Past Proposals, Pitches, & Reviews
Why publish past pitches, proposals, and reviews?
Most of the SBIR programs are hostile to small businesses that are not part of their inner community. The reviews lack any identification of weaknesses in the science and engineering foundation and are in direct conflict with the missions of the stated criteria of the agencies. In other words, in an environment where there is plenty of opportunity to identify integrity and honor, in accepting the reviews the program managers lack the integrity and honor, and the process is ultimately a no-win (i.e., impossible to win) situation for the small company.
So who is to be trusted more with a companies most advanced concepts and paths forward: a) USA SBIR programs that lack honor and integrity in the handling of the proposals or b) Chinese scientists who act in full honor and integrity in advancing good research through use of published data?
The following are examples of actions that lack honor and integrity in USA SBIR programs:
Most of the SBIR programs are hostile to small businesses that are not part of their inner community. The reviews lack any identification of weaknesses in the science and engineering foundation and are in direct conflict with the missions of the stated criteria of the agencies. In other words, in an environment where there is plenty of opportunity to identify integrity and honor, in accepting the reviews the program managers lack the integrity and honor, and the process is ultimately a no-win (i.e., impossible to win) situation for the small company.
So who is to be trusted more with a companies most advanced concepts and paths forward: a) USA SBIR programs that lack honor and integrity in the handling of the proposals or b) Chinese scientists who act in full honor and integrity in advancing good research through use of published data?
The following are examples of actions that lack honor and integrity in USA SBIR programs:
- A review with no weaknesses in the proposed technology, the technology's potential, and where the technology is patent pending; however, the reviewer provides a terrible rating by the erroneous opinion that the inventor is not qualified to do the research? For worthy technology that is patent pending should be pursued, and when a reviewer (with approval of the program manager) identifies it should not be funded, that decision is synonomous
