آخر تحديث - 14 سبتمبر 2021
Subawards. These are agreements concluded between an institution that has a sponsored agreement (main winner The main winner The institution that executes the main agreement with the promoter) and another institution (sub-beneficiary The subcontracting legal person to which a subcontract is granted and which is required to report to the beneficiary on the use of the funds made available. Sub-customers must comply with the administrative provisions of the main price. Other terms used are subawardee or subgrantee. (Source: NCURA Online Subaward Tutorial, 2006)) to which he transfers part of the work. The subaward agreement contains elements of the Prime Prime agreement The sponsored document of the project prize that the Prime prize winner receives directly from the sponsor. between the sponsor and the main winner, including many of the conditions agreed by the external sponsor and the main beneficiary. A subaward covers the entire relationship between the principal beneficiary and the sub-beneficiary. Therefore, a subaward contains provisions relating to payments, financial reporting, intellectual property, publishing rights, data retention and many others. In 2010, the American Medical Association (AMA) published a series of reports called the AMA Scope of Practice Data Series.  One of the reports focused on the profession of pharmacist, which criticized the training of ASA as an attempt by pharmacists to intervene in the physician. In response to the report, a collaboration between seven national associations of professional pharmacies drafted a response to WADA`s report on pharmacists.
 The response requested WADA to correct its report and publish Errata`s revised report.  In 2011, WADA`s Chamber of Deputies adopted a softer tone in response to contributions from APhA and other pharmacy professional associations and eventually passed the following resolution, which drew attention to the rejection of independent (and not collaborative or dependent) practical agreements: once the money is received, many of the gentlemen`s agreements you may have worked under can collapse. There can be as many problems as you like: collaborative arrangements are based on more than altruism. There will be no reciprocity and equitable engagement if partners in the South expect developed countries to simply transfer their competitive technological advantage (Brinkerhoff 2002). A particular problem, which arises in both for-profit and academic partnerships, is the non-use of the benefits of cooperation at the meso and macro level.. . . .