Rich Ulrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... > 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. >
The first thing that banks check is the credit history, which is exactly that - your personal history of dealing with other landing institutions. It is anticipated that if you paid your debts accurately in the past you do the same in the future. By analogy, the credit history of a scientist is his list of publications. I don't see why a granting agency could not give a grant to an individual with very good record of previous achievements. Issuing grant to organization does not change anything in this equation. The grant is to be executed by some specific individual of certain credibility that can be checked. So, what the point to support bureaucracy? The same work that is done by the same mathematician costs twice or more compare to what it might cost. Old Pif . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
