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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

24–914 PDF 2006

THE SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION RESEARCH

PROGRAM - OPENING DOORS TO NEW TECHNOLOGY

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE, EMPOWERMENT 

& GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

WASHINGTON, DC, NOVEMBER 8, 2005

Serial No. 109–36

Printed for the use of the Committee on Small Business

(

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

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois, Chairman 

ROSCOE BARTLETT, Maryland, Vice 

Chairman 

SUE KELLY, New York 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

TODD AKIN, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

MARILYN MUSGRAVE, Colorado 

JEB BRADLEY, New Hampshire 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

THADDEUS MCCOTTER, Michigan 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

TED POE, Texas 

MICHAEL SODREL, Indiana 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

LYNN WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

NYDIA VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD, 

California 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

ENI FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa 

DONNA CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

DANNY DAVIS, Illinois 

ED CASE, Hawaii 

MADELEINE BORDALLO, Guam 

RAU ́ L GRIJALVA, Arizona 

MICHAEL MICHAUD, Maine 

LINDA SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

MELISSA BEAN, Illinois 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin

J. MATTHEW SZYMANSKI, Chief of Staff 

PHIL ESKELAND, Deputy Chief of Staff/Policy Director 

MICHAEL DAY, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE, EMPOWERMENT AND GOVERNMENT 

PROGRAMS 

MARILYN MUSGRAVE, Colorado Chairman 

ROSCOE BARTLETT, Maryland 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

LYNN WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

THADDEUS MCCOTTER, Michigan 

JEB BRADLEY, New Hampshire 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

DANNY DAVIS, Illinois 

RAU ́ L GRIJALVA, Arizona 

MELISSA BEAN, Illinois 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin

JOE HARTZ, Professional Staff

(II) 

C O N T E N T S 

WITNESSES

Page 

Jenkins, Mr. Calvin, Acting Associate Deputy Administrator, Government 

Contracting and Business Development, U.S. Small Business Administration ........................................................................................................................ 3

Ramos, Mr. Frank, Director, Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business, 

Office of the Secretary of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense ..................... 5

Decker, Dr. James, Ph.D., Principal Deputy Director, Office of Science, U.S. 

Department of Energy ......................................................................................... 7

Ruiz Bravo, Dr. Norka, Deputy Director for Extramural Research, National 

Institutes of Health .............................................................................................. 8

Hefferan, Dr. Colien, Ph.D., Administrator, Cooperative State Research, Education & Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture .......................... 10

Hennessey, Dr. Joseph, Ph.D., Senior Advisor, Industrial Innovation Program, 

Small Business Innovation Research Program, National Science Foundation ........................................................................................................................ 11

APPENDIX

Opening statements: 

Manzullo, Hon. Donald A. ................................................................................ 20

Prepared statements: 

Jenkins, Mr. Calvin, Acting Associate Deputy Administrator, Government 

Contracting and Business Development, U.S. Small Business Administration ............................................................................................................ 22

Ramos, Mr. Frank, Director, Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business, 

Office of the Secretary of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense .............. 27

Decker, Dr. James, Ph.D., Principal Deputy Director, Office of Science, 

U.S. Department of Energy .......................................................................... 41

Ruiz Bravo, Dr. Norka, Deputy Director for Extramural Research, National Institutes of Health ............................................................................ 55

Hefferan, Dr. Colien, Ph.D., Administrator, Cooperative State Research, 

Education & Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture ............ 63

Hennessey, Dr. Joseph, Ph.D., Senior Advisor, Industrial Innovation Program, Small Business Innovation Research Program, National Science 

Foundation ..................................................................................................... 67

(III) 

(1)

THE SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION RESEARCH PROGRAM - OPENING DOORS TO 

NEW TECHNOLOGY 

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE, EMPOWERMENT

ANDGOVERNMENT PROGRAMS

Washington, DC 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:30 a.m., in Room 

2360, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Marilyn Musgrave 

[Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Musgrave, Westmoreland, and Lipinski. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Good morning to all of you. This Committee will come to order. 

Thank you all very much for being here today as we examine the 

Small Business Innovation Research Program, and we will refer to 

that as the SBIR from now on, for short. I also thank each one of 

our witnesses for taking the time to provide their testimony to our 

Subcommittee. 

Established in 1982 via the Small Business Innovation Development Act, the SBIR program was established within the major federal research and development agencies. The intent of this effort 

was to increase government funding of small, high technology companies for the performance of R&D with commercial potential. Federal departments with and R&D budget of $100 million or 

more are required to set aside 2.5 percent of this amount to finance 

SBIR activity. From its inception, over $15.2 billion in awards have 

been made for more than 76,000 projects. 

The Small Business Administration established broad policy and 

guidelines under which the current 12 individual federal agency departments operate their SBIR programs, and today we are going to 

focus on the agencies that we have invited to testify. 

The SBIR program is an example of a highly successful federal 

initiative to encourage economic growth and innovation within the 

small business community by assisting in the funding of critical 

start-up and development stages of a company. Not only does it 

spur growth in the individual companies, the program stresses the 

importance of this Committee’s and the entire federal government’s 

commitment to expand and diversify research opportunities to 

small businesses, not just academic institutions and large businesses. 

2

Small businesses represent the very core of the United States 

competitiveness. The post-World War II technological advantage we 

once enjoyed is certainly not as large as it once was. Diversifying 

federal research dollars through initiatives such as SBIR helps foster growth in our economy. 

It is said that nobody holds the patent on good, new ideas. While 

that is true, it can be difficult for a small company with limited resources to take that idea and manufacture it into a new product 

or process. Programs like SBIR provide a bridge between product 

conception and marketability, a step of vital importance for innovative ideas to become reality. 

The new technologies and discoveries that come out of this program go a long way toward keeping our competitive edge in the 

world marketplace. The SBIR program is the kind of public/private 

partnership that is essential to the continued growth of our economy. 

I am eager to hear your testimony today, but before we begin 

that, I would like to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, our ranking member, Mr. Lipinski. 

[Chairman Musgrave’s opening statement may be found in the 

appendix.] 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am glad to be 

here today to discuss the SBIR program and the role it plays in 

keeping our nation at the forefront of technological advancement. 

As a member of the Science Committee and also a former university professor, I am especially interested in this program, although 

don’t take that last part to mean that I oppose the program, because I hear that it is not always the most popular program with 

universities. 

In today’s fast paced and highly competitive global marketplace, 

the United States continues to be a leader when it comes to technology. In no small part, the success is driven by the efforts of our 

nation’s small businesses. Entrepreneurs continue to be dominant 

players in keeping the U.S. ahead, with small firms producing 55 

percent of all new technological advances. 

In order to ensure that our country keeps moving forward in 

science, engineering, and other high tech fields, we need to continue investing in small firms. The SBIR program is one of the 

leading tools that empowers small businesses to contribute to the 

nation’s technology sector. 

SBIR enables entrepreneurs with bright, groundbreaking ideas to 

receive the valuable seed funding they need in order to start and 

grow their businesses. By opening a door for small firms to participate in federal research and development, this program is responsible for enabling thousands of small businesses to move their ideas 

from laboratory to the marketplace. 

The SBIR program has played a significant role in turning a 

wide variety of innovative dreams into reality, from quick-frozen 

foods to personal computers. By harnessing the imagination and 

spirit of small, high tech innovators, we strengthen our ability to 

meet national research priorities while laying the groundwork for 

the next generation of small technology firms in the U.S. 

The SBIR program is not merely helpful, but is a critical program for spawning research and development in the early pre-comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 19:08 Apr 05, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\HEARINGS\24914.TXT MIKE
3

mercial stages. Without the resources offered through SBIR, many 

small business will lack what they need to spur high tech innovation and development in order to move this nation forward for generations to come. 

I look forward to hearing the testimony of today’s witnesses, including ideas for improvement that will make the SBIR more equitable, efficient and productive. Thank you. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski. 

Our first witness is Calvin Jenkins from the Small Business Administration, and if the witnesses will observe the five-minute time 

limit, I would appreciate it. I will keep you honest on that. 

Mr. Jenkins, welcome to the Committee. We look forward to your 

testimony today. 

STATEMENT OF CALVIN JENKINS, OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT 

CONTRACTS AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, US SMALL 

BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. JENKINS. Madam Chairman, Ranking Member, distinguished 

members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting the Small 

Business Administration here today to discuss the Small Business 

Innovation Research program. 

I am Calvin Jenkins, Acting Associate Deputy Administrator for 

the Office of Government Contracts and Business Development at 

the SBA. I oversee the Office of Technology, which administers the 

SBIR program. 

The SBIR program, established in 1982, was designed to 

strengthen the role of innovative small business concerns and federally funded research and development, to utilize R&D as a base 

for technology innovation to meet agency needs, and to contribute 

to the growth and strength of the nation’s economy. 

The competitive grant program is operated by 11 agencies and has awarded more than $16.9 billion to SBIR firms since its inception. Each federal agency with an extramural research or R&D 

budget in excess of $100 million is required to set aside 2.5 percent 

of that budget for the SBIR program. The 11 participating agencies 

are: The USDA, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, HHS, 

Homeland Security, Transportation, EPA, NASA, and NSF. 

The program is structured in three phases. Phase I awards provide up to $100,000 to evaluate the feasibility and the scientific 

and technical merits of an idea. Phase II awards are funds up to 

$750,000 for two years for the further development of the ideas 

proposed in Phase I. Phase III is the commercialization phase, and 

no SBIR funds are utilized. In Phase III, the awardee firms must 

either secure private sector investment to bring the innovation to 

market or obtain follow-on contracts with federal agencies to meet 

specific agency technology needs. 

SBA’s role in the SBIR program can be summed up in four main 

categories: Policy direction, program development; oversight of 

agency for compliance with policy direction; reporting program information, as required by statute; and outreach and marketing of 

the program. 

Each of the 11 participating agencies is responsible for administering and management of its SBIR program, including: Posting 

SBIR solicitations, receiving and evaluating proposals, selecting 

4

awardees, monitoring projects, submitting annual reports to the 

SBA containing complete records of their awards. 

Each agency has its own technology needs consistent with its 

mission, as well as its own set of regulations and protocol. As a result, the SBIR program as a whole encompasses 11 very different 

types of SBIR programs. 

One important distinction is between agencies with clear technology needs, such as DoD and NASA, and agencies that do not 

procure technology themselves but, rather, have broader public interest missions, such as NSF or NIH. These programs are run in 

very different ways. Yet they all conform to the rules and framework we establish in the policy directives. 

The number of awards have grown over time in proportion to the 

extramural R&D budget of the participating agencies. More than 

82,000 awards have been made over the life of the program, totaling $16.9 billion. Minorities, disadvantaged firms have received 

10,074 awards, representing 12.1 percent of all SBIR awards. 

Awards have been made to firms in all 50 states, Puerto Rico 

and the District of Columbia. Today, agencies evaluate over 30,000 

proposals and make over 6,000 awards to about 3,000 small, high 

tech companies each year. 

Let us now address program performance. Past assumptions of 

commercialization rates of the SBIR program conducted by GAO, 

DoD and SBA have found that about 40 percent of Phase II SBIR 

projects have resulted in commercial products. 

We are currently implementing an online reporting system 

through an enhancement of our existing TechNet system to collect 

this information on an annual basis across all agencies. This 

should increase the reliability of the data and enable us to develop 

new measures of commercial success and critical program outcomes 

in the future. 

I would also like to share a case study which demonstrates the 

benefits to small business and our technological growth. Sea 

Sweep, Inc., a Colorado firm, received a SBIR award from the Environmental Protection Agency. 

It utilized the award to develop and commercialize an innovative 

absorption called Sea Sweep that functions both on land and water 

to absorb spilled oil and chemicals. The absorption is made using 

a patented process that involves heating sawdust to a temperature 

at which the oil-like product renders it very attractive to oil but repellant to water. It absorbs the oil or chemical immediately upon 

contact, and will float indefinitely in water, preventing environmental damage to marine life and bird species. 

In terms of commercial success, Sea Sweep is marketed in the 

United States, Europe, South America, Australia, New Zealand, 

Japan, Indonesia and the Persian Gulf. It has been recognized by 

R&D Magazine as one of the 100 most technologically significant 

new products of the year. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, and 

I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[Mr. Jenkins’ testimony may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Thank you, Mr. Jenkins. I am so sorry 

for the noise. We were like kids about to giggle in church, but that 

is no reflection on your testimony. We are trying to find the guy 

5

with the chain saw or whatever it is to shut him down. But my 

apologies, and if you want to give any of your testimony over—We 

don’t know when it may start again, but if you want to venture in, 

we are happy to have you repeat any of it. 

Mr. JENKINS. No, I think I am fine. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Thank you. I am so sorry that happened to you. 

Mr. Westmoreland said that is a reciprocating saw. So I have 

been corrected. Thank you. 

Mr. Ramos, if you have the nerve, we would be interested to hear 

your testimony. Thank you for coming today. 

STATEMENT OF FRANK RAMOS, OFFICE OF SMALL AND DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF 

DEFENSE 

Mr. RAMOS. Good morning, Chairman Musgrave and Congressman Lipinski and Mr. Westmoreland, and other members of the 

Committee. My name is Frank Ramos. I am the Director of the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business for the Office of Secretary of Defense. 

I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you and 

discuss the health and wellbeing of the SBIR program, and wanted 

to join my colleagues here today. We are working hard to ensure 

that the SBIR program is as effective as it can be. 

The broad mission of the Department of Defense Small Business 

Innovation Research Program is to advance technology development for the warfighter and the nation. SBIR firms will enhance 

the defense industrial base and assure technology dominance by 

means of seeding technologies to provide materiel solutions to our 

warfighter. 

The DoD SBIR program is a program of programs encompassing 

10 military services and agencies. The DoD represents over 50 percent of the total federal SBIR budget, which exceeds $2 billion. The 

DoD program has doubled in size from Fiscal Year 1999 to over $1 

billion. 

In Fiscal Year 2004, 1,082 topics generated 15,681 proposals, 

2,075 Phase I’s; 1,173 Phase II contracts were awarded to 1,594 different firms from across the country. Again in Fiscal Year 2004, 

over 50 percent of the Phase I contracts were awarded to firms 

with fewer than 25 employees, and 30 percent to firms with fewer 

than 10 employees. 

Many are start-up firms that bring their ‘‘out-of-the-garage’’ innovation to the Department. Again in Fiscal Year 2004, 39 percent 

of the SBIR Phase I award winners were first-time DoD contractors. Forty-eight percent had previously been awarded five or fewer 

Phase II contracts, and 19 percent were minority or women-owned 

firms. 

The high water mark for SBIR success in the Department is 

bringing innovation, leading technology solutions, from small business to the warfighter. There is no way to measure the monetary 

value of a technology that saves a life in combat or contributes to 

the success on the battlefield. 

6

We do, however, measure program output by tracking financial 

commercialization data on all Phase II contracts. We also track 

success stories that demonstrate impact on specific customers. 

A vivid example is ceramic armor plates, which I’ve brought forward for you to examine, if you wish, which protect warfighters 

from assault and other small arms fire. Armor Works, Incorporated, of Phoenix, Arizona, has developed high-technology body 

armor plates for the Interceptor Body Armor System using the 

state of art ceramic materials stemming from a Navy SBIR contract that covered from 2000 to 2003 fiscal years, for vehicle armor 

and follow-on research and development. 

The firm has supplied over 300,000 ceramic armor plates for use 

in personal, vehicular and aircraft applications that daily save 

warfighter lives. 

Another success story is the Phraselator—again we would like, 

if you wish, to demonstrate this later—a hand-held speech translation device developed by Marine Acoustics, a veteran owned small 

business firm based in Annapolis, Maryland. 

This started from a DARPA SBIR effort. Following the terrorist 

attacks on 9-11 just seven months into the Phase II contract, 

DARPA requested acceleration of prototype Phraselator development. 

Within weeks, 200 of the prototypes were delivered to military 

forces in Afghanistan. Over 350 are now deployed in Afghanistan 

and Iraq, and were used exclusively in the tsunami relief efforts. 

Thousands are in use by the military around the world, with a 

large potential commercial market for law enforcement and medical 

applications. 

A third success story is a portable very high bandwidth satellite 

communications antenna developed by Systems Technology Group 

of SRS Technologies, Huntsville, Alabama, through an SBIR Phase 

II contract with the Air Force Research Laboratory and with funding from the Office of the Secretary of Defense. 

First responders used the antenna system in Biloxi, Mississippi, 

to provide communications in the destructive wake of Hurricane 

Katrina. The antenna systems enabled them to establish a law enforcement command post and a refugee information center. So impressive were the antenna’s capabilities that FEMA and the Red 

Cross are interested in the technology. 

In summary, again I thank you, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to testify before you on the SBIR program. I hope my testimony has provided you with a summary understanding of the 

DoD SBIR program. Additionally, I hope this has given you a sense 

of its importance to our nation’s warfighter. 

I look forward to continuing to work with you and other members 

of the Congress, and I stand ready to answer any questions. Thank 

you so much. 

[Mr. Ramos’ testimony may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Thank you, Mr. Ramos, very much. 

Dr. James Decker is with us from the U.S. Department of Energy. Welcome. 

7

STATEMENT OF JAMES DECKER, OFFICE OF SCIENCE, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Mr. DECKER. Thank you. Madam Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to speak today about the 

SBIR program at the Department of Energy. 

I am the principal Deputy Director of the Office of Science. The 

Office of Science manages the SBIR program for the Department 

and has done so since the SBIR program started in 1982. 

In addition to the Office of Science, six other DOE R&D programs participate in the SBIR program: Fossil Energy; Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; Nuclear Energy; Environmental 

Management; Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation; and Electricity 

Delivery and Energy Reliability. 

The DOE SBIR program currently provides over $100 million 

each year to small businesses to help entrepreneurs take their 

ideas from conception to reality. The Department has, since the 

program’s inception, made 4,123 Phase I awards and 1,677 Phase 

II awards, with a total value of about $1.4 billion. 

Of the Phase I awards, about 12 percent are awarded annually 

to socially and economically disadvantaged small businesses, and 

about a third are first-time awardees with DOE. 

In return, these companies have earned more than $3 billion in 

sales and additional development funding, created jobs, and helped 

the nation capitalize on its substantial investment in R&D. 

The Department manages the SBIR program with nearly the 

same processes that it uses in general for R&D programs. The Department issues an annual solicitation for the SBIR program. It 

typically contains approximately 50 topics, including renewal energy sources, coal gasification, combustion technologies, 

nanotechnology, biological solutions for producing fuels, advanced 

technologies for nuclear energy, and high performance computing, 

just to name a few. 

Applications are first reviewed by the technical managers to ensure the proposals meet the notice requirements. Grant applications then go through a peer review process by outside, independent, scientific and technical experts. Based on the results of 

these external reviews, each technical program makes their selections, and the final decisions are made by the DOE SBIR program 

manager based on these recommendations. 

One aspect of our SBIR program that is different from our standard management of R&D programs is our commercialization assistance. DOE was the first agency to offer commercialization assistance to awardees, beginning in 1990. 

A large majority of SBIR awardees have excellent skills in 

science and engineering research, but lack experience in product 

development, financing, business growth, raising venture capital, 

and marketing. So one of the services provided to Phase II awardees for the last 15 years is the Commercialization Opportunity 

Forum Program. 

This program is conducted by Dawnbreaker, a private organization under contract to the Department. In workshops and one-onone sessions, Dawnbreaker works with small businesses over a period of eight months to develop and refine a business plan. 

8

During a two-day Opportunity Forum, Dawnbreaker brings these 

small businesses together with respective entrepreneurs, investors, 

and potential strategic allies. Other commercialization services offered through the Department’s SBIR program help small businesses to develop roadmaps for commercialization and to assess potential applications for their technologies. 

We have worked diligently to make this program a success, and 

we believe it is. The quality of the research selected for awards has 

remained very high. We are pleased that at least 25 of our projects 

have received R&D 100 awards from Research and Development 

Magazine that selects the 100 most significant technical products 

each year. 

Some examples of the technologies that have been successfully 

commercialized as a result of the Department’s SBIR program include: Photovoltaic power systems for more cost effective solar 

power generation; catalytic combusters that reduce pollution from 

gas turbine engines; web-based search engine software that optimizes desired search results from multiple database Internet 

searching; automated blood purifiers for faster DNA purification 

and genome analysis; shock resistant, temperature tolerant ceramic 

components for an improved energy efficiency of diesel engines; and 

fuel cell technologies that improve efficiency. 

In conclusion, I believe that the Department’s SBIR program has 

successfully met the purposes of the program established in the 

Small Business Innovation Development Act. In addition to the 

benefits to the participants and to the nation from commercialization of new products resulting from the SBIR program, the Department of Energy has benefitted from small business participation in 

its R&D programs, and small business continues to contribute innovative solutions to difficult technical problems. 

The Department of Energy will certainly continue to support 

SBIR, and continue to look to small business innovators and entrepreneurs to help keep our nation at the cutting edge of science and 

global competitiveness. 

Again, thank you, Madam Chairman, for inviting me to testify 

today, and I would be happy to answer any questions you or members may have. 

[Dr. Decker’s testimony may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. I appreciate your testimony. 

We have Dr. Norka Ruiz Bravo now from the National Institutes 

of Health. Welcome to the Committee. 

STATEMENT OF DR. NORKA RUIZ BRAVO, NATIONAL 

INSTITUTES OF HEALTH 

Dr. RUIZ BRAVO. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman and members of the Committee. I am Dr. Norka Ruiz Bravo, Deputy Director for Extramural Research at the National Institutes of Health. 

The NIH is a component of the Department of Health and 

Human Services, and it is the principal health research agency of 

the federal government. 

Our mission is the conduct of biomedical, behavioral and clinical 

research to improve the health of the American people, and I am 

pleased to appear before you today to testify about the NIH’s SBIR 

9

program and the role that it plays in opening new doors to new 

technologies. 

Specifically, I am going to focus on two areas, first the role that 

SBIR plays in the NIH research agenda and, second, several benefits of the program within our agency and across the country. 

The SBIR program is fully integrated within the scientific programs and goals of the NIH by contributing to the translation of 

scientific findings into tangible products and services that benefit 

public health. Across the NIH, there are 24 Institutes and Centers 

with SBIR programs, each of which has well defined scientific research priorities. 

Through a competitive phased award system, the SBIR program 

supports a wide array of innovative biomedical and public health 

projects that are designed to encourage commercialization of promising technologies. I would like to highlight just two of the many 

technological advances that I feel exemplify the kind of SBIR research that NIH supports. 

The first is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, AVANT Immunotherapeutics. This company used the SBIR 

program to demonstrate the feasibility and then advance a revolutionary vaccine that is designed to enhance the clinical management of atherosclerosis. That is the hardening and narrowing of arteries. 

Second, the National Eye Institute funded IntraLase Corporation 

through the SBIR program to develop a safer, more precise laser 

for creating the corneal flap. Many of us have heard about LASIK. 

This relates to that. The fentosecond laser pulse virtually eliminates the severe sight threatening complications that are often 

seen or sometimes seen with the microkeratome. 

To grow this long line of successes, the NIH has initiated several 

steps to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of our SBIR program. These enhancements, such as flexibility in time and dollars 

and the Fast Track mechanism as well as others described in my 

written testimony arise, from and respond to many of the needs of 

the small business research community. Those needs are varied, 

and the challenges are great in trying to accommodate multiple industries, different technology sectors, and diverse product outcomes. 

The journey through the innovation pipeline for many biomedical 

products is a long and complicated one. Progress in biomedical research cannot always be considered a simple linear process, though 

the phased structure of the SBIR program construes it as such. 

For the majority of the companies that we support whose major 

business focus is biotechnology, pharmaceutical—for example, drug 

discovery and drug development—and diagnostic, the phased SBIR 

program process is a cyclical process that is met with unique challenges. Phase I plus Phase II does not automatically translate to 

Phase III commercialization. 

Additional SBIR funding is often needed to pursue lines of feasibility research related to the development of products to benefit 

human health. 

In conclusion, the NIH is very pleased with its involvement in 

the SBIR program, and believes that flexibility is critical to the 

continued success of the program. 

10

This concludes my statement today. I would be happy to answer 

any questions from the Committee. 

[Dr. Ruiz Bravo’s testimony may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Thank you very much. 

We have Dr. Colien Hefferan next. Thank you for coming from 

the Department of Agriculture. My district back home has 75 percent of the population along the front range, and then 25 percent 

over this vast rural area where the whole economy is based on agriculture. So I am happy to hear your remarks today. 

STATEMENT OF COLIEN HEFFERAN, COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH EDUCATION AND EXTENSION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Ms. HEFFERAN. Thank you. Well, good morning, Madam Chairman, and Congressman Lipinski. I am Colien Hefferan, the Administrator of the Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the agency 

charged with administering the SBIR program on behalf of USDA. 

I would like to give you a brief overview of the program, the way 

we administer the funds, and the focus areas that we look to. 

Within USDA we have eight agencies which provide support for 

the program. Eighty percent of the funding comes from my organization, 12.5 from the Agricultural Research Service, and five percent from the Forest Service, with smaller amounts coming from 

each of a series of other agencies. 

As with other agencies, we provide two types of awards. We pro- vide up to $80,000 for eight months for Phase I feasibility studies, 

and for Phase II research and development grants, we provide up 

to $300,000 for 24 months. Approximately 90 Phase I feasibility 

grants and 35 to 40 Phase II development grants are awarded annually. 

The successful completion of a Phase I study is a prerequisite to 

receipt of a Phase II grant. Of the applications that we receive, 15 

to 17 percent of the Phase I and 50 to 60 percent of the Phase II 

applications have been funded each year. 

Our program addresses 12 research topics which cover the range 

of issues addressed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, including enhancing economic opportunities for producers, increasing the 

quality of life in rural America, enhancing protection and safety of 

the nation’s food supply, improving the nation’s nutrition and 

health, and protecting and enhancing the natural resource base. 

Within these topics, over the years we have added topics, including this year for the first time a program focused on small and midsize farms. 

Proposals are evaluated through a confidential peer review system similar to that used by our National Research Initiative, which 

is the flagship competitive research program at USDA and which 

is modeled after the National Science Foundation peer review system. Our panels meet in Washington, and the most meritorious applications are recommended for funding. 

Also, when there are areas of specific expertise that we need to 

address, we use ad hoc reviewers from all over the world. 

A very important aspect of our SBIR program is post-award management. Most of the effort is directed toward Phase II projects 

11

that have demonstrated technical feasibility in their first phase. A 

commercialization assistance program is offered to new Phase II 

winners in which they work with a contractor who helps identify 

commercialization partners and markets, which are often the most 

critical issue, and new business opportunities. 

In addition, our program leaders for the SBIR program conduct 

many site visits and work very closely with our recipients. 

The successful commercialization often takes several years beyond the actual award of programs and projects by USDA, but surveys of our past Phase II winners indicate that about 50 percent 

of those projects ultimately realize success in the form of commercialization and sales. 

I would like to briefly mention just one or two examples of successful SBIR projects. The first is Embrex from Research Triangle 

Park in North Carolina. Chickens used to be vaccinated on the first 

day after hatching for a variety of diseases, and you can imagine, 

that is not an easy job. USDA scientists showed it was possible to 

vaccinate chickens by injecting the vaccine directly into the egg 

three days prior to hatching. 

To make this ‘‘in ova’’ vaccination approach, Embrex received an 

SBIR support to develop an automatic egg injection machine. Their 

technology is capable of vaccinating 30,000 eggs per hour, and they 

now vaccinate over 90 percent of the 9 billion broiler chickens 

raised in this country every year. They are also vaccinating chicken 

eggs in more than 30 foreign countries. 

This technique has been shown to be effective with viral diseases 

and, should we be successful in developing, for example, a vaccine 

that can address avian influenza, this technology is available and 

could be used for that purpose. 

We have a number of other examples of success, including the 

Nitrate Elimination Company in Lake Linden in Michigan’s Upper 

Peninsula. This project focuses on nitrogen fertilizer leaching from 

soil into water supplies. 

Traditionally, nitrogen in those areas has been measured by 

using cadmium, but cadmium is very toxic and poses a threat to 

human health. So the testing for nitrogen was a toxic process in 

itself. The Nitrate Elimination Company has produced a very sensitive test kit for nitrate that is based on the activity of an enzyme 

nitrate reductase and, therefore, reduces the cadmium that is used 

in this process. 

We have many other examples of success from the 1600 projects 

that we have supported since 1982 when the program began, and 

we will be very pleased to provide those and other examples to you. 

Thank you for this opportunity. 

[Dr. Hefferan’s testimony may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Thank you for your testimony. 

We now have Dr. Joseph Hennessey from the National Science 

Foundation. We look forward to hearing from you. 

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH HENNESSEY, NATIONAL SCIENCE 

FOUNDATION 

Dr. HENNESSEY. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Mr. Lipinski. 

I am Jose Hennessey. I am Senior Advisory in the NSF SBIR program. 

12

This morning I would like to share some information with you 

on our Phase IIB program. The details of that are summarized on 

page 3 of our written testimony. To do that, I want to tell you a 

story, and I have entitled the story ‘‘Save the Plant.’’ 

It turns our last week I was talking to Tom Knight, who is one 

of our Phase IIB awardees. Just a little background: Tom is the 

CEO of a small company in Georgia called Invistics, and before he 

started Invistics Tom was a manufacturing manager in a number 

of large companies. While he was doing that, he was very disappointed with the quality of the software that was available to reduce cycle time and to improve manufacturing performance. 

Tom started his company and got a Phase I and subsequently got 

a Phase II from NSF, and while he was doing that, he also 

partnered with professors from MIT and Georgia Tech to develop 

with him the algorithms that were required for this software. 

During the Phase II, he also secured investments from angels as 

well as local venture capitalists, and that really served as the 

matching funds for securing a Phase IIB from the National Science 

Foundation. 

As they developed this web-based modules for planning, scheduling, delivery and inventory, Invistics also began to consult with 

a number of major potential customers. Within about three years, 

Invistics systems have been adapted by a number of those companies. 

One of Tom’s customers is Bristol-Myers Squibb. I am sure you 

recognize them, a major pharmaceutical manufacturer. They had a 

plant in Evansville, Indiana, that was scheduled to be closed, and 

basically as a last ditch effort, they implemented the lean manufacturing techniques that were supported by Tom’s software, along 

with a team management concept. 

In 2005, the same plant received the Team of the Year Award 

from Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Magazines, and is now recognized as one of the highest performing pharmaceutical plants in 

the industry. 

Why did I select Invistics to share with you this morning? We 

are doing this, because we believe they exemplify what we are looking for in successful small businesses. They understood what their 

customers needed. They used the SBIR funds to carry out the appropriate research. 

While they were carrying out this research, they attracted appropriate investments during Phase II. They recognized they needed 

that to move on toward commercialization. They leveraged academic research. They also learned how to sell, to market and sell, 

systems to large companies, and particularly in this case, these 

systems had to be compatible with many of the systems that were 

already in place in these companies. 

What we are looking for is we would like to see more of our small 

business clients be more like Invistics. NSF is trying to expand significantly what we call our awards management and mentorship 

activities with these small businesses. We see many small companies who have great technologies. However, they are really lacking 

in the business skills necessary for successful commercialization. 

Madam Chair, that concludes my testimony, but I will be happy 

to answer any questions. 

13

[Dr. Hennessey’s testimony may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Thank you very much to all of you. 

Very interesting testimony. 

Mr. Ramos, I am going to start with you. You’ve got a couple of 

things that you brought. Could you tell us about them, please? 

Mr. RAMOS. Sure. i would like to start with the Phraselator. This 

company—and one of the gentlemen that’s in the room here, a 

former Navy Seal, is one of the principals in the company. I am not 

sure if you want to see a demonstration or you just want to speak 

to it. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. If it is all right with Mr. Lipinski, I 

would love to see a demonstration. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. I actually was going to say that I had heard about 

this on the news and was going to ask you, Mr. Ramos, for a demonstration. 

Mr. RAMOS. Here is the owner of the company. He is better at 

doing this. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. All right. Imagine that. He brought his 

own. Okay. 

Mr. RAMOS. While he is going up there, I want to mention, because, Ms. Chairman, this is one of our veteran-owned firms. I 

know you had a panel before on the veteran-owned businesses. 

This exemplifies what Department of Defense is doing using our 

own to develop products for the warfighter. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Very good. 

Mr. SARICH. What this did is I spoke to it, and it matched my 

input speech with a recorded output translation. So when we first 

started on this, we ran it on a notebook PC, and we needed to find 

a way to get it down to something that the warfighters could use, 

and through the SBIR program—You know, I didn’t even know it 

existed. I was brand new to it, but we were able to come up with 

this. 

It has multiple languages. That was Iraqi. If I wanted to switch 

to another language: Switch to Italian. This is a computer translator. 

So it works for anybody. It works for my voice, but it would also 

work for most anybody in the room after a couple of tries so you 

could get used to it. We have been developing this now—The first 

working prototype had worked—was ready in September of 2001, 

and then shortly thereafter I found myself in Afghanistan the first 

time in 2002. 

From that time, we have been refining and iterating on it, and 

I just have to tell you, I’m just—I am a total believer in this program, you know. 

I would be glad to answer any questions you might have. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Well, very interesting demonstration. 

Mr. Lipinski, did you have any question? 

Mr. LIPINSKI. What languages can you do? 

Mr. SARICH. Well, right now, because it is—we could have multiple languages, in fact, for this particular set of phrases we have—

you take a look at it—probably about 15 different translations, and 

we have the toolkit so that we can add new translations. 

We can also have the warfighter. We have a toolkit and, in fact, 

we have been training the warfighters to be able to add their own 

14

content with their own linguists. They have their own linguists or 

we build the content for them. 

As I said, we recently have—Just out at Camp Pendleton where 

they are actually institutionalizing this in their training at the 1st 

Marine Division, as the Marines get ready to go overseas there, a 

certain portion were trained in how to use this device. 

We’ve got about 5,000 or approaching 5,000 of the Phraselators 

out in the field now. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Does it have a battery in it, and what 

is the life of the battery? 

Mr. SARICH. My background is—I have a military background 

and engineering background, and from my SEAL background one 

of the things I realize is that batteries are big, you know, because 

we’ve got so many batteries. So what we did is we have a custom 

lithium polymer battery, which is good for about 20 hours-plus of 

normal use, which in its sleep mode is good for weeks or better. 

Also, it will take four AA batteries, because, you know, 

warfighters don’t always have a place to charge the battery, but 

usually they can find AA’s. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. That’s what I was wondering. What is 

your name again, please? 

Mr. SARICH. My first name is Ace, and last name is Sarich, Sa-r-i-c-h. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Thank you so much, Mr. Sarich. Did 

you have anything else, Mr. Lipinski? Thank you very much. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. No. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SARICH. Thank you. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. All right. The second thing that you 

brought with you, the armor? Could we have your name, sir? You 

can come up to a microphone. 

Mr. CERVANTES. Charles Cervantes. I am Special Assistant to the 

Director. 

Mr. RAMOS. This device, again, I’m sure, is saving numerous 

lives. What is really impressive about it—and this goes to the credit for the young men and women that are out there in the field of 

harm—is the weight. These weigh about six pounds, and they carry 

anywhere from five around their body, and they carry that in the 

heat and the other equipment that they carry. 

So if anybody was to criticize those young men and women, I’m 

sure I am going to stand up and say try one of these on and carry 

it around all day. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Tell us how it withstands, Mr. Cervantes or Mr. Ramos, whichever. 

Mr. RAMOS. I’m sorry? What was the question? 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. You have told us about the weight. How 

is it made? 

Mr. RAMOS. Well, it is a ceramic material that has been developed through the SBIR program, as I mentioned earlier, and it is 

inserted into panels like a vest that they wear around their body. 

You have probably seen them on television, and they protect them 

in the vital parts of their body, particularly in the chest area. 

So that is the intent of this. A story is: My nephew was in Vietnam, and they used to steal manhole covers and put them on the 

bottom of the helicopter. These are the type of devices now that are 

15

replacing the manhole covers to protect them, which is a state of 

the art, again. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Is it put on equipment as well as soldiers? 

Mr. RAMOS. Yes. As I mentioned, it is put on the—Personnel protection is put on vehicles and put on aircraft as well. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. How is it attached to a vehicle? 

Mr. RAMOS. Well, I don’t know in detail, but what I understand 

is that they are put into the panels, and they are, if you will, bolted 

onto the side of the vehicle so that they are given some protection, 

and they are also laid in the bottom of the vehicle so that, in case 

there is some concussion, it protects them. 

Particularly in the aircraft, very possibly like in the helicopter 

where my nephew was on, they get fire from underneath, and it 

penetrates them where they are sitting. So this then would protect 

them in some form. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Mr. Lipinski? 

Mr. LIPINSKI. For questions, questions for Mr. Ramos? 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Whichever you would like. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Ramos. I don’t 

have any other questions on that, but both of those two examples 

show just great examples of American ingenuity and show what we 

can do, what small businesses can do, and make great technological 

improvements, and here very much help our military and our men 

and women in serving to protect us right now. 

My main question for the panel goes to what is probably the biggest controversy right now or discussion at least in regard to SBIR. 

That is the limit on venture capital. 

If 51 percent or more venture capital, then you cannot apply for 

SBIR program, and this has come out of a Small Business Administration ruling. I am just wondering—and I am not taking a position 

here. What I am interested in is information. 

I am not sure how much Mr. Jenkins can say about this right 

now, but I am interested to hear from you, Mr. Jenkins, and everyone else about their department or agency what impact you think 

that that limit had, and is it—Well, you can put in it whether or 

not you think it is a good impact or not, but I am just wondering 

what impact you think that does have on the SBIR program and 

how it accomplishes its goals in your particular department or 

agency. 

Mr. JENKINS. Yes, sir. As you mentioned, as a result of Office of 

Hearings and Appeals findings, SBA clarified its rules regarding 

the ownership issue, and our rule has always stated that 51 percent must be owned by an individual. 

We have heard from both sides in terms of whether or not we 

should allow for venture capital to participate. We have also heard 

from small businesses that feel that they would be competing unfairly. So I think it is important for SBA to continue to look at the 

comments that we have received and actually try to weigh them 

and come to some conclusion at this point, but we have not yet 

made any kind of decision to change our rules at this point. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Ramos? 

Mr. RAMOS. At this point, I think we want to defer to the SBA 

and see what policy guidelines come out. There are, obviously, 

16

some pros and cons on it. There’s been some discussions in the 

past. 

I have a book here on the National Research Council that was 

addressed—that issue was addressed, and there are a lot of 

variances in terms of where this plays into, particularly in the topic 

area of interest with respect to either angel investment or venture 

capital. But at this time, I just don’t think I can address it, because 

we are looking to the SBA to give us some guidelines on that. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Is there anyone who will venture an opinion on 

what impact you think that it has? Dr. Bravo? 

Dr. RUIZ BRAVO. I would be happy to. For us at the NIH, if you 

recall the SBA issued a new rule in 2005. It became effective in 

2005, and that opened the door to venture capital companies, majority ownership by a single venture capital company. We think 

that is terrific. 

It opened the door some, but perhaps not as much as would be 

beneficial to the National Institutes of Health. For us, particularly 

for companies that deal with drug development, drug discovery, 

therapeutics, for those kinds of companies less than one percent of 

those innovative research projects actually reach the marketplace, 

and they have a number of characteristics. 

For example, they have very high intensive capital needs. They 

require an unusually long development time. They are exceptionally high in burn rate of investment funds. In other words, they go 

through money very quickly. Sometimes it takes hundreds of millions of dollars to get a drug to market, and they require significant 

investment by the venture capital companies, and they require 

multiple venture capital financing. 

So for those kinds of companies, while the SBA’s rule opened the 

door somewhat, it didn’t open it sufficiently to allow us to reach 

some of those kinds of companies; and in fact, we have had some 

companies that we thought we were going to be able to fund that 

have applied for grants, and we have had to turn them down. I can 

give you one or two examples of that. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. Anyone else want to—I am not trying 

to paint anyone into a corner. It is not a trick question. I was trying to get information on how you see this having an impact. 

Mr. DECKER. At the Department of Energy, we don’t think that 

the present guidelines has had a adverse impact on our program. 

I think it probably does depend a lot on the type of business that 

the company is in and what they are trying to do as to whether 

or not this is a significant issue. We just don’t see it with the companies we deal with. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Okay. Any others? 

Ms. HEFFERAN. Well, I would add that at USDA we have had relatively few cases where this has been an issue thus far, although, 

certainly, there is a growing Ag biotech sector. So it could have an 

effect similar to NIH, but at this point it has not been a substantial 

issue for us. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. 

Mr. HENNESSEY. It hasn’t really been an issue at NSF, even with 

our Phase IIB program. So we haven’t really taken a position. 

However, we certainly can support the position that NIH has taken 

17

on it, but it hasn’t been a handicap for us in managing our program. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. Further question? 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Certainly. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. I had another question arising out of the testimony. I know that Dr. Decker talked about the Department of Energy was the first to aid in commercialization, and Dr. Hennessey 

talked about what NSF does with the Phase IIB. 

I was wondering if other departments and agencies—what they 

do in regard to helping with commercialization. Dr. Bravo? 

Dr. RUIZ BRAVO. NIH does have a commercialization assistance 

program where small agencies are basically taught about how to 

get through what is called the ‘‘valley of death,’’ which is the place 

of getting through from having a great idea and the beginning of 

a product out to the product. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. Mr. Ramos—Go ahead, Dr. Hennessey. 

Mr. HENNESSEY. NSF has a program that we call our Phase I 

commercialization planning assistance program, which works with 

all the Phase I grantees to help them develop a commercialization 

plan as part of their Phase I submission. That has been very successful in improving the quality of the Phase II proposals. 

We are evaluating now alternatives and how we can expand that 

to help—in addition to our Phase IIB program, how we can expand 

that to help our active Phase II grantees. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. I always make it a point, whenever 

anyone from NSF is testifying before a Committee that I am on, 

to say I am always happy to see someone from the NSF, because 

I have applied for one NSF grant in my life, and I received it. So 

it’s always good. Dr. Hefferan. 

Ms. HEFFERAN. In the case of the Department of Agriculture, we 

limit the technical assistance to the Phase II awardees, and it is 

done through contracts with firms that provide education and 

training, particularly for this transition from the development of 

the product to the development of something you can sell, and that 

is limited to a contract valued at $4,000 per recipient. 

I think there are a lot of other avenues that could be developed 

to help with technical assistance. At USDA, of course, we have the 

Cooperative Extension Program which can help with commercialization and business development. NIST has a manufacturing 

extension program, and obviously, SBA and other programs have 

technical assistance. 

So we try to encourage our recipients to use a wide range of resources, many of which are low cost or free for small businesses, 

but the formal program is limited to the Phase II awardees. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. Mr. Ramos? 

Mr. RAMOS. I am one to use empirical data to make determinations, and we have two studies that are ongoing right now, one 

from the National—I’ve forgotten the name here—the National 

Academy of Science, and we also have the RAND. 

This has been an interest of both the House and Senate side in 

small business, and before we come forward with any conclusions, 

we better serve to the Congress if we get that empirical data to examine where these solutions may be applied. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

18

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. I just wonder what kind of interagency 

information sharing you all do. Anyone want to comment on that? 

Mr. JENKINS. Well, in terms of the SBA, the data is clearly important for us in order to track the success of the program. I think, 

as we move forward and make some modifications to our data collection system, we will be able to continue to show the success of 

the program, in all phases, but certainly through commercialization. 

So we collect data from each of the agencies to help us with that, 

and show the benefits of the program. 

Mr. RAMOS. What we undertook this last year was a joint Department of Defense Phase II forum. We invited other agencies to 

participate, and for the first time we focused on Phase II and beyond. 

That seems to be a forum where we can push the program a little more effectively than we have in the past, and we plan to have 

another iteration of that forum again with our sister organizations. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Very good. It seems that the east and 

west coasts have more award winners than anywhere else. Does 

anyone have a comment on that, why that might be the case? 

Mr. RAMOS. I am from the west. They are smarter. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. I would take offense to that. 

Mr. RAMOS. I just want to make reference to Congressman Tom 

Davis in one of the periodicals, that he was a guest speaker at one 

of these forums, and I think there is a circle trend in terms of 

where seats of technology sit. They seem to be principally in the 

Boston, Massachusetts, quarter and in California. 

Why that is, I think that is for any of the academics to speculate, 

but some people say that is the innovative environment that exists 

in those areas. Again, that is very subjective, but that seems to be 

a pattern. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Are there any particular industries that 

you all see that are getting an increase in awards? No trend there? 

All right. 

Is there anything that you would suggest about the way the program is administered? Would you like to see any changes that 

would cause it to improve? Dr. Bravo? 

Dr. RUIZ BRAVO. I think I have already mentioned the kinds of 

things, the flexibility around the eligibility, that would help NIH 

fund the kinds of applications that we need to fund. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Anyone else like to comment on any 

changes they would like to see? 

Very interesting testimony today. Dr. Hennessey? 

Mr. HENNESSEY. We noted in our testimony that the area of discretionary funding to help with technical assistance, and for a lot 

of us technical assistance is really defined as helping them understand the principles of commercialization. 

I think a number of us believe that that would enhance our capability to do more mentoring, counseling, and try to address some 

of these issues that I mentioned before, a lot of great technologies, 

but how they get from technology to the marketplace—there is a 

huge gap of knowledge there in many of these companies. 

19

Mr. DECKER. We, certainly, at Department of Energy support 

that position. We think that is a critically important piece for the 

success of this program. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Thank you. Well, thank all of you. I 

know Trent Lott talks about herding cats, but then we heard about 

vaccinating eggs today, and I found that very intriguing, trying to 

imagine vaccinating a chick. So what an innovation. 

Good testimony today, and thank you also to you two gentlemen 

who assisted with demonstrating those things for us. 

This Committee is adjourned, and again thank you for coming. 

[Whereupon, at 11:07 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

20


24914.001
21


24914.002
22


24914.003
23


24914.004
24


24914.005
25


24914.006
26


24914.007
27


24914.008
28


24914.009
29


24914.010
30


24914.011
31


24914.012
32


24914.013
33


24914.014
34


24914.015
35


24914.016
36


24914.017
37


24914.018
38


24914.019
39


24914.020
40


24914.021
41


24914.022
42


24914.023
43


24914.024
44


24914.025
45


24914.026
46


24914.027
47


24914.028
48


24914.029
49


24914.030
50


24914.031
51


24914.032
52


24914.033
53


24914.034
54


24914.035
55


24914.036
56


24914.037
57


24914.038
58


24914.039
59


24914.040
60


24914.041
61


24914.042
62


24914.043
63


24914.044
64


24914.045
65


24914.046
66


24914.047
67


24914.048
68


24914.049
69


24914.050
70


24914.051
71


24914.052
72


24914.053
73


24914.054
74


24914.055
75


24914.056
76

Æ


24914.057