10 ms·

America's Seed Fund: Up to $1.5M for Zero Equity

379 points by mimixco 8y ago

mimixco 8y ago
I just applied for this grant from the National Science Foundation and was invited to submit a full proposal. Maybe other founders on HN would find this helpful. Good luck!
FakeComments 8y ago
Any US citizen interested in zero equity seed money from the US government should investigate SBIR (of which this is the NSF component), a program overseen by the Small Business Administration, but run through the departments. (You end up paying in other ways — but you should be aware of it as an option.) Every US government research program must provide 3% of its R&D to small businesses, with the goal of seeding American innovation outside of major conglomerates. Personally, I view results driven government seed money as a viable answer to many questions the US faces — but it requires we pull together behind a vision of free people engaged in small commerce, something the US left wing seems to vehemently oppose. I’m a capitalist, though: I believe the best way to cause human flourishing is expansive commerce coupled with individual freedoms, and suggest anyone disputing the social value of that show me a system that’s uplifted as many minorities out of poverty as, say, McDonalds franchising.
- fuckyah 8y ago
  I love mcdonalds
- omarchowdhury 8y ago
  > uplifted as many minorities out of poverty as, say, McDonalds franchising. I appreciate your overall message, but I believe that one would need to have non-poverty level assets to even be considered to open a McDonald's franchise. Odd example.
ada1981 8y ago
Does anyone have experience receiving funding through this sort of thing?
- codingdave 8y ago
  They have a list of over 300 current awardees on the site - if nobody on HN has any direct experience, you could certainly take that list and start making some calls to ask about the experience.
- gibba999 8y ago
  It's a bit of a disaster. Government processes aren't rational; they're bureaucratic, with specific (and complex) procedures intended to guarantee fairness. The government receives a set of proposals, and must evaluate them based on objective criteria. Unless you know what those are, you won't be competitive. You basically want to be an expert grant writer; that matters more than anything. Proposals can be rejected without being read if you, for example, format your document incorrectly, or use the wrong way to project expenses -- nits no VC would care about. The result is that much of the funding goes to SBIR shops -- organizations with no business model aside from operating from government grants. They write proposals, and use those to fund operations. They keep going for many years with products tailored to the SBIR process rather than to real markets. If you want to play, my advice would be to talk to someone who has done it, and have them review your submission. My other piece of advice is talk to the program officer. Their job is, in part, to help you navigated the sometimes-byzantine process. All that said, I don't feel bad having my taxes spent there. Despite the mismanagement, it seems to have a positive ROI for the world.
  - hpcjoe 8y ago
    I remember looking into and applying for SBIRs many years ago. My comments reflect the programs as last I interacted with them, so they may be dated in understanding. There are many issues, not the least of which are the very long lead times. From submission to decision/notifications can be 6+ months. Another issue is the Phase I/II gap. Sure, you can get more money, but there is another (at least) 6 month interval for that. And there is no guarantee that you will get the Phase II. You have to show very specific positive forward motion in Phase I to get Phase II. And Phase III, commercialization, is similar in that you need to show a nascent market. Back when I was looking into and applying for these, the VCs I spoke with suggested that they were a signal, albeit not a strong signal, that there was "something there". Not enough on its own to pull them off the couch to write a check, but enough to keep them interested if others did. This said, having participated in my fair share of government sponsored small business innovation programs, and seeing the most politically connected applicants get funded for fairly poor ideas, I'm kind of jaded about these programs. As bad as they are VCs have the right incentive (profit) albeit in the wrong structure IMO, to invest. The government is all about box checking to show their effectiveness.
eruci 8y ago
Is there anything like this for non-US residents?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- lokimedes 8y ago
  Other countries have similar funding available. For instance the Danish Innovation fund: https://innovationsfonden.dk/en https://innovationsfonden.dk/en
- jayalpha 8y ago
  Get a US Partner and give him 51%. Possible.
lettergram 8y ago
This appears to be SBIR, which has quite a few requirements. However, are definitely worth it if you can apply for the grant. I know in Champaign, IL (where I live) there are resources to help you submit an SBIR grant. I opted to go down a different path after completing a training regarding how to submit one. However, if I was working on implementing anything bio-tech related, I'd definitely submit an SBIR grant.
caymanjim 8y ago
Do we really need this? Is there some lack of private venture capital that this is overcoming? As a taxpayer, I'm not cool with this. I would much rather this money be granted for research that then becomes public domain. Why should our taxes be handed out for risky business endeavors with no direct public benefit, when the private sector already has the means to handle this? "But the government gives tons of handouts to existing companies" isn't a good answer, either. Two wrongs etc.
- gnodar 8y ago
  > Why should our taxes be handed out for risky business endeavors with no direct public benefit, when the private sector already has the means to handle this. SBIR/STTR money is primarily used for R&D work for high risk technology. The risk being that it might not work, or might not solve the problem you're trying to solve. You don't spend the money on marketing and sales. It's meant for technologies precisely in the stage that the private sector is not good at handling, for similar reasons that the private sector isn't good at funding basic research. This stage is referred to as the funding gap or the valley of death[0][1]. [0] https://www.nap.edu/openbook/18944/xhtml/images/p37.jpg https://www.nap.edu/openbook/18944/xhtml/images/p37.jpg [1] https://nsf.gov/eng/iip/innovation.pdf https://nsf.gov/eng/iip/innovation.pdf
- hesdeadjim 8y ago
  It’s a hell of a lot better way to spend money than our military industrial complex and tax breaks to wealthy individuals and corporations.
  - icedchai 8y ago
    You know that many SBIR grants actually go to the military industrial complex, right? There are 1000's of small-ish government / defense contractors that get some funding through this...
  - mruts 8y ago
    Whatabout-ism is very a good line of thought. Moreover, a lot of this money (maybe even most) is going to the military industrial complex.
matchagaucho 8y ago
Note: I've applied for SIBR funding in the past. Huge waste of time. "The catch" Application process takes several months Similar to an RFP, by the time a SIBR request is written, the preferred vendor has already been chosen. Government agency usually gets perpetual use license of your product. Pros: Received an actual written response (months later) with detailed rejection reasons. Something a VC would never do. For DoD projects and vendors with TS clearances, a SIBR contract can be parlayed into 5-10 year deals.
- pchiusano 8y ago
  Wow, I had the exact same experience. Would never bother with it again.
- pm90 8y ago
  Its a Government agency, so it moves pretty slowly. I've seen these programs used by existing businesses to secure funding to work on research-y stuff which would be hard to justify for a small business. My impression of it is that its a pretty amazing program for the right audience.
- tbenst 8y ago
  I’m a panel reviewer for NSF SBIR and the comment about a “preferred vendor already being chosen” is absolutely not true. In fact, firms that have been funded for years by govt grants are at a disadvantage compared to “true” startups.
  - jayalpha 8y ago
    Wrong. I could tell you stories Buddy, you would not believe. I could complain, but this could easily backfire and could get me and people who benefited from SBIR grants, into trouble. So no, nothing happened and I just dreamed this up when I was smoked up. I just submitted another SBIR application. Not a really happy about would I delivered in the application, but in the end, to use the words of two of my friends who got an SBIR I +II "It is not an open race". Unfortunately. So the other option is to get funded for the project is China. They shit you with money there if you bring tech.
boiler_up800 8y ago
This program is great. Massively helpful if you have risky technology. It was our primary funding source for the first few years.
Kyragem 8y ago
I don't know why NSF is wasting money on this when. I work in academia and right now if your grant doesn't get 3x excellent on its review they don't even fund it (I had 2x excellent 1x very good last year that didn't get funded).
avsteele 8y ago
As I see a number of posts negative on the NSF SBIR, so let me speak up in its defense. I'll discuss my experience as well as address some of the criticism I see above. I'll try and answer some follow up questions for people in the replies if I can as well. My company (zeroK NanoTech) probably wouldn't exist if it where not for this program. NSF SBIR can aid in the translation of technology that sits in the no-mans land between basic research and commercial technology. In my case the basic potential for our tech had been developed when I was a postdoc, but the federal lab where I worked (NIST) wasn’t going to be able to translate it. At the same time, there was not a great chance to obtain venture or similar funding because the market was a bit too small. Building off the results of our SBIR-funded research we were able to obtain additional investment from a larger company interested in our technology. The Phase I program is competitive, I recall about 15% of applications are accepted, but the application here isn’t so onerous, btu the funding amount isn’t very large; this is just for ‘proof of concept ‘ work. The odds of matriculating to Phase II and a much larger pot of money are better, about 40%. There is a decently long gap between your decision to apply and beginning of the project, but I know the NSF is working on this. The NSF is also unique in that you can apply with just about any kind of technology; most other SBIRs are not anything like this. I’ve also served on review panels for these grants. While it is the case that some applications come from largish companies who seems to subsist on SBIRs, the NSF makes a big effort to invest in 1st time applicants if they have a solid plan. My ‘company’ in our first application was just myself and my cofounder and very little other resources and we won our award. Once you are an awardee, I found the program officers to be very helpful.
- jbhatab 8y ago
  Agree with your sentiment. Although it's not perfect, it fills a gap that no one else fills. Given the lack of competition on this funding, they're doing decent. Maybe a big initiative from another country would light a fire under them.
- Eridrus 8y ago
  If this program is so good it should probably take equity or be structured as a loan so that society can get more out of it with its funding.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
lmeyerov 8y ago
Having gone through some of this, the timelines, requirements, selection process, etc. make the SBIR largely non-viable for a serious outsider tech startup effort and without outside primary funding. It's great, for example, for professors not fully committing to a venture, but wanting to run it on the side over a prolonged time. Likewise, for a contractor shop cranking these out every year, or a stable non-startup wanting to get an R&D engineer covered. If you are indeed coming from inside the system, it can be a great supplement! But for most startup folks here, your effort would go out of business before the successive funding rounds materialized, and there is too much risk that they don't happen to rely on them. You can read between the lines on the success stories reported even here. Your limited time is better spent on non-SBIR investors & customers.
- Fomite 8y ago
  Note that some of this is by design. For example, I'm in this category: 'It's great, for example, for professors not fully committing to a venture, but wanting to run it on the side over a prolonged time.' Most startup land-friendly funding mechanisms aren't well suited for that.
late2part 8y ago
I believe that ThousandEyes, a very successful Bay Area start up now funded by tier 1 Sandhill Road folks was initially funded with this or something similar.
mNovak 8y ago
Our startup is currently funded by multiple SBIRs (DOD, not NSF), and I'm amazed at the backlash against the program here. Sure, if you have easy access to VC, your life would probably be simpler. The process is not easy or quick, and if you think you'll win on your first try, keep dreaming. Each proposal cycle is like the Olympics. And spoiler, even if you win dealing with government compliance is a huge pain, and it could easily take 9-12 months to see the first dollar. We're not insiders (some but not all topics have a recipient in mind), and beyond the NSF there's heavy bias against young, small startups. But if you're a subject matter expert and can clearly communicate a realizable benefit to the warfighter (again, DOD), it is possible. Doing hard tech out in the Midwest and having funding (VC is a myth here) is an awesome thing. Without it, I'd long since be back on the job market.
bsder 8y ago
The biggest problem with these grants is that GE (and other big companies) have entire divisions dedicated to opening a "startup", writing the application, getting the money, and then folding the company back into the parent. They are a shotgun while you, at best, are a rifle. Success probabilities are corresponding.
dosy 8y ago
an effect I've noticed on this forum is that people come out against something just for the sake of making an argument. I've done it. so to get a gauge on a true measure of sentiment you need to correct for that effect. my guess is about 80% of the negative bluster is argument based and not sentiment based. meaning that if you could measure the same people's true feelings on the matter in another context when removed from the motivation to argue I think you'd see at least 80% reduction in negative sentiment on any topic. the medium of this forum is just polarizing but don't be swayed by that. The truth is much closer to the center on many issues I think.
- quickthrower2 8y ago
  For the record I’m neutral on this topic.
amacbride 8y ago
I’ve written and participated in a number of (successful and unsuccessful) Phase I&II SBIR & STTR grants via the NIH; can anyone who has done both NIH and NSF grants speak to any substantive differences between the two agencies?
- drewda 8y ago
  I only have first hand experience with NIH SBIR/STTRs, but I have heard good things from acquaintances with NSF funding. Sounds like NSF has put more resources into startup resources and mentorship, like its i-Corps program. I've also heard that NSF program officers are more open to NSF SBIR PIs pivoting their projects along the way, in order to suss out product-market fit. (Note that my impressions may be some years out of date.)
danielmorozoff 8y ago
We are funded by the nsf sbir and I must say if it wasn’t for this mechanism our company would not exist. Effectively it funds reach science that can have translational applications. The value of the sbir is to get you to mvp ( phase I) and scale out to prove traction in phase II Effectively it provides capital when vcs aren’t willing to either because you’re too early from rev numbers or they just lack the alignment on vision/market or some other reason
rememberlenny 8y ago
For what it's worth, I worked on improving this while at 18F. A big problem with this program was that the funds distributed were disproportionately allocated to coastal cities. As a result, places like silicon valley, north east (Boston) and NY. The goal of the project revision was to help make sure more money was going to less recognized universities and research entities. This is definitely worth pursuing if there are areas of research that you or your company are exploring that have potential to go to market with a infusion of capital. The drawbacks, like any type of investment, are mainly the distribution cycles of the funds. Unlike private equity, you may need to wait longer than a quick VC seedfund to get money. If you are already burning capital, then this is likely not the ideal investment for you.
shmooth 8y ago
At least no room for corruption

379 points by mimixco 8y ago

I just applied for this grant from the National Science Foundation and was invited to submit a full proposal. Maybe other founders on HN would find this helpful. Good luck!

FakeComments 8y ago

Any US citizen interested in zero equity seed money from the US government should investigate SBIR (of which this is the NSF component), a program overseen by the Small Business Administration, but run through the departments. (You end up paying in other ways — but you should be aware of it as an option.) Every US government research program must provide 3% of its R&D to small businesses, with the goal of seeding American innovation outside of major conglomerates. Personally, I view results driven government seed money as a viable answer to many questions the US faces — but it requires we pull together behind a vision of free people engaged in small commerce, something the US left wing seems to vehemently oppose. I’m a capitalist, though: I believe the best way to cause human flourishing is expansive commerce coupled with individual freedoms, and suggest anyone disputing the social value of that show me a system that’s uplifted as many minorities out of poverty as, say, McDonalds franchising.

fuckyah 8y ago
I love mcdonalds
omarchowdhury 8y ago
> uplifted as many minorities out of poverty as, say, McDonalds franchising. I appreciate your overall message, but I believe that one would need to have non-poverty level assets to even be considered to open a McDonald's franchise. Odd example.

ada1981 8y ago

Does anyone have experience receiving funding through this sort of thing?

codingdave 8y ago
They have a list of over 300 current awardees on the site - if nobody on HN has any direct experience, you could certainly take that list and start making some calls to ask about the experience.
gibba999 8y ago
It's a bit of a disaster. Government processes aren't rational; they're bureaucratic, with specific (and complex) procedures intended to guarantee fairness. The government receives a set of proposals, and must evaluate them based on objective criteria. Unless you know what those are, you won't be competitive. You basically want to be an expert grant writer; that matters more than anything. Proposals can be rejected without being read if you, for example, format your document incorrectly, or use the wrong way to project expenses -- nits no VC would care about. The result is that much of the funding goes to SBIR shops -- organizations with no business model aside from operating from government grants. They write proposals, and use those to fund operations. They keep going for many years with products tailored to the SBIR process rather than to real markets. If you want to play, my advice would be to talk to someone who has done it, and have them review your submission. My other piece of advice is talk to the program officer. Their job is, in part, to help you navigated the sometimes-byzantine process. All that said, I don't feel bad having my taxes spent there. Despite the mismanagement, it seems to have a positive ROI for the world.
- hpcjoe 8y ago
  I remember looking into and applying for SBIRs many years ago. My comments reflect the programs as last I interacted with them, so they may be dated in understanding. There are many issues, not the least of which are the very long lead times. From submission to decision/notifications can be 6+ months. Another issue is the Phase I/II gap. Sure, you can get more money, but there is another (at least) 6 month interval for that. And there is no guarantee that you will get the Phase II. You have to show very specific positive forward motion in Phase I to get Phase II. And Phase III, commercialization, is similar in that you need to show a nascent market. Back when I was looking into and applying for these, the VCs I spoke with suggested that they were a signal, albeit not a strong signal, that there was "something there". Not enough on its own to pull them off the couch to write a check, but enough to keep them interested if others did. This said, having participated in my fair share of government sponsored small business innovation programs, and seeing the most politically connected applicants get funded for fairly poor ideas, I'm kind of jaded about these programs. As bad as they are VCs have the right incentive (profit) albeit in the wrong structure IMO, to invest. The government is all about box checking to show their effectiveness.

eruci 8y ago

Is there anything like this for non-US residents?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
lokimedes 8y ago
Other countries have similar funding available. For instance the Danish Innovation fund: https://innovationsfonden.dk/en https://innovationsfonden.dk/en
jayalpha 8y ago
Get a US Partner and give him 51%. Possible.

lettergram 8y ago

This appears to be SBIR, which has quite a few requirements. However, are definitely worth it if you can apply for the grant. I know in Champaign, IL (where I live) there are resources to help you submit an SBIR grant. I opted to go down a different path after completing a training regarding how to submit one. However, if I was working on implementing anything bio-tech related, I'd definitely submit an SBIR grant.

caymanjim 8y ago

Do we really need this? Is there some lack of private venture capital that this is overcoming? As a taxpayer, I'm not cool with this. I would much rather this money be granted for research that then becomes public domain. Why should our taxes be handed out for risky business endeavors with no direct public benefit, when the private sector already has the means to handle this? "But the government gives tons of handouts to existing companies" isn't a good answer, either. Two wrongs etc.

gnodar 8y ago
> Why should our taxes be handed out for risky business endeavors with no direct public benefit, when the private sector already has the means to handle this. SBIR/STTR money is primarily used for R&D work for high risk technology. The risk being that it might not work, or might not solve the problem you're trying to solve. You don't spend the money on marketing and sales. It's meant for technologies precisely in the stage that the private sector is not good at handling, for similar reasons that the private sector isn't good at funding basic research. This stage is referred to as the funding gap or the valley of death[0][1]. [0] https://www.nap.edu/openbook/18944/xhtml/images/p37.jpg https://www.nap.edu/openbook/18944/xhtml/images/p37.jpg [1] https://nsf.gov/eng/iip/innovation.pdf https://nsf.gov/eng/iip/innovation.pdf
hesdeadjim 8y ago
It’s a hell of a lot better way to spend money than our military industrial complex and tax breaks to wealthy individuals and corporations.
- icedchai 8y ago
  You know that many SBIR grants actually go to the military industrial complex, right? There are 1000's of small-ish government / defense contractors that get some funding through this...
- mruts 8y ago
  Whatabout-ism is very a good line of thought. Moreover, a lot of this money (maybe even most) is going to the military industrial complex.

matchagaucho 8y ago

Note: I've applied for SIBR funding in the past. Huge waste of time. "The catch" Application process takes several months Similar to an RFP, by the time a SIBR request is written, the preferred vendor has already been chosen. Government agency usually gets perpetual use license of your product. Pros: Received an actual written response (months later) with detailed rejection reasons. Something a VC would never do. For DoD projects and vendors with TS clearances, a SIBR contract can be parlayed into 5-10 year deals.

pchiusano 8y ago
Wow, I had the exact same experience. Would never bother with it again.
pm90 8y ago
Its a Government agency, so it moves pretty slowly. I've seen these programs used by existing businesses to secure funding to work on research-y stuff which would be hard to justify for a small business. My impression of it is that its a pretty amazing program for the right audience.
tbenst 8y ago
I’m a panel reviewer for NSF SBIR and the comment about a “preferred vendor already being chosen” is absolutely not true. In fact, firms that have been funded for years by govt grants are at a disadvantage compared to “true” startups.
- jayalpha 8y ago
  Wrong. I could tell you stories Buddy, you would not believe. I could complain, but this could easily backfire and could get me and people who benefited from SBIR grants, into trouble. So no, nothing happened and I just dreamed this up when I was smoked up. I just submitted another SBIR application. Not a really happy about would I delivered in the application, but in the end, to use the words of two of my friends who got an SBIR I +II "It is not an open race". Unfortunately. So the other option is to get funded for the project is China. They shit you with money there if you bring tech.

boiler_up800 8y ago

This program is great. Massively helpful if you have risky technology. It was our primary funding source for the first few years.

Kyragem 8y ago

I don't know why NSF is wasting money on this when. I work in academia and right now if your grant doesn't get 3x excellent on its review they don't even fund it (I had 2x excellent 1x very good last year that didn't get funded).

avsteele 8y ago

As I see a number of posts negative on the NSF SBIR, so let me speak up in its defense. I'll discuss my experience as well as address some of the criticism I see above. I'll try and answer some follow up questions for people in the replies if I can as well. My company (zeroK NanoTech) probably wouldn't exist if it where not for this program. NSF SBIR can aid in the translation of technology that sits in the no-mans land between basic research and commercial technology. In my case the basic potential for our tech had been developed when I was a postdoc, but the federal lab where I worked (NIST) wasn’t going to be able to translate it. At the same time, there was not a great chance to obtain venture or similar funding because the market was a bit too small. Building off the results of our SBIR-funded research we were able to obtain additional investment from a larger company interested in our technology. The Phase I program is competitive, I recall about 15% of applications are accepted, but the application here isn’t so onerous, btu the funding amount isn’t very large; this is just for ‘proof of concept ‘ work. The odds of matriculating to Phase II and a much larger pot of money are better, about 40%. There is a decently long gap between your decision to apply and beginning of the project, but I know the NSF is working on this. The NSF is also unique in that you can apply with just about any kind of technology; most other SBIRs are not anything like this. I’ve also served on review panels for these grants. While it is the case that some applications come from largish companies who seems to subsist on SBIRs, the NSF makes a big effort to invest in 1st time applicants if they have a solid plan. My ‘company’ in our first application was just myself and my cofounder and very little other resources and we won our award. Once you are an awardee, I found the program officers to be very helpful.

jbhatab 8y ago
Agree with your sentiment. Although it's not perfect, it fills a gap that no one else fills. Given the lack of competition on this funding, they're doing decent. Maybe a big initiative from another country would light a fire under them.
Eridrus 8y ago
If this program is so good it should probably take equity or be structured as a loan so that society can get more out of it with its funding.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

lmeyerov 8y ago

Having gone through some of this, the timelines, requirements, selection process, etc. make the SBIR largely non-viable for a serious outsider tech startup effort and without outside primary funding. It's great, for example, for professors not fully committing to a venture, but wanting to run it on the side over a prolonged time. Likewise, for a contractor shop cranking these out every year, or a stable non-startup wanting to get an R&D engineer covered. If you are indeed coming from inside the system, it can be a great supplement! But for most startup folks here, your effort would go out of business before the successive funding rounds materialized, and there is too much risk that they don't happen to rely on them. You can read between the lines on the success stories reported even here. Your limited time is better spent on non-SBIR investors & customers.

Fomite 8y ago
Note that some of this is by design. For example, I'm in this category: 'It's great, for example, for professors not fully committing to a venture, but wanting to run it on the side over a prolonged time.' Most startup land-friendly funding mechanisms aren't well suited for that.

late2part 8y ago

I believe that ThousandEyes, a very successful Bay Area start up now funded by tier 1 Sandhill Road folks was initially funded with this or something similar.

mNovak 8y ago

Our startup is currently funded by multiple SBIRs (DOD, not NSF), and I'm amazed at the backlash against the program here. Sure, if you have easy access to VC, your life would probably be simpler. The process is not easy or quick, and if you think you'll win on your first try, keep dreaming. Each proposal cycle is like the Olympics. And spoiler, even if you win dealing with government compliance is a huge pain, and it could easily take 9-12 months to see the first dollar. We're not insiders (some but not all topics have a recipient in mind), and beyond the NSF there's heavy bias against young, small startups. But if you're a subject matter expert and can clearly communicate a realizable benefit to the warfighter (again, DOD), it is possible. Doing hard tech out in the Midwest and having funding (VC is a myth here) is an awesome thing. Without it, I'd long since be back on the job market.

bsder 8y ago

The biggest problem with these grants is that GE (and other big companies) have entire divisions dedicated to opening a "startup", writing the application, getting the money, and then folding the company back into the parent. They are a shotgun while you, at best, are a rifle. Success probabilities are corresponding.

dosy 8y ago

an effect I've noticed on this forum is that people come out against something just for the sake of making an argument. I've done it. so to get a gauge on a true measure of sentiment you need to correct for that effect. my guess is about 80% of the negative bluster is argument based and not sentiment based. meaning that if you could measure the same people's true feelings on the matter in another context when removed from the motivation to argue I think you'd see at least 80% reduction in negative sentiment on any topic. the medium of this forum is just polarizing but don't be swayed by that. The truth is much closer to the center on many issues I think.

quickthrower2 8y ago
For the record I’m neutral on this topic.

amacbride 8y ago

I’ve written and participated in a number of (successful and unsuccessful) Phase I&II SBIR & STTR grants via the NIH; can anyone who has done both NIH and NSF grants speak to any substantive differences between the two agencies?

drewda 8y ago
I only have first hand experience with NIH SBIR/STTRs, but I have heard good things from acquaintances with NSF funding. Sounds like NSF has put more resources into startup resources and mentorship, like its i-Corps program. I've also heard that NSF program officers are more open to NSF SBIR PIs pivoting their projects along the way, in order to suss out product-market fit. (Note that my impressions may be some years out of date.)

danielmorozoff 8y ago

We are funded by the nsf sbir and I must say if it wasn’t for this mechanism our company would not exist. Effectively it funds reach science that can have translational applications. The value of the sbir is to get you to mvp ( phase I) and scale out to prove traction in phase II Effectively it provides capital when vcs aren’t willing to either because you’re too early from rev numbers or they just lack the alignment on vision/market or some other reason

rememberlenny 8y ago

For what it's worth, I worked on improving this while at 18F. A big problem with this program was that the funds distributed were disproportionately allocated to coastal cities. As a result, places like silicon valley, north east (Boston) and NY. The goal of the project revision was to help make sure more money was going to less recognized universities and research entities. This is definitely worth pursuing if there are areas of research that you or your company are exploring that have potential to go to market with a infusion of capital. The drawbacks, like any type of investment, are mainly the distribution cycles of the funds. Unlike private equity, you may need to wait longer than a quick VC seedfund to get money. If you are already burning capital, then this is likely not the ideal investment for you.

shmooth 8y ago

At least no room for corruption