Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : VD's Model Portfolio & Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Biomaven who wrote (8730)	4/7/2001 9:14:21 PM
From: Biotech Jim	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9719

Concerning SBIR grants, I used to sit on NIH study sections for 5 1/2 years, but not on a SBIR review committee. A couple of close colleagues of mine have sat on such a committees, and I was involved in ad hoc reviews for such a committee. There is a dramatic variance in the quality of grants for SBIR awards. Many bad ideas, and also many poorly crafted stories. It used to be that any reasonable grant made the payline. On the other hand, the classical academic originated grant, the so called R01, was much more competitive. Different institutes had different paylines. In the best of times, up to 30% of these got funded, while in the worst of times, only 2 to 5% made the payline. Today it is somewhere in between. Note also that there is no limit in the number of grants an investigator can put in. As to company grants, there are two things to look for in terms of validation of the ideas and the technology. The first is whether an awardee gets the phase 2 award, and the second is whether there are multiple awards per company of either phase 1 or phase 2. Continued success goes a long way in my opinion BJ