Awards - Sixth Round
- Sixth Round Awardees (PDF)
- Partners Involved in the Sixth Round Awards
- Sixth Round Award Distribution
- Sixth Round Recommended Awards Summaries (PDF)
- Sixth Round Applicants
- Sixth Round Proposal Focus Areas (PDF)
- Sixth Round Analytical Data
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.