Hello all:

We are in the middle of compiling the data for our upcoming indirect cost
rate negotiation.  A consultant has recommended that we categorize clinical
trials as "other sponsored programs" for IDC purposes.  Currently clinical
trials are tabbed here as research (and in the research base potentially
reducing our rate).  The consultant has indicated that many medical schools
are handling it this way.  I'm looking for verification that this
consultant is correct.  Any comments anyone has on pros and cons would also
be appreciated.  One potential downside mentioned by a colleague was that
clinical trials were designated as research to avoid potential UBIT
issues.  I wouldn't think that changing the designation for financial
statement purposes would impact UBIT.  I would think that the nature of the
activity would be a more important UBIT test.

Thanks in advance.

Jeff Myers
Southern Illinois University

======================================================================
 Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including
 subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available
 via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists")
======================================================================