21st Century Fund
Success Story

Awards - First Round

Download Adobe Acrobat Reader for PDF files

Summary

180 proposals were submitted, of which 170 were peer reviewed (10 were returned without review). 12 projects were awarded, for a total of $14.6M. Cost share provided by the applicants was $13.4M. Additional leverage is provided by current and pending Federal awards, though this is not included in our estimate of "immediate" cost share. Longer-term, it is expected that Fund awardees will provide large-scale leverage via Federal and private sector support of follow-on activities and commercialization.

These awards support development of new technologies or extend existing technologies, create essential new technical infrastructure in Indiana, and enable the establishment of centers of excellence in technologies critical to the growth of Indiana's high technology sector.

Of the 12 first-round awards, 8 have major biomedical objectives, including: validation of the therapeutic use of devices, tissue engineering, development of new orthopedic approaches and materials, dental imaging, and applications of mid-IR sensing. Two biomedical awards provide essential infrastructure to the medical sciences in Indiana: the rodent resource and the medical genomics center. Such infrastructure provides an important competitive advantage to Indiana researchers in attracting Federal research and development funds.

A major high technology cluster in orthopedic implants exists in the State. This group of companies has an important need to develop new materials and technologies in order to assure its long-term viability. Two awards (#20, Schmid; and #32, Varma) broaden the ties between the orthopedic cluster and the academic research base in the State. In addition, the rapidly evolving tissue- engineering field is strongly supported by the award to Hiles (#86).

Future progress in the understanding of disease processes, and the biological response to therapeutics, will be utterly dependent on the ability to characterize global changes in genome expression (and the correlation of those changes with phenotype) and on the ability to create, maintain, and characterize genetically modified rodents. The awards to Edenberg (#112) and to Li (#109) provide this critical infrastructure to the Indiana biomedical research community.

Diagnostic and therapeutic device development supports another important cluster within the State (awards to Gore, #96; Stookey, #111; and Kraemer, #122), although the objectives of the Gore project extend well beyond biomedical applications.

The sole information technologies award made in the first round targets medical multimedia database management (Elmagarmid, #71), which is an area of growing importance as the health care community moves to more efficient integration of all aspects of health information management. Similarly, application of advanced computational techniques to the development of the next generation of jet engines is supported by the award to Anand (#158). Advances in separation science, which are likely to have major impact on chemical, pharmaceutical, and food industries are supported by the award to Wang (#28).

The award to Baxter (#155), which involves a collaboration between IU Bloomington and the University of Notre Dame, aims to develop Hoosier expertise in spintronics research-an area of major potential commercial optoelectronics development.

Awards - Second Round

Download Adobe Acrobat Reader for PDF files

Summary

These awards support development of Centers of Excellence; Science and Technology Commercialization; as well as development of regional innovation development centers at Ft. Wayne and Terre Haute. The Center of Excellence projects are focused on new technology discovery and its commercialization. These Centers develop an administrative infrastructure supporting sustained technology commercialization through broad and evolving partnerships with the Hoosier commercial sector. These Center projects support: analytical instrumentation development; applications of nanotechnology to creating new devices; applications of genomics to the understanding and control of insect biology; the biology and medical applications of tissue regeneration; biomedical imaging; advanced research in propulsion; and applications of food science to human health.

Technology Development and Commercialization project awards support: microfabrication of medical diagnostic devices; the application of advanced optical methods to bedside diagnostics; creation of a medical informatics infrastructure for more effective and integrated health care delivery; development of advanced computational methods for drug discovery; development of new sensors for leak detection; video applications involving the internet; extending the capabilities of palm-size computers; solvents for the pharmaceutical industry; advanced ceramics; and fire-retarded plastic fiber optic cable development.

These diverse high technology development efforts originate from all over the state, and involve wide-ranging academic-industry partnerships, which tightly couple technology creation with its commercialization. They capitalize on and develop important synergies within and among academic, industry, and commercial sectors. In addition, these partnerships provide channels through which private and federal funds can leverage the projects enabled by Fund awards. This group of awards is highly leveraged. Two additional dollars have been provided for every Fund dollar.

The broad geographic distribution of the awards reflects, in part, the complex distribution of the partners. For instance, the activities of the Center for Insect Genomics are supported by academic and commercial entities in South Bend, West Lafayette, Greenfield, and Indianapolis. Furthermore, the support for these projects originates not only at the State level (the Fund) but also flows in substantial amounts from the partners themselves. Current and future federal and private funds provide, or will provide, further leverage of these awards. Thus, all of the projects supported should logically be viewed as statewide. This viewpoint mirrors the Fund's emphasis on supporting technology development and commercialization activities at the academic/industry/governmental interfaces through partnerships.

While the diversity of these recommended awards defies simplistic summary, some important conclusions can nonetheless be drawn. Somewhat more than half of the awards address topics in the biological sciences. The Centers for Insect Genomics and Enhancing Foods to Protect Health promise to embed new technologies and commercialization opportunities in the important agricultural sector of our economy. The Biomedical Imaging Center and the projects involving microfabrication of a Blood Monitoring System and commercialization of a Critical Care Analyzer for bedside diagnostics all address important basic research and clinical science/diagnostics issues. Two awards involving computational drug design and development of new environmentally friendly solvents for industry will have important consequences for the Indiana pharmaceutical industry. Of course, most of the awards identified as having biological import also involve profound physical science input. Obvious examples include the Instrumentation Center of Excellence and Combinatorial Ceramics Synthesis project.

Information and Internet technologies are areas of rapid growth in Indiana. Three of the current awards involve this area: Memory Management Software on Palm-Size Computers; Entertainment Video over the Internet; and Development of a Real-Time Information Infrastructure to Enable the Transparent Hospital.

Important non-biological technology development projects supported include: development of intelligent sensors for leak detection; development of flame-retarded plastic optical fibers, which addresses a central limitation for development of cheap fibers; and rocket engine development.

The list below provides summaries of the projects, indicates the partnerships involved in the technology development activity, and provides the overall budget and direct leverage involved. In addition to direct leverage, there are related federal awards which support related aspects of these activities and, of course, anticipated future federal awards. Thus, the leverage stated must be regarded as a minimum estimate of the additional funds, which will be made available from non-State sources for the support of these research and commercialization activities.

Awards - Third Round

Download Adobe Acrobat Reader for PDF files

Summary

101 proposals will be reviewed in the third and final round of the Indiana 21st Century Fund's Award process for the 1999-2000 biennium. The proposals cover a remarkable range of topic areas. Broad categories include: Engineering (40 proposals); Medical (26 proposals); Agriculture (10 proposals); Information Technologies (14 proposals); Nanotechnology (1 proposal); Pharmaceutical Science (2 proposals); Global Positioning Systems and Applications (4 proposals); and Entrepreneurial (4 proposals). Since the Fund emphasizes interdisciplinary activities, it is not surprising that many proposals overlap several of the above categories. Nonetheless, each proposal was assigned to a single topic area in making the above classification.

Roughly 50% of the third round proposals were submitted by commercial sector entities, and the remainder by academic institutions. Whatever institution made the submission, proposals involved participation by multiple partner institutions. In the first two rounds, 40% of applications originated in the commercial sector.

The third round proposals request a total of $137,419,744 from the Fund in support of projects with total budgets of $385,652,408. Thus the overall leverage for this round is 2.8 to 1. Leveraging of awards from rounds one and two were 1 to 1 and 2 to 1, respectively.

Within the academic sector the following institutions made submissions as lead institutions:

  • Tri-State University (1)
  • University of Evansville (1)
  • University of Notre Dame (7)
  • IUPUI (6)
  • Indiana University, Bloomington (1)
  • Purdue University (26)
  • Indiana Institute of Technology (2)
  • Indiana State University (2)
  • Ball State University (2)

Academic institutions were lead institutions or partners in virtually all of the proposals, consistent with the Fund's emphasis on the formation of academic sector-commercial sector partnerships.

Two spreadsheets summarizing the proposals submitted to the third round are provided. The first, and simplest, is an Excel Spreadsheet, listing submitting institution, project title, project ID number, PI, 21st Century Fund request, and Total project cost. The second spreadsheet is an Access Database containing the above information as well as an abstract, describing the project. Both databases can be downloaded and searched or sorted. We hope that this format will help companies and academic institutions identify groups with interests, needs, or capabilities of mutual interest.

Awards - Fourth Round

Download Adobe Acrobat Reader for PDF files

Summary

111 proposals were received in the Indiana 21st Century Research & Technology Fund's fourth round of competition. Four proposals were returned as unresponsive to the Request for Proposals, so 107 proposals underwent review. Panel and ad hoc reviewers were been assigned to these proposals. Panel review occurred in mid-November. The Fund's Board approved 18 awards based on the outcome of the review. Fund staff then provided review feedback to applicants.

It is heartening to find, in the distribution of lead and partner institutions, evidence of a continued geographic broadening of technology and commercialization activities throughout the state. This is a primary impact of the Fund's emphasis on the formation of partnerships. In this regard it is important to note that the commercial impact of a project is frequently captured at partner sites. This is particularly true for academic Centers of Excellence proposals/awards. The partners participating in the projects include a widening range of academic institutions. This has the effect of wider inclusion of elements of our State's future workforce.

Proposals submitted for Round 4 were distributed (based on numbers of proposals) in the following broad areas:

 Medical/Biomedical23.1%
 Informatics11.1%
 Communications11.1%
 Processing8.3%
 MEMS Nanotechnology/Microfluidics6.5%
 Advanced Manufacturing11.1%
 Software Engineering/Dev4%
 Research Infrastructure0.9%
 Instrumentation/Mass Spec.2.8%
 General Infrastructure2.8%
 Agriculture/Environment7.4%

Approximately 32% of Round 4 submissions are revisions or extensions of proposals considered in earlier rounds.

Biomedical applications often overlap the engineering and information technology sectors. In the broadest sense, biomedical proposals and application areas involve 36% of proposals. Thus, the three largest sectors submitting to the Round 4 competition are: Engineering, Biomedical, and Information Technologies. The growing micro/nanotechnology sector is interesting since it follows on Indiana's increasing academic emphasis in this area. There has been a substantial increase in proposals emphasizing agriculture-related technology development and commercialization. As national software sales overtake computer hardware sales, this sector of Indiana's IT community takes on increased importance for the State's overall competitive advantage. Another area of great interest involves process optimization and logistics. It is clear that academic and commercial strengths in this area will become central to Indiana's rapidly evolving “distribution” industry.

Awards - Fifth Round

Download Adobe Acrobat Reader for PDF files

Summary

The receipt date for Round 5 was November 14, 2003. 117 proposals were received via the Bravelo submission system. Of these, one was withdrawn and eight were returned as noncompliant to the guidelines in the Request for Proposals, primarily failure to include a research plan. 108 proposals were reviewed, using a combination of ad hoc and panel reviews.

The Round 5 peer review panel met in Indianapolis, IN on January 8th and 9th, 2004. Panel members provided written reviews of the proposals. In addition, other panel members read the proposals and participated in the discussions, but did not provide written reviews. Occasionally, these ‘secondary reviewers' provided summary written comments. Where available, such reviews are included in the review feedback to principal investigators.

During the course of the panel meeting, if written reviews noted significant technical/commercialization issues, and if assigned panel members agreed, panel discussion of those proposals was omitted.

In reaching its consensus merit rating for each proposal, the panel made use of its own written reviews, the comments of assigned panel readers, and the written comments of provided by outside (ad hoc) reviewers. The panel's discussion of each discussed proposal has been summarized by Fund staff and is provided to principal investigators along with verbatim anonymous written panel and ad hoc reviews. The Fund's Board feels that this detailed review feedback is an important service to the applicant community.

The Round 5 peer review panel has recommended 21 proposals and two contingent cost-share commitments to the Fund's Board; almost certainly exceeding the number the Board will approve. The remaining proposals were judged to be noncompetitive for award in this round.

As the Request for Proposals and particularly the review criteria suggest, the bar for a Fund award is set rather high. Not only must the science/technology development plan be based on excellence, but also there must be a reasonable commercialization pathway and potential economic or capacity-building impact. Unsuccessful applicants are advised to seriously consider the review comments and the review summaries provided by Fund staff, irritating as these may at first be, and explore possible revisions of your proposal, collection of substantiating research or market data, and involvement of partners.

The verbatim reviews as well as written review and panel discussion summaries are provided to the principal investigators via the Fund's Bravelo web site.

Awards - Sixth Round

Download Adobe Acrobat Reader for PDF files

Summary

The receipt date for Round 6 was May 15, 2004. The Fund received 132 proposals, including a significant number of resubmissions from Round 5. Four of these proposals were not compliant with the RFP, and were returned. 127 proposals were reviewed. This is the largest number of proposals in a Round since Round #1. The distribution of proposal focus areas can be found at http://www.21fund.org/documents/Round_6_Focus_Areas.pdf. There has been remarkable consistency across rounds 2-6. Within the broad biomedical area, there appears to have been an increase in bioengineering proposals and those dealing with expression of proteins. Energy-related proposals continue the increase we noticed in our Round 5 proposals. Also, there has been a marked increase in instrumentation proposals, particularly those involving mass spectrometry and its applications to homeland security and biomedical sciences. (See http://www.21fund.org/documents/Focus_Areas.xls)

Of the proposals received for Round 6, roughly 54% were submitted by academic institutions and 45% were lead (submitted) by private sector companies. Ten different academic institutions submitted proposals. In the Round 6 submissions, 194 separate commercial entities participated as partners, 20% of which were out of state. 35 academic institutions served as partners on Round 6 proposals. All proposals involved academic partners. 13 of the academic partners were out of state institutions.

The Round 6 peer review panel met in Indianapolis, IN on July 20th and 21st, 2004.

In reaching its consensus merit rating for each proposal, the panel made use of its own written reviews, the comments of assigned panel readers, and the written comments of provided by outside (ad hoc) reviewers. The panel's comments regarding each discussed proposal have been summarized by Fund staff and are provided to principal investigators along with verbatim anonymous written panel and ad hoc reviews. The Fund's Board feels that this detailed review feedback is an important service to the applicant community.

Panel members provided written reviews of the proposals. In addition, other panel members read the proposals and participated in the discussions, but did not provide written reviews. Occasionally, these ‘secondary reviewers' provided summary written comments. Where available, such reviews are included in the review feedback to principal investigators.

During the course of the panel meeting, if written reviews noted significant technical/commercialization issues rendering the proposal noncompetitive for an award, and if assigned panel members agreed, panel discussion of those proposals was omitted.

The Round 6 peer review panel has recommended 21 proposals to the Fund's Board for awards; almost certainly exceeding the number the Board can approve, based on the funds available for the remainder of this biennium. The remaining proposals were judged to be noncompetitive for award in this round.

As the Request for Proposals and particularly the review criteria suggest, the bar for a Fund award is set rather high. Not only must the science/technology development plan be based on excellence, but also there must be a reasonable commercialization pathway and potential economic or capacity-building impact. Unsuccessful applicants are advised to seriously consider the review comments and the review summaries provided by Fund staff, irritating as these may at first be, and explore possible revisions, collection of substantiating research or market data, and involvement of appropriate partners.

The anonymous verbatim reviews, as well as written review and panel discussion summaries, are provided to our principal investigators via the Fund's website.