This is really an interesting issue.  While it is pretty easy to develop an announcement and selection process (we have a standing "Awards Committee" composed of faculty who choose the candidate based on CV, short proposal, and dept chair letter of rec), it is never without wrinkles; Chuck and Leonard alluded to a few potential, very real problems.

As more funding agencies begin to see the value of getting institutions to do the bulk of the review work, these kinds of internal selections will become more common and the decision-making more involved.  I have recently seen a large private foundation requiring both internal selection of a single candidate AND solicitation of outside reviews of the proposal PRIOR to submission to the foundation.  Of course, if these requirements are coupled to the refusal to pay indirect costs, you start to wonder who is really being philanthropic.

The larger issue concerns the usefulness of institution-initiated pre-submission pre-selection.  For those cases in which we can be confident that merit is the overriding criterion for award selection (I think most federal research funding falls into this group), and truly believe that it is  possible for half of the 10 grants made by an agency to go to 5 labs at one school, there is no need for intervention.

But, when it comes to other funding, we might take a few lessons from the development people.  These fundraising/foundation pros will tell you that many boards making funding decisions get confused when they see multiple applications from a single institution.  So, restricting applications to those submitted by 1 or more approved candidates, and perhaps investing resources to maximize quality of those applications, probably makes a lot of sense.

The problem is being undemocratic in a culture that often views the academic as a self-employed entrepreneur who is free to do whatever he or she wants.  But most faculty understand that grants are not really their property and that schools have an interest in grants that goes beyond the support of the ideas and careers of individuals.  I think the trick is to convince the faculty that consideration of competitiveness is good for everyone.  Less time wasted, more money received.  And if Prof X does not get the nod (and the extra help!) this time, he might next time.

Charlie

At 03:09 PM 9/30/02 -0500, you wrote:
>        Greetings,      We are in the process of developing a policy for
>the institution that addresses decisions about which of two or more
>investigators can submit a proposal to a funding agency when the agency
>will allow an institution to submit only one proposal. Does anyone
>currently have a policy or process in place that they are willing to share?
>     Wendy A. Lawrence-Fowler, Ph.D.  Assoc. VP for Research  University of
>Texas-Pan American  Edinburg, TX  78539
**************************************
Charles B. Hathaway, Ph.D., Director
Office of Grant Support
Albert Einstein College of Medicine
1300 Morris Park Avenue
Bronx, NY 10461-1975
Phone: 718 430-3642     Fax: 718 430-8822
email: xxxxxx@aecom.yu.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")
======================================================================