e4 - . won Dr. Lawrence Tuttle ed EN we cf . yl aL 1 204 hb Fock pd Lar per? ” te Mt Prery 30, _ pm pore 1951 5 Capital (non-expendable) eavipment purchased under a grant from the Public Health Service becomes the property of the grantee institution he Ase, unaer our policy. “oe phe “se (ok tBo ~fer We should like to have it understood at thistime, rather than leave it for subsequent negotiation, that title to a property purchased with grants administered by the Public Health Service for the Atomic Energy Commission will be vested in the zrantee Pe 2 : ™ institution in accord with our present policy. 7. ‘The type of security provisions proposed in the letter of agreement are considerably at variance with the policy and practice of the ke *Bublic Health Service research grant orogram. While we recognize Vos neag’ that such provisions may be necessary for the operation of the Atomic ») ne oy AP_pbnergy Commission research contract program, we are loath to enter wt pan 4 “HS Pe into an agreement which would require the setting up of two differing policies of administration of grants uncer the Public Health Service. alposh y We feel that this would create misunderstanding and confusion among > my" our grantees and, conceivably, cause a great deal of harm to the vans ‘< remainder of our program. We would suggest that, if it can legally be done under the controls that apply to appropriations for the Atomic Energy Commission, we be allowed to administer any grants financed by transfer of Atomic Energy Commission funds under the same procedures as apply to all other Public Health Service grants. We shall, of course, be glad to transmit to the designated representative of the Atomic Energy Commission copies & of all reports from these projects and to have Atomic Energy Commission we staff visit these projects to determine whether there are developments ‘ er _f that should come under security restrictions. In case such are found, Te ¥ £. we shall be glad to transfer to the Atomic Energy Commission full ores of administrative and financial responsibility for the further continuance Km oY oe the project in accordame with any agreement the Atomic Energy \s pe Commission may wish to negotiate with the investigator and his instif & ww ‘o tution. af oe ver ak ye * eed se ah q ne ae vs Ww. ro ; pre he ' Ye wy wi Actually, it would seem futile and an action after the fact to follow the proposed security provisions. These would require the handling of "restricted data" by uncleared personnel of the investiga= rf's staff and institution as well as by our own uncleared staff and advisers before it was determined by the Atomic Energy Commission that they were "restricted data", Moreover, since it is not expected that “restricted data" (as defined in Mr. Boyer's letter) will arise from the type of research proposed, we are more than ever reluctant to impose this type of requirement so foreign to our program. Also, the type of procedure suggested would require negotiation after the award in terms not contemplated by the investigator who believed he was applying for a grant under the usual Public Health Service grant program policy. Che ro we feel this would have some elements of a breach of faith and might engender misunderstanding and possible ill will, ae \ or ~~" ~ + oF ‘o Rap Cy : ( 4 . ble Ae gw r 5 } 4 vane fore wo, ra. 2 apa « how ¢ yl i DOS ARCHIVES