Library
All MSU proposals submitted to external funding agencies must be transmitted by OSP. Regardless of sponsor requirements, proposals must be reviewed and have University approval per Section 470.00. OSP has developed the Electronic Proposal Clearance Form (ePCF) which must be used when submitting proposals to OSP for review and approval. The form summarizes key administrative and fiscal information about the proposal that is needed by the MSU reviewer in order to grant approval to proceed. The PI must review and approve the ePCF and the form is then routed via email to those responsible for certifying the proposal as sound and in compliance with MSU and agency guidelines. This may include the PI’s department head, dean, departmental accountants or other administrative contacts, the Human Subjects/Institutional Review Board Chair, and the Vice President for Research. The proposal will not be authorized or transmitted to the sponsor until the completed ePCF and accompanying documents, such as Grants.gov packages have been received by OSP. The link and instructions for the ePCF are available on the main OSP website page.
Standards for Conduct for Research
MSU encourages research and scholarly activities and considers them as crucial to the education of students, the advancement of knowledge, and the intellectual growth of the faculty. MSU expects that research and scholarly activities will be conducted with the highest ethical and
professional standards as described in the Faculty Handbook.
Openness in Research
MSU adheres to the principle of openness in research because of its mission of education, research, and public service. Therefore, MSU does not generally conduct or permit its faculty to conduct classified research at MSU or under a grant administered by MSU. MSU will generally not enter into a contract nor accept a grant to carry out research if the grant or contract restrains the freedom of
☑️ The existence of the contract or grant;
☑️ The general nature of the inquiry to be conducted;
☑️ The identity of the sponsor, or;
☑️ The research results;
Generally, PI’s must be free to publish the results of their research without prior approval of a sponsor or third party. Sponsors may be permitted a short period to review publications prior to submission in order to identify and request the removal of sponsor confidential information, or to identify and take appropriate steps to protect intellectual property
Research Misconduct
All MSU researchers are expected to conduct scholarly research and publish the results with the highest standards of ethical conduct, truth, and accuracy. The University has established policies and procedures consistent with Federal regulations for responding to allegations of research misconduct. The policy establishes a method for reporting and investigating such allegations. Any suspected research misconduct should be reported to the dean of the relevant college. The Faculty Handbook, Section 430, details the University policies on research misconduct.
University Policy 310, Laboratory Animals Used for Teaching and Research
- Forms for protocol submission, amendment, and renewal
- IACUC meeting dates and deadlines
- Protocol and amendment review processes
- IACUC policies and guidelines
- Required training for research personnel
- Occupational health information and forms
- Links to federal regulations
- Biology Research Guide: This guide will help you find general resources.
- Biology/Biomedical Databases: Research assistance, subject guides, and useful resources compiled by Atkins Library.
- IACUC Application Library Resource Guide: Topical resources, databases, and literature search tips and links for ethical considerations (3 Rs, required alternatives literature search) pertinent to animal research available through Atkins Library.
- Kinesiology Databases: Research assistance, subject guides and useful resources compiled by Atkins Library.
- Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW): This NIH office is responsible for all of the animal-related functions of OPRR, including implementing and interpreting the Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, administering an educational program for PHS-supported institutions and investigators, negotiating Animal Welfare Assurances, and evaluating compliance with the PHS Policy.
- Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC): AAALAC is a voluntary accreditation organization that works with institutions and researchers to ensure the highest standards of animal care and use.
- Alternatives to Animal Use: Johns Hopkins University’s ‘global clearinghouse’ for information on alternatives to animal testing.
- Virtual Library: Links to online resources dealing with Biosciences.
- Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS): USDA’s APHIS is responsible for inspecting animal research facilities and ensuring that animal care programs comply with the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act.
- American Society of Laboratory Animal Practitioners (ASLAP): ASLAP promotes the acquisition and dissemination of knowledge, ideas, and information among veterinarians and veterinary students having an interest in laboratory animal practice.
Text Option: ashdhsaipuhDIJIAjs djoiasjdj jasidj ; jAISJDI JOIASJDJ IOSAJOIDJO JO
Human Research
Animal Care & Use
IACUC Protocol Forms
Implementation of the IACUC Module in Niner Research:
As of August 9, 2021, all new and continuing IACUC protocols (and renewals/amendments of current protocols) must be initiated and submitted electronically through Niner Research. Please note that consultation with the Attending Veterinarian is required prior to the submission of an application.
To assist you with submission of your Niner Research IACUC protocol, the Office of Research Protections and Integrity has posted reference guides and video tutorials on the Niner Research resources page. If you need further assistance, please contact Research Protections at x7-1872 or uncc-iacuc@charlotte.edu.
Technical note: Please contact the Niner Research System Administrator (ninerresearch@charlotte.edu or x7-1865) if you experience technical problems during your use of the system.
Protocols, Amendments & Renewals
UNC Charlotte requires that a complete animal research protocol be reviewed and approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) before the investigator obtains vertebrate animals or initiates research or teaching involving vertebrate animals. Animal use in the absence of IACUC approval is a violation of federal law and University policy.
Investigators are required to consult the Attending Veterinarian prior to submission of new applications and 3-year de novo continuing applications. All new and continuing IACUC protocols (and renewals/amendments of current protocols) must be initiated and submitted electronically through Niner Research. The Office of Research Protections and Integrity (ORPI) completes initial review of all protocols. Amendments also may be subject to a pre-review period before being sent to the Committee for review, especially if proposed research activities may cause more than momentary pain and distress to animals.
Click the categories below to learn about IACUC protocol components and associated review processes.
NEW & CONTINUING PROTOCOL APPLICATIONS
An approved protocol is valid for one year and may be renewed twice for a total of three (3) years of study. At the end of three years, a new protocol must be submitted to the IACUC and a new protocol number assigned to the project. The new protocol should include all of the criteria mandated for the initial review. Investigators are notified by the Office of Research Protections and Integrity to submit annual renewal paperwork and to submit the new protocol to the IACUC prior to the third anniversary of the original approval date of their current protocol. Review of new and continuing protocols is conducted according to the following process:
Step 1: ORPI will conduct an initial review of the application for form completion. The application is forwarded to the Attending Veterinarian (AV) for input and review of animal pain/distress level, proposed procedures and use of analgesics/anesthetics, humane endpoints, method of euthanasia, etc. Both the ORPI and the AV construct a summary of questions or concerns for the Principal Investigator (PI) to address, or request clarifications, if needed, to ensure adequate IACUC review.
NOTE: In addition to the AV and the ORPI, other Committee members may be asked to “pre-review” the application (e.g., the Director of Laboratory Animal Resources; the Environmental Health and Safety representative, the Occupational Health and Safety representative, etc.) and provide feedback to the ORPI.
Step 2: The ORPI provides feedback to the PI via email regarding any edits/requests for clarification or additional information. The PI can opt to revise and re-submit the application before dissemination to the full Committee, or can choose to receive all requests for revision/clarification after the full Committee has reviewed the submission. If there are no questions for the PI to address, or no requests for revisions, the ORPI will notify the PI of the application status via email and will proceed to the next step in the review process.
Step 3: The application is distributed to the IACUC via email for their determination of the level of review needed for the protocol (i.e. Designated Member Review or Full Committee Review).
Step 3.1: If full committee review is not requested, the ‘Designated Member Review’ (DMR) process is implemented. In this process, at least one (1) IACUC member, designated by the Chairperson and qualified to conduct the review, reviews the application and has the authority to approve, require modifications to secure approval, or request full committee review of the application.
Step 3.2: If the application must go to full committee for review, the application is distributed to the entire IACUC at least one (1) week prior to the Committee’s monthly meeting. The Chairperson assigns a voting member of the Committee to be the lead reviewer of the application and begin discussion of the application at the next meeting.
Step 3.3: When a protocol is reviewed at a duly convened meeting and it is determined that substantive information is lacking such that a response from the PI is required, the IACUC may take either of the following actions:
a. Require modifications to secure approval and require that the revised protocol be returned for FCR at a subsequent duly-convened meeting; OR
b. Because all members of the UNC Charlotte IACUC have agreed in advance in writing, the committee may use “DMR Subsequent to FCR” based on the following:
- All IACUC members have agreed in advance in writing that the quorum of members present at a convened meeting may decide by unanimous vote to use DMR subsequent to FCR when modification is needed to secure approval;
- In this scenario, it is understood that any member of the IACUC may, at any time, request to see the revised protocol and/or request FCR of the protocol.
- The approval date is the date that the designated member approves the study. Animal work conducted before this date will be reported to OLAW as a serious noncompliance with PHS Policy.
NOTE: A quorum, consisting of 50 percent of the voting members plus one member, must be present at the IACUC meeting in order to take action on the application. Approval of research projects may only be granted with the approval vote of a majority of the quorum present. The Committee may take the following actions: approve the application, require modifications to secure approval, or withhold approval.
IACUC members must recuse themselves from voting and are restricted from being selected as a reviewer in the DMR review process in the following situations: a) protocols where they are named principal investigator, b) where they are identified in specific roles on the protocol to perform animal research, or c) are involved in other support activities on behalf of the investigator (i.e. peer reviewer for any associated grants, financial backer for the investigator’s start-up company which supports the experimentation under review by the IACUC, etc.).
Following the convened meeting or DMR review, the IACUC Coordinator conveys any concerns or requests for revision to the investigator in writing via email in a timely manner and manages the revision process thereafter.
All experimentation involving the use of hazardous biological, chemical or radioactive agents in animals will be reviewed by the IACUC in conjunction with concurrent review by other compliance committees/review bodies (i.e. Institutional Biosafety Committee for biohazards, Radiation Safety Committee for radiation hazards, and the Environmental Health and Safety Office for chemical hazards). No experimentation proposing use of hazardous agents/materials can be performed until the respective compliance committee(s)/review body(ies) has/have reviewed and approved the proposed project.
When conditions for approval have been met and any additional regulatory committee review and approval is in place, the ORPI notifies the investigator and Institutional Official in writing that approval has been granted and the study may begin. In addition, the Director of Laboratory Animal Resources is similarly notified that the study work may begin.
If approval is denied, the ORPI similarly notifies the investigator and provides the Committee’s rationale for denying approval. The investigator can submit a new protocol or file an appeal in writing to the IACUC.
AMENDMENTS TO ACTIVE PROTOCOLS
Any planned revision to an approved protocol must be submitted via an Amendment Form to the Office of Research Protections and Integrity via email (uncc-iacuc@charlotte.edu) for review and approval prior to implementation. The IACUC distinguishes proposed changes to protocols as either minor or major/significant. See the “Amendment Classifications and IACUC Review Processes Policy” for a listing of examples of minor and major amendments:
Prior to submitting an amendment to the IACUC, the principal investigator must consult with the Attending Veterinarian regarding the category of the proposed change (i.e., minor or major). If the proposed change is not in either of the categories above, the Attending Veterinarian will make the determination regarding the category on a case-by-case basis. The Principal Investigator must consult with the Attending Veterinarian regarding potential painful procedures as well as changes in anesthesia, analgesia and euthanasia.
IACUC approval for all proposed changes to an approved application (i.e. minor and major amendments) is required prior to the 1) procurement of animals; 2) commencement of activities and 3) the implementation of proposed changes to the approved protocol.
Minor Amendments:
Minor amendments may be reviewed by the Committee Chair and/or the Attending Veterinarian and do not require full committee review unless either party requests it.
Major Amendments:
All major amendments require full Committee review.
Step 1: All amendments are first checked by the ORPI for form completion. The amendment is forwarded to the Attending Veterinarian (AV) for input and review of the proposed procedures Both the ORPI and the AV construct a summary of questions or concerns for the Principal Investigator (PI) to address, or request clarifications, if needed, to ensure adequate IACUC review.
Step 2: The ORPI provides feedback to the PI via email regarding any edits/requests for clarification or additional information. The PI can opt to revise and re-submit the application before dissemination to the full Committee, or can choose to receive all requests for revision/clarification after the full Committee has reviewed the submission. If there are no questions for the PI to address, or no requests for revisions, the ORPI will notify the PI of the application status via email and will proceed to the next step in the review process.
Step 3: The amendment is distributed to the IACUC via email for their determination of the level of review needed for the protocol. The Committee may ask for any one of the following review options: 1) use of the Designated Member Review process, 2) review by a quorum of the full Committee at a convened meeting, 3) submission of a new protocol.
Step 3.1: If full committee review is not requested, the ‘Designated Member Review’ (DMR) process is implemented. In this process, at least one (1) IACUC member, designated by the Chairperson and qualified to conduct the review, reviews the amendment and has the authority to approve, require modifications to secure approval, or request full committee review of the application.
Step 3.2: If the amendment must go to full committee for review, it is distributed to the entire IACUC at least one (1) week prior to the Committee’s monthly meeting. The Chairperson assigns a voting member of the Committee to be the lead reviewer and begin discussion of the amendment at the next meeting.
NOTE: A quorum, consisting of 50 percent of the voting members plus one member, must be present at the IACUC meeting in order to take action on the amendment. Approval of major amendments may only be granted with the approval vote of a majority of the quorum present. The Committee may take the following actions: approve the amendment, require modifications to secure approval, or withhold approval.
Following the convened meeting or DMR review, the IACUC Coordinator conveys any concerns or requests for revision to the investigator in writing via email in a timely manner and manages the revision process thereafter.
When conditions for approval have been met and any additional regulatory committee review and approval is in place, the ORPI notifies the investigator and Institutional Official in writing that approval has been granted and the proposed changes may be implemented. In addition, the Director of Laboratory Animal Resources is similarly notified.
If approval is denied, the ORPI similarly notifies the investigator and provides the Committee’s rationale for denying approval. The investigator can submit a new amendment or file an appeal in writing to the IACUC.
NOTE: A maximum of three (3) major amendments per protocol can be submitted for IACUC approval without requiring submission of a new protocol. More than three major amendments require submission of new protocol.
Overview of Sponsored Research
Animal Care & Use
Federal Regulations
Animal Welfare Act
AWA Regulations
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals
NIH Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare
Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals: Eighth Edition (2011)
AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia (2020) (pdf)
Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC)
Protocols, Amendments & Renewals
Revision approval protocol must be submitted via an Amendment Form to uncc-iacuc@charlotte.edu for review and approval prior to implementation. The IACUC distinguishes proposed changes to protocols as either minor or major/significant. See the “Amendment Classifications and IACUC Review Processes Policy” for a listing of examples of minor and major amendments.
Animal Care & Use
IACUC Protocol Forms
Implementation of the IACUC Module in Niner Research:
As of August 9, 2021, all new and continuing IACUC protocols (and renewals/amendments of current protocols) must be initiated and submitted electronically through Niner Research. Please note that consultation with the Attending Veterinarian is required prior to the submission of an application.
To assist you with submission of your Niner Research IACUC protocol, the Office of Research Protections and Integrity has posted reference guides and video tutorials on the Niner Research resources page. If you need further assistance, please contact Research Protections at x7-1872 or uncc-iacuc@charlotte.edu.
Technical note: Please contact the Niner Research System Administrator (ninerresearch@charlotte.edu or x7-1865) if you experience technical problems during your use of the system.
Protocols, Amendments & Renewals
UNC Charlotte requires that a complete animal research protocol be reviewed and approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) before the investigator obtains vertebrate animals or initiates research or teaching involving vertebrate animals. Animal use in the absence of IACUC approval is a violation of federal law and University policy.
Investigators are required to consult the Attending Veterinarian prior to submission of new applications and 3-year de novo continuing applications. All new and continuing IACUC protocols (and renewals/amendments of current protocols) must be initiated and submitted electronically through Niner Research. The Office of Research Protections and Integrity (ORPI) completes initial review of all protocols. Amendments also may be subject to a pre-review period before being sent to the Committee for review, especially if proposed research activities may cause more than momentary pain and distress to animals.
Click the categories below to learn about IACUC protocol components and associated review processes.
NEW & CONTINUING PROTOCOL APPLICATIONS
An approved protocol is valid for one year and may be renewed twice for a total of three (3) years of study. At the end of three years, a new protocol must be submitted to the IACUC and a new protocol number assigned to the project. The new protocol should include all of the criteria mandated for the initial review. Investigators are notified by the Office of Research Protections and Integrity to submit annual renewal paperwork and to submit the new protocol to the IACUC prior to the third anniversary of the original approval date of their current protocol. Review of new and continuing protocols is conducted according to the following process:
Step 1: ORPI will conduct an initial review of the application for form completion. The application is forwarded to the Attending Veterinarian (AV) for input and review of animal pain/distress level, proposed procedures and use of analgesics/anesthetics, humane endpoints, method of euthanasia, etc. Both the ORPI and the AV construct a summary of questions or concerns for the Principal Investigator (PI) to address, or request clarifications, if needed, to ensure adequate IACUC review.
NOTE: In addition to the AV and the ORPI, other Committee members may be asked to “pre-review” the application (e.g., the Director of Laboratory Animal Resources; the Environmental Health and Safety representative, the Occupational Health and Safety representative, etc.) and provide feedback to the ORPI.
Step 2: The ORPI provides feedback to the PI via email regarding any edits/requests for clarification or additional information. The PI can opt to revise and re-submit the application before dissemination to the full Committee, or can choose to receive all requests for revision/clarification after the full Committee has reviewed the submission. If there are no questions for the PI to address, or no requests for revisions, the ORPI will notify the PI of the application status via email and will proceed to the next step in the review process.
Step 3: The application is distributed to the IACUC via email for their determination of the level of review needed for the protocol (i.e. Designated Member Review or Full Committee Review).
Step 3.1: If full committee review is not requested, the ‘Designated Member Review’ (DMR) process is implemented. In this process, at least one (1) IACUC member, designated by the Chairperson and qualified to conduct the review, reviews the application and has the authority to approve, require modifications to secure approval, or request full committee review of the application.
Step 3.2: If the application must go to full committee for review, the application is distributed to the entire IACUC at least one (1) week prior to the Committee’s monthly meeting. The Chairperson assigns a voting member of the Committee to be the lead reviewer of the application and begin discussion of the application at the next meeting.
Step 3.3: When a protocol is reviewed at a duly convened meeting and it is determined that substantive information is lacking such that a response from the PI is required, the IACUC may take either of the following actions:
a. Require modifications to secure approval and require that the revised protocol be returned for FCR at a subsequent duly-convened meeting; OR
b. Because all members of the UNC Charlotte IACUC have agreed in advance in writing, the committee may use “DMR Subsequent to FCR” based on the following:
- All IACUC members have agreed in advance in writing that the quorum of members present at a convened meeting may decide by unanimous vote to use DMR subsequent to FCR when modification is needed to secure approval;
- In this scenario, it is understood that any member of the IACUC may, at any time, request to see the revised protocol and/or request FCR of the protocol.
- The approval date is the date that the designated member approves the study. Animal work conducted before this date will be reported to OLAW as a serious noncompliance with PHS Policy.
NOTE: A quorum, consisting of 50 percent of the voting members plus one member, must be present at the IACUC meeting in order to take action on the application. Approval of research projects may only be granted with the approval vote of a majority of the quorum present. The Committee may take the following actions: approve the application, require modifications to secure approval, or withhold approval.
IACUC members must recuse themselves from voting and are restricted from being selected as a reviewer in the DMR review process in the following situations: a) protocols where they are named principal investigator, b) where they are identified in specific roles on the protocol to perform animal research, or c) are involved in other support activities on behalf of the investigator (i.e. peer reviewer for any associated grants, financial backer for the investigator’s start-up company which supports the experimentation under review by the IACUC, etc.).
Following the convened meeting or DMR review, the IACUC Coordinator conveys any concerns or requests for revision to the investigator in writing via email in a timely manner and manages the revision process thereafter.
All experimentation involving the use of hazardous biological, chemical or radioactive agents in animals will be reviewed by the IACUC in conjunction with concurrent review by other compliance committees/review bodies (i.e. Institutional Biosafety Committee for biohazards, Radiation Safety Committee for radiation hazards, and the Environmental Health and Safety Office for chemical hazards). No experimentation proposing use of hazardous agents/materials can be performed until the respective compliance committee(s)/review body(ies) has/have reviewed and approved the proposed project.
When conditions for approval have been met and any additional regulatory committee review and approval is in place, the ORPI notifies the investigator and Institutional Official in writing that approval has been granted and the study may begin. In addition, the Director of Laboratory Animal Resources is similarly notified that the study work may begin.
If approval is denied, the ORPI similarly notifies the investigator and provides the Committee’s rationale for denying approval. The investigator can submit a new protocol or file an appeal in writing to the IACUC.
AMENDMENTS TO ACTIVE PROTOCOLS
Any planned revision to an approved protocol must be submitted via an Amendment Form to the Office of Research Protections and Integrity via email (uncc-iacuc@charlotte.edu) for review and approval prior to implementation. The IACUC distinguishes proposed changes to protocols as either minor or major/significant. See the “Amendment Classifications and IACUC Review Processes Policy” for a listing of examples of minor and major amendments:
Prior to submitting an amendment to the IACUC, the principal investigator must consult with the Attending Veterinarian regarding the category of the proposed change (i.e., minor or major). If the proposed change is not in either of the categories above, the Attending Veterinarian will make the determination regarding the category on a case-by-case basis. The Principal Investigator must consult with the Attending Veterinarian regarding potential painful procedures as well as changes in anesthesia, analgesia and euthanasia.
IACUC approval for all proposed changes to an approved application (i.e. minor and major amendments) is required prior to the 1) procurement of animals; 2) commencement of activities and 3) the implementation of proposed changes to the approved protocol.
Minor Amendments:
Minor amendments may be reviewed by the Committee Chair and/or the Attending Veterinarian and do not require full committee review unless either party requests it.
Major Amendments:
All major amendments require full Committee review.
Step 1: All amendments are first checked by the ORPI for form completion. The amendment is forwarded to the Attending Veterinarian (AV) for input and review of the proposed procedures Both the ORPI and the AV construct a summary of questions or concerns for the Principal Investigator (PI) to address, or request clarifications, if needed, to ensure adequate IACUC review.
Step 2: The ORPI provides feedback to the PI via email regarding any edits/requests for clarification or additional information. The PI can opt to revise and re-submit the application before dissemination to the full Committee, or can choose to receive all requests for revision/clarification after the full Committee has reviewed the submission. If there are no questions for the PI to address, or no requests for revisions, the ORPI will notify the PI of the application status via email and will proceed to the next step in the review process.
Step 3: The amendment is distributed to the IACUC via email for their determination of the level of review needed for the protocol. The Committee may ask for any one of the following review options: 1) use of the Designated Member Review process, 2) review by a quorum of the full Committee at a convened meeting, 3) submission of a new protocol.
Step 3.1: If full committee review is not requested, the ‘Designated Member Review’ (DMR) process is implemented. In this process, at least one (1) IACUC member, designated by the Chairperson and qualified to conduct the review, reviews the amendment and has the authority to approve, require modifications to secure approval, or request full committee review of the application.
Step 3.2: If the amendment must go to full committee for review, it is distributed to the entire IACUC at least one (1) week prior to the Committee’s monthly meeting. The Chairperson assigns a voting member of the Committee to be the lead reviewer and begin discussion of the amendment at the next meeting.
NOTE: A quorum, consisting of 50 percent of the voting members plus one member, must be present at the IACUC meeting in order to take action on the amendment. Approval of major amendments may only be granted with the approval vote of a majority of the quorum present. The Committee may take the following actions: approve the amendment, require modifications to secure approval, or withhold approval.
Following the convened meeting or DMR review, the IACUC Coordinator conveys any concerns or requests for revision to the investigator in writing via email in a timely manner and manages the revision process thereafter.
When conditions for approval have been met and any additional regulatory committee review and approval is in place, the ORPI notifies the investigator and Institutional Official in writing that approval has been granted and the proposed changes may be implemented. In addition, the Director of Laboratory Animal Resources is similarly notified.
If approval is denied, the ORPI similarly notifies the investigator and provides the Committee’s rationale for denying approval. The investigator can submit a new amendment or file an appeal in writing to the IACUC.
NOTE: A maximum of three (3) major amendments per protocol can be submitted for IACUC approval without requiring submission of a new protocol. More than three major amendments require submission of new protocol.
Research Administration Policies
Below are a number of policies and procedures that provide guidance for UNC Charlotte faculty and staff as they develop research proposals, conduct research, and manage awards. This manual is a work-in-progress that will eventually cover proposals and awards from “cradle to grave” (i.e., from proposal preparation to award closeout). As the topics below are finished, the linked documents will explain these policies and procedures and provide information about whom to contact with questions about each area.
Table of Contents
10.0 Overview of Research Administration at UNC Charlotte
20.0 Proposal Development and Submission
- 20.1 PI Status
- 20.2 Deadline for Proposal Submissions to University Offices
- 20.3 Pre-Proposals for Sponsored Projects
- 20.4 PI Minimum Effort on Sponsored Projects
30.0 Research Compliance
40.0 Award Acceptance and Set-up
50.0 Post-Award Administration
- 50.1 Allowable Costs
- 50.2 Travel Funded by Sponsored Awards
- 50.3 Facilities & Administrative (F&A) Costs (University Policy 601.16, Facilities and Administrative Costs)
- 50.4 Program Income
- 50.5 Tuition Remission for Graduate Students Supported by Sponsored Awards
- 50.6 Financial Award Management
- 50.7 Cost Transfer
- 50.8 Sub-Recipient Monitoring
- 50.9 No-Cost Extensions
- 50.10 Publication Costs
60.0 Reporting
70.0 Award Closeout
Glossary
If you have questions about any of the terms used on this page or in any policy statements, please refer to our glossary for definitions.
Library
Getting Started
Current Awards
Current Projects
- Contracts, grants and other agreements with federal agencies and federal contractors remain in effect unless formally modified or a Stop Work Order is received.
- Deliverables, including progress reports, should be submitted as scheduled.
- Continuation awards and prior approvals that require sponsor staff review may be delayed.
- Continue non-DEI projects unless you receive a project Stop Work Order.
- Do not spend down projects at a faster pace than corresponds to your proposed work. Closely monitor project budgets and burn rates . Deficits should be avoided.
- Spending against future funds should be limited as future obligations may be delayed. In extreme cases, expenditures against future funding may not be reimbursed.
Projects with DEI Activities
- If your work does have DEI-related activity, then consider pausing on that activity while focusing on the non-DEI activity.
- If your project is mostly focused on DEI, then begin to think about how project activities could be broadened and less subject to a future compliance concern.
- Funds allocated for DEI activities on federal awards should not be re-budgeted, nor used for other purposes without sponsor approval.
- Continue non-DEI activities on the project unless you receive a project Stop Work Order.
- If you have any questions about activities, expenditures or personnel/students working on the project, please reach out to dr-vc-avc@charlotte.edu
Project Stop Work Orders
- Federal reviews are unfolding and so we anticipate hearing more on specific projects in the near future. The result for any project could be an instruction to resume work, an award modification, or a termination.
- UNC Charlotte has received both agency-wide stop orders and individual project stop orders.
- Watch for clarifying statements directly from your sponsor agency and/or from the Division of Research/ORS/OSPA team.
- If we receive a stop order on your project, we will immediately notify you.
- While a Stop Work Order is in effect, researchers should not be conducting sponsored project activities or incurring new operational costs. Please be sure all project personnel, including subrecipients, are informed.
- In all cases, if you have received a stop work order, let the Division of Research know so that we can comply and work with you.
Submitting Proposals
Things To Think About
- All submissions have to be done via NinerInsider
- Before submitting, researchers can have their proposals proof read
- More
- More
- More
Contact
If you have specific questions or concerns regarding federal funding and Executive Orders, please reach out to us at dr-vc-avc@charlotte.edu . This way multiple people are monitoring and we can respond as quickly as possible getting it to the right person.
Resources
Timeline of Executive Orders and Communications
2/7/2025: Announcement of NIH overhead rate cap
1/31/2025: Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) Issued
1/29/2025: OMB rescinds Memorandum-25-13, its order to broadly freeze grants, loans, and other financial assistance programs. Students will receive financial assistance without interruption. The President’s Executive Orders from the past week remain in effect.
1/28/2025: A federal judge suspended the temporary freeze issued in OMB Memorandum 25-13 until Monday, Feb 3.
1/28/2025: NSF Implementation of Recent Executive Orders
1/28/2025: OMB issued clarification that programs not implicated by the President’s Executive Orders are not subject to the temporary pause mandate issued on 1/27/2025.
1/27/2025: Internal memo on to NIH staff clarifying restrictions that President Donald Trump’s new administration implemented for HHS staff last week.
1/27/2025: OMB: Memorandum for Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies (Memorandum 25-13)
1/21/2025: The Department of Health and Human Services issued a memo outlining short-term action for the department and its agencies, which has caused cancellations of some study sections for the National Institutes of Health, potentially delaying some new awards.
Other Resources
Science Article on NIH Overhead and Explanation of F&A by Association of American Medical Colleges
COGR 2025 Administration Transition Information & Resources
Division of Research Communication & Activity
Jan 24
- Organized pull of active awards and started review
- First email to the research community
Jan 27
- Organized a common directory for all DR research admin professionals in ORS and OSPA for Exec Orders
- Identified Darl Booker as the point for communicating with PIs on received pause orders; created a template
- Sent college level active award Excel file to each Dean/ADR
Jan 29
- Second email to research community
- Second comprehensive pull of active awards applying keywords from Exec Orders that including subawards we manage
- DR research admin professionals zoom
- UIDP webinar
Jan 31
- APLU-COR zoom: Peer Discussions
- System CRO zoom: Peer Discussions
- Review of approach with Legal
- Temp Restraining Order Issued (Feb 2 email from NSF)
Week of Feb 3
- Website with information
- Third email from Division of Research on 2/5/2025
- Open Zoom/townhalls starting Feb 7 and into following weeks