Don't scientific misconduct definitions have lots exceptions based on intent?
I too am uncomfortable with boilerplates but not because of plagiarism.  Since
boilerplate info usually goes into those sections of a proposal that no one
prioritizes, I always fear that a last minute attempt to complete these
sections will find inappropriately broad or generic or irrelevant info getting
inserted.
Boilerplates should indeed be viewed as data rather than text.  Then it can be
tailored for the specific use.

Charlie

Quoting Gary Talarchek <xxxxxx@LOYNO.EDU>:

> Given that plagiarism in a proposal qualifies as scientific misconduct,
> I am uncomfortable with any boilerplate.  Better to provide the
> institutional information in a format that writers can easily use and
> let them craft the language.  Perhaps this was not the intent of the
> misconduct regulation, but I feel a strict interpretation of the rule
> does not allow for boilerplate without quotation marks. I would value
> comments from colleagues on this opinion.
>
> Gary M. Talarchek, Ph.D.
> Director of Grants and Research
> Loyola University New Orleans
> 6363 St. Charles Avenue
> New Orleans, LA 70118
> Voice: 504-864-7244
> Fax: 504-864-7270
>
>
> ======================================================================
>  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")
> ======================================================================
>

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