U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

57–578 PDF 2010

S. HRG. 111–620 

THE NIH/SBIR EXCLUSION 

IN THE RECOVERY ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS AND 

ENTREPRENEURSHIP 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 22, 2009 

Printed for the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana, Chair 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine, Ranking Member 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

KAY HAGAN, North Carolina 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

DONALD R. CRAVINS, JR., Democratic Staff Director 

WALLACE K. HSUEH, Republican Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS

Page 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L. a United States Senator from Maryland .................. 1 

Van Hollen, Hon. Chris, a United States Representative from Maryland ......... 4 

Edwards, Hon. Donna F., a United States Representative from Maryland ....... 6 

WITNESS TESTIMONY

Pickett, Penny, Senior Advisor to the Administrator, Acting Associate Administrator for Entrepreneurial Development, Small Business Administration .. 8 

Glover, Jere, Executive Director, Small Business Technology Council ............... 13 

Cohen, Jonathan, President and CEO, 20/20 GeneSystems ................................ 28 

Pilon, Aprile, CEO, Clarassance, Inc. .................................................................... 34 

Hernandez, Joe, President and CEO, Innovative Biosensors, Inc. ...................... 42 

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L. 

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 1 

Cohen, Jonathan 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 28 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 31 

Edwards, Hon. Donna F. 

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 6 

Feingold, Hon. Russell D. 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 63 

Glover, Jere 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 13 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 16 

Hernandez, Joe 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 42 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 44 

Pickett, Penny 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10 

Pilon, Aprile 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 34 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 37 

Rockey, Dr. Sally J. 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 48 

Van Hollen, Hon. Chris 

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5 

(1) 

THE NIH/SBIR EXCLUSION 

IN THE RECOVERY ACT 

MONDAY, JUNE 22, 2009 

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS

AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP, 

Rockville, MD 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 12:59 p.m., in the 7th 

Floor Hearing Room, Stella B. Warner Montgomery County Council 

Office Building, Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin, presiding. 

Present: Senator Cardin, Representative Van Hollen, and Representative Edwards. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BENJAMIN L. 

CARDIN, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. Well, let me welcome everyone to this hearing 

of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee of the 

United States Senate. I particularly want to thank Senator Landrieu and Senator Snowe, the chairwoman and ranking member of 

the Small Business Committee, for permitting this field hearing to 

take place and allowing me to chair the hearing today in Montgomery County. 

I want to thank my colleague, Donna Edwards, who is joining me 

today. Congresswoman Edwards sits on the Science Committee as 

a very active member on these issues, and we very much appreciate her attendance today. We expect to be joined by Congressman 

Chris Van Hollen, who also represents Montgomery County in the 

Congress of the United States, does a fabulous job with people of 

this region, and serves on the Ways and Means Committee. 

So I appreciate my colleagues being here, and I understand the 

schedule and expect that they may have to leave during the hearing, and I thank you very much for being here. 

I see Councilman Michael Knapp is here. First of all, let me 

thank Phil Andrews and the full Council for allowing us to use this 

facility. And I want to thank Councilman Knapp for his interest in 

this issue. I had a chance to meet with the Council last week, and 

it was Councilman Knapp who pointed out to me one very obvious 

reason why we are so concerned about research funds getting to 

small businesses. And he made the very valid point that one of our 

objectives in getting our economy back on track is to energize companies to bring products to market, and that is an issue that we 

think was sensitized by the SBIR program. So that is another reason why we are pleased to convene this hearing today. 

2 

Earlier this year, Congress passed the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act. We did that to help bring our economy back on 

track from this recession. My colleagues mention frequently that in 

order to get our economy back on track, we have to stimulate small 

businesses, and that most of our job growth will come from small 

businesses. Small businesses are very suited for innovation and 

moving forward in creating new job opportunities. And that is true 

generally. It is also true with the SBIR program. 

As the ARRA, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, 

worked its way through the Congress, in the Conference Committee, there was language that was added. Let me point out that 

during the consideration of the Recovery Act, there was an amendment that increased the funds to NIH from about three and a half 

billion to about $10 billion, a significant increase to say the least, 

in NIH funding. And as the Conference Report was being considered, language was added to the Conference Report that said, ‘‘the 

funds provided in this Act to NIH shall not be subject to provisions 

of 15 U.S.C. 638 and 15 U.S.C. 638(f) and (1)’’. 

I welcome my colleague, Congressman Van Hollen, who I acknowledged earlier and thank him for joining me here. 

What that meant was that the allocation of the funds to go 

through the SBIR program and STTR program, that is required 

under statute, was waived by the language added to the Conference Report. 

I can assure you that we were unaware of that language being 

placed in the Conference Report. Senator Landrieu and Senator 

Snowe sent a letter to NIH, encouraging them to comply with the 

allocations because of the importance of the SBIR program to small 

businesses. Along with Senator Feingold, I also sent a letter to 

NIH, encouraging them to comply with the spirit of law. They could 

still allocate the money. There is nothing in the conference report 

that prohibits them from making funds available to small business. 

And to date, we have not received an adequate reply. 

Now, I know that NIH is going through some transition and we 

certainly understand that, with a change in the administration. I 

strongly support, as do my colleagues, NIH in its mission and its 

budget, and I have worked very hard over the years to make sure 

that it can be the premier facility of its type in the world, located 

right here in Montgomery County. We are very proud of NIH, and 

we will continue to fight for their mission. 

But I am puzzled as to why they are not responding to our request as it relates to the small business community and I am disappointed. We had hoped to have a representative from NIH with 

us today on this panel. I do not believe that someone will be here. 

Certainly, I think my colleagues would acknowledge it would not 

be too far from their job, right down the street, so it is certainly 

not a geographical problem. This is certainly a convenient location. 

We are going to pursue this. This is a matter that is too important. We are going to make sure that NIH responds to our inquiries. We believe this matter can be adequately addressed if the will 

is there at NIH to make sure that there is a fair allocation of the 

research funds to the small business community. So we are going 

to continue to work on that, and I do not want the absence of NIH 

here today to impart anything other than that. 

3 

The SBIR program is 27 years old. It was established to stimulate technology innovation related to each participating federal 

agency’s goal and mission, use small businesses to meet the federal 

research and development needs, and increase private sector commercialization of innovation that is from federal research, the point 

that Councilman Knapp was referring to. 

The Small Business Technology Transfer program was originally 

created as a pilot program in 1992 to stimulate partnerships 

through small businesses and nonprofit research institutions, such 

as our universities, a partnership that we think makes a great deal 

of sense. But though departments with an annual external research and development budget of more than $100 million are required to allocate two and a half percent of that amount to the 

SBIR program, a rather modest sum, and departments with external R&D budgets of more than a billion must allocate 0.3 percent 

to the STTR program–so these are modest allocations but important allocations—11 different departments have SBIR programs 

and five have STTR programs. According to the Small Business Administration, the largest share awards is attributable to the Department of Defense and the Department of Health and Human 

Services. 

Since the two programs were created, more than 100,000 awards have been made for a total exceeding $24 billion. In addition, small 

businesses receiving SBIR awards employ more than 1.5 million 

people, so funding for these programs is a major source of job creation. Between 2005 and 2009, Maryland companies received 1,004 

SBIR awards, and the SBA reports that SBIR firms have received 

more than 84,000 patents. 

This past Thursday, the Small Business Committee in the 

United States Senate, by a unanimous vote, reported out a bill reauthorizing both of these programs for the next 14 years. 

The bill would increase gradually the SBIR program’s allocation 

from two and a half percent to three and a half percent and double 

the STTR’s allocation from 0.3 percent to 0.6 percent. The bill 

would also increase awards guidelines from $100,000 to $150,000 

for phase one, and $750,000 to a million dollars for phase two. It 

also strengthens the Office of Technology at the SBA so it has the 

authority and resources to carry out its duty overseeing SBIR and 

STTR across the Federal Government. 

I am pleased that a couple amendments that I authored were included. The first clarifies that small businesses with cooperation, 

research and development agreements with federal labs, can participate in the SBIR program, and the second clarifies that the allocations are not ceilings, with regard to the amount of funds that 

can be made available by NIH and other agencies. They can supplement SBIR and STTR awards with other funds for small businesses. We want to make that very clear, that we do not expect 

this to be a firewall with other programs of support for the small 

business community. 

We are pleased that we do have a very distinguished panel that 

we will be hearing from as to the importance of these programs 

and the impact on economic recovery from the inability to release 

adequate funds under the ARRA. But before I turn to our panel, 

I will give my colleagues an opportunity to give an opening stateVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:16 Oct 08, 2010 Jkt 057578 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\57578.TXT SHAUN PsN: DPROCT
4 

ment. We will start with Congressman Van Hollen, who, I pointed 

out earlier, serves on the Ways and Means Committee and as part 

of the leadership in the House of Representatives. He is a close colleague and friend, and he does a great job representing the people 

of Montgomery County and Prince George’s County. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, A UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE FROM MARYLAND 

Representative VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Senator Cardin. I want 

to start by thanking Senator Cardin for his leadership on a whole 

range of issues important to both Maryland and the country and 

for organizing this gathering, hearing, today on this very important 

subject. It is also great to be here with my colleague, Congresswoman Donna Edwards. And Mike Knapp, always good to see you, 

joining us from the County Council, and others here. 

I am not going to be long. In fact, if I could just have my statement included in the record, I will not go through the whole thing. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Van Hollen follows:] 

5 


Insert offset folio 01 here 57578.001
6 

Representative VAN HOLLEN. I just want to underscore the importance of two things. Number one is when you passed the Economic Recovery Bill, it was designed to try and get the economy 

moving again. As all of us know, the economy was in a tailspin, 

and I think there are some promising signs that things have begun 

to at least flatten and end the downward spiral. But it will take 

some time for the economy, of course, to recover. 

As part of that effort, we did substantially increase our investment in the National Institutes of Health. I am proud that they 

have their home in the 8th Congressional District because we believe there are lots of researchers out there with great ideas that 

have not been able to be funded. In fact, there is a big backlog of 

proposals out there that have already been deemed to be promising 

proposals that have not been adequately funded. So we want to 

make sure that the funds provided that increase for NIH. 

We also need to recognize that small businesses are the engine 

of our economy and that the whole idea behind the SBIR grants is 

to take advantage of small business entrepreneurship and innovation with respect to the areas of scientific endeavor and technological breakthrough. So I believe it was very short-sighted for that 

provision to find itself in the Economic Recovery Bill to essentially 

say that the NIH portion of the funds were no longer subject to the 

requirement that that percentage go to SBIR grants, and that the 

Senator made that known to the Department of Health and Human 

Services as well as NIH. 

We look forward to working with Senator Cardin and his colleagues as we do the reauthorization of SBIR in both the House 

and Senate to ensure that going forward, the SBIR program is not 

just saved but it is enhanced and strengthened going forward, because I think the results speak for itself. The National Academy of 

Sciences report indicated that this was a good investment for the 

country, and I am, like the Senator, disappointed that there is not 

a representative from NIH. If it was not due to inadvertence on 

their part, I think that means that we will have to let them know 

very clearly that we are disappointed and we will be following 

through and taking further action. 

Thank you, Senator. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much. 

Congresswoman Edwards represents also Prince George’s County 

and Montgomery County. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DONNA F. 

EDWARDS, A UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE FROM 

MARYLAND 

Representative EDWARDS. Thank you, Senator Cardin. And in 

their absence, thank you to Senator Landrieu and Ranking Member Snowe for enabling us to be here this afternoon, where it is always very important, I think, to be out in the field and among the 

community of people who share an interest, as we all do, in NIH 

and the small business program. 

I have the responsibility in the Congress, I serve on the Science 

and Technology Committee, and it has oversight responsibility for 

the NIH. And on April 23rd, really just a few weeks ago, we held 

7 

a hearing about this very issue and both the challenges and opportunities of the SBIR program. 

Mr. Glover, you testified before our committee that day. And also 

present was the deputy director from NIH, and we had an opportunity to explore the way that NIH views the program. I have to 

say that coming out of that hearing, that was somewhat surprising 

to me, that although supportive of the SBIR program, there seems 

to be a bit of, at least unexplained, reluctance about the program, 

about expanding it, providing more opportunities for small business. And I think it is important for us both on the Senate and the 

House side to come and get to the bottom of that. 

Like my colleagues, I share the concern that, especially with 

NIH—and, of course, Prince George’s and Montgomery County 

have the great benefit of being home to some of the best federal 

laboratory and research facilities in the country in addition to our 

education institutions. Both, internally, the programs within NIH 

and our other laboratories, as well as the supporting industry infrastructure is really important to our economy here in this region 

but also to our economy in this state. 

So when we passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act, while it is important across the country to create—and all of 

us heard that—this notion of shovel-ready jobs, here in a state like 

Maryland, for us, in addition to the roads and infrastructure 

projects, infrastructure and shovel-ready means investing in research and technology and science. I mean, it is a backbone for our 

state. 

So all of us in the delegation and with our colleagues in the Congress, we are pleased to be able to support increased funding for 

programs at NIH and NIST and NOAA and NASA, and all of the 

science and research facilities here, but disappointed about the inclusion of this exclusion in the legislation with respect to the SBIR 

program. And it seems very unfortunate because, as my colleagues 

have described, small businesses are really the engines and 

innovators, the creators, places where experiments can take place, 

and sometimes cannot take place, in a larger business setting, 

where we need to make investments in the early stages of research 

and science, not because you are ensured of success but because 

you are experimenting with the opportunity for success. And that 

is really important in science and investigation. 

As some of you know, I started off my early days at the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration at Goddard Space Flight 

Center, systems engineer for the Spacelab program, at a time when 

we were making investments in science, and people just said, 

‘‘What are they doing over there?’’ But the fact is that making 

those investments now, 20 years hence, has proved to be the bedrock of what we are doing with our space telescope program and 

a range of other programs. And so, I deeply understand the importance of investing in technologies early and experiment. And you 

are nodding. I think that is great value of the SBIR program. 

One of the questions that we released in the April 23rd hearing 

on the House side was also, in addition to small business, what the 

agency is doing with respect to incorporating the needs and the 

reach to minority businesses, to women businesses and entrepreneurs. I think that these still remain really important questions 

8 

in the context of the program, and partnering with institutions that 

are not your obvious larger educational institutions to invest in 

science technology and research. 

So I look forward to your testimony today. I, like my colleagues, 

am disappointed that NIH is not here represented today, but I 

know that both from our delegation as represented here and our 

respective committees, that we will have increased opportunities 

over the next several weeks and months to probe a little bit more 

deeply of NIH about where it sees the direction of this SBIR program and how it will make the greatest use of resources to really 

support small business innovation and the range of those 

innovators in whom the NIH can invest. And so, I thank you very 

much for being here. And thank you, Senator Cardin, for your invitation, and I look forward to your testimony. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, let me thank both of my colleagues for 

being here. As I pointed out earlier, I know the schedule today is 

difficult, so we just appreciate your being here as long as you can. 

It is certainly helpful. 

Ms. Penny Pickett, representing the Small Business Administration, Acting Associate Administrator for Entrepreneurial Development, it is a pleasure to have you with us. 

I might point out to all of our witnesses that your entire statements will be made part of record, and you may proceed as you 

would like. 

STATEMENT OF PENNY PICKETT, SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE 

ADMINISTRATOR, ACTING ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR 

ENTREPRENEURIAL DEVELOPMENT, SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

Ms. PICKETT. Thank you. Good afternoon, Senator Cardin, Representative Van Hollen, Representative Edwards. Thank you for 

the opportunity to speak with you today about a very important 

program for the Small Business Administration. Many of America’s 

most powerful innovations start with small business. A study by 

the SBA’s Office of Advocacy showed that small firms produce 13 

to 14 times more patents per employee than do large firms, and 

these patents were cited more often than the average patent. 

For decades, SBA has worked to harness that innovation through 

programs like the Small Business Innovation Research program. 

Since 1982, SBIR helped to push small business innovations into 

the marketplace. The SBIR program’s focus on commercialization 

turns small business innovation into jobs. 

A comprehensive study of SBIR by the National Research Council of the National Academies concluded that the SBIR program is 

sound in concept and effective in practice, meets its major congressional objectives, and is a driver of innovation and commercialization for small businesses. 

The SBIR program has been able to reach many committees, contributing innovation, commercialization, job creation and revenue 

growth. From 1992 to 2005, nearly 15,000 Phase II awards have 

been granted. With respect to innovation, one-third of NIH’s SBIR 

projects generated at least one patent. Moreover, from 2002 to 

2006, approximately 25 percent of R&D Magazine’s top 100 annual 

innovations came from companies that had received SBIR funding. 

9 

In terms of commercialization, half of SBIR’s Phase II awardees reported bringing their innovations into the market place. And finally, in terms of job creation and revenue growth, a 1996 study 

found that SBIR awardees generate four times as many jobs and 

nearly four times as much revenue when compared with firms that 

do not receive SBIR funds. 

There are many SBIR success stories right here in Maryland, 

home to approximately 440,000 small businesses. Since the start of 

the SBIR program, Maryland small businesses have received over 

4,000 awards, for a total of $1.2 billion. In fact, in Fiscal Year 

2007, Maryland ranked number 4 in total SBIR awards and number 7 in total award dollars. 

The SBIR program covers all agencies with extramural R&D 

budgets in excess of $100 million, and SBA believes that full agency participation by all 11 qualifying agencies provides significant 

benefits. But at the same time, the SBA recognizes that its 11 partner agencies have different program missions and R&D needs, so 

maintaining program flexibility is critical to the SBIR program’s 

continued success. The SBA believes that both full participation 

and agency flexibility are invaluable. 

With the SBIR program scheduled to sunset on July 31st of this 

year, it is urgent that Congress take action now to reauthorize the 

program. First and foremost, the nature of the SBIR program 

makes long-term reauthorization necessary. Uncertainty associated 

with a short reauthorization period would adversely affect program 

planning efforts and increase uncertainty for entrepreneurs and 

small businesses seeking SBIR funding. 

Second, the SBA supports funding the SBIR program’s administration cost to improve oversight and enhance small business outreach. We recommend that 3 percent of the program’s set aside be 

available to agencies for program administration. We support a rigorous competitive process for the SBIR grant program, and we 

want to continually reach out to more small businesses and enhance the quality and quantity of proposals. In addition, SBA 

wants to track the performance of the program more effectively and 

is driving to develop fact-based metrics-driven analyses of the program. 

Finally, the administration is committed to increasing federal investment in R&D with a 2.5 percent SBIR requirement and 0.3 

percent STTR allocation in these agencies. This will increase the 

total funding available to the programs. 

In this challenging economic environment, small business research and innovation is critical, not only to our economic recovery 

but also to our nation’s ability to remain competitive in the global 

marketplace. This administration is committed to working with all 

our partner agencies to strengthen this program that helps small 

businesses commercialize their innovations. Thank you and we look 

forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Pickett follows:] 

10 


Insert offset folio 2 here 57578.002
11 


Insert offset folio 3 here 57578.003
12 


Insert offset folio 4 here 57578.004
13 

Senator CARDIN. Well, thank you very much for your testimony. 

We very much appreciate it. 

Mr. Jere Glover is well known to all of us for small business 

issues. He is executive director of the Small Business Technology 

Council. It is a pleasure to have you here. 

STATEMENT OF JERE GLOVER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SMALL 

BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL 

Mr. GLOVER. Senator Cardin, Congresswoman Edwards, Congressman Van Hollen, it is a pleasure to be here with you. I represent the Small Business Technology Council and the National 

Small Business Association, 150,000 members across the country. 

The purpose of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is 

to create jobs and stimulate the economy. NIH has chosen to ignore 

the nation’s job creator and innovator. There are three areas that 

I would like to discuss today, and I was careful to footnote the 

sources of a lot of this information since, apparently, some of the 

folks at NIH either do not know about it or have chosen to ignore 

it. 

The SBIR program is by far the most successful federal program 

for leading age innovation, commercialization of advance technologies and job creation. SBIR creates four times as many important innovations as universities. Twenty-five percent of important 

U.S. innovations come from this one small program. Four times as 

many jobs are created by SBIR companies as other companies; four 

times as much revenue as other companies. The average sale per SBIR award is $1.2 million. The average 

outside investment, additional investment, beyond the SBIR 

money, is $850,000 per SBIR award. Fifty percent of all SBIR 

Phase II awards are commercialized. SBIR makes four times as 

many awards to minority and women-owned businesses as do venture capitalists. It is broad—small business outreach to over 15,000 

different firms have received Phase II awards. 

Small business today employs 38 percent of all scientists and engineers in America. That is up from 8 percent just before the SBIR 

program was put into law. Small business itself creates virtually 

all of the net new jobs in America and especially after a recession. 

Between 35 and 45 percent of all companies winning SBIR awards 

develop sufficient technical knowledge to be worth the time and expense to file a patent application and awards. That is quite impressive, according to the National Research Council. 

Unfortunately, either the NIH does not realize small business 

and SBIR successes or they chose to ignore it. The NIH has a long 

history of lack of support for small business going back over 30 

years. NIH’s efforts to exclude the SBIR program from ARRA funds 

should be reversed. 

When we talk about federal R&D, it just has not kept up with 

what has really been happening in the marketplace. As scientists 

and engineers have gone to work for small businesses, the federal 

R&D going to small businesses is just 4.3 percent. That is barely 

up over 30 years from when the SBIR bill was first passed, and 

half of this number is the SBIR program. If it were not for the 

SBIR program, the R&D share of small business would have actually gone down. 

14 

Let’s talk a little bit about the history of the SBIR program and 

the National Institutes of Health staff. In 1978, before the SBIR 

law was passed, congressional studies found that NIH awarded no 

contracts to small business, not one single contract, and they testified that there was no small business that could satisfy their requirements. Today they list 69 current success stories on their Web 

site. They are quite impressive, which belies the original argument 

no one could do it. 

In 1996, NIH asked Congress to exempt them from part of the 

SBIR program, citing low scores and lack of quality by SBIR proposals. Director Van Hollen later provided a clarification letter to 

Congress and the Office of Advocacy, correcting some of the misinformation provided by the NIH staff to the Congress. Dr. Varmus 

pointed out that the NIH scoring system for the SBIR system was 

on a scale of 100 to 500. The evaluations scores for everybody else 

from universities was 100 to 300. So guess what? Small business 

did not do as well on their scoring system. They went on to point 

out this, and because of the scoring differences they would resist 

making side-by-side comparisons on the quality of proposals. 

Recently, when the National Research Council was doing its 

study, they again used the same mischaracterization of 500 versus 

100 to 300. 

Now, concerning the information that they used after the fact to 

justify this exclusion, it is interesting to note that the analysis that 

we conducted shows that the program is 1.7 to 3.6 times more competitive than other NIH programs. And there are two reasons for 

that misinformation. One is it is a two-step process. The SBIR program is a two-step process. You compete for Phase I and you compete for Phase II. All the other NIH programs are a one-step process. So they compare competition at each of those phases, so they, 

in effect, double count and thereby reduce the amount of the scoring. 

They also failed to point out the fact that if you go back a few 

more years from the number of awards, what you find is it is cyclical. Every few years, the number of awards drop down, the success 

rates drop down, and the number of applications drop down. We 

saw it happen back in the ’80s, it happened in the ’90s, and now 

it has happened again. So this is not a real unusual phenomena 

that justified them running to Congress and asking for that. 

So I think that when you look at these issues, what you see is 

that people at NIH just have not been educated outside their small 

universe of things. Small business has done a remarkable job. 

Large firms have contracted out much of their research. It is recognized by them, this is where they should be doing better research, 

but the Federal Government still lags behind. 

So I wanted to just point out that the commercial success of the 

SBIR program is truly phenomenal. I mean, you have got licenses. 

You have got sales over a million dollars, additional funding of 

850,000. It is the most remarkable success story that you could 

ever want under commercialization. That is why I get upset when 

some people criticize the program and say, oh, well, we need somebody else to come in the program, like venture capitalists or others. 

The success rate is truly remarkable and we do not want to lose 

sight of that. 

15 

So just in conclusion, let me just say that this program has 

worked extremely well. NIH should be putting more money in the 

nation’s job creator, not less. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Glover follows:] 

16 


Insert offset folio 5 here 57578.005
17 


Insert offset folio 6 here 57578.006
18 


Insert offset folio 7 here 57578.007
19 


Insert offset folio 8 here 57578.008
20 


Insert offset folio 9 here 57578.009
21 


Insert offset folio 10 here 57578.010
22 


Insert offset folio 11 here 57578.011
23 


Insert offset folio 12 here 57578.012
24 


Insert offset folio 13 here 57578.013
25 


Insert offset folio 14 here 57578.014
26 


Insert offset folio 15 here 57578.015
27 


Insert offset folio 16 here 57578.016
28 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much for that testimony. Particularly, for some of the history, which I found very, very helpful. 

We will now hear from Mr. Jonathan Cohen, who is president 

and CEO of 20/20 GeneSystems, based in Rockville, Maryland, and 

has been very helpful in trying to explain how these programs 

work to this senator. 

STATEMENT OF JONATHAN COHEN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

20/20 GENESYSTEMS 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Senator, for your leadership in convening this panel this afternoon. And I also want to thank Representatives Edwards and Van Hollen for taking the time to come 

out and hear from us on this very important issue. 

I am Jonathan Cohen, president and CEO of 20/20 GeneSystems, 

based here in Rockville, Maryland. We are a small biotechnology 

company focused on developing innovative diagnostic products for 

both cancer and biodefense. We hope to commence marketing of a 

first generation blood test for the early detection of lung cancer as 

early as this fall. Moreover, our patented BioCheck product for 

screening suspicious powders is now routinely used by more than 

a dozen federal agencies and more than 500 fire departments 

throughout the United States. 

That product was developed by us following the 2001 anthrax in- cidents with the support of only about $100,000 of government 

grants, both state and federal. And since then, it has likely saved 

tens of millions of dollars to the U.S. economy when banks, post offices, government facilities and other places of business can reopen 

and continue operations following a suspicious powder incident. 

And if I am not mistaken, I believe the building that we are in 

today may have been one of those buildings that was reopened with 

our product a number of years ago. 

Now, as Congresswoman Edwards pointed out in her remarks, a 

lot of the Recovery Act funding has gone to so-called shovel-ready 

projects, road repair, bridge improvements and so forth. Though 

important, it is important to keep in mind that permanent job creation really requires new products and technologies that can be 

made, sold and improved upon for years after they develop. The 

shovel-ready projects typically create jobs only as long as the government money continues, and once that funding stops, very often, 

more cases than not, the jobs stop. 

On the other hand, when you have an innovative product, like 

the BioCheck product that I had mentioned, it is like the economic 

gift; it keeps on giving. The jobs continue long after the government funding ceases. For example, less than $100,000 for this product has created more than a half dozen jobs, six to eight jobs, over 

a 20-year time period, which is typically about the life of an innovative product, patented product. And I think that is the point that 

is often missed, even by economists and certainly policymakers, 

and I think it really needs to be underscored. So, again, it is really 

sustainable job growth that we are after, not temporary job growth. 

Now, more specifically to the NIH, it is important also to understand that no amount of academic research will ultimately deliver 

products to patients and doctors without the considerable investVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:16 Oct 08, 2010 Jkt 057578 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\57578.TXT SHAUN PsN: DPROCT
29 

ment, considerable effort, of companies. And very often those are 

small companies. 

In my nearly 20 years of experience in the biotech industry, I 

have yet to come across an academic technology or an NIH-funded 

piece of intellectual property that was further than about 10 percent of the way that it needed to go. And I think that is something 

that I think a lot of policymakers also may not be aware of. I, 

frankly, was not aware of that until I really got into this business. 

So, in essence, we have often been asked to do 90 percent of the 

development work with what is now about 3 percent of—more or 

less, 3 percent of the grants budget, at least to NIH, plus whatever 

one can, of course, supplement by the capital markets. Now, that 

is tough in a robust economy, to be frank. I mean, and we all know 

the tremendous efforts that go on, the long time frames that so 

many biotech companies have to go through. But in an economy 

like we have today, it is virtually impossible. 

Now, typically, biotech companies are funded through either institutional investors, particularly venture capitalists, or individual 

investors, which we refer to as angels. And our company is primarily the latter; we raise money from individuals and have done 

so for a number of years. We have been very active in this for the 

last couple of months. We, like a lot of Maryland companies, tend 

to tie our fundraising around something called the Maryland Biotechnology Investor Tax Credit, and it is truly an effective and important program. And the deadline is coming up next week, so I 

wanted to get in this state’s fiscal year. 

I can tell you, it is, from my own personal experience and from 

talking to a lot of colleagues, five to ten times harder to raise capital today than it was two years ago. I have to work as hard to 

raise—it takes me as long to get 25,000. Two years ago, I could 

have gotten probably 250,000 for virtually the same amount. So 

that is really what is going on here. And in light of that, frankly, 

I think it justifies an increase in SBIR and programs like SBIR, 

and certainly not an exclusion. 

Ms. Pickett referred to a study we are doing, 100 Awards, and 

I think it is a very important piece of research. And I have produced a bar graph in my testimony. I do not know if you have a 

copy of it, but I can certainly provide that to you after the hearing. 

I think it is a remarkable study. Last year, it was published. Two 

researchers at the University of California analyzed over the last— 

since I think 1960, something called the R&D 100 Award, which 

is no less than the Academy Awards for science and technology, in 

all fields, not just the life sciences. 

What they found was that there is a remarkable increase in the 

percentage of those awards going to small SBIR awardees. And you 

can see the climb. It is now about 25 percent of those, whereas Fortune 500 companies, there has been an equivalent decline in those 

awards. And with the universities, it has been about flatline. So I 

think this provides some very empirical evidence of the value that 

small business in general and the SBIR program in particular is 

playing in our innovation economy. And in my mind, it justifies a 

significant increase in SBIR. 

Just to conclude, I would respectfully urge, and suggest, we propose, in light of the economic downturn and in light of the record 

30 

that SBIR—the demonstrated record of SBIR contributing to the 

economy, an emergency doubling of the SBIR set aside for at least 

a two-year period, FY10 and FY11. In other words, take it from 2.5 

percent to 5 percent, and then it can be reassessed at that point. 

But I feel very strongly that until we get through this downturn, 

we really need to protect the good companies. Because what happens is when a company downsizes or goes out of business, all the 

R&D, all the technology, all the intellectual property essentially 

just drops down. And we simply cannot—in addition to creating 

jobs, we cannot afford to lose what could be important cures and 

advancements in Alzheimer’s disease and various cancers and so 

forth. 

Just to conclude, Senator mentioned the bill that passed the Senate Small Business Committee last week, Senate Bill 1233. I want 

to just commend the Senator and others on that committee for 

passing it unanimously. There has been an ongoing difference in 

opinion within our own community over the years on the extent to 

which venture capital should be permitted into SBIR. I think that 

that bill is a very good balance and a very good compromise. 

Regrettably, the legislation coming out of House, at least in my 

opinion, I do not believe has achieved that balance. And I would 

encourage the House of Representatives to look at that bill and 

model their legislation after that. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cohen follows:] 

31 


Insert offset folio 17 here 57578.017
32 


Insert offset folio 18 here 57578.018
33 


Insert offset folio 19 here 57578.019
34 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Cohen. 

Ms. Aprile Pilon is the CEO of Clarassance, Inc. It is a pleasure 

to have you here. 

STATEMENT OF APRILE PILON, CEO, CLARASSANCE, INC. 

Ms. PILON. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today, Senator, for setting up this hearing. Thank you, Representatives Van 

Hollen and Edwards for taking the time to be here. 

I am Dr. Aprile Pilon. I am president and CEO of Clarassance 

and APC Biotech Services, Inc., two small biotechnology companies 

based in Rockville, Maryland. Clarassance is developing protein 

biologic drugs, and APC Biotech provides consulting lab services 

and it is also developing a novel production platform for biologics 

under a current SBIR grant. 

Both my companies are located in a Montgomery County business incubator. I watched many companies, fellow biotech companies, shrink, contract, lay off employees, sell assets and move out. 

Investment capital is not available, and small biotech companies 

are in dire need of economic assistance. 

I have significant experience utilizing the SBIR program at NIH 

to build healthcare technology assets and facilitate their commercialization. I have personally written and submitted 23 SBIR grant 

applications since 1995, of which eight have been funded, for a 

total of over $2 million. These grants were submitted on behalf of 

three different small businesses located here in Montgomery County. 

My lead drug candidate in Clarassance has attracted over 9 million in equity financing to fund two Phase I clinical trials, is currently poised in our Phase II clinical trials, and was partially funded in the pre-investment early stages using 1.1 million in SBIR 

funding from the NIH. These SBIR grants add value to my companies, more than just a dollar amount. And what I mean by that is 

that they provide third-party opinion on the technology and the research plan by qualified experts facilitating investment by angels 

and small-institutional investors who do not necessarily have the 

resources to do their own technical due diligence. 

Basic discoveries made at academic institutions, government 

labs, or even in small companies must be evaluated for reproducibility, product feasibility and de-risked to the point where institutional investment and corporate partnering are possible. A significant amount of high risk, specialized R&D must typically be performed in order to evaluate and reproduce basic discoveries and to 

explore product ideas to assess their commercial potential. Typically, small companies are the only ones willing to take these risks. 

This is an especially long and expensive process for the development of healthcare related technologies. 

The NIH/SBIR program therefore shows a vital huge stage of 

funding gap between basic discoveries and commercial enabled 

healthcare technologies. The SBIR program and NIH, and the 

small businesses that it supports, are essential components of the 

food chain in the biotech industry that now develops more 

healthcare technologies and creates sustainable jobs. Early stage 

commercially directed R&D is thus complementary to the basic reVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:16 Oct 08, 2010 Jkt 057578 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\57578.TXT SHAUN PsN: DPROCT
35 

search conducted at academic and government labs and a necessary stage in the commercialization process. 

The NIH basis for requesting the SBIR program exclusion from 

the stimulus package and the position that the SBIR program is 

underutilized and that poor quality applications, so-called junk 

science, would receive funding under the SBIR program at the expense of higher quality academic applications is unfounded. NIH’s 

position is based on its funding criteria established for academic institutions and does not take into account the situation with small 

businesses. 

It has grown increasingly difficult to obtain grant funding 

through the NIH/SBIR program. According to the SBIR program 

funding data, provided by the NIH itself in the table attached to 

my testimony, the number of SBIR applications and the success 

rates have both decreased between 2004 and 2007. The decrease in 

the number of applications can be directly attributed to the decrease in the application success rate. 

The preparation of a grant proposal requires an enormous 

amount of time and energy, representing both an economic and an 

opportunity cost that significantly depletes the resources of a small 

business. Small businesses must carefully select and plan high 

quality scientific projects. Before considering writing and submitting a grant proposal, the economic cost of failure to receiving 

grant funding can be lethal to a small biotech. I, therefore, believe 

that the higher investment of small businesses in proposal writing 

and the higher cost of failure to secure grant funding justifies a significantly higher success rate for the SBIR program compared to 

other grant mechanisms tailored for academic institutions. 

A recent NRC report, in which survey responses were obtained 

for nearly 400 NIH/SBIR award recipients, stated that the decrease 

in the number of SBIR proposals between 2002 and 2005 was directly attributed to three primary causes, including the high level 

of competition translating to decreased success rates; concerns 

about the selection mechanism; issues about the quality of the reviews; and funding delays. I am personally aware of two companies 

that have funding scores—grants that have received funding scores 

and have not received funding yet for no particular reason. I personally experienced each of these three primary issues during my 

14 years of submitting grants to the SBIR program at NIH. 

When the competition is high and the success rate decreases, 

small businesses are not able to devote resources to these unproductive activities. NIH review committees are comprised primarily 

of academics who, in my experience, generally resent the intrusion 

of small business in what they consider their domain of NIH funding, and they often do not consider translational research conducted by small businesses to be either innovative or meritorious. 

Given these prejudices, the NIH’s position that small businesses 

are eligible to compete for non-SBIR awards under most of the 

other RFAs planned under the ARRA is disingenuous. Therefore, 

set asides for small businesses are essential to ensuring that R&D 

funding flows to companies. Moreover, the SBIR program is significantly more efficient at directing R&D funds towards actual R&D 

spending when high academic institutional indirect cost rates, up 

to 175 percent, are taken into account. 

36 

We have an economic stimulus to support NIH-mediated development of healthcare solutions that completely excludes small businesses. There is no question that small businesses are more efficient at converting research dollars into economic growth under the 

SBIR program. Small businesses are the principal vehicle for the 

development of technology into marketable healthcare products and 

services, sustainable new jobs, and sustainable economic growth. 

I urge the NIH to recognize and embrace the SBIR program as 

a catalyst for transforming basic biomedical research into 

healthcare solutions and to offer more opportunities like the new 

RC3 mechanism to fund translational and clinical research. I urge 

the Senate to pass S.1233 in its present form and to expand the 

SBIR program to 5 percent of the NIH R&D budget, and if possible, 

to reverse this exclusion of the NIH–SBIR program from the economic stimulus funding. Thank you for your consideration. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Pilon follows:] 

37 


Insert offset folio 20 here 57578.020
38 


Insert offset folio 21 here 57578.021
39 


Insert offset folio 22 here 57578.022
40 


Insert offset folio 23 here 57578.023
41 


Insert offset folio 24 here 57578.024
42 

Senator CARDIN. Well, thank you very much for your testimony. 

I appreciate it very much. 

Mr. Joe Hernandez is president and CEO of Innovative Biosensors, Inc. It is a pleasure to have you on our panel today. 

STATEMENT OF JOE HERNANDEZ, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

INNOVATIVE BIOSENSORS, INC. 

Mr. HERNANDEZ. Thank you, Senator Cardin. I appreciate it. 

Congresswoman Edwards, Congressman Van Hollen, I appreciate 

the opportunity to share a little bit about my experiences as it relates to biotechnology in general. I am here on behalf of the Biotechnology Industry Association. We represent 1,200 companies 

and related groups in 50 states. I am also a member of the MD Bio 

Division of the High Tech Council, and also it is in that capacity 

I am here. 

I have been involved in three biotech companies, three early 

stage biotech companies; one in Silicon Valley, a company by the 

name of Affymetrix. And we were able to put the human genome 

on a computer chip and interrogate the human genome. And that 

technology is added to really the knowledge we have in the 

genomics to a great extent. I was involved in a local company by 

the name of Digene, developed the human papilloma diagnostic 

test, that I would argue has revolutionized the way we treat cervical cancer. 

My current company is the name of a company by the name of 

Innovative Biosensors. We are a company of 20 employees. We license the technology out of MIT, technology that was originally 

funded by DARPA and developed under the auspices of the Department of Defense. The technology as well is in Science, and we have 

been able to product-tize the technology in the area of bioweapons 

detection. We have created sensors, small box sensors, that we deploy out in areas of interest. Our primary application is actually 

one of the most critical buildings inside the National Capital Region. Obviously, I cannot disclose where it is for obvious reasons, 

but it is a deployed technology. We are very proud of the work we 

have done, this company of 20 people. 

We have been successful in raising venture capital. We have 

raised $20 million in venture capital and numerous rounds of financing. I can tell you that the capital markets right now are 

something I have never seen in my very long—and I look older— 

I am older than I actually look—my very long career in the biotech 

sector. The value that we provide as an industry I think is quite 

evident. We provide significant value in terms of innovation, knowledge, jobs, and also changing the health care of our society. But we 

also have a very important impact on the economy. And Maryland 

is a very good example of this. 

I am very proud to say that the economy in this state has a significant impact on the wages we provide to our employees. I can 

tell you from a personal perspective, the average salary in my company is $110,000. Now, I do not say that because I want applications, but I am just saying that to really illustrate the fact that we 

are really an industry that really pays our employees really well, 

and it is important that we maintain this industry strong. 

43 

It is a tough market. There is no question about it. Biotech typically is the highest risk investment in a normal market. In a market like this, it is considered an ultra high investment, an ultra 

high-risk investment. The typical liquidity events that exist in companies such as the IPO markets are non-existent. Our investors 

cannot exit out of these companies. It is a very, very significant 

issue, one that we cannot lose our perspective of. 

VCs. While there are a number of VCs both in the area, and, 

really, throughout the country, they are really not making currently new investments, and that is clear in the marketplace. What 

you see in venture capital occurring is that they are actually maintaining the companies and allowing them to survive this market in 

hopes that it will change. There are no new investments coming 

out of—I would argue that they are ranking their companies and 

really dropping the ones that are at the bottom of that list, which 

is a significant issue. 

The M&A activities slowed down. There is no M&A activity. The 

M&A activity you see is really what I call the middle-tier, larger 

companies that are consuming each other up because the market 

requires that they do that. And small companies, such as the one 

represented here today, really have a hard time existing in an 

M&A environment. 

So survival is key for us, and this is why we believe it is important that additional capital come into the marketplace via federal 

vehicles. Bio has urged the NIH to include small biotech in the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It has been a position 

that I think Bio has been consistent about. The American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act does not require the NIH to direct the 

SBIRs. In some ways, we are frustrated like everybody else is 

about that notion. But I would argue that it is more important to 

focus on how do we get those dollars out quickly to the community. 

I would argue that it does not really matter what we call it. It 

can be done in the format of recovery vehicles or recovery grants, 

the RC1s, RC2s and RC3s that are currently being solicited by 

NIH, some of which, though, lend to the past. So in some ways, 

these are a moot point. I think that what we really need to do is 

just get this capital out there. 

In some ways, I would argue that the current RC vehicles are 

better because they are faster. They turn around more quickly. 

They are suggesting at least—the grants that I am familiar with 

are suggesting 30- and 60-day turnaround times in terms of response, which is really critical in this market. We really need that 

capital and that decision really quickly. And they are larger in size, 

which is I think quite helpful as well. 

So it is important that we get this capital out there. It is easy 

to throw eggs at the NIH, but I would argue that the NIH has 

played a very critical role in the development of these technologies. 

They play a very important role in our society, and all we are asking for is that these dollars that are really part, and intended to 

be part, of the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, that they be deployed and they be deployed quickly. 

So I thank you for your time, and I would be delighted to take 

any questions you have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hernandez follows:] 

44 


Insert offset folio 25 here 57578.025
45 


Insert offset folio 26 here 57578.026
46 


Insert offset folio 27 here 57578.027
47 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Sally J. Rockey follows:] 


Insert offset folio 28 here 57578.028
48 


Insert offset folio 29 here 57578.029
49 


Insert offset folio 30 here 57578.030
50 


Insert offset folio 31 here 57578.031
51 


Insert offset folio 32 here 57578.032
52 


Insert offset folio 33 here 57578.033
53 

Senator CARDIN. Again, let me thank all of our panel of witnesses for their testimony. I think there is a general consensus of 

the importance of the SBIR program, that it will create jobs much 

more efficiently than the other recipients; that it will help in innovation, and the numbers and statistics and the leveraging appear 

to be pretty conclusive. 

We are also in a recession, as many of you have pointed out; 

therefore, it is very difficult for these small companies, innovative 

companies, to get capital necessary for their normal businesses, let 

alone the expansions that we would like to see. 

Mr. Hernandez, I agree completely with you and other witnesses 

that NIH could rectify the problem with that amendment. There 

are plenty of opportunities they have to get money out to small 

businesses. And they have been reminded of that by Senator Landrieu and Senator Snowe and Senator Feingold and myself, and we 

will continue to do that. 

I just want to hear first from Ms. Pickett so that we are clear 

on this. Regarding the waiver that was included in the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act to the allocation, I just want to get 

on record your view that this was not something that the SBA had 

requested and something that you think is particularly not helpful 

in this recovery. 

Ms. PICKETT. Senator, it was a surprise to us as well. 

Senator CARDIN. I just want to make sure we were not alone on 

that particular issue. 

Ms. PICKETT. No. 

Senator CARDIN. I want to talk about the current economic climate and how urgent it is for us to try to get some relief to innovative small companies. The $10 billion is a lot of money at NIH 

alone. And if we could get SBIR allocations up to that $230 million 

level, or somewhere around there, which we thought was going to 

be allocated to small businesses, how important that would be. Has 

there been any sign of help from NIH to small, innovative companies under any of their opportunities? 

Have we seen much happening? 

Mr. HERNANDEZ. If I can just make a personal comment. 

Our company looked at some of what are called RC1s and RC2s, 

which are part of the Recovery Act, dollars and granting vehicles 

that the NIH had put forth. The RC1s appeared to us—and, again, 

we are sort of making a judgment call here—appear to us that they 

were pretty selected in terms of the topic areas that they were 

seeking dollars for. It just seemed quite tight in terms of the topics 

that they wanted applications for. So we actually dismissed the 

RC1s for not being really broad enough to justify us investing the 

time to really write those grants. The RC2s were, I would argue, 

a little better mechanism, and the RC2s seem like a lot better 

mechanism to be able to, in fact, apply for these dollars. 

The time that they had proposed to get back to us in these 

grants, some of those have come and gone, so I do not know exactly 

what is happening in terms of the time line and so forth. I understand they received an overwhelming amount of applications, so 

that is probably part of the reason. But I would argue that the RC1 

vehicle was not of any help to at least companies I am involved 

with. 

54 

Senator CARDIN. My point is, do you see any special effort by 

NIH today to reach out to small, innovative companies to try to 

make sure that they are included in the Recovery funds? 

Mr. COHEN. Hard to say. There has been—to be fair, you should 

not conclude that none of the Recovery funds are being used for 

small business. And, in fact, as the NIH will say, we are permitted 

to compete for virtually everything. We are not excluded from competing. As a practical matter, the likelihood of a small business 

winning a grant that is normally geared for universities is extraordinarily low. 

Furthermore, there have been some SBIR initiatives within the 

Recovery Act. In fact, our company has competed for one. What I 

do not know, and what I doubt, is whether they have set aside the 

required typically 2.5 percent. I suspect it is considerably less than 

that, but it is not zero. 

Furthermore, a couple weeks ago they came out with an interesting program. The acronym is BRDG–SPAN. It is an interesting 

program for valley of death. It is not an SBIR program. In other 

words, companies of all sizes are permitted to compete. But I will 

say I think it was a very well thought out program, still relatively 

small. I think only $40 million was set aside for that. So there are 

some signs of interest and some signs of progress. I just do not 

think it is enough and it is not fast enough. 

To the first part of your question, urgency, I can tell you I have 

had meetings—I have had companies that have come to us over the 

last couple of months, companies that have literally weeks of capital left. What I think is hard for the NIH administration to really 

fully grasp—because they are typically from academia; they have 

that mind-set. We do not have tenure, unlike the university, our 

university counterparts. For us—people, when you cannot make 

payroll, your best assets, which are your scientists, they have feet. 

They have to leave. So it is extremely urgent, and I do not see that 

urgency, regrettably, in terms of the NIH and the programs that 

they are going forward with. 

Senator CARDIN. Let me just point out my concern. Mr. Glover’s 

testimony particularly underscores this, that there has been an historic hostility at NIH to allowing special allocations to small businesses within the innovative research program. And then during 

the reauthorization of SBIR, we know the difficulties we had with 

NIH increasing it from two and a half percent to three and a half 

percent. There was hostility from NIH. 

Now, I want to point out, it was done by our committee and the 

bill passed unanimously by our committee. So there is strong support in Congress. And it seems to me that NIH is still resisting an 

effort to allow small businesses an even chance to get in the door. 

Without the allocation amounts, it is going to be very difficult to 

see these other programs at all filling the gap that the SBIR program has been able to do. 

So moving forward, we are going to have a reauthorization of 

SBIR. We are going to hopefully get it up to three and a half percent. We are going to get that done. But on these stimulus dollars, 

which are significant funds, we are not there yet. We are not there 

yet. 

Yes? 

55 

Ms. PILON. I just wanted to address that, first, I have been in 

the trenches for a long time, rubbing elbows with people who review grant proposals, fellow grant applicants from universities and 

other institutions, as well as companies. There is a tremendous 

bias against applications from companies. By and large, the academic attitude is that they are throwing—the government is throwing its money away by funding poor science in companies. And it 

is an ingrown prejudice that has been there since the inception of 

the SBIR program. 

That said, I believe, as I stated in my testimony, that I do not 

believe that small businesses would receive any significant portion, 

less than a percent, of federal R&D spending if it were not for the 

specific set aside. And secondly, for your earlier questions, I follow 

these things fairly closely. There has been nothing from the stimulus for business specifically, except for the RC3 mechanism allocating $40 billion to fund approximately 10 large grants, targeted 

at business. And it is not focused on small business; it is any forprofit entity. So small businesses like mine would be competing 

with Merck or Pfizer, potentially, if they decided they wanted to go 

for these grants, which is not particularly helpful. 

Senator CARDIN. Just one final observation before turning to my 

colleagues. I support research funding for our universities. I think 

that is important research. I am not trying to suggest that NIH is 

not doing a service by these contracts. But the point that was 

raised earlier on commercialization, getting the innovation out in 

the marketplace, creating jobs, in those areas the SBIR program 

has been extremely valuable. 

So I really cannot figure out the hostility here. We are going to 

have to overcome it, because we need to make sure that NIH continues its extremely important mission, that the universities can do 

the work that they are doing, and the small, innovative companies 

have the capital they need, particularly in this recession, to get the 

job growth and our economy back on track. 

Congressman Van Hollen. 

Representative VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Senator. 

I just wanted to follow up on some of the questions and comments related to these new programs that NIH has apparently developed. And, obviously, it is unfortunate that we do not have a 

witness from NIH here. But before I do that, let me underscore the 

point that I think all of you have made, which is none of these are 

a substitute for the SBIR program, and we all want to work together to increase the set aside, whether it is three and a half percent, Mr. Cohen made the proposal 5 percent for two years. But 

whatever it is, I think that increasing that, based on the National 

Academy of Science’s study and the observations you have all made 

with respect to the data showing that so much innovation comes 

out of the small business community in this area, is warranted. 

But I would like, to the best we can, get some sense of what the 

NIH claims it is doing. I am looking at a letter of response to a 

letter that Senator Cardin had written, and this is the response 

from NIH, dated May 28th of this year, where the NIH says, ‘‘You 

may be aware NIH has released several funding opportunity announcements.’’ 

Is that what you are referring to by RC1, 2 and 3? 

56 

[Witnesses nodding affirmatively.] 

Representative VAN HOLLEN. Okay. 

And I assume number 1 was then these challenge grants, and 

number 2 was the grant opportunities of GO grants, and RC3 you 

are referring to is the BRDG–SPAN? 

[Witnesses nodding affirmatively.] 

Representative VAN HOLLEN. Okay. If we could just take each of 

those and get some sense of how much funding NIH is allocating 

to these grants, to what extent we know small businesses are currently or may participate in those. Because another thing we may 

want to look at as we go forward, if these have merit—Mr. Cohen 

you mentioned—the valley of death issue is one we have all discussed a lot. So if NIH is on to something here with the BRDG– 

SPAN, maybe as part of reauthorization, we would actually look at 

further developing that idea and maybe putting it in a more concrete and sustainable framework going forward. 

So to the extent they have come up with some good new ideas, 

maybe it is an opportunity for us not to substitute those ideas for 

some set aside, whatever percent it may be, but to build on them. 

So I would be interested in your, at least, preliminary observations 

based on what you know about each of these three programs, both 

in terms of the magnitude of the funding and whether you think 

that they make a good investment. 

Mr. HERNANDEZ. If I may go ahead, and my colleagues here, we 

have the experience that we have applied for the RC1s and the 

RC2s, and so we know at least some of those vehicles pretty well. 

The RC1, if I recall correctly, is a $1 million program over a twoyear period. The RC2 was a $2 million program over also a twoyear period. RC3s are a little bit larger in size, but to Dr. Pilon’s 

point, there are a very, very small number of those. So we are not 

going to compete simply because we think it is just not even worth 

our time. 

The RC1s, those dollars—those grants seemed that they were 

previous programs that were not funded, and they were, in essence, 

re, what is the word, characterized—— 

Ms. PILON. Recycled. 

Mr. HERNANDEZ [continuing]. Recycled grants is the terminology 

we use, the sophisticated terminology that we use in the industry. 

I would argue that the vehicles themselves actually make some 

sense. And what I mean by that is, the turnaround time is quite 

impressive. I remember when we were writing these grants, or our 

scientists were writing, they were astonished that the NIH can 

turn around the grants in such a period of time. So maybe there 

is sort of a positive thing there. 

The other thing is the size. I think, from our perspective, we 

have always argued and we made this testimony—I myself made 

testimony in front of Congress previously related to the size of the 

Phase I and Phase II grants. They are really small, relatively 

speaking. A hundred thousand dollars is a very, very small amount 

of dollars for our industry. It just, unfortunately, does not get us 

a whole lot. So the fact that these are larger grants actually has 

some positive things that I think we should not overlook. But I just 

felt the first elements of these grants look like they were predetermined. 

57 

Ms. PILON. They were. I support Joe’s comments. The RC1s in 

particular are the challenge grants. The topics—there were something like 400 topics to fund 200 $1 million grants. And from what 

I understand, the NIH received upwards of 12 or 15,000 applications for that, for 200 grants. There were single universities putting in 500 grants for one solicitation, for one RC1 or RC2 opportunity. So those kind of numbers and that kind of competition—and 

particularly in the RC1, the topics were very academic. They were 

not—they were not projects, topics that had a commercial objective. 

The GO grants, the RC2s, were a little bit different. Here again, 

that is 200 grants they were going to fund, and I believe the cap 

was also $200 million with 100 grants. It is a small number. 

Between RC1 and RC2, I understand that 23,000 applications 

were put in. I know that small businesses are competing in that, 

but they are vastly outnumbered. The turnaround time is excellent 

but remains to be seen, if they can do it and do a good job. NIH 

has been requesting reviewers who are volunteers from both the 

academic and business communities to help handle this load. There 

are significant issues where people in small companies, to serve as 

reviewers because of conflict of interest issues and what you might 

be reviewing. I personally—although I have gotten a lot of grants 

from NIH, I do not serve as a reviewer. I serve as a reviewer for 

National Science Foundation, where my conflict of interest issues 

are much reduced. 

So anyway, the number of grants that are going to be funded so 

far, specifically out of the RC1, RC2 and RC3, are approximately 

410 awards, out of 23,000 applications so far, and we have not even 

seen the response to the RC3 mechanism. 

As John mentioned, the SBIR has received a little bit of attention. The other one that just recently came out was a special program for the next SBIR date, for companies that want to apply for 

SBIR funding but have never received it before in the past. 

Representative VAN HOLLEN. Right, the fourth one coming out. 

Mr. COHEN. I do not know the answer to your question. Not surprisingly, if the NIH is not answering members of Congress, certainly they are not telling entrepreneurs what is going on. And beyond the particulars of the Recovery Act, I think what this underscores is the need for more transparency at the NIH and more involvement at the policy level on an ongoing basis, so we can constantly look and relook at whether we are getting it right. AIG, as 

they said, is too big to fail. Well, the biotechnology industry is too 

important to fail. America needs this industry to succeed. There 

are not too many left who are truly ahead of the world, and we still 

are ahead of the world in biotech. 

So I think there are a lot of things that Congress can look at in 

the long term, beyond the Recovery Act, perhaps designating an assistant director at the NIH for small business innovation, somebody 

who would be focused on this day in and day out and would have 

regular interaction with your committees. 

As I recall in the Senate legislation, there was an advisory board, 

a small business advisory board. That is a great mechanism if that 

is established in the right way, to have ongoing transparency, some 

fresh ideas, where we really know where things stand, where they 

should be. Let’s get input beyond the academic community. Let’s 

58 

allow the true customers of the NIH, namely patient advocates, 

physicians, let them weigh in. What is the right ratio? How much 

should be going toward translational versus basic? 

Obviously, as entrepreneurs, we have a bias, but by the same 

token, the academic community, who truly own the NIH in every 

sense of the word, they have a bias, too. So we need to get other 

voices to the table on an ongoing basis. But in the short run, I cannot give you an answer to your question. 

Representative VAN HOLLEN. Ms. Pickett, the SBA’s role in monitoring the allocation of SBIR grants, different agencies, do you as 

the Small Business Administration look at all the different agencies to determine whether they are making their set-aside requirements, or is that just something that is done internally at every 

agency? 

Ms. PICKETT. Well, quarterly reports, annual reports are made to 

the agencies. 

Representative VAN HOLLEN. To the Small Business Administration? 

Ms. PICKETT. To the Small Business Administration, yes. 

Representative VAN HOLLEN. So let me just ask you, with respect 

to this NIH issue and the exclusion from the economic recovery 

funds, the Department of Health and Human Services was not exempted, right? The Department as a whole was not exempted from 

the two and a half percent requirement? 

Ms. PICKETT. It was NIH. 

Representative VAN HOLLEN. It was NIH. But the NIH funding 

would be counted against the full department’s, would it not? 

Ms. PICKETT. Yes. 

Representative VAN HOLLEN. So when you monitor whether or 

not the Department of Health and Human Services as a whole is 

complying with this two and a half percent set-aside requirement, 

will you count that two and a half percent against the funding that 

goes to the entire department, including the agencies? 

In other words, if they do not provide some of these funds for 

NIH, and we all hope to try and reverse that, are you going to 

make sure that that two and a half percent still comes out of their 

entire budget, which, of course, would give them incentive to put 

more into the NIH on a voluntary basis. 

Ms. PICKETT. We just collect the reporting. We really do not have 

the enforcement tools other than to collect the data and report to 

the House and Senate committees on the reporting. Our administrator can work closely with officials there, and the intent of Congress can be made clear. Right now, we are just collecting, making 

sure the money is being spent and that award is being made. 

Representative VAN HOLLEN. But when you make your report to 

Congress this time, with respect to the Department of Health and 

Human Services set-aside money, will you—I assume you are 

agreeing that they have that two and a half percent requirement 

that goes department-wide, and the funds that came to NIH are included in the department-wide funds. 

Isn’t that right? 

Ms. PICKETT. I will have to check on what the reporting is. I do 

not know that NIH specifically—that HHS has the entire program, 

59 

whether it is all focused in NIH or it goes elsewhere. So I will be 

happy to get back to you on that. 

Mr. GLOVER. If I may, the Missile Defense Agency several years 

ago tried to do something like this and slip something in. The 

chairman of the Small Business Committee and ranking member 

sent a letter to the Secretary of Defense saying, where else are you 

going to make this up, and requiring the other agencies to make 

it up. And it was amazing how quickly Missile Defense withdrew— 

even though they had the statutory permission, they said we do not 

want to have to fight our friends in the Army and the Air Force 

and Navy to try and do this. So they actually found money for it. 

It is one of the unheralded success stories. The Small Business 

Committee in the Senate did jump right on that, write that letter, 

and it did have a remarkable result overnight. 

Representative VAN HOLLEN. Well, I am hoping the same can be 

said, Senator Cardin, as others have sent that message to them. 

Mr. GLOVER. It is a wonderful suggestion, sir. 

Ms. PICKETT. I think that is where the intent of our legislators 

is helpful. 

Senator CARDIN. As this hearing is helpful. 

Congresswoman Edwards. 

Representative EDWARDS. Thank you, Senator Cardin. 

I just have a couple comments, really. Each of you in very different ways actually pointed to exactly the reason that we need investment in the SBIR program and small business in this economic 

climate. And particularly, Mr. Hernandez, when you spoke about 

the lack of liquidity in IPOs, you talked about the difficulty and the 

complexity in this environment of attracting venture capital investment. 

All of these things actually highlight why it is a needed investment through SBIR. And so, I hope that NIH takes note of that. 

I mean, it is very disturbing to hear from Ms. Pilon about, in your 

testimony, the numbers of small businesses that are essentially 

having to downsize or close doors because of lack of investment 

capital. Even on a good day, it is really difficult to attract venture 

capital into these businesses because they are so risky, and that is 

in a good economic climate. 

I am curious to hear from each of you what you believe the NIH 

actually could do, even with the exclusion, because as I read the 

language, I actually think that they could—they say—for example, 

in the April 23rd hearing, their testimony is, well, the two and a 

half percent that they have through the regular appropriations 

process enables them to do what they need to do even now, and especially given the lack of quality. They pointed to a lack of quality 

in the applicants. And it is hard to know how to read that because 

on the other hand, you hear from Ms. Pilon and others that this 

supposed lack of quality, there are a number of different reasons 

that can be pointed toward the applicant pool. 

So I wonder what you believe that they have the capacity to do 

right now through their regular appropriation and even with the 

ARRA funds if they were so inclined. 

Perhaps Mr. Glover. 

Mr. GLOVER. First of all, the SBIR legislation says not less than 

two and a half percent, so they can go over it very quickly and very 

60 

efficiently. In terms of quality, one has to remember they refuse to 

give the National Research Council the data to evaluate the quality 

and compare because they did not want anybody else to see it. 

They still have these funny numbers where they use different 

things. And when they talk about the competitive ratio, they still 

count us as having two competitions where everybody else has one. 

So their thinking is skewed because of these things, which gets 

them to different results. And they also have for SBIR commercialization evaluation criteria that does not apply to any other research they do. So there is a difference there. And they can do 

whatever they want to do if they have the will to do it, and, hopefully the new director will have the will to do it. They can do those 

things, and there are a lot of other creative things. 

When we talk about the valley of death for businesses, it is nothing compared to the valley of death for university research because 

it still has to get across to a business and then across the valley. 

So there really are a lot of things that could be done to further 

streamline commercialization of all of NIH’s research, and this 

would certainly be a wonderful opportunity with the stimulus 

money. 

I would have hoped instead of just giving a lot more basic research, they would have looked for things that would create longterm jobs very quickly. I do not see that they have done that. 

Representative EDWARDS. Ms. Pilon. 

Ms. PILON. It is my understanding that one of the main uses that 

the NIH was intending to put the stimulus funding towards is to 

go back and fund grants that had barely missed or were underneath their funding cutoffs for the past couple of years. These are 

shovel-ready projects. They have already been reviewed. And they 

could just go back and fund these projects very quickly. 

I am personally aware of a couple of companies that received 

fundable scores below the cutoff on SBIR Phase II grants, and they 

have heard nothing about getting funded. So there is this perception, at least for me, that there is a very distinct preference to fund 

academic research versus small business research, even when they 

do not have the argument that the scores are inferior to the academic scores. I do not understand that. They should be funded. 

One issue that I am acutely aware of because it happened to me 

several years ago is that, particularly with the smaller institutes, 

they do not have enough money in their pots to really fund Phase 

IIs, putting the small company in the situation of waiting two or 

three years for them to accumulate enough money to get up to that 

750K to fund a Phase II proposal. And I would suspect that there 

might be a backlog of highly qualified, highly meritorious Phase II 

applications, particularly in the smaller institutes that have not 

been funded, not been funded in a timely manner. And, of course, 

waiting two or three years for that kind of money is a death knell 

for a small company. 

Representative EDWARDS. Yes, Mr. Hernandez. 

Mr. HERNANDEZ. If I can just make one comment, is really highlighting the chart that you have up here. And that is that it is 

clear that the number of SBIR applications has been going down 

year over year. I know this dialogue is not really about the SBIR 

program in general, but I think it is worthy of looking at why that 

61 

is and why companies are not interested in applying for a $100,000 

grant. That is the statement I made earlier. It is just too much effort for a company to focus that kind of resources to a $100,000 

grant. It is very important to increase competition. Whatever mechanisms we use, I think you have to increase that and increase the 

competition in general. 

I really think that there are some good elements in the Recovery 

Act that we should not overlook, and that is the expediency of 

which they are supposedly getting back—we do not know; the jury 

is still out on this one—that they are getting back to the applicants. The sizes of those grants I think really make it attainable 

for a company to apply to, and it makes it a little bit more interesting for a company who really has multiple projects in the pipeline. 

The last comment I would make about these grants is that, generally speaking, there is an opportunity for us here in August. I 

think August is the next SBIR deadline. I do not know that we can 

act that quickly, but I would argue that this is a really, really good 

opportunity to really have the NIH step up to the plate and allow 

companies like us to apply to these funding programs. So there is 

an opportunity. I do not know how realistic it is to expect that they 

will act. 

The one last comment I will make, and that is really in defense 

of NIH, if I may be the only sole voice here. And that is that we 

did receive an e-mail from the director of the SBIR program encouraging companies to apply for the Recovery Act grant. So there 

is an interest, at least based on that e-mail, for companies to apply 

and to be part of that program. 

Representative EDWARDS. Well, again, I just want to underscore—and I know my colleagues feel the same. I mean, this is 

not—we obviously all were very strongly supportive of the investment funding that went into the NIH and all of our research facilities. And the question is how do you strengthen what is happening 

at NIH so that it more effectively benefits our small businesses 

that are actually quite vulnerable in this economic environment, 

and how do we challenge NIH to live up to the opportunities that 

are available. 

I would just say—and thank you again, Senator, for doing this. 

And I would just say in conclusion, I have to depart, I think there 

are a number of ways that we need to look in the future at Phase 

I and at Phase II, how do you move then from the research and 

development to really commercializing, through getting a product 

often out to market, and how can we strengthen the program’s ability to do that. And I think from an oversight perspective, many of 

us are going to be looking at those. And the question is what do 

we do in this interim period with resources that are available 

through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. 

Thank you, Senator. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, thank you very much. 

I am going to put in the record, without objection, Senator 

Feingold’s statement for today’s hearing, and just point out that I 

am going to concur with Senator Feingold that we are going to continue to try to find out, in specific dollars, how much of the stimVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:16 Oct 08, 2010 Jkt 057578 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\57578.TXT SHAUN PsN: DPROCT
62 

ulus money that NIH has allocated will end up with small businesses. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Feingold follows:] 

63 


Insert offset folio 34 here 57578.034
64 


Insert offset folio 35 here 57578.035
65 

Senator CARDIN. Senator Feingold has gotten two responses from 

NIH. Neither one is satisfactory to his point of view. We still do 

not have adequate information to understand why NIH took the action they did to secure the exemption. That has not been answered 

yet. And the fact that it is at least implied by NIH—and, again, 

it is unfortunate that they are not here so that we could have a 

complete hearing on this—that the number of applications for 

SBIR, at least, weighed in somewhat to their concern as to whether 

the allocation should apply to the stimulus funds. 

Mr. Hernandez, you have already pointed out some of the explanations for the numbers. There is also, as Mr. Glover has pointed 

out, a hostile view toward small businesses. So there is a lot that 

feeds on this. The bottom line is small businesses, innovative companies are really struggling today to get the type of investments 

they need so that they can function, stay in business, and, of 

course, also expand and create the type of job opportunity and innovation in our economy that is so important for our recovery. 

So the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was an effort 

by Congress working with this Administration to provide tools to 

help get our economy back on track. We have not taken advantage 

of the small, innovative companies that are out there that could 

help us a great deal with a relatively small amount of federal investment. And they are ready to go. That is the frustration for all 

of us. 

So I just really want to concur on Senator Feingold’s concern as 

to how this happened, how this waiver got into this law. We do not 

know. 

Ms. Pickett, you were very straightforward by saying how surprised you were. Believe me, those of us on the Small Business 

Committee were livid at the fact that this was included without 

consultation with the Small Business Committee, which is a committee of jurisdiction. That is true also, by the way, in the House. 

They were unaware of those provisions being placed in there. 

So we want to rectify it, and we want to make sure we get funding to the businesses. As I said at the beginning of this hearing, 

NIH performs an extremely important function, which has had the 

support of three members of Congress at this hearing, and will continue to have our support, but we want to make sure that there 

is fair allocation of those funds, particularly to these small, innovative companies. The SBIR program is important as is the attitude 

within NIH to engage the small business community in accomplishing its mission. 

So we will use the information that has been provided today. It 

will certainly help us in carrying out our mission. If there is nothing further from my colleagues, let me conclude by thanking, again, 

our witnesses and all of you for being here. I also want to thank 

the staff of the Small Business Committee for their long drive out 

from Washington to Rockville. One of the nice things about representing Maryland is that field hearings, which are in close proximity to Washington, allow us to get out into the community, and 

we thank committee staff very much for making all these arrangements. 

With that, the Committee will stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:30 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]