-Reply

Randall,

I question whether or not most people are able to go directly to the
correct web page directly from their mailers.  I have been asking our
Information and Technology Systems Department for months when they
plan to upgrade to such a system as you describe.  Unfortunately, it
doesn't look like this will happen at Saint Louis University in the near
future.

I wonder if NIH realizes what a precarious situation smaller institutions
(and perhaps even some large institutions) are in.  Just because one
person can do something technologically at one institution, does not
mean that "everyone" or that even "most" have the capability at other
institutions.  Has anyone at NIH sent out any surveys about exactly what
institutions have in the way of an electronic infrastructure?

I think what many forget is that it doesn't necessarily take state-of-the-art
multimedia computer to perform every type of research.  That's not to
say that it doesn't help.  According to NIH Extramural Trends publication,
"The top 24 institutions received 37 to 39 percent of the total dollar
awards each year.  The group of institutions ranked 26 through 50 was
awarded an 18 percent share every year (except 19 percent in FY
1985).  The group ranked 51 through 100 also received an 18 percent
share every year.  The institutions ranked over 100 received 24 to 27
percent of the funds each year, and increased by 500 over the decade."

I would venture to say that the top 25 institutions have far more
sophisticated computer technology than those ranked over 100.  I also
am interested to see what the long-term affects will be on smaller
institutions, especially if more and more research decisions hinge on
advanced computer technology.  Will everyone benefit by electronic
research administration?

Will we see more and more research funds going to the top 25
institutions in the future, and less of a share going to those institutions
ranked over 100?  What other measures will NIH come up with to save
costs?  Perhaps NIH's next goal will be to have fewer institutions
receiving awards, and thus reduce the overall paperwork and computer
entry necessary to maintain grants?  In my opinion, doing away with the
electronic edition of the NIH GUIDE will undoubtedly hurt smaller
institutions with fewer support staff.

Regardless of what the overall impact will be at smaller institutions, I
question what NIH really gains in the long run by doing away with the NIH
GUIDE, since they will still have to maintain NIHTOC-L.  Undoubtedly, the
next step will be for NIH to do away with NIHTOC-L.

Once again, I ask, how can anyone consider this to be progress?  Is
there anyone from NIH subscribed to the list who can help us understand
how NIH will benefit from the not providing a mailed electronic version of
the NIH GUIDE?

Mike Luczak
Grants Administrator
Saint Louis University Health Sciences Center
xxxxxx@wpogate.slu.edu
Phone:  314-577-8108
Fax:  314-268-5551

>>> Randall Legeai <xxxxxx@MAILHOST.TCS.TULANE.EDU> 09/26/97
04:10pm >>>
At 09:46 AM 9/26/97 -0700, you wrote:
>Their response was that it's basically a done deal already,
>and that I should subscribe to NIHTOC-L (table of contents of the
>guide emailed to me).  I've done that, but Mr. Luczak reminds me that
>I too, wondered how much money they will really save by doing this
>radical change?

If they simply add the appropriate URL to the NIHTOC-L e-mail, most
people would be able to go directly to the correct web page directly from
their mailers.

============================
Randall Legeai
Assoc. Director, Institutional Program Development & Gov't/Agency
Affairs
Tulane University, New Orleans LA 70118; (504) 865-5758; fax (504)
865-5274 http://www.tulane.edu/~govtaff/rlhome.htm