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