Tony Beck - SBIR-STTR Funding for STEM Games

1. SBIR – STTR FUNDING FOR STEM GAMES

7. 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

9. STEM Games Topics

16. Success Rate?

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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. THE NIH EXTRAMURAL PEER REVIEW PROCESS

23. Institution Investigator(s) Investigator(s) NIH

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. Applicant Applicant Program Officer Developing plan SF424 Drafting proposal

28. Applicant Receipt and Referral Applicant SF424 Scientific Review Officer

29. Applicant Receipt and Referral Applicant SF424 Scientific Review Officer

30. 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

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

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

33. 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

34. Assignment Applicant SF424 Scientific Review Officer Review Panel

35. Grant Review Applicant Review Panel Summary Statement Summary Statement

36. Peer Review Applicant Review Panel Summary Statement Summary Statement

37. 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?

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

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

40. NIH Review Criteria

41. THE NIH REVIEW SCORING DESCRIPTORS

42. 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

43. 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

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

46. LESS IS BETTER

47. 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.

48. 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

49. RECOMMENDATIONS

50. 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