January 26, 2011 2011 Commercialization Grant Competitions Information for Applicants.

January 26, 2011

2011 Commercialization Grant Competitions

Information for Applicants

LSDF’s Mission

* The Life Sciences Discovery Fund was created by the Washington state legislature in 2005 to support life sciences research to:• improve health and health care• stimulate economic development• keep Washington’s life sciences sector competitive

Commercialization Grants

Support R&D to enhance technology commercialization Applied research and development, not basic or discovery

research

Support highly targeted activities within the ‘valley of death’

Studies help validate the commercial merit of promising new technologies

Markedly enhance the probability that new technologies and concepts will be developed into products and services

Reduce the risk of commercialization of new ideas and technologies

Overview

Two granting rounds announced for 2011

Up to $750K in grants to be awarded in each round Individual awards up to $150K in total costs Work to be completed in one year

Proposals must demonstrate a commitment on behalf of the applicant organization to commercialize the technology under development

Process and Goals

Competitive process uses expert reviewers with awardees chosen by LSDF Board of Trustees Three levels of review: pre-proposal + business and

scientific/technical review of proposal

Investor’s perspective

Return on investment = health-related returns + economic returns + Washington state competitiveness

ROI: How Will this Research Benefit Washington State? Health: Improve diagnosis, treatment, prevention, and management of

significant health and health care problems in Washington state? Increase efficiencies in health care and health-care systems?

Economic: Enhance commercialization of research outcomes? Start new companies with the prospect for new job creation? Attract follow-on grant/investment funding? Decrease state expenditures for health care?

Competitiveness Keeping Washington’s life sciences sector vital

Important Elements

Eligibility Washington non-profit organizations (public or private)

Milestones Specific and measurable according to a timeline Progress reports

Indirect Costs Reimbursable

Corporate Involvement

Grants are made to nonprofit and governmental entities, but not for-profit entities

LSDF encourages nonprofit/for-profit collaborations

Under some circumstances, LSDF funds can be subcontracted from the grant recipient to a for-profit There must be clear benefit to the nonprofit and the goals of the

project under any subcontract

Corporate Involvement

Examples of “clear benefit” to the nonprofit partner: Work has the potential to enhance an existing license For-profit entity has unique expertise or technology or is

providing deliverable goods or services that enable the research to be accomplished

High probability that jointly owned intellectual property will result Grantee will receive financial returns from future sales

Testing of a company’s product without return to the PI’s organization would generally not be viewed as showing “clear benefit”

Assistance

LSDF has partnered with the Institute of Translational Health Sciences (part of the NIH CTSA award to UW) to provide “mentoring” assistance

PIs invited to consult with ITHS preclinical development specialists in advance of pre-proposal and proposal submissions Feedback on preclinical and clinical development plans Information on the business case/medical need underlying the

proposal Identification of research and clinical collaborators Access to MBA summer fellowship students

What’s New for 2011?

What activities will take place to develop the “business case” during the grant period?

How will development of the business case be coordinated with the scientific/technical work?

Identification of the “commercialization coordinator”

“Commercialization partners” must be endorsed by owner of underlying IP

Proposal Cycle – Pre-proposal

Pre-proposal submission Reviewed by LSDF-convened commercialization panel PI + “commercialization partner” meet with review panel Q&A format – constructive advice provided by panel

Written comments follow “Encouraged” vs. “Not Encouraged” for full proposal submission Full proposals may be submitted regardless of rating

Proposal Cycle – Full Proposal

Full proposal submission Reviewed for scientific/technical merit by AAAS-convened

panel; for commercial merit by LSDF-convened commercialization panel

PI (+ commercialization partner) to be available by telephone to entertain questions during panel meeting

Commercialization panel makes final recommendations to LSDF board “Highly Recommended”, “Recommended”, or “Not

Recommended” for funding

Proposal Cycle – Board Evaluation

LSDF Board of Trustees evaluation and award decisions Expert reviews are critical to the Board’s evaluation Awards selected and announced during a public meeting of the

Board

Proposal Cycle – Post-announcement

Post-award announcement All submitters get written comments of AAAS and

commercialization panels Grant initiation meeting Awards subject to negotiation of grant agreement, including

milestones and timelines for completion of the work Resubmissions encouraged

Key Dates

Event Round 1 Round 2 Pre-proposal due March 16, 2011 October 12, 2011 Pre-proposal review meeting/PI interview April 19-20, 2011 Nov. 15-16, 2011 Pre-proposal written comments provided April 25, 2011 November 21, 2011 Proposal due J une 15, 2011 J anuary 11, 2012 Proposal review meeting/PI teleconference August 17, 2011 March 14, 2012 Board of Trustees proposal evaluation September 13, 2011 April 10, 2012 Earliest funding start date November, 2011 J une, 2012

Grants Awarded to Date

Four competitions completed to date 83 pre-proposals evaluated (23 + 29 + 18 + 13) 39 full proposals received (7 + 10 + 12 + 10) 10 proposals funded (2 + 1 + 4 + 3): 26% funding rate

Examples of Funded Projects

Award examples First clinical testing of a new instrument for early detection of shock Animal testing of a new material to prevent catheter-associated infections Test of whether a novel biologic can reduce vascular calcification in an

animal model Clinical study of a pressure transducer for lumbar puncture Preclinical safety testing of a new MRI contrast agent Enhancement of a DNA sequencing technology for T cell profiling Prototyping of a device for detecting early tooth decay Immunoassay enhancement using smart polymers Prototyping of a new cerebrospinal fluid drainage system Clinical testing of a system to capture and detect pathogens in exhaled

breath

Lessons Learned -Top Reasons Proposals Fail

Proposed work is too early to be thinking about commercialization

Business case is weak – no commercialization partner Market size, competition, etc.

Inadequate description of the new product or service Relevance to Washington is not clear Outcomes not specified or measurable – Does the study

reduce risk? Intellectual property plan is unrealistic, inadequate or

absent Benefit to applicant organization not evident

For More Information

www.LifeSciencesDiscoveryFund.org