National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 5 Impact of the NIH SBIR/STTR Programs
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Assessment of the SBIR and STTR Programs at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26376.
×

References

Andrews, R. J., C. Fazio, J. Guzman, Y. Liu, and S. Stern. 2020. The Startup Cartography Project: Measuring and mapping entrepreneurial ecosystems. Working Paper. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5963ccedebbd1a0ffdb5ae00/t/5e2f3c40a8a1855a711b224a/1580153925401/SCP+PIN+Paper+COMPLETE.pdf.

Arrow, K. J. 1962. The economic implications of learning by doing. Review of Economic Studies 29(3):155-173.

Arthur, W. B. 2007. The structure of invention. Research Policy 36(2):274-287.

Audretsch, D. B., A. N. Link, and J. T. Scott. 2002. Public/private technology partnerships: Evaluating SBIR-supported research. Research Policy 31(1): 145-158.

Auerswald, P. E., and L. M. Branscomb. 2003. Valleys of death and Darwinian seas: Financing the invention to innovation transition in the United States. Journal of Technology Transfer 28(3-4):227-239.

Azoulay, P., J. Graff Zivin, D. Li, and B. Sampat. 2019. Public R&D investments and private-sector patenting: Evidence from NIH funding rules. Review of Economic Studies 86(1):117-152.

Barrot, J-N., and R. Nanda. 2020. The employment effects of faster payment. Journal of Finance 75(6):3139-3173.

Bernanke, B. S. 2010. Restoring the flow of credit to small businesses. Speech at the Federal Research Meeting Series, Addressing the Financial Needs of Small Businesses. Washington, DC. July 12.

Bienenstock, A., A. M. Arvin, and D. Korn. 2015. Have universities overbuilt biomedical research facilities? Issues in Science and Technology 31(3):35.

BIRAC (Biotechnology Industry Research Assistance Council). n.d. About us. https://birac.nic.in/desc_new.php?id=89.

Block, F. 2008. Swimming against the current: The rise of a hidden developmental state in the United States. Politics and Society 36(2):169-206.

Blume-Kohout, M. E. 2012. Does targeted, disease-specific public research funding influence pharmaceutical innovation? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 31(3):641-660.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Assessment of the SBIR and STTR Programs at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26376.
×

Blume-Kohout, M. E., K. B. Kumar, and N. Sood. 2009. Federal life sciences funding and university R&D. Working Paper 15146. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w15146/w15146.pdf.

Brown, K. V. 2021. 23-and-Me DNA testing firm goes public following Branson deal. Bloomberg, June 17.

Campbell, K. M., I. Corral, J. Infante Linares, and D. Tumin. 2020. Projected estimates of African American medical graduates of closed historically Black medical schools. JAMA Network Open 3(8):e2015220.

Clayton, P., M. P. Feldman, and N. Lowe. 2018. Behind the scenes: Intermediary organizations that facilitate science commercialization through entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Perspectives 32(1). https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2016.0133.

Cockburn, I., and R. Henderson. 1996. Public–private interaction in pharmaceutical research. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 93(23):12725-12730.

Cockburn, I. M., S. Stern, and J. Zausner. 2011. Finding the endless frontier: Lessons from the life sciences innovation system for energy R&D. In Accelerating energy innovation: Insights from multiple sectors, edited by R. M. Henderson and R. G. Newell. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Pp. 113-157.

Couzin, J. and G. Miller. 2007. Boom and bust. Science 316(5823):356-361.

Criscuolo, P., L. Dahlander, T. Grohsjean, and A. Salter. 2021. The sequence effect in panel decisions: Evidence from the evaluation of research and development projects. Organization Science 32(4):909-1148.

Cunningham, C., F. Ederer, and S. Ma. 2018. Killer acquisitions. Journal of Political Economy 129(3):649-702.

Cutler, D., and S. Kadiyala. 2003. The returns to biomedical research: Treatment and behavioral effects. In Measuring the gains from medical research: An economic approach, edited by K. Murphy and R. Topel. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Pp. 110-162.

Decker, R., J. Haltiwanger, R. Jarmin, and J. Miranda. 2014. The role of entrepreneurship in U.S. job creation and economic dynamism. Journal of Economic Perspectives 28(3):3-24.

Decker, R. A., Haltiwanger, J., Jarmin, R. S., and Miranda, J. 2016. Where has all the skewness gone? The decline in high-growth (young) firms in the US. European Economic Review 86:4-23.

Dolgin, E. 2021. The tangled history of mRNA vaccines. Nature 597:318-324.

Dworkin, T. M., V. Maurer, and C. A. Schipani. 2012. Career mentoring for women: New horizons/Expanded methods. Business Horizons 55:363-372.

Eisenberg, R., and R. Cook-Deegan. 2018. Universities: The fallen angels of Bayh-Dole? Daedalus 147 (4):76-89.

European Commission. n.d. EIC Accelerator (SME Instrument). Brussels, Belgium. https://ec.europa.eu/easme/en/eic-accelerator-sme-instrument.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Assessment of the SBIR and STTR Programs at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26376.
×

Feldman, M., A. Colaianni, and C. Liu. 2007. Lessons from the commercialization of the Cohen-Boyer patents: The Stanford University Licensing Program. In Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation: A Handbook of Best Practices, edited by A. Krattiger, R. T. Mahoney, L. Nelsen, et al. Oxford: MIHR.

Feldman, M. P., L. Lanahan, and I. Lendel. 2014. Experiments in the laboratories of democracy: State scientific capacity building. Economic Development Quarterly 28(2):107-131.

Feldman, M. P., D. F. Kogler, and D. L. Rigby. 2015. rKnowledge: The spatial diffusion and adoption of rDNA methods. Regional Studies 45(5):798-817.

Feldman, M., T. Hadjimichael, L. Lanahan, and T. Kemeny. 2016. The logic of economic development: A definition and model for investment. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 34(1):5-21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X15614653.

Freeman, R., and J. Van Reenen. 2009. What if Congress doubled R&D Spending on the physical sciences? Innovation Policy and Economy 9. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/592419.

Furman J. L., M. E. Porter, and S. Stern. 2002. The determinants of national innovative capacity. Research Policy 31(6):899-933.

Gans, J., and S. Stern. 2003. When does funding research by smaller firms bear fruit? Evidence from the SBIR program. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 12(4):361-384.

GAO (General Accounting Office). 1998. Federal research: Observations on the Small Business Innovation Research Program. Washington, DC: GAO.

GAO. 1999. Technology transfer: Reporting Requirements for federally sponsored inventions need revision. GAO/RCED-99-242. Washington, DC: GAO.

GAO. 2002. Intellectual property: Federal agency efforts in transferring and reporting new technology. GAO-03-47. Washington, DC: GAO

GAO (U.S. Government Accountability Office). 2019. Small business research programs: Many agencies took longer to issue small business awards than recommended. GAO-19-620. Washington, DC: GAO.

Giest, S. 2021. The capacity to innovate: Cluster policy and management in the biotechnology sector. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Ginther, D. K., W. T. Schaffer, J. Schnell, B. Masimore, F. Liu, L. L. Haak, and R. Kington. 2011. Race, ethnicity, and NIH research awards. Science 333(6045):1015-1019.

Goldman, D. P., A. B. Jena, D. N. Lakdawalla, J. L. Malin, J. D. Malkin, and E. Sun. 2010. The value of specialty oncology drugs. Health Services Research 45(1):115-132.

Goolsbee, A. 1998. Does government R&D policy mainly benefit scientists and engineers? American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings 88(May):298-302.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Assessment of the SBIR and STTR Programs at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26376.
×

Grabowski, H., and Vernon, J. 1996. Longer patents for increased generic competition in the US. PharmacoEconomics 10(Suppl–2):110-123.

Guzman, J., and S. Stern. 2015. Where is Silicon Valley? Science 347(6222).

Haeussler, C., and J. A. Colyvas. 2011. Breaking the ivory tower: Academic entrepreneurship in the life sciences in UK and Germany. Research Policy 40(1):41-54.

Haltiwanger, J., R. S. Jarmin, and J. Miranda. 2013. Who creates jobs? Small versus large versus young. Review of Economics and Statistics 95(2):347-361.

Heidenreich, P., and M. McClellan. 2003. Biomedical research and then some: The causes of technological change in heart attack treatment. In Measuring the gains from medical research: An economic approach, edited by K. M. Murphy and R. H. Topel. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Pp.163–205.

Hemmatian, I., A. M. Joshi, T. M. Inouye, and J. A. Robinson. 2021. Exploring the effects of discretion, discrimination, and oversight on the inclusiveness of small business contracting. In Entrepreneurship for social change, edited by B. Sergi, C. Scanlon, and L. Heine. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Limited.

Howell, S. T. 2019. Analysis of the U.S. Department of Energy’s energy efficiency and renewable energy and fossil energy SBIR programs. Washington, DC: Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/benefits-eere-smallbusiness-innovation-grants-confirmed-new-study.

Howell, S., and J. D. Brown. 2020. Do cash windfalls affect wages? Evidence from R&D grants to small firms. NYU Stern School of Business.http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3474633.

Howell, S. T. 2017. Financing innovation: Evidence from R&D grants. American Economic Review 107(4):1136-1164.

Inoue, H., and E. Yamaguchi. 2017. Evaluation of the Small Business Innovation Research program in Japan. Sage Open 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017690791.

Inouye, T. M., A. M. Joshi, I. Hemmatian, and J. A. Robinson. 2020a. Counteracting globalization’s skeptics: How diasporas influence the internationalization preferences of minority entrepreneurs’ firms. Global Strategy Journal 10(1):123-173.

Inouye, T. M., J. A. Robinson, and A. M. Joshi. 2020b. Does a federal glass ceiling have differential effects on female and male technology entrepreneurs? In Macro and micro-level issues surrounding women in the workforce: Emerging research and opportunities. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Pp. 109-131.

Jacob, B. A., and L. Lefgren. 2011. The impact of research grant funding on scientific productivity. Journal of Public Economics 95(9):1168-1177.

Joshi, A. M., T. M. Inouye, and J. A. Robinson. 2018. How does agency workforce diversity influence federal R&D funding of minority and

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Assessment of the SBIR and STTR Programs at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26376.
×

women technology entrepreneurs? An analysis of the SBIR and STTR programs, 2001–2011. Small Business Economics 50(3):499-519.

Keller, M. R., and F. Block. 2013. Explaining the transformation in the U.S. innovation system: The impact of a small government program. SocioEconomic Review 11(4):629-656.

Kesselheim, A. S., T. T. Yongtian, and J. Avorn. 2015. The roles of academia, rare diseases, and repurposing in the development of the most transformative drugs. Health Affairs (Millwood) 34(2):286-293.

Kogan, L., D. Papanikolaou, A. Seru, and N. Stoffman. 2017. Technological innovation, resource allocation, and growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics 132(2):665-712.

Koning, R., S. Samila, S., J. P. Ferguson. 2021. Who do we invent for? Patents by women focus more on women’s health, but few women get to invent. Science 372(6548):1345-1348.

Lakdawalla, D. N., E. C. Sun, A. B. Jena, C. M. Reyes, D. P. Goldman, and T. J. Philipson. 2010. An economic evaluation of the war on cancer. Journal of Health Economics 29(3):333-346.

Lanahan, L. 2016. Multilevel public funding for small business innovation: A review of US state SBIR match programs. Journal of Technology Transfer 41(2):220-249.

Lanahan, L., and D. Armanios. 2018. Does more certification always benefit a venture? Organization Science 29(5):931-947.

Lanahan, L., and M. P. Feldman. 2015. Multilevel innovation policy mix: A closer look at state policies that augment the federal SBIR program. Research Policy 44(7):1387-1402.

Lanahan, L., and M. P. Feldman. 2018. Approximating exogenous variation in R&D: Evidence from the Kentucky and North Carolina SBIR state match programs. Review of Economics and Statistics 100(4):740-752.

Lanahan, L., A. M. Joshi, and E. Johnson. 2021. Do public R&D subsidies produce jobs? Evidence from the SBIR/STTR program. Research Policy 50(7):104286.

Lerner, J. 2000. The government as venture capitalist: The long-run impact of the SBIR program. Journal of Private Equity 3(2):55-78.

Li, D., and L. Agha. 2015. Big names or big ideas: Do peer-review panels select the best science proposals. Science 348:434-438.

Lichtenberg, F. R. 2018. The impact of new drug launches on hospitalization in 2015 for 67 medical conditions in 15 OECD countries: A two-way fixed-effects analysis. Forum for Health Economics & Policy 21(2).

Lichtenberg, F. R. 2019. How many life-years have new drugs saved? A three-way fixed-effects analysis of 66 diseases in 27 countries, 2000-2013. International Health 11(5):403-416.

Lichtenberg, F. R. 2020. The impact of pharmaceutical innovation on the burden of disease in Ireland, 2000-2015. Journal of Public Health (Oxford) 42(4):816-827.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Assessment of the SBIR and STTR Programs at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26376.
×

Lichtenberg, F. R. 2021. The impact of pharmaceutical innovation on the longevity and hospitalization of New Zealand cancer patients, 1998-2017. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research 21(3):476-477.

Link, A. N., and J. T. Scott. 2000. Estimates of the social returns to SBIR-sponsored projects. In The Small Business Innovation Research Program: An assessment of the DOD Fast Track Initiative. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Pp. 275-290.

Liu, G. 2014. Incentives for doing business in Taiwan: SBIR. Taiwan News, August 28.https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/2558902.

Llerena, P., and V. Millot. 2013. Are trademarks and patents complementary or substitute protections for innovation? Working Papers of BETA. 2013-01. Strasbourg: Bureau d’Economie Théorique et Appliquée, University of Strasbourg.

Lockett, A., and, M. Wright 2005. Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Research Policy 34(7):1043-1057.

Manton, K, X. Gu, G. Lowrimore, A. Ullian, and H. Tolley. 2009. NIH funding trajectories and their correlations with US health dynamics from 1950 to 2004. Proceedings National Academy of Sciences 106(27):10981-10986.

Mazzucato, M. 2013. Financing innovation: Creative destruction vs. destructive creation. Industrial and Corporate Change 22(4):851-867.

Moretti, E., and D. J. Wilson. 2014. State incentives for innovation, star scientists and jobs: Evidence from biotech. Journal of Urban Economics 79:20-38.

Myers, K. 2020. The elasticity of science. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 12(4):103-134.

Myers, K., and L. Lanahan. 2021. Estimating spillovers from publicly funded R&D: Evidence from the US Department of Energy. Last revised April 30, 2021. SSRN. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3550479.

NASEM (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine). 2015. SBIR/STTR at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

NASEM. 2017. An assessment of ARPA-E. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24778.

NASEM. 2019. Minority serving institutions: America’s underutilized resource for strengthening the STEM workforce. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

NASEM. 2020. Review of the SBIR and STTR programs at the Department of Energy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25674.

Nelson, R. R. 1959. The simple economics of basic scientific research. Journal of Political Economy 67(3):297-306.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Assessment of the SBIR and STTR Programs at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26376.
×

Nelson, R. R. 1993. National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. New York and London: Oxford University Press.

Nemet, G. F. 2009. Demand pull, technology push, and government-led incentives for nonincremental technical change. Research Policy 38(5):700-709.

Netherlands Enterprise Agency. n.d. SBIR innovation competition. Utrecht, The Netherlands. https://business.gov.nl/subsidy/small-business-innovationresearch.

Neumark, D., B. Wall, and J. Zhang. 2011. Do small businesses create more jobs? New evidence for the United States from the National Establishment Time Series. Review of Economics and Statistics 93(1):16-29.

NIH (National Institutes of Health). n.d. Understanding SBIR and STTR. https://sbir.nih.gov/about/three-phase-program.

NIH. 2020. SBIR/STTR Commercialization Readiness Pilot (CRP) Program Technical assistance and late stage development (SB1 Clinical Trial Required). PAR-20-130. Accessed July 10, 2020. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/par-20-130.html.

NRC. 2008. An assessment of the SBIR program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/ 10.17226/11989.

NRC. 2009. An assessment of the SBIR program at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/11964.

NRC (National Research Council). 2011. Managing university intellectual property in the public interest. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13001.

NSF (National Science Foundation). 2020. Survey of Business Research and Development: 2018.https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf21312.

NSF. 2021a. Table 1. NSF, higher education research and development: Fiscal year 2019. Higher education R&D expenditures, by source of funds: FYs 1953-2019.https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf21314/table/9#data-tables.

NSF, 2021b. Table 9. NSF, higher education research and development: Fiscal year 2019. Higher education R&D expenditures, by source of funds: FYs 1953-2019.https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf21314/table/9#data-tables

Philipson, T. J., and A. B. Jena. 2005. Who benefits from new medical technologies? Estimates of consumer and producer surpluses for HIV/AIDS drugs. NBER Working Paper #11810. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Powell, W. W., D. R. White, K. W. Koput, and J. Owen-Smith. 2005. Network dynamics and field evolution: The growth of interorganizational collaboration in the life sciences. American Journal of Sociology 110:1132-1205.

Rai, A. K., and B. N. Sampat. 2012. Accountability in patenting of federally funded research. Nature Biotechnology 30(10):953-956.

Ross, J. S., T. Tse, D. A. Zarin, H. Xu, L. Zhou, H. M. Krumholz, and H. H. Hines Jr. 2012. Publication of NIH funded trials registered in

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Assessment of the SBIR and STTR Programs at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26376.
×

ClinicalTrials.gov: Cross sectional analysis. British Medical Journal 344:d7292. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d7292.

Rozansky, R. 2019. Becoming America’s seed fund: Why NSF’s SBIR program should be a model for the rest of government. Washington, DC: Information Technology & Innovation Foundation.

Sampat, B., and F. Lichtenberg. 2011. What are the respective roles of the public and private sectors in pharmaceutical innovation? Health Affairs 30(2):332-339.

SBA (Small Business Administration). n.d. About SBIR. Accessed July 30, 2021. Washington, DC. https://www.sbir.gov/about/about-sbir.

SBA. 1982. The state of small business: A report of the President transmitted to the Congress. Washington, DC: SBA.

SBA. 2020. Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) program: Policy directive. Washington, DC: SBA. https://www.sbir.gov/sites/default/files/SBA_SBIR_STTR_POLICY_DIRECTIVE_OCT_2020_v2.pdf.

Scherer, F. M., and D. Harhoff. 2000. Technology policy for a world of skew-distributed outcomes. Research Policy 29(4-5):559-566.

Shavers, V. L., P. Fagan, D. Lawrence, W. McCaskill-Stevens, P. McDonald, D. Browne, D. McLinden, M. Christian, and E. Trimble. 2005. Barriers to racial/ethnic minority application and competition for NIH research funding. Journal of the National Medical Association 97(8):1063-1077.

Sherwin, C. W., and R. S. Isenson. 1967. Project hindsight. Science 156(3782):1571-1577.

Siegel, D. S., D. Waldman, and A. Link. 2003. Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy 32(1): 27-48.

Siegel, D. S., and C. Wessner. 2012. Universities and the success of entrepreneurial ventures: Evidence from the small business innovation research program. Journal of Technology Transfer 37(4):404-415.

Sørensen, J. B., and T. E. Stuart. 2000. Aging, obsolescence, and organizational innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 45(1):81-112.

Stephan, P. 2012. Perverse incentives. Nature 484(7392):29-31.

Stevens, A. J., J. J. Jensen, K. Wyller, P. C. Kilgore, S. Chatterjee, and M. L. Rohrbaugh. 2011. The role of public-sector research in the discovery of drugs and vaccines. New England Journal of Medicine 364:535-541.

Tibbetts, R. 2011. Reauthorizing SBIR: The critical importance of SBIR and small high-tech firms in stimulating and strengthening the U.S. economy. Appendix M of U.S. Congress, House Committee on Small Business, Hearing on Spurring Innovation and Job Creation: The SBIR Program. March 16. 112th Cong. 1st session. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Assessment of the SBIR and STTR Programs at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26376.
×

Toole, A. A. 2007. Does public scientific research complement private investment in research and development in the pharmaceutical industry? Journal of Law and Economics 50(1):81-104.

Toole, A. A. 2012. The impact of public basic research on industrial innovation: Evidence from the pharmaceutical industry. Research Policy 41(1):1-12.

Toole, A. A., and D. Czarnitzki. 2007. Biomedical academic entrepreneurship through the SBIR program. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 63(4):716-738.

Toole, A. A., and D. Czarnitzki. 2010. Commercializing science: Is there a university “brain drain” from academic entrepreneurship? Management Science 56(9):1599-1614.

U.K. Government. 2020. SBRI: The Small Business Research Initiative.https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/sbri-the-small-businessresearch-initiative.

U.S. Congress. 1982. Small Business Research Development Act of 1982. P.L. 97-219, 97th Congress (July 22, 1982).

U.S. Congress. 1992. Small Business Research and Development Enhancement Act of 1992. P.L. 102-564, 102nd Congress (October 28, 1992).

U.S. Congress. 2000. Small Business Reauthorization Act of 2000. HR 5667, P.L. 106-554, Appendix I (December 21. 2000).

Valdivia, W. D. 2017. Are moonshots giant leaps of faith? Issues in Science and Technology 33(3):51-56.

Wallsten, S. J. 2000. The effects of government-industry R&D programs on private R&D: The case of the Small Business Innovation Research program. RAND Journal of Economics 31(1):82-100.

Wang, Y. B., J. Z. Li, and J. L. Furman. 2017. Firm performance and state innovation funding: Evidence from China’s Innofund program. Research Policy 46(6):1142-1161.

Wong, C. H., K. W. Siah, and A. W. Lo. 2019. Estimation of clinical trial success rates and related parameters. Biostatistics 20(2):273-286.

Zucker, L. G., and M. R. Darby. 1996. Star scientists and institutional transformation: Patterns of invention and innovation in the formation of the biotechnology industry. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 93(23):12709-12716.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Assessment of the SBIR and STTR Programs at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26376.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Assessment of the SBIR and STTR Programs at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26376.
×
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Assessment of the SBIR and STTR Programs at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26376.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Assessment of the SBIR and STTR Programs at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26376.
×
Page 219
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Assessment of the SBIR and STTR Programs at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26376.
×
Page 220
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Assessment of the SBIR and STTR Programs at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26376.
×
Page 221
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Assessment of the SBIR and STTR Programs at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26376.
×
Page 222
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Assessment of the SBIR and STTR Programs at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26376.
×
Page 223
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Assessment of the SBIR and STTR Programs at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26376.
×
Page 224
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Assessment of the SBIR and STTR Programs at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26376.
×
Page 225
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Assessment of the SBIR and STTR Programs at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26376.
×
Page 226
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Assessment of the SBIR and STTR Programs at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26376.
×
Page 227
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Assessment of the SBIR and STTR Programs at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26376.
×
Page 228
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Assessment of the SBIR and STTR Programs at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26376.
×
Page 229
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Assessment of the SBIR and STTR Programs at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26376.
×
Page 230
Next: Appendix A: Agendas »
Assessment of the SBIR and STTR Programs at the National Institutes of Health Get This Book
×
 Assessment of the SBIR and STTR Programs at the National Institutes of Health
Buy Paperback | $55.00 Buy Ebook | $44.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) asked the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to conduct a quadrennial review of its Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs, in accordance with a legislative mandate. Using quantitative and qualitative analyses of data, this report reviews the operations and outcomes stemming from NIH's SBIR/STTR awards.

Drawing on published research and conducting new analyses based on both publicly available data and applicant data provided by NIH, Assessment of the SBIR and STTR Programs at the National Institutes of Health analyzes (1) the effectiveness of NIH's processes and procedures for selecting SBIR and STTR awardees; (2) the effectiveness of NIH's outreach to increase SBIR and STTR applications from small businesses that are new to the programs, from underrepresented states, and from woman-owned and minority-owned businesses; (3) collaborations between small businesses and research institutions resulting from the programs; and (4) a range of direct economic and health care impacts attributable to the programs.

READ FREE ONLINE

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!