Wednesday, December 5, 2012


And it comes with no surprise.  We wanted to publish the review decision but CPRIT forbids us to do so unless we obtain their permission.  We have requested promptly the permission and will soon publish an integral copy of the review notes.  We believe transparency is good for the reputation of CPRIT.  For CRBCM it is critical for our audience to know why we failed.  The Audience will understand our argument when we contend that CPRIT is strictly a university source of funding.  My CPRIT reviewer clearly suggested that until CRBCM looks like a university with young fellows on board, there is no chance we can win CPRIT money.
We applied for a company formation, but they want us to be a old existing company.  It is interesting to note that the comment of the reviewer where less about the the project quality (which by the way was found to be sound) but about the man and institution who submitted it.  As if he had investigated me rather than the project.  Without knowing him, I could see that his world is a university.  He could not imagine any other reality.  It is critical that diversification comes to CPRIT review teams,  community leaders could see value when our "university professors" fail to recognize what is good for communities.  Frankly talking another 100 million to MD Anderson cannot achieve what CRBCM was planning to achieve with 1 million dollars. Our project was aiming to reach 50-70,000 people in El Paso.  We will survive and wait on the word for 3 other projects before CPRIT review board.  CRBCM representative Victor Poulos will be consulted to guide us in these difficult times.

CRBCM is a Coalition, sometimes "No" is not the answer, will wait to fight another day!
Post a Comment