SBIR and STTR Grants

Once applications are submitted, they are initially assessed on their scientific and technical merit by a specific study section tasked with evaluating their significance and potential for commercialization. Study sections are usually composed of 20 or more scientists from the broad community related to an applicant's topic of focus, although specific expertise in the area of the proposed research is not guaranteed. Applications are scored on six broad categories, the first five of which are used to derive a funding priority score: significance, approach, innovation, investigator or investigators, environment, and other - which includes consideration of whether or not the research involves human subjects, or the representation of the applicant, among other factors (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/review/rev_prep/scoring.htm). Each specific grant is assigned to three–four reviewers drawn from a mix of academia and industry experts. Reviewers typically receive ten applications and are given four–six weeks to evaluate applicants.

A survey of NIH reviewers showed that the most common reasons applications are rejected include: (1) the application was not convincingly realistic in its goals, (2) the project was overly ambitious, which raised feasibility questions, (3) the follow-up terms were unclear, and (4) the significance of the research was not convincing or clearly communicated . Other common pitfalls include: the method for evaluation of the results was lacking; the research protocol was underdeveloped; and lack of commercial expertise or commercialization plan.