03/11/04
12:02:08 |
Kevin C Sprouse |
Columbia, MO
Msg 91 of 99 |
The idea behind the initial program was for the small
company to be given a little help to remain
competitive in an environment that is always
changing. If a program is needed for the VC owned
firms then put them in a separate category, competing
against comparable firms.
|
|
| Vote: NO | |
 Return |
03/31/04
07:47:35 |
Name withheld by request |
Hondo, TX
Msg 92 of 99 |
I never believed that America was doomed to be a "rich
get richer" country, but the way that things are going,
I don't think that anyone else can succeed. Let's not
stack the deck in favor of the powerful elite. It will
only ensure mediocrity.
|
|
| Vote: NO | |
| Return |
04/03/04
10:47:42 |
Aneta Newton |
Shawnee, OK
Msg 93 of 99 |
|
| Vote: NO | |
| Return |
04/12/04
22:25:17 |
Milt Friedman |
Alameda, CA
Msg 94 of 99 |
As one who has been a leader in both small VC-funded
and non-VC-funded companies and now as a grant writer
and consultant for both ([email protected]), I
have found that the SBIR program functions well to
foster innovative R&D in both. Scientists in VC-funded
companies are often under extreme pressure to meet
investor-set goals and often don't have the freedom of
thought to explore new ground. I'd like to see some
data on how much SBIR money goes to this category of
company. My guess is that it is small and that
VC-funded companies don't have any advantage more than
the fact that they have already passed a pretty
rigorous selection process for quality of thought.
|
|
| Vote: YES | |
| Return |
04/14/04
16:13:35 |
R.W. |
Philadelphia, PA
Msg 95 of 99 |
| The question strikes me as biased from the start
("large VC organizations"). Not all VC firms have
hundreds of millions of dollars under management.
Indeed, most seed-stage firms have far fewer
resources. I see many scenarios where small biotech
companies are owned less than 51% by individuals. For
example, equity held by university tech transfer, by
seed investor and perhaps other entities contributing
technology can leave the scientists with less than
51%. They are clearly doing the type of research for
which the SBIR program was designed.
Just because a VC firm is in the picture does not
equate to unlimited resources at the company's
disposal. I can imagine a workable look-through type
solution (similar to how some agencies treat the
public company shareholder). Other issues of
perceived abuse could be carefully provided for.
|
|
| Vote: YES | |
| Return |
05/05/04
07:40:40 |
Dr. Colin Brenan |
Marblehead, MA
Msg 96 of 99 |
| BioTrove is a 35 person, VC-funded biotechnology
company backed by four small to mid-sized venture
capital firms. Our senior management team is a mix of
founders and individuals hired by the founding team.
Many of the founding individuals still have oversight
and responsibility for day-to-day operations and
setting the company's future direction despite the
fact the company is owned 51% by venture capital firms.
I find surprising the SBA claim that VC-backed
companies would somehow have an advantage or bias the
chances for non-VC backed companies in obtaining SBIR
funding. My experience is that VC funding is
typically applied towards product development and
building the commercial side of an organization, not,
as is the mandate of the SBIR program, to fund high
risk, exploratory R&D that might result in a product.
For BioTrove, not having access to SBIR funds puts us
at a distinct disadvantage relative to other small,
high technology companies because we can not leverage
all possible sources of non-dilutive capital for
development of high risk, high reward products -thus
hampering or delaying introduction of disruptive yet
highly beneficial technologies into the US economy.
|
|
| Vote: YES | |
| Return |
05/12/04
07:38:43 |
Name withheld by request |
Charlottesville, VA
Msg 97 of 99 |
This would seriously undermine the original intent of
the SBIR program, namely to give small business an
opportunity to compete for federal research money that
in the past has been primarily available only to large
businesses with existing federal contracts. Under the
proposed change small businesses would be competing
with companies that may be small in size but because
of the VC resources are equivalent to much larger and
better-funded businesses.
|
|
| Vote: NO | |
| Return |
05/12/04
13:11:09 |
W. Louise Warren, Ph.D., ABAP |
Los Angeles, CA
Msg 98 of 99 |
|
| Vote: NO | |
| Return |
05/21/04
07:45:06 |
Mohan |
Rockville, MD
Msg 99 of 99 |
First and foremost the SBIR grants should be judged on
scientific and technical merit to foster innovation
and should not exclude any small business. Restricting
VC funded small businesses is the biggest mistake.
If you have a good idea and plan you should be able to
obtain grant money. VC funded money is primarily used
to develop products and SBIR money for any innovation.
|
|
| Vote: YES | |
| Return |
| PREVIOUS |