As to the message below.  The recent federal court case involving a Big 10
university, where a PI exaggerated the level of involvement of industrial
collaborators in a proposal to NSF, should be enough to deter any
investigator from making similar mistakes; AND, is a very good case in point
about the responsibilities of a university in making good faith efforts to
ensure that such claims have a basis in fact.  If I have my facts straight,
the university was fined and the PI was fined and sentenced to jail time.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sally Eckert-Tilotta (Sally Eckert-Tilotta)
> [SMTP:xxxxxx@MAIL.UND.NODAK.EDU]
> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 1999 10:16 AM
> To:   xxxxxx@hrinet.org
> Subject:      Job of a research administrator
>
 [snip]
> 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.
>

======================================================================
 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")
======================================================================