This document provides information about NIH funding opportunities for developing serious STEM games. It outlines the goals of using games to promote science education, lists relevant topic areas, and provides details on four NIH funding mechanisms - the SBIR and STTR programs which provide grants for small businesses, the SEPA program which supports education partnerships, and a parent SBIR program. It also summarizes the NIH peer review process, including the roles of the scientific review officer, review panel, and criteria considered in evaluating proposals.

1. SBIR – STTR
FUNDING FOR
STEM GAMES

7. • Tools for alternate & early learners
• Career opportunities in health and medicine
• Workforce diversity and capacity building
• Behavioral and lifestyle changes
• Public health literacy
Serious STEM Games Goals

9. STEM Games Topics

16. Success Rate?

18. NIH SBIR/STTR
Funding Opportunity
Announcements
(FOAs)

19. Serious STEM Games for Pre-College and
Informal Science Education Audiences (SBIR)
(R43/R44), PAR-14-325
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-14-325.html
Serious STEM Games for Pre-College and
Informal Science Education Audiences (STTR)
(R41/R42) PAR-14-326
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-14-326.html
Next receipt date: Jan/Feb 2017

20. PHS 2015-02 Omnibus Solicitation of the NIH,
CDC, FDA and ACF for Small Business
Innovation Research Grant Applications (Parent
SBIR [R43/R44])
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-15-269.html
• Web-based, stand-alone computational tools, instructional software or
other interactive media for dissemination of science education
• Serious STEM Games
• Pre-K To Grade 12 curriculum and other educational materials,
Interactive teaching aids, models for classroom instruction, and
teacher education resources
• Health promotion, disease prevention/intervention and public health
literacy materials such as informational videos and/or print materials
and programs which re culturally appropriate for populations and
special communities.
Receipt dates: September 5, January 5, April 5
Call to discuss potential project

21. NIH Science Education Partnership Award (SEPA)
(R25), PAR-14-228
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-14-228.html
• Award: 5 Years, $1.3M
• Topic: Biomedical - any NIH Research Area
• Grades: Pre-K to Grade 12
 Resources for students and teachers
 Informal Science Education (ISE) projects for Public
Health Literacy
 Develop and evaluate STEM products for subsequent
SBIR/STTR commercialization
NIH Pre-College STEM FOA

22. THE NIH
EXTRAMURAL
PEER REVIEW
PROCESS

23. Investigator(s)Investigator(s)
Institution
NIH

24. NIH SBIR/STTR Review Cycle
Aug
Jul
Apr 5
Jan 5
Sept 5 Jan-Feb Mar
Jun-Jul
Feb-Mar
Sept-Oct
Oct-Nov
May-Jun
AwardCouncilReceipt Review

25. Summary
Statement
Applicant
Review
Panel
Applicant
Program
Officer
Key Players
Funding Institute
or Center (IC)
SF424
Scientific
Review
Officer
FOA
Scientific
Review
Officer
Applicant
Summary
Statement
Applicant
Summary
Statement
Applicant
Funding
Institute or
Center (IC)
Grants
Admin.

26. Applicant
Applicant
Grants
Administrator
Prgram
Officer
Funding Institute
or Center (IC)
Information
Gathering
Establish
NIH
Commons
Account
NIH
Commons
Account
Program
Officer
Scientific
Review
Officer
Applicant
Grants
Admin.

27. Applicant
Developing
plan
Drafting
proposal
SF424
Applicant
Program
Officer

28. Applicant
Receipt and
Referral
Scientific
Review
Officer
SF424
Applicant

29. Applicant
Scientific
Review
Officer
SF424
ApplicantReceipt and
Referral

30. THE NIH REVIEW
PROCESS – THE SRO
 Quick scan to categorize general
topic
 Detailed review to identify:
 Key science
 Research Design and Methods
 Identify and recruit chair
 Set meeting date
 Identify and recruit review panel

31. Applicant
Scientific
Review
Group
(SRG)
Scientific
Review
Officer
Review
Panel

32. Applicant
Scientific
Review
Officer
Review
Panel
Scientific
Review
Group
(SRG)

33. THE NIH REVIEW
PROCESS – THE REVIEWER
 Reviewer selection criteria
 Outstanding research as evidenced
by publications
 Senior or respected scientist
 NIH, peer-reviewed funding (R01s,
K-awards, P-awards)
 Committee Service History
 Availability

34. Applicant
Assignment
Scientific
Review
Officer
SF424
Review
Panel

35. Summary
Statement
Applicant
Grant Review
Review
Panel
Summary
Statement

36. Summary
Statement
Applicant
Peer
Review
Review
Panel
Summary
Statement

37. THE NIH REVIEW
PROCESS – YOUR AUDIENCE
 The reviewer’s thoughts
 Is there a need?
 Are the applicants qualified?
 Is the plan organized?
 Will the evaluation show
effectiveness?
 Can it be done with the time and
money requested?
 Will there be a deliverable?

38. Applicant
Applicant
Funding
Institute or
Center (IC)
Pay Plan
Summary
Statement
Applicant

39. Review-related
criteria to consider
when preparing
your application

40. NIH Review Criteria

41. THE NIH REVIEW
SCORING DESCRIPTORS

42.  Significance of model
 Adherence to STEM Games goals and
scope
 Educational goals for target audience(s)
 Biomedical connection
 Relevance and commercial potential
 Program Design and Evaluation
 Quality and feasibility to achieve goals
 Merit of evaluation plans and potential for
quantifiable outcomes
THE NIH REVIEW
PROCESS – REVIEW CRITERIA

43.  Resources and personnel
 Qualifications and commitment of PI and
team
 Partnerships and collaborations
 Institutional commitment and resources
 Human subjects
 Exemption status
 Gender, Minority, Children
THE NIH REVIEW
PROCESS – REVIEW CRITERIA

44. THE NIH REVIEW
PROCESS – REVIEW CRITERIA
Human subjects
 Exemption status
 E1, E2
• Informal setting, no tracking
 Institutional Review Board (IRB)
• Tracking, schools, longitudinal studies

46. LESS IS BETTER

47. THE NIH REVIEW PROCESS
Use plain, simple language, short
words and brief sentences. That is the
way to write English - it is the modern
way and the best way. Stick to it; don't
let fluff and flowers and verbosity
creep in.

48. Use plain, simple language, short
words and brief sentences. That is the
way to write English - it is the modern
way and the best way. Stick to it; don't
let fluff and flowers and verbosity
creep in.
- Mark Twain
THE NIH REVIEW PROCESS

49. RECOMMENDATIONS

50. RECOMMENDATIONS
 Start early
 NIH Commons Account
 Utilize FOA and Program Staff
 Exploit NIAID website
 Talk with STEM PIs and colleagues
 Independent evaluator
 Evaluation rigor
 Letters of Support
 Make it an easy read

51. YOUR GOAL

52. THE NIH REVIEW PROCESS
YOUR GOAL
“This application was a pleasure to read”

53. Dates to remember
 Fall/Winter 2016/2017 – Start
Planning, Commons 7Account
 Nov/Dec 2016 – Draft research plan,
contact PO to discuss
 Jan/Feb 2017 – Receipt Date
 April/May 2017 - Review
 Aug/Sept 2017 - Awards Issued

56. http://era.nih.gov/ElectronicReceipt/
http://era.nih.gov/ElectronicReceipt/communication.htm
NIH Commons – applicant/NIH portal

57. http://cms.csr.nih.gov/ResourcesforApplicants/InsidetheNIHGrantReviewProcessVideo.htm
Mock peer review panel study section

58. http://grants.nih.gov/Grants/grants_process.htm
Helpful links to NIH grant review

59. http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/grants/cycle/part00.htm

60. NIH Science Education Partnership
Award (SEPA) (R25)
PAR-14-228 (next receipt date June
2017)
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-
files/PAR-14-228.html
STEM GAMING FOAs

63. L. Tony Beck, Ph.D.
Program Officer
Division for Clinical Research Resources
National Center for Research Resources
6701 Democracy Blvd., Room 956
Bethesda, MD 20892
301.435.0805 [office]
beckl@mail.nih.gov
SEPA website: www.nihsepa.org
Established 1991

64. SBIR – STTR
FUNDING FOR
STEM GAMES