Hi Jesse,
Great questions. I haven't handled an NIH grant, but from my understanding:
1. As far as grant management issues go I believe NIH has jurisdiction. When I look into NIH compliance requirements, I find:
Audit requirements:
NIH Grants Policy Statement (2013)
16.7.4 Audit
Foreign grantees are subject to the same audit requirements as for-profit organizations (specified in 45 CFR 74.26(d) and in the Grants to For-Profit Organizations chapter).
Admin requirements:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2005-title2-vol1/pdf/CFR-2005-title2-vol1.pdf
In this document it says "Federal agencies may apply the provisions of subparts A through D of this part to commercial organizations, foreign governments, organizations under the jurisdiction of foreign government"
I think in certain situations NIH will probably have to work with its counterpart in the foreign country/government, but any disputes can definitely start with NIH as the main sponsor.
2. If the dispute you mention does not fall into one of the four determinations listed on that link, NIH might or might not have jurisdictional grounds over that particular matter of dispute. They're pretty general however, so in most cases NIH likely has jurisdiction.
3. I think as a grant recipient the only case where the foreign institution might have troubles accepting this jurisdiction is (1) it is against the institution's own policies, so they will need to communicate with NIH exactly where and why they cannot accept such jurisdiction - for NIH to actually compromise on this ground (aka. not having the same amount of control over how this recipient will handle our taxpayers' money) seems pretty unlikely to me; or (2) it is against the law of that foreign country - if so it might seem they should not receive the grant, however the foreign government might decide to provide exceptions depending on the nature and scale of the research. In that case as long as it's all legally and properly documented I think NIH could decide to go forward with issuing the grant, since any case of dispute shall be based on said exceptions rather than the general law, as agreed upon by the foreign government.
These are my two cents. I'd be curious to learn what others' experiences have been in this case, either with NIH or other federal sponsors. My gut feeling is always that the sponsor and country where it's located should have jurisdiction over that of the recipient.
Best,
Thanh.
------------------------------
Thanh Than
Financial and Administrative Associate
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 05-12-2015 15:37
From: Jesse Szeto
Subject: NIH grants to non-U.S. institution - who has jurisdiction?
This message has been cross posted to the following Discussions: Global Community and International Region .
-------------------------------------------
Three questions regarding this:
- When a non-U.S. institution accepts an NIH grant, what is the jurisdiction that is specified in the case of a dispute?
- And where is this issue dealt with? Is it in the NIH Grants Policy Statement 8.7 Grant Appeals Process: 8.7 Grant Appeals Procedures?
- Do non-U.S. institutions have any trouble in accepting this jurisdiction?
Thanks for any insights and help,
Jesse
------------------------------
Jesse Szeto
Senior Manager of NCURA Global
National Council of University Research Administrators
Washington, DC
202-466-3894
------------------------------