Marcia-
IF your aim is "to further the success of our investigators" you should
somehow preach that proposals completed at the last minute are seldom in
optimal shape.  When competition for funding is so intense, when reviewers
are unpaid human beings who might be reading a proposal at 2 AM, when the
slightest grammatical error or failure to follow guidelines or misuse of
words (not to mention serious errors in a budget or research plan) can
influence a reviewer's decimal point priority score decision, when giving a
colleague (or 2?) a couple of weeks to review one's application can often
substitute for one NIH cycle's study section review....WHY NOT do what it
REALLY takes to get funded?

What succeeds in science is not the best idea but the best DEFENDED idea.
 The same principle applies to grant applications.  Encourage people to
take the time to defend their applications from unnecessary criticism and
you just might make "a difference to the career of the investigator, the
 status of the institution, or to the world at large".

Charlie Hathaway
Research Foundation for Mental Hygiene, Inc.
New York State Psychiatric Institute
NYC

-----Original Message-----
From:   Marcia Weis [SMTP:xxxxxx@PATH.UAB.EDU]
Sent:   Thursday, February 26, 1998 9:56 AM
To:     Multiple recipients of list RESADM-L
Subject:        Re: Internal Proposal Submission deadline survey -Reply -Reply

Bill, this is what I've been thinking about while reading these.  Yes,
it is frustrating when proposals come in at inconvenient times and/or
the last minute.  Of course, a lot could have been averted by better
planning on the part of the PI.  However, we are here to further the
success of our investigators and our institutions.  Not submitting the
proposal that just could have made a difference to the career of the
investigator, the status of the institution, or to the world at large
because it didn't get in the appropriate number of days in advance would
be a real shame . . . and we would be to blame.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Kirby [SMTP:xxxxxx@POSTOFFICE.WORLDNET.ATT.NET]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 1998 12:13 PM
> To:   Multiple recipients of list RESADM-L
> Subject:      Re: Internal Proposal Submission deadline survey -Reply
> -Reply
>
> I have been following this thread with a lot of interest. Seems like
> many
> institutions try to enforce deadline limits, with predictable results.
> I
> know this will provoke a firestorm: Why is it that when every other
> "business" that I can think of is trying to move toward "anytime,
> anyplace"
> service in order to stay competitive, some research administrators are
> trying to "draw lines in the sand"? I realize proposals are not
> anything
> like sending flowers at the last moment, but come on folks... Is this
> the
> way to add value to the process?
>
> Bill Kirby
> xxxxxx@worldnet.att.net
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gerald McCulloh <xxxxxx@WPO.IT.LUC.EDU>; Research
> Administration
> Discussion Group <xxxxxx@health.state.ny.us>
> To: Multiple recipients of list RESADM-L <xxxxxx@health.state.ny.us>
> Date: Thursday, February 19, 1998 5:51 PM
> Subject: Internal Proposal Submission deadline survey -Reply -Reply
>
>
> >Lines drawn in the sand. No there's a metaphor whose time has come.
> >The formal statement of a deadline policy is needed to protect staff
> >from thoughtless abuse by those who make their own emergency everyone
> >else's. The frequent exception is appropriate accommodation to an
> >imperfect world. Too much time solving the dilemma is better spent
> >elsewhere. My next line in the sand is____________________