This editorial offers some ways to think about how best to position a research group for funding, by examining the parallels between what is needed for translational grants versus industry start-ups

Pogue, Brian W

English

Dartmouth Digital Commons (Dartmouth College)

Dartmouth CollegeDartmouth Digital CommonsOpen Dartmouth: Faculty Open Access Articles8-31-2018Grant Funding Needs Parallel the Start-UpVenture: An Analogy for Translational ResearchSuccessBrian W. PogueDartmouth CollegeFollow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.dartmouth.edu/facoaPart of the Bioimaging and Biomedical Optics CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by Dartmouth Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Open Dartmouth: FacultyOpen Access Articles by an authorized administrator of Dartmouth Digital Commons. For more information, please contactdartmouthdigitalcommons@groups.dartmouth.edu.Recommended CitationPogue, Brian W., "Grant Funding Needs Parallel the Start-Up Venture: An Analogy for Translational Research Success" (2018). OpenDartmouth: Faculty Open Access Articles. 3923.https://digitalcommons.dartmouth.edu/facoa/3923Grant Funding Needs Parallel theStart-Up Venture: An Analogy forTranslational Research SuccessBrian W. PogueBrian W. Pogue, “Grant Funding Needs Parallel the Start-Up Venture: An Analogy for Translational ResearchSuccess,” J. Biomed. Opt. 23(8), 080101 (2018), doi: 10.1117/1.JBO.23.8.080101.Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Journal-of-Biomedical-Optics on 26 Jul 2019Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-useGrant FundingNeeds Parallel theStart-Up Venture: An Analogy forTranslational Research SuccessStories of shrinking funding for biomedical optics researchand development (R&D) can lead to concerns over the poten-tial to translate science into reality. Yet, another perspectiveon this environment is that the total dollars available for trans-lational research continues to grow every year, and there areregional microenvironments in biomedical optics that arethriving. As the biomedical optics community1 differentiatesinto technological and application specific areas, each areastruggles with needs for sustained funding and successfuldevelopment. This editorial offers some ways to think abouthow best to position a research group for funding, by exam-ining the parallels between what is needed for translationalgrants versus industry start-ups.In the United States today, grant funding dollars are moreplentiful now than in recent years. The National Institute ofBiomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB) payline iscurrently up at the 19th percentile. An examination of thenumbers of funded grants at the National Institutes ofHealth (NIH) shows an even more surprising trend. Asshown in Fig. 1, the number of funded grants in physicsand engineering has continued to grow systematically(other than an anomalous bump from federal stimulus fundingin 2009-10) with biomedical engineering being the cleargrowth leader for the last 15 years. Even more interestingly,when these data are normalized to the total number of grantsat the NIH, as shown in Fig. 2, the funding rate of grants inphysics and engineering has actually leaped above 1.5%,for the first time ever. This large change occurred in 2017,and the projected numbers for 2018 show this continuing.Still, it is widely recognized that this funding is accessibleonly to those researchers who have the most competitiveedge to their translational research.The two most critical areas of funding need are (1) theintersection of basic and translational research, which islargely grant funded to advance ideas into credible proof-of-concept devices and approaches, and (2) the intersectionof applied research and industry development, which islargely start-up funded to make a working product prototypeand test it. These two intersections are funding valleys inwhich complaints abound about the inability to make it workfinancially. However, for needed concepts and devices, thereare notable successes occurring every year in our field.The needs and successes of these two areas, basic totranslational research and applied research to industrydevelopment, are often described as fundamentally different.However, there are important analogies that can provideinsight into making translational research more possible.As the field of biomedical optics continues to grow, it is criticalthat researchers learn the tools of R&D to create more oppor-tunity for their research to succeed as translational andincrease their potential for funding.The parallels between the start-up culture in industry andthe translational research culture in academic labs can beinstructive. They have several aspects in common, and themost savvy labs have these things working for them.The Team: Perhaps the first rule taught in preparing for aventure capital pitch is that the team matters most. If the leadpeople involved don’t have the right experience, drive, andcredibility, the pitch will be dead very quickly. The same istrue for a translational research group, where it is critical tohave a well-rounded team of people who want to worktogether. Often basic researchers try the single-scientistapproach, keeping it all within their laboratory, which canwork for basic idea-driven research where innovation andlong hours are often the best way to advance research.But in translational work, of the type funded by much ofthe NIH, having a team that rounds out the translation iscritical. This will typically involve expertise starting with phys-ics, engineering, and chemistry, but also must involve medicalspecialists in the field of application, such as oncologists,cardiologists, surgeons, dermatologists, and pathologists.Other PhD expertise bases such as tumor biology, physiol-ogy, or molecular biology are usually required as well, as isbiostatistics, and often also industry collaborators.There is always a debate about whether the intellectualintegrity of the individual is more important than that of thegroup, and there is certainly a lot to be said for the individualat the intellectual level. However, as translation becomesmore of the focus, which is true for most NIH work, theteam environment is critical. Interestingly, an analysis of bio-medical manuscript co-authorship recently showed that onFig. 1 The number of funded grants in engineering and physics overthe last 16 years (data from the NIH Reporter database).© 2018 Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE)Journal of Biomedical Optics 080101-1 August 2018 • Vol. 23(8)EditorialDownloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Journal-of-Biomedical-Optics on 26 Jul 2019Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-useaverage 80% of the content of a paper was attributable to theco-authors of the work.2 The profit (p)-index was developed asa tool to correct the h-index for the relative contributions ofco-authors in group research.Most funded NIH proposals have a very well-roundedteam of individuals with complementary skill sets, who helpthe project by making sure that decisions are being made,even early on, that will lead to success. One indication ofthis is the robust growth in the number of grants with multipleprincipal investigators (multi-PI) since NIH allowed this formatto occur, with very strong uptake in physics and engineeringgrants, as shown in Fig. 3. Notably, the growth in multi-PIgrants within physics and engineering is much faster thanthe rest of NIH, and today rests near 26% of all funding.While having multiple PIs is only one aspect of developinga team, this is an indication that funding in the physicalsciences at the NIH is tied to rounding out the PI role.Mistakes in shortcutting the team, or not fully utilizing teammembers, usually leads to grant applications that are notfundable in the NIH system.In start-up ventures, they say the team is critical, andthis means the credibility of the team based upon training,past accomplishments, and capabilities. The same is true forgrant funding in translational biomedical optics. There isan urgent need to form teams across institutions. While thismay involve more consultants and contract work as budgetsget tighter relative to faculty, staff, and graduate studentsalaries, ultimately strong mentors and collaborators whohave “done it before” are required for new translationalresearchers to succeed.3Talk to the Customer: Another mantra in the start-upworld is to ensure that the team talks directly to the customer,to make sure that the solution being advanced has real value.In industry, there must be someone willing to purchase thesolution being proposed, and it must solve a real problemsomehow such that people will pay for it. While the idea issimilar in translational research, this is very much relatedto the first point about forming the team and including the“customer” inside the team.The team members must be present to attest to the valueof the idea. Translational research can be iterative and requiremany rounds of testing ideas and having a recursive processfor this is critical. A common success plan for biomedicalengineering is for the research team to be physically locatednearby or even within a medical center, such that the processof generating ideas, developing solutions, and obtaining feed-back occurs in person and frequently. The best translationalresearch institutions have their bioengineering departmentand their medical center in very close proximity, such thatthere can be daily and weekly interactions between teammembers. If this does not exist, it can still work, but the barrierto keeping a quick iterative environment is higher. Talking tothe customer always matters in an enterprise where some-thing new is being developed, and polling multiple customersis usually critical to ensure that one’s perspective is broadenough.Culture is Critical: In a world where the dot-com culturehas completely shaped the way that large companies thinkabout innovation, it is obvious that the culture where thework is happening must be positive, fertile, and focused oninnovation and ideas. This is very much related to the firstpoint about the team, but the culture here includes the attitudeand wider environment where the team exists. This positiveculture model is encouraged by leaders who reward positiveideas and forward thinking with a balance of hard work andan ethos to get things done.The challenging aspect of this is that in a large well-fundedenterprise, it is easier to have this positive culture, whereas ina small fledgling operation such as a single-PI laboratory, itcan be a challenge. Each lab can at times feel like a smallbusiness where the lone PI has to do everything. ClusteredPIs who work in a joint laboratory or building can truly collabo-rate and freely exchange ideas, which can create a start-upculture where ideas are welcome, and innovation is rewarded.Interdepartmental buildings are popping up on mostlarge university campuses, to help foster the rounded teamapproach and an idea-focused culture. However, today, ifsomeone is stuck in the older world situation of a traditionaldepartment building, this can be a major issue. Still, network-ing exists via many social media outlets, and broadeningone’s network to include colleagues throughout the scientificworld is possible, but again requires higher energy and focusFig. 2 The total number of funded grants (left axis) and the percent-age of these in engineering and physics (right axis) versus years.Note the large increase to 1.5% along the right axis. (Data fromthe NIH Reporter database.)Fig. 3 The percentage rate of funded multi-PI directed grants in engi-neering and physics is significantly larger than that for overall NIHgrants (data from the NIH Reporter database).Journal of Biomedical Optics 080101-2 August 2018 • Vol. 23(8)EditorialDownloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Journal-of-Biomedical-Optics on 26 Jul 2019Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-useto make it work well. More and more, broadening a researchteam to include industry is also considered critical,4 andleads to better translation beyond clinical assessment. Thiscan include economic viability input, as well as an infusionof entrepreneurial perspective.Funders Invest in Things They Care About: In the angelfunding and venture capital world, it is widely known thatinvestors have topical preferences where they are expertsand focus their funding decisions in these areas. Similarly,program officers at government funding agencies specializein different areas, and so it is important to get to know whois focused on which areas, and what their emphases are.Increasingly, government funding agencies are makingdecisions about what to fund, with more discretion for theprograms that demonstrably address targeted needs. As aresult, more frequently today, programs in the funding agen-cies are choosing between moderately scored grants. This isdone either before peer review, in the form of targeted requestfor applications (RFAs) or contract solicitations, or after peerreview, in the form of discretionary programmatic emphasisdecisions. Being aware of these programs is critical andcan increase the likelihood of receiving funding priority.Additionally, funding rates vary considerably from 0% up to100%, but with most in the 5%-20% range. Being aware ofcurrent rates is a critical part of being smart about applyingto the most likely opportunities.Just as pitching to the wrong investor is a waste of time fora start-up, so is pitching in grant application to the wrong fund-ing agency. A secret to success is to be well aware of wherethe best potential funding mechanisms exist and diversifyingacross them as much as is feasible.Navigate the Valley of Death: The notorious “valley ofdeath” for company start-ups lies between the funding thata company gets and the long time before they actuallymake a profit selling their product. A different valley existsbetween basic research and translational research,5 mostlybecause of the culture differences between the two. A trans-lational investigator must be willing to shift their work towardstranslation and ensure that their innovative plans match whatis needed for the translation to succeed. In many cases, this isnot a match, and so the valley of death exists because of atechnology trajectory might not match the translational needsexactly or it might not perform as required. Often, the expert ina particular technology goes in search of other applications tosee if they have a prospective solution for some need. Thissearch process is colloquially described as “the hammer look-ing for a nail.” While this pathway has been well traveled bymany translational researchers, there is no guarantee thata useful application may be found for even the most interest-ing technology.A perceived valley of death for any new technology isreally usually just a mismatch, mistaking technology-basedresearch for needs-based research. To make translationwork, developers of basic biomedical optics technologiesmust be flexible in searching for needs as well as solutions.This journal recently initiated a needs-based series of articles,called perspective reviews,6 which should be one usefulguidepost for the community of biomedical optics.7Translational research in biomedical optics, the largestfraction of technology in medicine, has driven the majorityof innovations in biomedical technology research and industryR&D.8 The community needs to ensure that active motivatedresearchers are well positioned to advance their work in thecoming years, keeping plans for grants focused aroundinnovative technologies and applications, having an eyetowards making the best team that they can create, talkingto their potential customer(s), creating a culture of innovationthroughout their network, targeting the right funding opportu-nities, and ensuring that they balance needs with solutions.Biomedical optics has so many successful innovative technol-ogies, and it is critical that translational research groups getthe financial backing needed to move through to entrepre-neurship and development.Brian W. PogueEditor-in-ChiefReferences1. B. W. Pogue, “Biomedical optics scientific community,” J. Biomed. Opt.23(1), 010101 (2018).2. N. A. Aziz and M. P. Rozing, “Profit (p)-index: the degree to whichauthors profit from co-authors,” PLoS One 8(4), e59814 (2013).3. Z. Abedin et al., “Deriving competencies for mentors of clinical andtranslational scholars,” Clin. Transl. Sci. 5(3), 273–280 (2012).4. J. Hudson and H. E. Khazragui, “Into the valley of death: research toinnovation,” Drug Discovery Today 18(13–14), 610–613 (2013).5. E. M. Meslin, A. Blasimme, and A. Cambon-Thomsen, “Mapping thetranslational science policy ‘valley of death’,” Clin. Transl. Med. 2(1),14 (2013).6. B. W. Pogue, “Medical perspective articles to stimulate the field forneeds-finding,” J. Biomed. Opt. 23(6), 060101 (2018).7. D. Guha and V. X. D. Yang, “Perspective review on applications of opticsin spinal surgery,” J. Biomed. Opt. 23(6), 060601 (2018).8. B. W. Pogue, “Optics plays dominant role in medical imaging market,”SPIE Prof. 13(1), 6–8 (2018).Journal of Biomedical Optics 080101-3 August 2018 • Vol. 23(8)EditorialDownloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Journal-of-Biomedical-Optics on 26 Jul 2019Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use

Grant Funding Needs Parallel the Start-Up Venture: An Analogy for Translational Research Success

https://digitalcommons.dartmouth.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4913&amp;context=facoa

Grant Funding Needs Parallel the Start-Up Venture: An Analogy for Translational Research Success

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Dartmouth Digital Commons (Dartmouth College)