[This is a resent message, the original seems not to have contained any of the text I added]
To All, As far as I am aware, NSF has never allowed PI salary (past 2 months) except for some special programs, unlike NIH, which allows salary on almost all grants. Using postdocs is often not practical (for many reasons specific to being at a school lacking research infrastructure). This is a clear message from NSF that it does not want its money spent at schools that do not devote significant resources to research, no matter the quality of the grant or qualifications of the individual researcher. I am at a school that does not adequately support research and I am of two minds about this policy. In fact, many schools do not adequately support research and view indirect cost monies as a means of supporting the institution in general. Schools that do not give their faculty time to do research unless the time is purchased by a granting agency often are not committed to research and have not built the infrastructure needed, so that there are a host of problems that often accompany the lack of faculty time for research. This can be damaging to the research and the researcher, who may have to deal with significant institutional resistance to research as well as insufficient infrastructure. So, as an individual I want to be able to submit a regular NSF grant but I also know that funds are limited and I do wish to see them spent as effectively as possible. Perhaps NSF is right in requiring commitment from the institution as well as commitment from the researcher. Phil Ganter Tennessee State University PS - even when RFPs allow for PI salary, including it can significantly increase the grant cost (in my experience, up to 2.5x when indirect costs are considered). Having sat on review panels, I know budgets are considered. A grant that cost that much more than the average sticks out and panelists ask themselves if this grant is 2.5 times better than the others they are considering.
