Sign Up to receive free weekly articles like these

GRANT CLINIC

What Are Pros, Cons of Seeking SBIR Grant vs. the RO1?

Reader Question: I have been told that a research project I would like to submit is appropriate for the Small Business Innovative Research grant mechanism. What are the advantages and disadvantages to submitting an SBIR application rather than an R01?

Expert Comments: Most of us who seek grants are asking for funding to study one or more basic scientific questions that may or may not have direct implications for translation. Translation is the current expression that is used for what used to be called “bench-to-bedside” or “technology transfer”. These areas are sometimes termed “applied research” or “industrial research”.

SBIR funding can be utilized for many fields and specialties of research, but to focus our discussion I will consider here the “health and medicine” area with emphasis on National Health Institute (NIH) as funder.

Keep in mind that all proposals are about public-health concerns, no matter how basic they may be: If they don’t address a health problem that is of concern in the United States, Congress has no interest in funding it, and the NIH is quite sensitive to the wishes of Congress, as you might imagine.

Thus, all science, from the bottom up, is useful to the extent that it eventually leads to an intervention, whether pharmaceutical, surgical, device-driven, or behavioral.

Translation is the watchword at NIH these days, and with excellent reason: If there is no intervention that is sustainable (i.e., that outlasts the funding period), there isn't much point to any of it. So, NIH is very concerned about sustainable interventions and holds the attitude, correctly in my opinion, that if nobody’s making money there’s no intervention.

The SBIR and STTR (Small Business Technology Transfer) mechanisms address this issue. The focus of these awards is slightly different from that of the research mechanisms such as R01 or R21 or Program Projects in that, with the SBIR and STTR mechanisms, the researcher is interested in testing a particular product for the purpose of marketing it. Thus, if one developed a new blood-pressure monitor, physicians would want to know that the monitors had been validated in a patient population.

The product may be a medical device, a patentable animal model, or a behavioral intervention that can be packaged, but the essence of the SBIR and STTR award mechanisms is that they are expected to lead to something useful, marketable and profitable.

Most researchers tend not to think this way (although in some fields, such as the hunt for the magic gene that will cure a particular illness, that isn’t the case, by a large margin). But you can see that, in the interests of an intervention that is sustainable, one that is available to the public for its intended purpose (and presumably has been validated by the science for which you are requesting funds), capitalism is on the side of the angels.

A project that is suitable for a research grant — say, an R01 — may differ only slightly from one that is appropriate for the SBIR/STTR awards. Here is an example: Several years ago, I was funded with an RO1 to study the effect of controlled breathing.

We were using a particular device — call it “RR” (respiration reducer) — but we were not testing the effects of the RR in particular, but rather the scientific question. RR just happened to be one of several devices we were using; the focus was decidedly not on that particular one.

If a researcher wanted to work with the company that manufactures the device, that is a slightly different focus, and is thus suitable for an SBIR or STTR. (The differences between the SBIR and STTR are very subtle (see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/sbir.htm).

One caution, which sounds like a no-brainer: Start up a company, submit the grant application, get funded, go into business, and retire a whole lot better off financially than your university or hospital pension is going to leave you. But know that the business part is problematic. Most of us are in this field for a reason, and running a business is a very different proposition than devising and conducting experiments. I have ideas I’d like to commercialize, but have realized that I would be no good at the business end. Plus, I like what I’m doing.

Finding a business person who wants to partner up with you is a possibility, but I have found this to be difficult as well, although not impossible.

If you decide to pursue the SBIR route, I wish you good fortune. Without these efforts, we lose the benefit of all the good work that came before.

Comments by William Gerin, PhD, P.I. e-Alert's chief grants consultant, professor of biobehavioral health, Pennsylvania State University, and author of Writing the NIH Grant Proposal: A Step-by-Step Process (SAGE Books, 2006)

The preceding information is of necessity general in nature and may not apply to every case: obtain professional advice for your particular situation.

This eAlert is brought to you as an informational training tool by the Principal Investigators Association, which is an independent organization. Neither the eAlert nor its contents have any connection with the National Institutes of Health (NIH), nor are they endorsed by this agency. All views expressed are those personally held by the author and are not official government policies or opinions.