See full text of original message below but consider this comment:
"...the PI signing the
proposal could be guilty of misconduct by assuming
responsibility for the work of another. "

What is the "work" in question?  The proposal is a description
of a project to be done.  Cannot anyone write the description
as long as the person(s) indicated in the description actually
carries out the project?  While I would agree with many of those
writing earlier that faculty should be able to write their own
proposals, I can see circumstances where collective writing
or even primary writing by someone other than the PI might be needed.

Is a proposal to be awarded based on the quality of the proposal
writing or on the merits of the project and the ability of those
proposed to do the project.  I think the latter two.  True, the
quality of the proposal writing might be an indicator of the
abiltiy of the PI to do the work; a vita better indicates that
persons cabability.  In situations where a number of faculty, from
different units, are collaborationg in a large project, is it not
usually the case that only one person would "write" the proposal.

Anyway, I cannot support the position that a PI must be the
author of a proposal as long as the PI can and will do the
work described.

Bob Beattie
Research Development and Administration
The University of Michigan
xxxxxx@umich.edu
_______________________________________________________________________________

>From: Research Administration Discussion List on Thu, Apr 23, 1998 5:47 PM
>Subject: Do people need help with proposal writing?
>To: xxxxxx@hrinet.org
>
>     I believe there is no question that assistance in reviewing and
>editing of professional papers and proposals is an accepted and valuable
>practice.  However, I would like to raise a slightly different issue that I
>think needs to be considered.  If a proposal is written largely by one
>individual and another signs it as the PI, then I think the PI signing the
>proposal could be guilty of misconduct by assuming responsibility for the
>work of another.  I know that "ghost writing" is a generally accepted
>practice, but I believe it should be avoided for many reasons, including
>this one.
>
>
>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
>
>------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------
>Received: by mail3.drda.umich.edu with ADMIN;23 Apr 1998 17:44:25 -0400
>Received: (from xxxxxx@localhost)
>       by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.8.5/2.5) with X.500 id RAA27346; Thu, 23 Apr
>1998 17:43:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.hrinet.org
>(hriweb1.wadsworth.org [199.184.19.20])
>       by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.8.5/2.5) with SMTP id RAA27302; Thu, 23 Apr
>1998 17:43:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hriweb1 by mail.hrinet.org
>(SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
>       id RAA04923; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 17:25:41 -0400
>Received: from HRINET.ORG by HRINET.ORG (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
>          spool id 0209 for xxxxxx@HRINET.ORG; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 17:22:53
>-0400 Received: from mailgate.nau.edu by mail.hrinet.org (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id
>          RAA04849; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 17:22:51 -0400
>Received: from [134.114.24.95] (mac6.grad.nau.edu) by mailgate.nau.edu (PMDF
>          V5.1-10 #29067) with SMTP id <xxxxxx@mailgate.nau.edu> for
>          xxxxxx@hrinet.org; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 14:27:45 -0700 (MST)
>X-Sender: xxxxxx@nau.edu
>MIME-version: 1.0
>Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Message-ID:  <xxxxxx@[134.114.24.95]>
>Date:         Thu, 23 Apr 1998 14:30:54 -0700
>Reply-To: Research Administration Discussion List <xxxxxx@hrinet.org>
>Sender: Research Administration List <xxxxxx@hrinet.org>
>From: "Terry A. May" <xxxxxx@NAU.EDU>
>Subject:      Do people need help with proposal writing?
>To: xxxxxx@hrinet.org