to act in their customers’ best interest  when providing advice about their retirement money.

The I.R.S. estimates that 940,000 people who didn’t file their tax returns  in 2020 are due back money. The deadline for filing to get it is May 17.