Review of the Biomedical Proposals to the 2005 Biomedical Research and Technology Transfer Partnership Award Program of the State of Ohio Letter Report (2005) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Letter Report
Letter Report
Pages 1-9
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 1... ...
The committee's activity was supported by a contract between the Ohio Department of Development and Ohio BRTT Commission and the Nahonai Academy of Sciences and was performed under the auspices of the National Research Council's Board on Life Sciences. THE COMMITTEE AND ITS CHARGE The Ohio BRTT Partnership Awards program is a competition to fund innovative projects that have commercial potential in biomedicine and biotechnology.
|
From page 2... ...
REVIEW PROCESS Each proposal was assigned to one and in some cases, two committee members as its primary reviewers according to relevant expertise. The program and business plans of each proposal were also reviewed by every other member of the committee; that is, the fall committee membership was assigned as secondary reviewer for all proposals.
|
From page 3... ...
EVALUATION CRITERIA Using the awards program request for proposals (REP) for guidance, the committee evaluated four general aspects of the proposals, as follows: Compliance with the Fundamental Requirements of the Awards Program REP · Each proposal should have a focus in at least one of six research fields: human genetics and genomics, structural biology, biomedical engineering, computational biology, environmental biology, and plant biology.
|
From page 4... ...
SUMMARY ASSESSMENT To understand the basis for its conclusions and recommendations to the State of Ohio, it might be helpful to be aware of the committee's expectations. With the evaluation cntena in mind as it approached the proposal review process, the members of the committee sought to identify the most compelling applications for biomedical and biotechnological innovations submitted by a partnership of committed Ohio institutions.
|
From page 5... ...
The amount of time commitment to the venture of each major investigator, businessman, investor, and tech transfer agent would be clearly stated in the application, and the proposal would describe mechanisms for implementing the human interactions needed to coordinate and move the project forward. In its assessment, the committee found that none of the 14 applications submitted to the 2005 BRTT competition represented what might be considered the "ideal" proposal; that is, the marriage of a well-conceived scientific strategy with a comprehensive commercialization plan.
|
From page 6... ...
These proposals, ranked in order of merit, are: 05-28 Commercialization Platform for Immunotherapeuhcs for Cancer and Multiple Sclerosis 05-04 Targeted Nanoparticles for Imaging and Therapeutics 05-29 Adult Macular Degeneration Initiative 05-30 Clinical Tissue Engineering Center The committee gave the highest ranking to the application: Commercialization Platform for Immunotherapeutics for Cancer and Multiple Sclerosis. Compared to the other BRTT submissions this year, this proposal is the most impressive in terms of a truly collaborative strategy and gives the most detail from the business point of view.
|
From page 7... ...
The fourth ranked proposal is the Clinical Tissue Engineering Center, an ambitious initiative to address nlusculoslieletal tissue repair and regeneration in osteoarthritis, tendon rupture, fracture care, and chronic wounds. With some of the most experienced scientists in the field and a commercial advisory board of individuals with 7
|
From page 8... ...
The current proposals try very hard to identify potenhai commercial outcomes for every research goal without showing any market understanding, so they sound vague and unfocused. It is possible that, in part, applicants are requesting support for the development of infrastructure as opposed to specific projects with realistic product development opportunities.
|
From page 9... ...
We hope that you find these comments and the individual assessments of the proposals to be helpful as decisions about the BRTT awards are made. Sincerely, Barbara Hansen, PhD Chairwoman Committee to Review Proposals to 2005 Biomedical Research and Technology Transfer Partnership Awards of the State of Ohio cc: Warren Muir Frances Sharples Appendixes A
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.