Forum Replies Created

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: No Cost Entension #5543
    nitesh@EGC
    Participant

    Hi Shoba,

    The agencies (and even different programs within an agency) can vary in regards to their policies about No Cost Extensions, due to a number of different factors. We therefore recommend that companies communicate directly with their Program Director to discuss whether it will be allowable for their situation.

    Nitesh.

    nitesh@EGC
    Participant

    Hi Shoba,
    What you are describing sounds like a small business providing a fee-for-service to the applicant or serving as a sub-contract on the application. In either of these cases, it would be single entity serving as the applicant. Please feel free to clarify further if this does not address your situation.
    Nitesh.

    in reply to: National Science Foundation (NSF) #2010
    nitesh@EGC
    Participant

    Hi Shoba,

    If the PI has extensive experience in the relevant area that can be clearly described, then this will typically be considered as sufficient. Specific successful outcomes achieved by the PI in the relevant area will be seen as a big positive even in the absence of a PhD.

    Best,
    Nitesh.

    in reply to: National Science Foundation (NSF) #1263
    nitesh@EGC
    Participant

    Hi Shoba,

    The NSF permits foreign collaborators or CROs provided that support is only requested for the US portion of the collaborative effort. NSF may however consider cases where the foreign collaborator provides a unique and essential capability that is not available in the US. You can see NSF’s policy on Foreign Organizations here.

    EGC is planning to publish a book for preparing NSF grants. We are anticipating that it will be released in Q1 2021 and available on Amazon.

    Best,
    Nitesh

    in reply to: Contract Agreement for STTR #1234
    nitesh@EGC
    Participant

    Hello STTR_PI

    Thank you for your question, and for the update from the PO! Please let us know if you have any other questions in the future.

    in reply to: National Science Foundation (NSF) #948
    nitesh@EGC
    Participant

    Hi Shoba,

    You are right – both NSF and NIH have similar interests in some areas.

    The NIH is more focused on the application of devices towards specific indications aligned with the mission of a particular Institute/Center. Thus, NIH often supports or even requires clinical trials. On the other hand, NSF generally does not support clinical trials and validation of medical devices.

    in reply to: gantt chart #947
    nitesh@EGC
    Participant

    Thank you Shoba! We don’t have one for NSF yet, but you can expect one in the near future!

    in reply to: STTR Phase I Commercialization Plan #812
    nitesh@EGC
    Participant

    Hello Jon,

    You are right that the Phase I application does not require a commercialization plan. However, reviewers might raise the question of commercialization if they perceive that the proposed product/technology has poor commercial potential or if the market potential is not clear.

    You can briefly describe the commercial potential to dispel any concerns, and one paragraph should be sufficient.

    Let us know if you have any further questions!

    Nitesh.

    in reply to: HHS/NIH #796
    nitesh@EGC
    Participant

    Hi Rashim,

    The NIH makes the payments as cost-reimbursements. You may draw funds in advance, but no more than 3 days before the funds are needed. See the NIH Grants Policy on Payments here: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps/html5/section_6/6_payment.htm

    I hope that helps! Let us know if you have further questions.

    Best,
    Nitesh.

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)