9

(Considering the fact that this question is specifically about the UK academic system,) this webpage says

Applicants are expected to spend an average of at least 50% of full time working on the project and the employment costs for this effort would be covered in full.

Assume that a lecturer is supposed to be paid amount X by their university to be a full time employee. Now assume that individual gets a government-supported (does it matter?) grant in that they claimed that they spend 30% of their full working time. If the grant's period is a year, is it correct that the university will not pay 0.3X of that salary since it is supposed to be compensated by the grant?

GoodDeeds
  • 4,036
  • 6
  • 21
  • 40

3 Answers3

23

The grant funding goes to the university, not to the individual PI. If the grant budget includes 30% of the PIs time, the university will then use that money to cover 30% of the PIs salary, while paying the other 70% from other sources.

There is no direct impact on the PI. They still get exactly the same paycheck as before. (The existence of this funding would be an argument towards getting promoted though.)

Arno
  • 43,962
  • 8
  • 123
  • 169
  • 9
    There is some "direct impact" on the PI, at least in theory: they can use the fact that 30% of their salary is paid from the grant to argue for a corresponding reduction in the amount of teaching and administrative work allocated to them. – avid Oct 30 '22 at 10:32
  • There might also be travel money included, an indirect benefit that wouldn't affect taxes (in US, anyway). Likewise equipment in a few cases. – Buffy Oct 30 '22 at 11:25
  • 5
    @avid I'd count that as indirect. It will vary between institutions, but I really wouldn't count on that approach working out. I'd expect the reply to be that this is just a shift from university-funded research time to UKRI-funded research time, and that teaching and admin remain constant. – Arno Oct 30 '22 at 11:32
  • 4
    Don't know specifically about the UK, but there usually are some semi-shady ways how a PI can use grants to boost their actual salary (at least a little). But this answer describes what happens in by far most cases. – xLeitix Oct 30 '22 at 11:32
  • 2
    @Buffy I'm only addressing having PI-time funded by a grant, not other benefits of having a grant in the UK. – Arno Oct 30 '22 at 11:34
  • @xLeitix: Could you supply an answer to discuss those ways, as well? –  Oct 30 '22 at 18:29
  • @Arno Unfortunately you're probably correct. A more accurate statement may be "they can use the fact that 30% of their salary is paid from the grant to argue against any increase in the amount of teaching and administrative work allocated to them." – avid Oct 30 '22 at 18:33
  • 1
    @avid A senior-ish leader at the university will already have had to write a letter to the funding body, promising that reduction in teaching and admin loads, to get the grant awarded in the first place. Sometimes they're lying. Sometimes the referees work out that they're lying. – Daniel Hatton Oct 30 '22 at 20:32
  • 5
    @DanielHatton Hahahahahahaha. No senior-ish person at my university has ever promised any such thing for any of the 5 grants that have funded parts of my salary. As recently as last year the BBSRC should have been paying for 40% of my salary. But noone promised, nor did I get, anything like that much time for the research. – Ian Sudbery Oct 30 '22 at 22:10
  • 1
    @User I feel that would barely be related to the question as asked, and I don't know the mechanics well enough. One example would be grant-specific rules as Ian mentions, another would be setting up a one-person company and having it join the project as a partner. – xLeitix Oct 31 '22 at 09:08
  • @IanSudbery At my US institution it is required to attest that you've put forth the % effort on grants you are paid by, and that you have not done other activities with the money spent on those grants. My institution collects these attestations twice a year I believe, not sure if that's specifically required or just their way to comply with a more vague federal decree: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-2/subtitle-A/chapter-II/part-200/subpart-E/subject-group-ECFRed1f39f9b3d4e72/section-200.430 – Bryan Krause Oct 31 '22 at 20:36
  • @IanSudbery I mean, I get that your employer is making you commit fraud, but saying so publicly is not advised. If the grant(s) requires you to spend 40% of your time and you know you aren't going to... Now, as an employer, having an employee commit fraud in exchange for the employer getting money without ordering the employee to do it (plausible deniability) is a great deal for the employer. So I can see them not enforcing it. (And maybe the grant is giving you money without any requirement you actually spend that time on it, who knows). – Yakk Oct 31 '22 at 21:29
  • 1
    @yakk there is no fraud on my part. Firstly there is no contract between me and the funder, it is the university that has signed a contract. Secondly if it were anything, it would be breach of contract, not fraud. – Ian Sudbery Nov 01 '22 at 19:48
2

One relevant thing here might be that while other answer are correct - the funder reimburses your employer for the fraction of your time its taking off them - some employers will include a bonus payment for the PI. I've got the Wellcome Trust specifically in mind here, but there may be others. On things like the old Henry Dale fellowships (and I believe the new career development fellowsihps) they pay for 100% of your time (and expect you to spend 80% on the research), but they pay for you to be paid at a higher rate than would be standard for a new PI.

Ian Sudbery
  • 38,074
  • 2
  • 86
  • 132
2

I think one important thing to add to Arno's answer is that while there is no direct impact on the PIs salary, there (at least in theory) should be one on their workload. A typical research-oriented Lecturer/Senior Lecturer in the UK is supposed to spend 40% of their time on research, 40% on teaching-related activities, and 20% on admin. In a way, teaching-and-admin duties an academic performs "pay" for their allotted research time.

If that academic then gets a research grant on which they are costed to work for 40% FTE (which covers 40% of their salary), this does not mean they should spend all their research time on this project. In fact, these 40% should be taken out of their overall workload, and ideally out of their teaching+admin workload. This is sometimes referred to as buying out your teaching time.

So in principle, the academic from the above paragraph would go from 40(R)-40(T)-20(A) workload to 100(R) workload (ideally), or at least to a 64(R)+24(T)+12(A) (in case 40% of their combined R-T-A workload gets assigned to research on this new project). The grant money, which goes to the institution, should be used to cover the reduction in the PIs teaching workload (e.g. to hire somebody on a fixed-term teaching-only position).

As mentioned in the previous answers, successfully securing external funding is one of the conditions for promotions as well.

penelope
  • 11,580
  • 1
  • 41
  • 82
  • This is discipline and university specific. At places i have worked, you would only get buyout if you secured more than 40% of your time on external grants, and this would not come from hiring fixed term teaching staff (which we try not to do), but by the slack being taken up by those with less than 40% externally funded research time. – Ian Sudbery Nov 01 '22 at 19:54