duplicate proposals

[mestelle at SUNFLOWER.BIO.INDIANA.EDU]

>Date: Fri, 15 May 92 20:44:15 EST
>From: mclutter at nsf.gov
>Subject: duplicate proposals
>To: mestelle at sunflower.bio.indiana.edu
>
>Received: From STANFORD(MAILER) by IUGOLD with Jnet id 6463
>          for ESTELLE at IUBACS; Fri, 15 May 92 20:44 EST
>Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Fri, 15 May 92 15:20:14 PDT
>Received: by genbank.bio.net (5.65/IG-2.0)
>        id AA01497; Fri, 15 May 92 14:56:54 -0700
>Received: from note2.nsf.gov by genbank.bio.net (5.65/IG-2.0) with SMTP
>        id AA01487; Fri, 15 May 92 14:56:43 -0700
>Received: from prelay by Note2.nsf.gov id ca02598; 15 May 92 12:29 EDT
>From: mclutter at nsf.gov
>To: mestelle at sunflower.bio.indiana.edu, arab-gen at genbank.bio.net
>Subject: duplicate proposals
>Date: 15 May 92  11:16 EST
>Message-Id:  <9205151229.ca02598 at Note2.nsf.gov>
> 
>              Mark-
>              You have misinterpreted my explanation of the rationale
>              for a "no dupes" policy. We have NO intention of
>              eliminating support for plant molecular biology or
>              biochemistry. In point of fact, NSF is the major
>              supporter of plant biology, so it would be irrational
>              for us to cease supporting an underfunded area for which
>              we have great responsibility. What we are attempting to
>              do is to erase the perception that our role is simply to
>              provide a service, i.e., a "safety net" for other
>              agencies. That is not a "winning" position--and, I am
>              the kind of person who likes to win.
> 
>              Mary
>
>