NIH meets STTR Small Business Technology Transfer - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – NIH meets STTR Small Business Technology Transfer PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 579f2e-MjIyM



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

NIH meets STTR Small Business Technology Transfer

Description:

NIH meets STTR Small Business Technology Transfer Creating, testing, and commercializing a toolkit for school wellness policy implementation and obesity prevention in ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:111
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 65
Provided by: AliceAm4
Learn more at: http://research.unc.edu
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: NIH meets STTR Small Business Technology Transfer


1
NIH meets STTR Small Business Technology Transfer
  • Creating, testing, and commercializing a toolkit
    for school wellness policy implementation and
    obesity prevention in middle schools

2
STTR Project Team
  • Alice Ammerman DrPH, RD, Professor, Nutrition,
    Director HPDP, retired baseball Team Mom
  • Brian Burnham, CEO, Cirque Productions, Chapel
    Hill, NC, outdoor adventurist, scout leader,
    middle school baseball coach
  • Patrick Akos, Associate Professor, School of
    Education, middle school counseling
  • David Cavallo, doctoral student, nutrition,
    background in economics and entrepreneurship
  • John Ujvari, Small Business Technology and
    Development Center, part of the 1700 MLK economic
    development epicenter
  • Teacher advisory committee, other business
    partners etc.

3

4
Remember when we used to have to fatten the
kids up first?
5
Obesity Trends Among U.S. AdultsBRFSS, 1985
(BMI 30, or 30 lbs. overweight for 5 4
person)
No Data lt10 1014
6
Obesity Trends Among U.S. AdultsBRFSS, 1986
(BMI 30, or 30 lbs. overweight for 5 4
person)
No Data lt10 1014
7
Obesity Trends Among U.S. AdultsBRFSS, 1987
(BMI 30, or 30 lbs. overweight for 5 4
person)
No Data lt10 1014
8
Obesity Trends Among U.S. AdultsBRFSS, 1988
(BMI 30, or 30 lbs. overweight for 5 4
person)
No Data lt10 1014
9
Obesity Trends Among U.S. AdultsBRFSS, 1989
(BMI 30, or 30 lbs. overweight for 5 4
person)
No Data lt10 1014
10
Obesity Trends Among U.S. AdultsBRFSS, 1990
(BMI 30, or 30 lbs. overweight for 5 4
person)
No Data lt10 1014
11
Obesity Trends Among U.S. AdultsBRFSS, 1991
(BMI 30, or 30 lbs. overweight for 5 4
person)
No Data lt10 1014
1519
12
Obesity Trends Among U.S. AdultsBRFSS, 1992
(BMI 30, or 30 lbs. overweight for 5 4
person)
No Data lt10 1014
1519
13
Obesity Trends Among U.S. AdultsBRFSS, 1993
(BMI 30, or 30 lbs. overweight for 5 4
person)
No Data lt10 1014
1519
14
Obesity Trends Among U.S. AdultsBRFSS, 1994
(BMI 30, or 30 lbs. overweight for 5 4
person)
No Data lt10 1014
1519
15
Obesity Trends Among U.S. AdultsBRFSS, 1995
(BMI 30, or 30 lbs. overweight for 5 4
person)
No Data lt10 1014
1519
16
Obesity Trends Among U.S. AdultsBRFSS, 1996
(BMI 30, or 30 lbs. overweight for 5 4
person)
No Data lt10 1014
1519
17
Obesity Trends Among U.S. AdultsBRFSS, 1997
(BMI 30, or 30 lbs. overweight for 5 4
person)
No Data lt10 1014
1519 20
18
Obesity Trends Among U.S. AdultsBRFSS, 1998
(BMI 30, or 30 lbs. overweight for 5 4
person)
No Data lt10 1014
1519 20
19
Obesity Trends Among U.S. AdultsBRFSS, 1999
(BMI 30, or 30 lbs. overweight for 5 4
person)
No Data lt10 1014
1519 20
20
Obesity Trends Among U.S. AdultsBRFSS, 2000
(BMI 30, or 30 lbs. overweight for 5 4
person)
No Data lt10 1014
1519 20
21
Obesity Trends Among U.S. AdultsBRFSS, 2001
(BMI 30, or 30 lbs. overweight for 5 4
person)
No Data lt10 1014
1519 2024 25
22
Obesity Trends Among U.S. AdultsBRFSS, 2002
(BMI 30, or 30 lbs. overweight for 5 4
person)
No Data lt10 1014
1519 2024 25
23
Obesity Trends Among U.S. AdultsBRFSS, 2003
(BMI 30, or 30 lbs. overweight for 5 4
person)
No Data lt10 1014
1519 2024 25
24
Obesity Trends Among U.S. AdultsBRFSS, 2004
(BMI 30, or 30 lbs. overweight for 5 4
person)
No Data lt10 1014
1519 2024 25
25
Obesity Trends Among U.S. AdultsBRFSS, 2005
(BMI 30, or 30 lbs. overweight for 5 4
person)
No Data lt10 1014
1519 2024 2529
30
26
Obesity Trends Among U.S. AdultsBRFSS, 2006
(BMI 30, or 30 lbs. overweight for 5 4
person)
No Data lt10 1014
1519 2024 2529
30
27
Obesity Trends Among U.S. AdultsBRFSS, 2007
(BMI 30, or 30 lbs. overweight for 5 4
person)
No Data lt10 1014
1519 2024 2529
30
28
"Unless effective population-level interventions
to reduce obesity are developed, the steady rise
in life expectancy observed in the modern era may
soon come to an end and the youth of today may,
on average, live less healthy and possibly even
shorter lives than their parents.... The
optimism of scientists and of policymaking bodies
about the future course of life expectancy should
be tempered by a realistic acknowledgment that
major threats to the health and longevity of
younger generations today are already visible."
- New England Journal of Medicine
29
School Wellness Policies federally mandated
  • All schools receiving USDA reimbursement for free
    and reduced priced lunches
  • Limited enforcement/teethbut may change with new
    legislation in 09
  • Few tools to assist with implementation

30
Our idea
  • Develop a web-based toolkit for middle schools
    (most effort to date in elementary)
  • Make it fun for the kids and easy/useful for the
    teachers (fit with required standard course of
    study)
  • Appeal to small businesses as future employers
    and good community citizens to underwrite the
    cost for local schools

31
Rationale for choosing the STTR Approach
  • Need for reach and sustainability which
    commercialization can offer
  • Unique source of set-aside funding
  • Funds production of the intervention materials
    which many grants dont
  • Something a little different

32
So just what are these SBIRs and STTRs??
Straight from the NIH SBIR-STTR
website http//grants.nih.gov/grants/Funding/sbir
.htm with an assist from John Ujvari, Small
Business and Technology Development Center
33
Research Opportunities Reserved for Small
Business
SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION RESEARCH (SBIR)
PROGRAM SMALL BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
(STTR) PROGRAM
34
SBIR / STTR Program Mission
Supporting scientific excellence and
technological innovation through the investment
of federal research funds in critical American
priorities to build a strong national economy
one small business at a time.
35
Program Descriptions
  • Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)
  • Set-aside program for small business
  • concerns to engage in federal RD --
  • with potential for commercialization.
  • Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR)
  • Set-aside program to facilitate cooperative
  • RD between small business concerns and U.S.
    research institutions -- with
  • potential for commercialization.

2.5
0.3
36
WHY STTR????
Small Business Research and Development
Enhancement Act of 1992
  • Stimulate and foster scientific and technological
    innovation through cooperative research and
    development carried out between small business
    concerns and research institutions
  • Foster technology transfer between small business
    concerns and research institutions

37
2001 STTR REAUTHORIZATION
  • Reauthorized through FY2009
  • Set-aside increased from 0.15 to 0.30 in FY
    2004
  • Phase II award levels increased from 500,000 to
    750,000 in FY 2004
  • Participating agencies to implement similar
    outreach efforts as SBIR

38
SBIR/STTR 3-Phase Program
  • PHASE I
  • Feasibility Study
  • 165K (NIH) and 6-month (SBIR)
  • or 12-month (STTR) Award
  • PHASE II
  • Full Research/RD
  • 750K and 2-year Award
  • (SBIR/STTR)
  • PHASE III
  • Commercialization Stage
  • Use of non-SBIR/STTR Funds

39
STTR PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY CHECKPOINTS
  • Applicant is Small Business Concern
    Subsidiaries are NOT eligible for STTR program
  • Formal Cooperative RD Effort
  • Minimum 40 by small business
  • Minimum 30 by U.S. research institution
  • U.S. Research Institution
  • College or University other non-profit
    research
  • organization Federal RD center
  • Intellectual Property Agreement
  • Allocation of Rights in IP and Rights to Carry
    out
  • Follow-on RD and Commercialization

40
SBIR / STTR Participating Agencies
  • DOD SBIR/STTR
  • HHS SBIR/STTR
  • NASA SBIR/STTR
  • DOE SBIR/STTR
  • NSF SBIR/STTR
  • DHS SBIR
  • USDA SBIR
  • DOC SBIR
  • ED SBIR
  • EPA SBIR
  • DOT SBIR

41
Standard Phase I Process
Solicitation Topics
  • Agencies describe RD topics
  • in solicitations.
  • Small Business Concerns prepare
  • short (usually 25-page)proposals.
  • Unsolicited proposals not accepted.

Proposal Submission
Evaluation
  • Agencies evaluate based on technical
  • merit, firms qualifications, and
  • commercial potential / societal benefit.

Ph I award
  • Agencies make Phase I awards.

42
SBIR AND STTR PROGRAMSCRITICAL DIFFERENCES
  • Research Partner
  • SBIR Permits research institution partners
  • Outsource 33 Phase I and 50
    Phase II RD
  • STTR Requires research institution partners
    (e.g., universities)
  • 40 small business concerns
    (for-profit) and
  • 30 U.S. research institution
    (non-profit)

AWARD ALWAYS MADE TO SMALL BUSINESS
43
SBIR AND STTR PROGRAMSCRITICAL DIFFERENCES
  • Principal Investigator
  • SBIR Primary (gt50) employment must be with
    small business concern
  • STTR Primary employment not stipulated
  • PI can be from research institution
    and/or
  • from small business concern

DISCUSS WITH AGENCIES
44
UNIVERSITY-BUSINESS PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES
  • Own small firms (assign someone else PI)
  • Principal Investigator
  • (with official permission from university)
  • Senior Personnel on SBIR/STTR
  • Consultants on SBIR/STTR
  • Subcontracts on SBIR/STTR
  • University facilities provide analytical
  • and other service support

45
UNIVERSITY AND INDUSTRYTwo diverse cultures
Industry Researchers are from MARS
University Researchers are from Venus
46
UNIVERSITY AND INDUSTRYTwo diverse cultures
  • University culture
  • Research, discover, educate and train future
  • workforce
  • Pace is slower - aligned to academic cycle
  • Mission basic and applied research
  • Technology transfer activities are companion
  • to applied research mission
  • Fertile ground for economic development

47
UNIVERSITY AND INDUSTRYTwo diverse cultures
  • Industry culture
  • Mission toward research / RD /
  • commercialization
  • Quick-paced
  • Solve problems - develop new products ? profit
  • Maintain control of science to explore full
  • potential of discovery (initially)
  • Economic impact Jobs, societal benefit

48
CULTURAL DIVERSITY
That was then
This is now
  • University - Industry Partnerships Critical
    dimension of the new Knowledge-based Economy
  • Universities are establishing creative and
    entrepreneurial environments for the
    commercialization of university intellectual
    property
  • Universities and Industry learning to work
    together

49
Entrepreneurial Research Institution
Key Ingredients
  • Develop common goals between
  • faculty-initiated business and
  • mission of research institution
  • Create environment that enables
  • innovation and entrepreneurship
  • Protect IP assets of university
  • Establish policies to manage, reduce
  • or eliminate conflict of interest (COI)

50
Our Proposal Components
  • Formative work
  • Kids, Teachers, Businesses
  • Toolkit Components
  • Social marketing to get buy-in from key
    stakeholders
  • Tracker physical activity, soft drinks, fast
    food trips
  • Screener personal assessment home and school
    environmental scans eg) TV in the bedroom,
    sports equipment for recess
  • Pilot study of impact on diet and physical
    activity behaviors of middle school kids

51
Perspective of the Kids
  • Photo-based inquiry
  • Picture Me Healthy What gets me there and what
    gets in the way?

52
Perspective of the Teachers
  • End of grade testing rules
  • Its got to fit within the standard course of
    study
  • Must be VERY easy to implement
  • Not all believe that schools have a role in
    improved nutrition and physical activity
  • Links with academic performance are a big plus

53
Phase I submission process
  • Took 2 tries
  • First time dinged on
  • Research methodology
  • Commercialization plan
  • Funding slow to come
  • Unique matching opportunities in NC

54
Toolkit Production
Three Components
  • Social marketing
  • You Tube, Podcasts, DVDs
  • Tracker
  • Million Mile Challenge
  • Screener
  • Computer tailored feedback based on assessment
    for use
  • in health and PE classes
  • Aggregate data for use in math and writing
    classes

55
Small Business with a Research Institute
  • Finding each other could be a challenge
  • Cirque and HPDP had a pre-existing relationship
  • More deliberate than traditional run-and-gun
    small business
  • Longer lead time for ROI than conventional
    projects

The network key in small business and especially
the STTR
56
About Cirque Productions
  • Chapel Hill based multimedia, photo, video studio
  • Experience in the health field and in University
    based projects
  • Child nutrition videos
  • Photovoice - youth photography research class
  • Experience in leading high school students on a
    variety of adventures
  • Cross country cycling trips
  • Long distance backpacking trips

57
STTR Partners
  • UNC-HPDP and Cirque Productions are official STTR
    partners
  • Working with Dean Rice of Million Mile Challenge
    for Fitness Tracker Database
  • Working with David Farrell of People design for
    Fitness Screener program

58
Commercialization
Focus Groups
  • Small business owners (5-50 employees)
  • Eliciting responses to the idea of businesses
    underwriting the toolkit for schools
  • Understanding barriers and facilitators to
    closing the deal

59
Commercialization
Facilitators
  • Demonstration and reporting of measurable results
    from program
  • Pay for performance
  • Play on inter-company competition

60
Commercialization
Facilitators
  • Provision of toolkit features to employees
  • Turnkey Media opportunities
  • Anchor Sponsors

61
Commercialization
Facilitators
  • Employee internal advocacy
  • Leveraging existing relationships
  • Build Long-term relationships

62
Commercialization
Barriers
  • Amateur Sales Staff
  • Poor or no sales materials
  • Lack of Brand Recognition

63
Commercialization
Barriers
  • Intensely competitive fundraising environment
  • Poor return on investment
  • Difficult to make health care cost case

64
Commercialization
Conclusion
  • Must provide positive ROI
  • Success is far more likely with a personal
    connection
  • Sales should be an ongoing relationship building
    process
About PowerShow.com