If you are reviewing the grant for it's readiness for submission, then one
of the things that should be included in any proposal listing consultants or
collaborators is a letter of support from that individual.  Is it your job
to secure the letter?  That would depend on the protocol established at your
institution, but I would suggest that it should probably not be.  However,
it is your job to insure that falsified proposals do not go out from your
institution.

In grantsmanship training classes that I conduct for investigators, I always
suggest that they

1.      secure letters of support from collaborators/consultants well in
advance of the deadline so that they are not rushing around at the last
minute scrambling for these things;
2.      draft the letter for the consultant/collaborator which outlines
exactly what the person is agreeing to do, this way everything is on the
table up front and it's easier to get the signature.

When I served as an institutional reviewer, I would document that these
letters needed to be inserted before the proposal was mailed.  If they did
it anyway, then I could at least show that a good faith effort was made.

If it was an in-house collaborator, and I suspected subversive activity, I
might be inclined to pick up the phone and give the unwitting collaborator a
call.

Is it a big deal?  Well, let me put it this way... if you (the hypothetical
you) are signing for your institution, you are verifying that the
application is a true and accurate representation of what is proposed based
on reality.  If something in that application is falsely represented, you
know or suspect it, and you sign it, you definitely are not upholding the
public trust.  Yeah, I'd say it was a big deal.  I would imagine that the
person's time that is being committed without their permission might think
it was a big deal as well.... especially if their name is being linked with
a proposal that they might choose not to add their name to because it's
substandard.  I also would think that the peer review group might think it's
a big deal if someone's name was added to give a proposal credibility who
had no idea they were named and no intention of working on the project.

So securing the letter may not be your job, but insuring that falsified
proposals don't leave your institution is your job.  How best to handle that
would be based on your particular university environment.

Jennifer Morgan, M.H.A.
Director, Office of Grants and Contracts
Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic
University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Health Systems
3811 O'Hara Street, Pittsburgh PA  15213
Voice:  412-624-0743  Fax:  412-624-0714

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sally Eckert-Tilotta (Sally Eckert-Tilotta)
> [ mailto:xxxxxx@MAIL.UND.NODAK.EDU
<mailto:xxxxxx@MAIL.UND.NODAK.EDU> ]
> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 1999 10:16 AM
> To: xxxxxx@hrinet.org
> Subject: Job of a research administrator
>
>
> We're having a debate here as to the responsibilities of a research
> administrator.  I would appreciate input from the list.
>
> Collaborative proposals get submitted involving a number of
> faculty/research
> staff across various colleges and centers (but within the
> institution).  We ask
> for signatures from the PI, dept chairs, and the
> corresponding dean of the
> college, and we try to get signatures from co-I (s) and
> corresponding dean(s)
> (cooperation is spotty in some cases).  However, these proposals list
> collaborators from the institution that are not co-I (s) and
> therefore there is
> no indication that they have agreed to participate.
>
> We have had a group submit proposals naming collaborators who
> I found were
> unaware of the existance of the proposal.  While technical
> discussions had
> previously taken place, no definite commitment had been made.
>
> A situation has come up in which investigators (who I was
> under the impression
> were not going to participate) are listed as collaborators on
> a proposal from
> that same group.  Some in our office have said that it isn't
> our job to question
> or confirm participants.  We have to believe those persons
> submitting the
> proposal.
>
> With that long intro, my questions are:
>
> What are the practices at your institution on this?
> Do you agree that it isn't our job?
> Is it no big deal?
>
>
> ***************************************************
> Sally Eckert-Tilotta, PhD, Assistant to the Director
> Office of Research and Program Development
> University of North Dakota
> Grand Forks, ND  58202
> email:  xxxxxx@mail.und.nodak.edu
> tel:  701-777-2049
> fax: 701-777-2504
>
>
> ======================================================================
>  Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including
>  subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available
>  via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org <http://www.hrinet.org>  (click
on "Listserv Lists")
> ======================================================================
>

======================================================================
 Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including
 subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available
 via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists")
======================================================================