RW> MH> True, but they should be using outside companies to perform the   
   RW> MH> research.  Take the "GREEN" money out of the picture and it wouldn't   
   RW> MH> be discussed.   
   RW>    
   RW> Maybe  but then, I've seen the opposite being the case too.   
   RW> The independent for profit folks want to keep a study going   
   RW> because that's more dough rolling in.  One of those damned   
   RW> if ya do damned if ya don't type of things.  Either way, the key to me is   
   RW> peer review.  if peers in the field say you're   
   RW> doing the research properly then that's a good sign you are. If you can't   
   RW> get peers in the field to endorse the work done then get another company   
   RW> or   
   RW> organization to do it.   
      
   Peer review is a good thing.     
      
   Often the government awards contracts that seem to go on forever.  They have   
   that luxury to do these things when you don't have to worry about a budget   
   like the rest of us.     
   I would have an outline with strict requirements, goals, timeline, and   
   results.  Failure to meet those would result in a forfeit of payment.   
      
   - Mark   
      
   --- WWIVToss v.1.50    
    * Origin:  http://www.weather-station.org * Bel Air, MD -USA (1:261/1304.0)