4 ms·
It's also not actually true. The NIH themselves is fine with you buying computers that directly support the "aims" of the grant (e.g., data analysis). They don
by mattkrause 3y ago
It's also not actually true.
The NIH themselves is fine with you buying computers that directly support the "aims" of the grant (e.g., data analysis). They don't want you buying "general" office equipment off a grant.
However, most universities are touchy about this and default-deny all computer purchases unless you yell the chapter and verse of the regs at them (which I have now done several times).
- CamperBob2 3y agoYep, I'm referring to a historical anecdote, not current practice. It'll be tough to dig up a solid citation for the HP "calculator" story but I've heard it from more than one reasonably-credible source, e.g.: https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/9499/when-did-computers-stop-needing-to-be-marketed-as-calculators https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/9499/when... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hewlett-Packard_9100A#cite_note-hpmuseum-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hewlett-Packard_9100A#cite_not... .
- kps 3y agoI've heard the same about the DEC PDP branding — a “Programmable Data Processor” could slip through where a “computer” couldn't.
- mananaysiempre 3y ago“Inside the AS/400” by Soltis quotes a story of IBM’s Rochester group developing the System/3 minicomputer (followed by the incompatible System/38, later rebranded the AS/400 and later still the i) under the guise of an “accounting machine”.
- mattkrause 3y agoOh, I totally believe it! I just wanted to explain that although "No computers on NIH grants" is still current practice at most universities, it shouldn't be.