Together with a senior researcher acting as the P.I., we were recently funded a research project. I wrote 75% of the application, including the whole research hypotheses and design. The Representative of Good Scientific Practice states that the success of the grant proposal could be obtained only by the collaboration of all authors.
I originally wrote the research application for a post-doc position in which I would figure as the P.I., and gave the title of P.I. to the actual principal investigator after he proposed to provide additional funding for a Ph.D. student without scholarship.
The part that gets interesting consists in the fact that the original proposal I wrote and we submitted presented a certain innovative hypothesis at the core of the project, which had to both define my intended research path and a series of operations during the project. When the project started, the P.I. removed those hypotheses from our plan, considering those hypotheses wrong in themselves and unrelated to our research questions, demoting me from the leadership that we previously agreed and excluding me from the decision-making process. The new project is not anymore informed by the original hypotheses written in the proposal - so it is a project similar in methodology, but different in theme of inquiry. It is important to highlight that the hypotheses were abandoned after just 2 months from the starting.
This made me think: if the proposal was successful only because of the contribution of all authors, is it correct for a designated P.I. to change the nature of the project without the consent of the other authors?