1 / 64

Tony Beck - SBIR-STTR Funding for STEM Games

Tony Beck, Health Scientist Administrator, National Institutes of Health This presentation was given at the 2016 Serious Play Conference, hosted by the UNC Kenan-Flagler Business School. Dr. Beck discusses NIH programs that use the SBIR/STTR and the R25 Research Education mechanisms to support the development of serious games in NIH-funded areas of basic and clinical research.

Download Presentation

Tony Beck - SBIR-STTR Funding for STEM Games

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. SBIR – STTR FUNDING FOR STEM GAMES

  2. Serious STEM Games Goals • Tools for alternate & early learners • Career opportunities in health and medicine • Workforce diversity and capacity building • Behavioral and lifestyle changes • Public health literacy

  3. STEM Games Topics

  4. Success Rate?

  5. NIH SBIR/STTR Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOAs)

  6. Serious STEM Games for Pre-College and Informal Science Education Audiences (SBIR) (R43/R44), PAR-14-325 http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-14-325.html Serious STEM Games for Pre-College and Informal Science Education Audiences (STTR) (R41/R42) PAR-14-326 http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-14-326.html Next receipt date: Jan/Feb 2017

  7. PHS 2015-02 Omnibus Solicitation of the NIH, CDC, FDA and ACF for Small Business Innovation Research Grant Applications (Parent SBIR [R43/R44]) http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-15-269.html • Web-based, stand-alone computational tools, instructional software or other interactive media for dissemination of science education • Serious STEM Games • Pre-K To Grade 12 curriculum and other educational materials, Interactive teaching aids, models for classroom instruction, and teacher education resources • Health promotion, disease prevention/intervention and public health literacy materials such as informational videos and/or print materials and programs which re culturally appropriate for populations and special communities. Call to discuss potential project Receipt dates: September 5, January 5, April 5

  8. NIH Pre-College STEM FOA NIH Science Education Partnership Award (SEPA) (R25), PAR-14-228 http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-14-228.html\ • Award: 5 Years, $1.3M • Topic: Biomedical - any NIH Research Area • Grades: Pre-K to Grade 12 Resources for students and teachers Informal Science Education (ISE) projects for Public Health Literacy Develop and evaluate STEM products for subsequent SBIR/STTR commercialization

  9. THE NIH EXTRAMURAL PEER REVIEW PROCESS

  10. Institution Investigator(s) Investigator(s) NIH

  11. NIH SBIR/STTR Review Cycle Award Receipt Review Council Jan-Feb Mar Sept 5 Oct-Nov Jul Jan 5 Feb-Mar May-Jun Apr 5 Sept-Oct Jun-Jul Aug

  12. Applicant Applicant Key Players Program Officer FOA SF424 Grants Admin. Scientific Review Scientific Review Officer Officer Review Panel Summary Statement Statement Summary Summary Statement Funding Funding Institute or Center (IC) Institute or Center (IC) Applicant Applicant Applicant

  13. Applicant Information Gathering Applicant Prgram Officer Program Officer Establish NIH Commons Account Grants Grants Admin. Administrator Scientific Review Officer NIH Funding Institute or Center (IC) Commons Account Applicant

  14. Applicant Applicant Program Officer Developing plan SF424 Drafting proposal

  15. Applicant Receipt and Referral Applicant SF424 Scientific Review Officer

  16. Applicant Receipt and Referral Applicant SF424 Scientific Review Officer

  17. THE NIH REVIEW PROCESS – THE SRO  Quick scan to categorize general topic  Detailed review to identify: Key science Research Design and Methods  Identify and recruit chair  Set meeting date  Identify and recruit review panel

  18. Scientific Review Group (SRG) Applicant Review Panel Scientific Review Officer

  19. Scientific Review Group (SRG) Applicant Review Panel Scientific Review Officer

  20. THE NIH REVIEW PROCESS – THE REVIEWER  Reviewer selection criteria Outstanding research as evidenced by publications Senior or respected scientist NIH, peer-reviewed funding (R01s, K-awards, P-awards) Committee Service History Availability

  21. Assignment Applicant SF424 Scientific Review Officer Review Panel

  22. Grant Review Applicant Review Panel Summary Statement Summary Statement

  23. Peer Review Applicant Review Panel Summary Statement Summary Statement

  24. THE NIH REVIEW PROCESS – YOUR AUDIENCE  The reviewer’s thoughts Is there a need? Are the applicants qualified? Is the plan organized? Will the evaluation show effectiveness? Can it be done with the time and money requested? Will there be a deliverable?

  25. Applicant Pay Plan Summary Statement Funding Institute or Center (IC) Applicant Applicant

  26. Review-related criteria to consider when preparing your application

  27. NIH Review Criteria

  28. THE NIH REVIEW SCORING DESCRIPTORS

  29. THE NIH REVIEW PROCESS – REVIEW CRITERIA  Significance of model Adherence to STEM Games goals and scope Educational goals for target audience(s) Biomedical connection Relevance and commercial potential  Program Design and Evaluation Quality and feasibility to achieve goals Merit of evaluation plans and potential for quantifiable outcomes

  30. THE NIH REVIEW PROCESS – REVIEW CRITERIA  Resources and personnel Qualifications and commitment of PI and team Partnerships and collaborations Institutional commitment and resources  Human subjects Exemption status Gender, Minority, Children

  31. THE NIH REVIEW PROCESS – REVIEW CRITERIA Human subjects Exemption status  E1, E2 • Informal setting, no tracking  Institutional Review Board (IRB) • Tracking, schools, longitudinal studies

  32. LESS IS BETTER

  33. THE NIH REVIEW PROCESS Use plain, simple language, short words and brief sentences. That is the way to write English - it is the modern way and the best way. Stick to it; don't let fluff and flowers and verbosity creep in.

  34. THE NIH REVIEW PROCESS Use plain, simple language, short words and brief sentences. That is the way to write English - it is the modern way and the best way. Stick to it; don't let fluff and flowers and verbosity creep in. - Mark Twain

  35. RECOMMENDATIONS

  36. RECOMMENDATIONS Start early NIH Commons Account Utilize FOA and Program Staff Exploit NIAID website Talk with STEM PIs and colleagues Independent evaluator Evaluation rigor Letters of Support Make it an easy read

More Related