On Tue, 17 Sep 2002 04:03:37 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote: [ ... ] > > : It is an interesting observation. I have always wandered why granting > : agencies prefer to deal with organizations rather than with > : individuals
Are you kidding? Are you naive? Isn't it obvious on two seconds of reflection? I guess it is sort-of like the related fact, that Banks don't want to give you a loan if you only have a PO Box as an address, no co-signer, and no references. In addition to the 'dishonesty' factor, there's the idea that a researcher should not have to be qualified as an accountant. > : although the fact that some of the universities take up to > : 100% for overhead is very well known. That is why research became so > : expensive. And in general companies prefer consulting firms to > : individual contractors. Again it increases the cost. > > <snip> > > I've found that out here in Canada. There's government money available > for a researcher who's investigating a currently popular subject and who's > affiliated with either a university or a company. Independent researchers > are more likely out of luck. Or they can find a company that exists for the purpose of administrating grants. A number of years before NIH was doing very much, the State of Maryland legislated that funding rule. "Friends of Psychiatric Research" administered grants, and did nothing else -- it had been founded by doctors from a state mental hospital. The hospital system decided not to bother with grants, but their doctors still could. My first job was on a grant administered by "Friends". So was my second. -- Rich Ulrich, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
