On Tuesday I posted a question about obtaining backup documentation for
external persons listed in proposals.  Below is a summary of the responses
that I received.  Basically, I expected some support but what I got was an
overwhelming - YES you must have assurance that the collaborator or
consultant or advisor knows they have been included in the proposal and
concur with the way in which they have been represented.  Whether or not
you actually hold proof in your hand or the various approvers at your
campus certify that all is in order, the assurance that those persons
mentioned in the proposal knew that they were involved and agree with their
involvement is an absolute requirement.

Here are a few excerpts from the information I received......

"...we always require at a minimum a copy of an e-mail indicating the
individual's willingness to work with the researcher."

"...I usually insist on some sort of evidence that they [external
collaborator] are aware of what we're saying."

"...we always require a letter or at the very least an e-mail [...] from
the person confirming that they are going to provide what it says in the
application they will provide."

note:  from someone who has served on an NIH review panel  "...panel
reviewers take the presence or lack of commitment letters very seriously
and are always skeptical when a "name is dropped" and no letter of
commitment is included."

"  as a reviewer and a submitter, I never mentioned someone in my grant
applications without making sure I could document the commitment for the
review panel"

After watching the SRA teleconference on RCR yesterday, I began to view
this as not only institutional policy/practice but as an ethical problem.
A few respondents also pointed out the professional misconduct aspects of
"dropping names" to make an application seem more than it really is.
Additionally, as an offer to a sponsor, a proposal could become subject to
the false claims act if we state therein things that we really can't do -
that is collaborate with people we really don't intend to collaborate with.
 One respondent suggested that lawsuits are a very real possibility when
someone's name is used without their knowledge.

I am certain this investigator never intended to defraud anyone and am
certain that he likely has all his "ducks in a row", however, I did ask him
for the backup as a matter of consistent office practice to show that
whether I trust him or not is not the issue, consistency in practice is the
issue.  Although we did not withhold our approval on his proposal
submission and told him he could provide the info later at his convenience
(but sometime before the award was received), he blasted me by e-mail this
morning.

c'est la vie.

Thanks so much to all of you who responded.  Your comments told me what I
already knew but they gave me the encouragement and confidence I needed to
stand firm in our practice thus insuring fairness to all the faculty
investigators that we represent and serve.
******************************************
Martha M. Taylor, Director
Office of Sponsored Programs
310 Samford Hall
Auburn University, AL 36849-5131

334-844-4438
334-844-5953 (fax)

xxxxxx@auburn.edu

======================================================================
 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")
======================================================================