Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Tony Beck - SBIR-STTR Funding for STEM Games

230 views

Published on

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.

Published in: Science
  • Be the first to comment

Tony Beck - SBIR-STTR Funding for STEM Games

  1. 1. SBIR – STTR FUNDING FOR STEM GAMES
  2. 2. • Tools for alternate & early learners • Career opportunities in health and medicine • Workforce diversity and capacity building • Behavioral and lifestyle changes • Public health literacy Serious STEM Games Goals
  3. 3. STEM Games Topics
  4. 4. Success Rate?
  5. 5. NIH SBIR/STTR Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOAs)
  6. 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. 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. Receipt dates: September 5, January 5, April 5 Call to discuss potential project
  8. 8. 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 NIH Pre-College STEM FOA
  9. 9. THE NIH EXTRAMURAL PEER REVIEW PROCESS
  10. 10. Investigator(s)Investigator(s) Institution NIH
  11. 11. NIH SBIR/STTR Review Cycle Aug Jul Apr 5 Jan 5 Sept 5 Jan-Feb Mar Jun-Jul Feb-Mar Sept-Oct Oct-Nov May-Jun AwardCouncilReceipt Review
  12. 12. Summary Statement Applicant Review Panel Applicant Program Officer Key Players Funding Institute or Center (IC) SF424 Scientific Review Officer FOA Scientific Review Officer Applicant Summary Statement Applicant Summary Statement Applicant Funding Institute or Center (IC) Grants Admin.
  13. 13. Applicant Applicant Grants Administrator Prgram Officer Funding Institute or Center (IC) Information Gathering Establish NIH Commons Account NIH Commons Account Program Officer Scientific Review Officer Applicant Grants Admin.
  14. 14. Applicant Developing plan Drafting proposal SF424 Applicant Program Officer
  15. 15. Applicant Receipt and Referral Scientific Review Officer SF424 Applicant
  16. 16. Applicant Scientific Review Officer SF424 ApplicantReceipt and Referral
  17. 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. 18. Applicant Scientific Review Group (SRG) Scientific Review Officer Review Panel
  19. 19. Applicant Scientific Review Officer Review Panel Scientific Review Group (SRG)
  20. 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. 21. Applicant Assignment Scientific Review Officer SF424 Review Panel
  22. 22. Summary Statement Applicant Grant Review Review Panel Summary Statement
  23. 23. Summary Statement Applicant Peer Review Review Panel Summary Statement
  24. 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. 25. Applicant Applicant Funding Institute or Center (IC) Pay Plan Summary Statement Applicant
  26. 26. Review-related criteria to consider when preparing your application
  27. 27. NIH Review Criteria
  28. 28. THE NIH REVIEW SCORING DESCRIPTORS
  29. 29.  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 THE NIH REVIEW PROCESS – REVIEW CRITERIA
  30. 30.  Resources and personnel  Qualifications and commitment of PI and team  Partnerships and collaborations  Institutional commitment and resources  Human subjects  Exemption status  Gender, Minority, Children THE NIH REVIEW PROCESS – REVIEW CRITERIA
  31. 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. 32. LESS IS BETTER
  33. 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. 34. 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 THE NIH REVIEW PROCESS
  35. 35. RECOMMENDATIONS
  36. 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
  37. 37. YOUR GOAL
  38. 38. THE NIH REVIEW PROCESS YOUR GOAL “This application was a pleasure to read”
  39. 39. Dates to remember  Fall/Winter 2016/2017 – Start Planning, Commons 7Account  Nov/Dec 2016 – Draft research plan, contact PO to discuss  Jan/Feb 2017 – Receipt Date  April/May 2017 - Review  Aug/Sept 2017 - Awards Issued
  40. 40. http://era.nih.gov/ElectronicReceipt/ http://era.nih.gov/ElectronicReceipt/communication.htm NIH Commons – applicant/NIH portal
  41. 41. http://cms.csr.nih.gov/ResourcesforApplicants/InsidetheNIHGrantReviewProcessVideo.htm Mock peer review panel study section
  42. 42. http://grants.nih.gov/Grants/grants_process.htm Helpful links to NIH grant review
  43. 43. http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/grants/cycle/part00.htm
  44. 44. NIH Science Education Partnership Award (SEPA) (R25) PAR-14-228 (next receipt date June 2017) http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa- files/PAR-14-228.html STEM GAMING FOAs
  45. 45. L. Tony Beck, Ph.D. Program Officer Division for Clinical Research Resources National Center for Research Resources 6701 Democracy Blvd., Room 956 Bethesda, MD 20892 301.435.0805 [office] beckl@mail.nih.gov SEPA website: www.nihsepa.org Established 1991
  46. 46. SBIR – STTR FUNDING FOR STEM GAMES

×