Gregg responds with advice on a funding proposal for medical economics.
Number of Image Pages:
2 (97,890 Bytes)
1943-05-04 (May 4, 1943)
University of Michigan. School of Public Health
Original Repository: Rockefeller Archive Center. Rockefeller Foundation Archives
Reproduced with permission of the Rockefeller Foundation.
Medical Subject Headings (MeSH):
Director of Medical Sciences, 1930-1945
May 4, 1943
I have studied your proposal and weighed it in connection with other proposals coming before us at this time. As I told you
comparisons et this time are particularly difficult, because of the uncertainty of the future demands which may be made upon
Placing your request for $90,000 over a five-year period in comparison with an assumed five-year continuation of the salaries
and other expenses now supported by the School of Public Health, it is clear that the ratio of the request to the present
scale support would be nearly 2 to 1. Not only does 200% increase provide a very great change in status, but the assurance
over a five-year period would of itself represent a qualitative advantage which is unusual at this time.
It would seem to me wiser for you to set your sights at what in a year's period you could learn from the use of $7,500,
without the salary, travel and other expenses of an assistant director. In point of library accessions, the office analysis
of current information on laws and plans, services of the statistician in the study of material already accumulated, and in
point of your own study, a grant of $7,500 would enable you to do a great deal of good without running the risk of mining
more than you can smelt. You must have a great deal of accumulated material already for analysis and study. Perhaps it is
not quite appropriate for me to say as an outsider, but I think there is a solider progress and sounder status for you with
76% increase over your University budget the first year than 146% increase. That presupposes that you will be entirely free
from the loads imposed on you through Dr. Vaughan's illness this year; if you were to continue with such an extra load,
and quite sure the best use of a large increase would be problematical.
I should add that a five-year grant of $90,000 would not pass our board this spring. Such a scale of expenditure would have
to be on something they know much more about and on the basis of some antecedent experience, as well -- precedent, if you
choose, but rather important nonetheless.
You may be desperately disappointed. I hope not, for I think you will not regret it, a year from now, when experience in methods
in the knowledge of what this kind of outside assistance involves will be clearly in hand. Later to let me have a budget showing
how you would use $7,500 over a year beginning at any time after May 31?