◆ SpookStack

vj I f i chance of continuing the project, If these probabilities appear sufficient to obtain an adequate return, for the expenditure* there can he no legal objection to this aspect of the project. 5. It should be noted that there are two dircumstances which L require consideration in a final determination. As stated in Section V, our contribution, by appearing to be from a private source, would increase the matching Goyeiwient contribution by a similar amount which vould not be the case if it were known that this was in fact a Government contribution also. , Secondly, it is the stated policy of the hospital to clxarge the Govermaent and commercial organisations 80 per cent overhead on research contracts, whereas nonprofit foundations pay only direct costs but no overhead. Because of the ostensible source, our projects will not bo charged overhead. ! This could be construed as morally wrongful to the : hospital, as normally we would pay the 80 per cc-nt overhead charge for projects performed directly for us, but I believe this can be offset, at least to the amount of our donation, and perhaps by the further amount by which the other Goren^ent contri- butions are increased by our donat ion. In any case, if the project is a proper one and must be performed in this manner, security dictates these circumstances and they, thereforey do not present a legal obstscleas such. 6. V7a raised the question whether funds for the hospital construction could not be obtained from other normal charitable sources. It appeared that there was a strong possibility that the individual concerned could raise adequate funds from private ."Tvngraded to: "v.thority -of : 187475 : .Tr-vc 2877'"*^ : Qii r>l 1 , % Downgraded to : by authority of : 187475 Oats; Juno 1877 a 4 ‘V ZZ IMPDL'T ; CL M 137473 -'-rf * t. Copy # 1 of 1 copy