What is a Principal Investigator?
Some of you may have noticed that this blog, hitherto quite reliable, has been much more irregular as of recent weeks. There is no explanation for this other than the rather sad fact that I have been very occupied with the excitements of the 'day job'. Normal service will, I hope, be resumed shortly. I have at least found the opportunity to share this particular minor irritation.
Service on many boards, panels and promotions committees means that, in addition to developing a high tolerance for dire institutional coffee, I have now become quite expert in the publication norms of different disciplines. Not only do I know which venues are 'best' for publishing different sorts of work, I also understand the nuances of author ordering: a last place author on a life science paper, a middle author in the long list on a particle physics paper, the sole author of an economics paper, and so on. These are shortcuts to working out who contributed what, and, though highly fallible, are at least commonly understood and for the most part credit is assigned equitably. Equivalent contributions can be signalled by, for instance, alphabetic ordering.
I have however, many more doubts about the status of 'Principal Investigator' a term increasingly and erroneously accorded weight within the scientific community. Where did this arise and what does it mean? Grants have 'Principal Investigators' but this, it seems to me, simply arises as a matter of administrative convenience to the funder. They need somebody, who acts as the primary correspondent and an individual undertaking the ultimate responsibility for proper use of the funds. Universities need account holders and signatories. This is about governance and accounting not about the intellectual or scientific contribution. Frankly, there are many means for achieving these goals without a nominated Principal Investigator.
Securing a grant depends on the science case and the integrity of the associated plans. Neither of these depend upon a 'Principal Investigator' indeed grants are like papers in this regard, many people play different equal and complementary roles. Privileging a single 'Principal Investigator', with subsidiary co-investigators, misrepresents both the contributions to securing the grant and executing the programme. Further, if you make a contribution to writing a paper you generally will be credited with it, regardless of your status. The status of 'Principal Investigator' is hemmed in by restrictions that have to do with operational concerns quite outside the proper remit of scientific consideration. If a researcher plays a key role in securing a grant (often one they are subsequently employed on) by for instance assembling the detailed work plan or even identifying the scientific goals, they should be credited with that contribution regardless of their contractual position.
Overall I am not sure that 'Principal Investigator' is a helpful term. It smacks rather of the hierachical models of scientific and lab leadership that I would rather we eschewed. We could easily dump it.