Comments:
PLEASE REMOVE ME FROM THIS MAILING LIST!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Original Message - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To:             <xxxxxx@hrinet.org>
From:           "Sally Eckert-Tilotta (Sally Eckert-Tilotta)"
 <Sally_Eckert-Ti
Date:           Friday, April 24, 1998 at 10:00:55 am EDT
Attached:       Headers.822

UNDEFINED '"Sally Eckert-Tilotta (Sally Eckert-Tilotta)" <xxxxxx@MAIL.UND.NODAK.EDU>'

UNDEFINED

Bob pretty well expressed my sentiments on the subject.  If there is reason to be concerned about the PI not being the author of the proposal, then a number of researchers are in trouble.  It is not uncommon to require post-docs (and grad students, although I don't think that practice is as common) to write proposals to support their work, and these are submitted under the researcher's name .***************************************************Sally Eckert-Tilotta, PhD, Assistant to the DirectorOffice of Research and Program DevelopmentUniversity of North DakotaGrand Forks, ND  58202email:  xxxxxx@mail.und.nodak.edutel:  701-777-2049fax: 701-777-2504>>> Bob Beattie <xxxxxx@UMICH.EDU> 04/24 8:03 AM >>>See full text of original message below but consider this comment:"...the PI signing theproposal could be guilty of misconduct by assumingresponsibility for the work of another. "What is the "work" in question?  The proposal is a descriptionof a project to be done.  C!
!
annot anyone write the descriptionas long as the person(s) indicated in the description actuallycarries out the project?  While I would agree with many of thosewriting earlier that faculty should be able to write their ownproposals, I can see circumstances where collective writingor even primary writing by someone other than the PI might be needed.Is a proposal to be awarded based on the quality of the proposalwriting or on the merits of the project and the ability of thoseproposed to do the project.  I think the latter two.  True, thequality of the proposal writing might be an indicator of theabiltiy of the PI to do the work; a vita better indicates thatpersons cabability.  In situations where a number of faculty, fromdifferent units, are collaborationg in a large project, is it notusually the case that only one person would "write" the proposal.Anyway, I cannot support the position that a PI must be theauthor of a proposal as long as the PI can and will do thework described.!
!
Bob BeattieResearch Development and AdministrationThe University of 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>  Direct!
!
or 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