I personally feel the long-term goal for any sponsored project is not
achieved with the simple act of being funded; rather it is the successful
completion of the project as a result of the partnership afforded by the
sponsor.  I have personally known about projects "ghost" written largely by
one faculty with a vision, but conducted largely by another individual with
much less (i.e. no) vision.  The end result becomes an institutional
management problem as a result of non-compliance or mediocre performance,
and the offsetting costs are not always clear in relation to the benefit.
Therefore, I am a big supporter of multiple reviews with the ultimate
responsibility for the text being left to the first-named PI.

 Also, I have long thought that it is ironic that plagiarism, etc. has
been attacked so vigorously in project reports of all kinds with no
comparable attention to proposals signed by one individual but with words
and ideas included that really come from another.  There seems to me a fine
line between having a grant writer simply smooth the words (comparable to
having a computer calculate a budget total when the PI cannot add) vs.
having the grant writer put on paper a vision that is not shared or
understood by the PI.

 Another more real problem might be for a grant writer to include words
and ideas from another document they have written without direct
acknowledgement, and the PI who signs could then be accused of plagiarism
without proper citations.  There are obviously many factors which must be
considered.  T-

Terry A. May, Ph.D.                       Voice:    520-523-6788
  Director of Research Administration     FAX:      520-523-1075
  Office of Grant & Contract Services     INTERNET: xxxxxx@nau.edu
  100 Babbitt Admin. Ctr., Box 4130
  Northern Arizona University
  Flagstaff, AZ  86011-4130