The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 42-78

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 42... ... All awards data in this chapter are based on data provided privately by NIH to NRC, drawn from NIH awards 4 databases. Provided by NIH SBIR Program Coordinator. Read the entire page →
From page 45... ... Overall, the data show that a very substantial number of applications continue to come in from firms that have not previously won SBIR awards at NIH, and that more than a third of SBIR awards go to previous non-winners. The NIH SBIR program is substantially open to new entrants. Read the entire page →
From page 46... ... The data in Figure 3-4 show that since 2000, an average of 61.8% of all Phase I applications are from firms that have not previously won SBIR awards at NIH. This is strong evidence that the opportunities inherent in the NIH SBIR program for the small business biomedical research community are widely understood, and are not limited to a small subset of firms. Read the entire page →
From page 48... ... 3.2.4 Phase I – Distribution Among The States and Within Them One of the persistent questions about SBIR is the extent to which awards are distributed among the states. Unsurprisingly, NIH Phase I SBIR awards go disproportionately to states with well-established traditions of life-science entrepreneurship (see Table 3-1) Read the entire page →
From page 49... ... 49 PREPUBLICATION COPY TABLE 3-1 Phase I awards, by state, FY1992-2002 State 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total 5 8 5 4 5 6 6 9 8 9 7 6 7 4 89 ALABAMA 2 1 3 ALASKA 12 11 2 9 7 7 9 13 10 11 15 13 12 10 141 ARIZO NA 2 3 1 2 3 5 6 22 ARKANSAS 93 101 116 144 113 149 134 193 191 182 211 248 243 200 2318 C ALIFO RNIA 7 15 8 13 17 24 21 17 29 19 20 33 38 30 291 C O LO RADO 16 14 12 10 11 16 19 14 9 12 16 22 21 12 204 C O NNEC TICUT 2 2 2 2 4 1 6 7 5 5 4 5 4 49 DELAWARE 1 4 6 4 1 4 7 5 7 6 10 8 5 4 72 DIST O F CO L 14 11 9 13 10 18 8 8 19 13 19 24 17 15 198 FLO RIDA 2 3 3 7 7 5 7 3 14 10 14 8 14 8 105 GEO RGIA 8 4 4 2 3 3 4 3 2 5 3 1 1 2 45 HAWAII 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 12 IDAHO 8 20 13 21 10 24 19 16 25 23 18 21 19 25 262 ILLINO IS 5 4 5 6 5 6 3 6 8 7 7 11 11 14 98 INDIANA 2 1 2 3 3 3 2 3 9 8 3 39 IO WA 5 1 1 5 2 3 4 5 4 1 31 KANSAS 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 3 4 4 2 4 5 35 KENTUCKY 3 2 1 1 3 1 6 2 1 5 3 28 LO UISIANA 2 1 1 6 2 2 1 3 3 1 3 3 2 2 32 MAINE 55 50 42 49 22 48 36 70 45 58 59 90 90 63 777 MARYLAND 75 98 97 97 99 113 133 171 156 124 140 140 156 121 1720 MASSAC HUSETTS 9 15 11 16 9 9 17 18 10 21 19 23 26 22 225 MICHIGAN 10 13 12 20 9 10 15 7 14 18 16 22 18 20 204 MINNESO TA 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 MISSISSIPPI 5 8 1 2 1 4 4 5 7 7 12 10 9 75 MISSO URI 2 1 2 3 3 2 3 3 1 4 3 27 MO NTANA 3 1 2 3 2 1 2 2 4 3 3 6 32 NEBRASKA 1 3 1 3 4 1 1 2 1 5 3 25 NEVADA 5 6 5 2 9 12 5 5 9 10 11 14 9 2 104 NEW HAMPSHIRE 16 16 12 13 19 18 20 26 29 21 26 32 27 23 298 NEW JERSEY 3 1 4 1 4 2 9 6 8 8 6 8 4 64 NEW MEXIC O 41 39 29 29 24 31 35 37 53 45 50 41 51 54 559 NEW YO RK 19 8 13 10 11 22 24 24 26 29 24 24 36 29 299 NO RTH CARO LINA 1 1 2 2 2 8 NO RTH DAKO TA 13 9 11 15 10 21 23 23 33 38 30 45 40 39 350 O HIO 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 7 5 6 6 32 O KLAHO MA 8 12 12 18 16 16 15 18 30 15 24 23 18 11 236 O REGO N 17 16 14 19 19 26 28 29 41 42 43 41 52 46 433 PENNSYLVANIA 1 1 2 PUERTO RICO 1 1 2 1 3 9 10 7 4 7 10 55 RHO DE ISLAND 1 1 3 3 5 7 7 8 3 2 40 SO UTH CARO LINA 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 11 SO UTH DAKO TA 3 3 5 4 3 8 3 2 4 11 5 4 3 4 62 TENNESSEE 26 24 19 18 18 34 22 36 48 34 38 49 54 42 462 TEXAS 13 9 8 11 8 15 14 15 19 17 15 9 17 8 178 UTAH 1 6 3 3 1 1 2 2 4 2 6 5 2 38 VERMO NT 15 26 18 15 14 23 21 22 25 36 27 40 28 16 326 VIRGINIA 14 14 16 23 24 31 27 42 45 29 35 33 39 29 401 WASHINGTO N 1 1 2 WEST VIRGINIA 4 6 9 8 7 12 11 20 14 24 24 21 17 16 193 WISC O NSIN 1 2 3 1 1 3 3 1 15 WYO MING 541 594 530 624 525 743 717 908 986 940 1001 1137 1150 937 11333 Total UNEDITED PROOFS Read the entire page →
From page 50... ... However, outreach efforts by the SBIR program at NIH have supported an increase in the percentage of awards going to the bottom 15 states, which have expanded from barely 0.5% of awards in FY 1995 to over 3% in FY 2002 (Figure 3-7) Read the entire page →
From page 51... ... Analysis suggests that the geographical distribution of NIH SBIR awards is understandable. First, Table 3-2 shows that to a considerable extent, awards are made to states which have a high concentration of life scientists. Read the entire page →
From page 54... ... 10 See National Institutes of Health, letter to the National Research Council "National Academy of Sciences Study of the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program-NIH SBIR Program Data." 14 February 2005. Read the entire page →
From page 55... ... Note: Following discussions with the NRC staff, the NIH made an effort to recalculate the data for women and minority owners' participation in the SBIR program. In September, 2007, the NIH provided corrected data, which is shown in Appendix A and in several figures in this report. Read the entire page →
From page 56... ... 5 0 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 FIGURE 3-10 Woman- and minority-owned firms–Phase I Percentage Share of All Coded Applications, by Demographic 1992-2006. NOTE: Following discussions with the NRC staff, the NIH made an effort to recalculate the data for women and minority owners' participation in the SBIR program. Read the entire page →
From page 57... ... Phase I: Success rates by dem ographic 30 Awards as % of applications 25 20 Wom en-ow ned 15 Minority-ow ned Other sm all businesses 10 5 0 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 FIGURE 3-11 Success rates for Phase I awards by demographic, 1992-2006. NOTE: Following discussions with the NRC staff, the NIH made an effort to recalculate the data for women and minority owners' participation in the SBIR program. Read the entire page →
From page 58... ... These are the likely founders of firms that might be seeking seed funding from the NIH SBIR program. In that context, maintaining a ten percent share of awards is much less impressive, and NIH might well wish to undertake further analysis to determine why so few of these new doctorates appear to be applying for NIH SBIR funding (note that there is no requirement that a company exist in order to apply for an award, although a company must be formed in order to accept one.) Read the entire page →
From page 60... ... However, this period of stable award numbers coincides with substantial growth in SBIR funding at NIH. Consequently, this additional funding is being distributed in other ways – one of which is increased average award size. Read the entire page →
From page 62... ... 3.3.2 Competing Continuation Awards NIH has recently initiated a new program aimed at supporting companies during the difficult period of clinical trials, where outsider funding can be especially scarce. Competing Continuation Awards (CCA's) Read the entire page →
From page 63... ... This criticism – drawn from the experience at NSF with their Phase IIB program – may however not be easily addressed at NIH, where matching funds are difficult to find for projects before the end of clinical trials. It is also worth noting that if CCA's continue to be funded at the current rate, they would account for more than $40M annually, about 6.5% of the NIH SBIR program, and equivalent to 400 standard Phase I awards. Read the entire page →
From page 68... ... 4 2 0 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 FIGURE 3-15 Share of Phase II Awards to women- and minority-owned firms, 1992-2006. Note: Following discussions with the NRC staff, the NIH made an effort to recalculate the data for women and minority owners' participation in the SBIR program. Read the entire page →
From page 69... ... Phase II: Success rates by dem ographic 60 Awards as % of applications 50 40 Wom en-ow ned 30 Minority-ow ned Other sm all businesses 20 10 0 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 FIGURE 3-16 Success Rates for Phase II Applications by women- and minority-owned firms, 1992-2006. Note: Following discussions with the NRC staff, the NIH made an effort to recalculate the data for women and minority owners' participation in the SBIR program. Read the entire page →
From page 70... ... See Chapter 5, Program Management, for more details on funding cycles at NIH 14 UNEDITED PROOFS Read the entire page →
From page 72... ... This suggests that there is often room in proposals for improvements and clarifications that would then permit funding. Perhaps the NIH SBIR program should test mechanisms for improving original proposals, thus saving both the applicant and SBIR staff the time and effort of going through the application process twice. Read the entire page →
From page 76... ... In recent years, changes in resubmission success rates have tracked quite closely with first time success rates, though at a lower level. 3.6 CONTRACTS AT NIH As noted earlier, more than 95% of all NIH SBIR awards are grants, not contracts. Read the entire page →
From page 77... ... Also, it appears that companies winning Phase I contracts are much more likely to be selected for Phase II contracts than Phase I awardees are to be awarded a Phase II award. Table 3-13 and Table 3-13 show contracting activity in the NIH SBIR Program. Read the entire page →

From page 42...

... All awards data in this chapter are based on data provided privately by NIH to NRC, drawn from NIH awards 4 databases. Provided by NIH SBIR Program Coordinator.