Lynzee, as usual you have hit the nail on the head.

It is unfortunate that these foundations have adopted a process which, by a
very small error in design, creates an adversarial relationship within
those very disciplines and institutions which can best achieve these
foundations' goals.

Happy Holidays, anyway!!

Chuck

At 11:19 AM 12/18/99 -0800, you wrote:
>Hello Fellow Research Administrators,
>
> After reading the information below I went to the commons site.  It is
>described as a site for foundation applications.
>> To participate in the practice period, go to
>> > www.foundationcommons.org, click on the American Cancer
>> > Society logo, click on the "Begin" button and follow
>> > the instructions given. Technical assistance is
>> > available through the web site.
>> >
>> > American Cancer Society was the founding member of the
>> > Consortium developing Foundation Commons, designed as a
>> > common site for foundation grant applications----------
>>
>  Before I even got to the section relating to the application, it became
>clear to me that this is a site for gathering data on Research Faculty and
>their interests, including their social security number.  I could not
>proceed any farther because I left all this blank.    As we all know this is
>valuable information which can be sold and used for any number of purposes.
>
>
>I agree with the serious concerns regarding this development of methodology
>for faculty to submit applications directly without going through the
>institution.  Soon enough these Foundations will find that they are busy
>wasting their time reviewing applications with out an institutional sponsor.
>What a waste of the generous contributions to these Charitable Foundations.
>
>What would the contributors think if they understood the money making
>potential of the information on Research Scientists gathered in this
>process.  Or what would they think of the underhanded  and single-handed way
>in which this is being done.
>
>This is a sad use of a brilliant technology.  A foundation commons  that
>registers the institution rather than the faculty would begin to serve the
>application process.  This will allow the institution to maintain ownership
>of the information on their faculty and to have control of who submits
>applications.  Once the Institution registers the faculty, they could then
>have access to the forms.
>
>Oh please,  with the language that you want the faculty to have direct
>access to the commons so you would not discriminate against faculty with no
>institution.   Most, if not all the sponsor policies even say that the funds
>are awarded to institutions.  Who is going to be able to accomplish
>significant biomedical research with $75 to $150 thousand a year with out
>being associated with an institution?  It is going to take a lot to convince
>me that this design is not for the purpose of collecting data on research
>faculty.
>
>
>======================================================================
> 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")
>======================================================================
>
Herbert B. Chermside, CRA
Director, Sponsored Programs Administration
Virginia Commonwealth University
PO BOX 980568
Richmond, VA  23298-0568
Express Delivery Only:
 Sanger Hall, Rm. 1-073
 11th & Marshall Streets
 Richmond, VA  23219
Voice:  804-828-6772
Fax     804-828-2521
OFFICE e-mail   xxxxxx@VCU.EDU
Personal e-mail xxxxxx@vcu.edu
http://views.vcu.edu/views/ospa/

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