Eligibility: Priority will be given to researchers (faculty, postdocs, graduate students) with primary or joint appointments in the Eberly College of Science, and their collaborators. However, those from other colleges will also be considered; see the comparison of programs table below. 

Topics: In partnership with the Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences, the Materials Research Institute, and the Institute for Computational and Data Sciences, this cycle will highlight co-funded research themes. These themes combined with the O4I program framework will enable translational exploration within our joint strategic research priorities. Projects may span more than one theme or select the fourth ‘open’ track if they fall outside these areas.

1. Health, Biosecurity, and Translational Biology
Supports projects that advance biological or biomedical capabilities with tangible real-world impact. Proposals should articulate a potential use pathway showing how new biological insight, intervention, or technology could evolve into a product, platform, or service that improves human, animal, or plant health, enhances biosecurity, or strengthens sustainability and resilience.

2. Materials and Quantum Systems
Supports projects developing novel materials or devices with clear practical applications, including but not limited to next-generation, nano, or quantum-enabled technologies. Proposals should articulate a potential use—whether for energy, advanced manufacturing, communications, space exploration, or critical infrastructure—showing how the research could evolve into a demonstrable platform, device, or technology with measurable benefit.

3. Computational, AI, and Data-Driven Discovery
Supports projects that use AI, computational modeling, or large-scale data integration to generate actionable insights with tangible translational outcomes. Proposals should articulate a potential use pathway showing how the research could lead to platforms, predictive tools, or services that accelerate scientific discovery, education, and R&D, improve decision-making, or enhance resilience across domains such as health and medicine, security and defense, environmental and space systems, energy and sustainability, communications, advanced manufacturing, and other emerging applied technologies.

4. Cross-Cutting Tools & Platforms for Translational Impact
Welcomes ideas that fall outside the other categories but demonstrate a clear line of sight to application or use. Projects may focus on cross-disciplinary tools, enabling technologies, or novel approaches that connect discovery to implementation. Proposals should describe how the work could open a pathway to value creation, whether through a product, platform, or service.

Additional information about the programs:

Scope: Translational ideas often surface unexpectedly and spontaneously from basic research, creating unique challenges compared to use-inspired or applied research approaches. Our pathway is designed for basic researchers, where discoveries are often paradigm-shifting, applicable in many directions, and the inherent challenge is finding the most tractable place to start. By offering three distinct entry points, from early ideation (Stage 1), to evaluation and planning (Stage 2), to proof-of-concept development (Stage 3), our pathway meets researchers wherever they find themselves along this continuum. Each stage builds intentionally on the last, creating a clear, structured progression that helps researchers assess feasibility, sharpen direction, communicate value, navigate common translational hurdles, and begin shaping their discoveries into real-world impact.

Value Provided: Participants receive hands-on support, including individualized coaching, engagement with experienced mentors, input from the college’s Technology Advisory Board (TAB), and structured, seminar-based learning. In return, teams commit to consistent participation, regular check-ins, and active exploration of their project’s translational trajectory. This unified pathway enables progress towards later-stage institutional programs like GAP Fund, I-corps, and coordinates access to Penn State’s many consultant-based experiential learning programs for enhanced support. By working closely with mentors and the innovation support network, participants don’t have to navigate translational hurdles on their own; they gain a partner team that actively aligns around the project goals and helps push the project forward.

Program Goals: Beyond providing structure, guidance, and resources, the pathway is designed to develop the skills and insight that make researchers more effective innovators—now and in the future. By treating learning itself as a primary outcome, the pathway creates space for teams to explore translational opportunities even when those ideas are untested or unfamiliar. This reframes early exploration as inherently valuable, lowers the barrier to participation, and helps shift institutional culture toward a greater tolerance for thoughtful risk. Once projects move forward, they are better prepared for subsequent steps—from partnerships and licenses to startup formation. And the benefits extend beyond individual projects: graduate students and postdocs build versatile, career-ready competencies, while faculty gain a more clear framework for shaping research directions and articulating broader impacts.

Funding Mechanism: For this cycle, we are co-funding Phase 1 and Phase 2 LB2C proposals with the Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences, the Materials Research Institute, and the Institute for Computational and Data Sciences, as budgets allow. To broaden access to the translational support programs and expertise within the Eberly College of Science, we are also open to partnering with other colleges and campuses to support strong projects. We encourage researchers outside the College of Science to consult with their home units regarding the availability of matching funds.

Other Support: As previously noted, the Fellows program provides training and mentoring support but does not include a financial component. However, if researchers have specific needs, we invite them to describe these if they are invited to submit a full proposal. Requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis and contingent on the availability of mechanisms to support those needs.

Applicants should submit a Letter of Intent (LOI) by January 16^th through the fillable Letter of Intent Submission Form- Unified Call for Proposals. Because this is a unified call, the LOI serves as both an evaluation and a placement mechanism. The review committee will confirm whether the chosen stage is appropriate and, if necessary, redirect applicants to a better fit. The Microsoft Letter of Intent Form will cover the following information:

Project Description should include the following:

1. Project title.
2. The invention disclosure number, if applicable, or respond "N/A".
3. Project Participants: Please provide the names of all participants and their primary department & college affiliation.
4. Project abstract (~500 words) describing the idea or invention and its potential for real-world impact. Highlight problem your solution could solve. For Phase 2 LB2C applicants, please specify the first use case you wish to pursue and why. 

Program Selection part must:

1. Indicate which thematic tracks apply to your project. You may select up to 3.
2. Select the program you think best fits your project stage.
3. Provide an explanation <200 words) for why the stage you selected is the best fit for your project and what you are hoping to accomplish through the program.

Acknowledgements (you will be asked to indicate yes or no on the agreement form): 

1. For LB2C Phase 2 applicants: I acknowledge that I will be asked to give a 20-minute presentation and Q&A between Feb 16th-27^th
2. For graduate students and postdocs: Please confirm that you have discussed this opportunity with your PI and they support your participation if selected.
3. For applicants without a primary appointment in Eberly College of Science and applying for either phase 1 or 2 of the LB2C program. Please indicate if your college is aware of the matching funds requirement (e.g., $15-35K) and has agreed to consider this support if selected.

January 16 — LOI due

February 6 — Invitations to submit full proposals

February 16–27 — Phase 2 LB2C presentations

March 22 — Full proposals due

Mid-May — Awards announced

August 15 — Program year begins

The following criteria will be used to select for full proposal invitation:

1. Translational intent: Does the LOI demonstrate authentic interest in creating real-world value, not just doing more basic science?
2. Future Funding Potential: Given what’s described, is there a credible funding path (federal, corporate, internal GAP, etc.) that could ultimately advance this work?
3. Stage-Fit: Does the applicant demonstrate an understanding for where they fit best in the translational process? 

Purpose of Stage 1:Phase 1 is designed for very early translational ideas—projects with little or no prior feasibility data, where a small number of exploratory experiments could establish an early “reason to believe.” Requirements intentionally reflect this early stage: proposals should be concise, curiosity-driven, and focused on testing plausibility, not developing a full technology.

Submit proposals as a single PDF to Science-Innovation@psu.edu with subject line: [PI Name] – Translational Pathway Proposal 2025 – LB2C Phase 1

Full proposals for all programs are due Sunday March 22^th by 11:59 PM

General Guidelines

• Single-spaced, standard 11–12 pt font.
• Page limits indicated per section.
• Be mindful of confidential vs non-confidential requirements for each section. Clearly label confidential sections (Technology Description / foundational data).
• Emphasize translational opportunity; reviewers do not require finalized IP or business plans.

1. Title & Participants

• Project title
• Team members + roles, department/college
• Invention Disclosure Number (if applicable)

2. Abstract (1/2 page, non-technical)

• What problem, challenge, or observation inspired the idea?
• Why it could matter if successful

3. Project Champion & Team (1 page)

• Who is championing the idea and why?
• What skills or development opportunities does this project offer?
• How Phase 1 fits into their professional goals (especially for trainees)

4. Technology Description (1 page)

• Provide an explanation of the technical idea / mechanism / concept
• Any preliminary data (if any; not required)

4. Potential Uses (½ page)

• Provide your perspective on where this technology may be useful. This can be broad potential sectors or contexts where it may be useful.
• Any early thoughts on how it might improve the status quo

5. Scope of Work (½ page)

• What minimal evidence or experiment would create a “reason to believe” we should explore further?
• 1–2 critical experiments you propose to demonstrate the “reason to believe”

6. Budget & Justification up to $30K (1 page)

• Provide a brief, clear explanation of how funds will be used. Please distinguish between the following categories to help us match funding sources and restrictions:

  • Core facility usage

  • External vendors or services
  • Consumables or supplies
  • Graduate student hourly or assistantship support (if applicable)
  • This helps us match projects with appropriate internal funding sources.

Scoring Rubric for LB2C Phase 1:

• Notes to reviewers: Emphasize curiosity-driven exploration and plausibility testing over fully developed plans.

Purpose of Stage 2: Stage 2 is designed for projects that have established an initial “reason to believe” and are ready to explore how a discovery could translate into real-world value. At this stage, teams often face multiple possible applications and need structured support to identify the most tractable first use case. The program focuses on early value proposition development and foundational translational planning, helping teams clarify adoption context, performance criteria, and next-step requirements. Applicants are not expected to have prior expertise in markets, intellectual property strategy, or product development; these skills and frameworks are developed through participation in the program.

Submit proposals as a single PDF to Science-Innovation@psu.edu with subject line: [PI Name] – Translational Pathway Proposal 2025 – Fellows

Full proposals for all programs are due Sunday March 22^th by 11:59 PM

General Guidelines

• Single-spaced, standard 11–12 pt font.
• Page limits indicated per section.
• Be mindful of confidential vs non-confidential requirements for each section. Clearly label confidential sections (Technology Description / foundational data).
• Emphasize translational opportunity; reviewers do not require finalized IP or business plans.

1. Title & Participants

• Project title
• Team members + roles, department/college
• Invention Disclosure Number (if applicable)

2. Abs Abstract (1/2 page, non-technical)

• What problem, challenge, or observation inspired the idea?
• Why it could matter if successful
• Origin of the idea and what has been done so far
• What the technology could enable (conceptual solution)

3. 3. Project Champion & Team (1 page)

• Who is championing the idea and why?
• What skills or development opportunities does this project offer?
• How Innovation Fellows fits into their professional goals (especially for trainees)
• Any relevant expertise, even if indirect, that the champion is building upon

Early Technical Basis & Novelty (½ page, confidential)

• Briefly summarize any prior feasibility experimental results or other exploratory data
  
  • Technical idea / mechanism / concept
• Why the team believes the idea is worth further exploration. (‘Reason to believe’)
• Describe prior-art search results (even superficial) and what it suggested
  
  • What did you search for?
  • Are there clear red flags, competitors?
  • Have you identified any open niche for your IP/project?

4. Statement of Fit (½ page)

• Why the team is seeking help with use-case discovery, selection, value proposition, or market fit.
• What uncertainties they most need help clarifying (e.g., “too many possible applications,” “don’t know who the user is,” “don’t know what matters for adoption”, etc.)
• How participation will prepare them for Phase 2 or other seed-funding programs

5. Justification, no budget needed (unfunded)

• This program includes service-based support but does not include a financial component. However, if you have a specific need, please provide information that will allow us to evaluate your request.

Scoring Rubric for Stage 2 – Innovation Fellows Program

Notes: This stage emphasizes learning, use-case identification, and exploration over concrete experiments or funding requests.

Purpose of Stage 3: Stage 3 is designed for projects that have moved beyond exploration and are ready to validate a specific translational concept. Teams at this stage have identified a clear first use case, understand the relevant adoption context and key performance criteria, and have developed a focused experimental plan tied directly to a real-world application. The goal of Phase 2 is to generate translationally meaningful proof-of-concept data that de-risks the technology and strengthens eligibility for identified follow-on funding mechanisms. Projects at this stage are expected to pursue validation rather than broad exploration, using well-defined milestones to support subsequent investment, partnership, or technology transfer.

Submit proposals as a single PDF to Science-Innovation@psu.edu with subject line: [PI Name] – Translational Pathway Proposal 2025 – LB2C Phase 1

Full proposals for all programs are due Sunday March 22^th by 11:59 PM

General Guidelines

• Single-spaced, standard 11–12 pt font.
• Page limits indicated per section.
• Be mindful of confidential vs non-confidential requirements for each section. Clearly label confidential sections (Technology Description / foundational data).
• Emphasize translational opportunity; reviewers do not require finalized IP or business plans.

1. Title & Participants

• Project title
• Team members + roles, department/college
• Invention Disclosure Number (if applicable)

2. Abstract (½ page, non-technical)

• First use-case selected
• Importance of the problem
• Tangible value the solution could create
• What Phase 2 aims to validate

3. Project Champion & Team (1 page)

• Commitment to carrying out the defined experiments
• Translational interest and long-term vision
• Team capabilities aligned with the proposed work

4. Technology Description & Foundational Evidence (1–1.5 pages, confidential)

• Clear description of the technology or method
• Summary of feasibility work to date (Phase 1 or equivalent)
• Rationale for the chosen first use-case
• Early signals of novelty (not legal claims—just awareness)
  
  • What prior-art searches suggested
  • What appears differentiating
  • What IP will likely be created and how will we protect it?
• High-level competitive landscape (papers, products, or known approaches)

5. Adoption Plan & Translational Pathway (1 page, non-confidential)

• The target user or customer for the first use-case
• Why this use-case is the most tractable starting point
• Plausible pathway (license, startup, partnership)—not commitments, just direction
• Specific uncertainties Phase 2 will resolve to improve fundability
• What funding vehicles have been identified and what are the eligibility criteria that you must meet in order to be competitive? How will you use this funding to reach eligibility/competitiveness? Do you anticipate additional funding beyond what you have identified as the next step?

6. Scope of Work (2 pages)

• KPIs that matter for the selected use-case
• Proof-of-concept experiments mapped directly onto these KPIs
• Experimental design: what will be measured and why it matters for adoption
• Milestones, timeline, and success criteria
• How results will support follow-on funding (GAP, federal, corporate, etc.)
  
  • Provide a brief, clear explanation of how funds will be used.
    Please distinguish between:
    1. Core facility usage
    2. External vendors or services
    3. Consumables or supplies
    4. Graduate student hourly or assistantship support (if applicable)
    5. This helps us match projects with appropriate internal funding sources.

7. Budget & Justification up to $70K (1 page)

Scoring Rubric for Stage 3 – LB2C Phase 2 Grant:

Notes: Stage 3 emphasizes rigor, feasibility, translational potential, and readiness for follow-on funding. KPIs and experiments should directly support adoption and fundability.

• Marco Archetti (BIO) & John Liechty (Smeal): With contributions from the Smeal College of Business, Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences, and Eberly College of Science, their project will focus on advancing their COVID-19 antiviral biotechnology through critical pre-clinical studies.  
• Ken Keiler (BMB): His project will use structure-aided design to generate improved compounds that target a ribosome rescue pathway and will result in a lead optimization campaign for a novel gram-negative antibiotic. Fund contributions came from both the Eberly College of Science and the Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences.
• Xiaojun (Lance) Lian (BIO): His project will focus on reprogramming in vivo neutrophils into CAR-Neutrophils using exosome-mediated modRNA vectors to effectively reduce tumor growth and increase survival rates in mice with glioblastoma. Fund contributions came from Eberly College of Science.
• Sally Mackenzie (BIO) : Her project will focus on the use of a cloud-based methylome analysis platform to support an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) early diagnostic assay and various deliverables that will bridge the gap to venture capital investments. Fund contributions came from both the Eberly College of Science and Smeal College of Business.

• Ken Keiler (BMB): His project will focus on developing an anticancer therapeutic targeting a mitochondrial ribosome rescue pathway.  
• Scott Selleck (BMB): His project will focus on neurological degeneration prevention by inhibition of the heparin sulfate modifying enzyme, NDST1. 

• Joyce Jose (BMMB) and colleagues: Her project will focus on developing a rapid, cost-effective, and adaptable assay for screening antiviral drug candidates.
• Sally Mackenzie (BIO) and colleagues: Her project will focus on establishing a technology proof of concept for increasing crop plants’ yield by altering their epigenetics.

• Lauren Zarzar (CHEM) and colleagues: Developing a method for producing new kinds of color-shifting materials based on a recently discovered optical effect that uses reflective structures at the microscale to generate iridescent structural color. Invent Penn State IP Navigator.
• Ganesh Anand (CHEM) and colleagues: Investigating vulnerabilities on a virus that could be tapped to design targeted antibodies for use in antiviral therapies.

• Joseph Cotruvo (CHEM) and colleagues: Developed a method for using a biological protein to detect and selectively capture rare earth elements (lanthanides) for industrial use. Find out more from the Invent Penn State IP Navigator.
• Paul Cremer (CHEM) and colleagues: Developed a method utilizing temperature gradients to assess protein phase behavior, which enables high-throughput testing and accurate predictions of colloidal stability for therapeutic protein formulations. Find out more from the Invent Penn State IP Navigator.

• Kenneth Keiler (BMB), John Alumasa (BMB), Sarah Ades (BMB), and colleagues: Developed novel antibiotic compounds by exploring inhibitors of a new transcription factor target.
• Benjamin Lear (CHEM) and colleagues: Developed a method to use thermally cured thermoset compounds (e.g., silicone, rubbers, epoxies) in additive manufacturing. Find out more from the Invent Penn State IP Navigator and research video.
• Xin Zhang (CHEM) and colleagues: Developed novel fluorescent protein tags to facilitate the detection of misfolded proteins and insoluble protein aggregates. Find out more from the Invent Penn State IP Navigator.

• John Asbury (CHEM) and colleagues: Developed a novel type of transient absorption spectrometer that produces a higher signal-to-noise ratio, is easier to operate, requires less physical space, and can be manufactured/sold at a lower price point compared to current state-of-the-art spectrometers. Find out more from the Invent Penn State IP Navigator.
• James Marden (BIOL), Scott Medina (BME), and colleagues: Developed novel recombinant lectins from environmental sources for cancer diagnosis and therapy. Find out more from the Invent Penn State IP Navigator.
• Yu Zhang (STAT) and colleagues: Created a software computational tool that uses functional maps of the human genome to predict disease-specific cell types and genes underlying disease association. Find out more from the Invent Penn State IP Navigator and research video.
• Susan Hafenstein (BMB) and Scott Lindner (BMB): developed versatile display scaffolds for CryoEM approaches. Invent Penn State IP Navigator

• Suvrath Mahadevan (ASTRO) and colleagues: Developed a ball lens microscope for external use with a cell phone.

• Sarah Assmann (BIOL), Philip Bevilacqua (CHEM), and colleagues: Developed a kit to determine the 3D structure of RNAs inside the cell. Find out more from the Invent Penn State IP Navigator.
• Frank Pugh (BMB) and colleagues: Optimized a technology that characterizes epigenetic modifications on a genome-wide scale. Find out more from the Invent Penn State IP Navigator.
• Mauricio Terrones (CHEM/PHYS), Siyang Zheng (BME), and colleagues: Developed a diagnostic device that uses a specially tuned carbon nanotube filter to capture and enrich viruses. Find out more from the research video.

• Yanming Wang (BMB), Gong Chen (BIOL), and colleagues: Characterized a potential pharmaceutical therapeutic that allows the body to naturally fight cancer cell growth and inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and lupus.
• Greg Ferry (BMB), Thomas Wood (CHE), Costas Marana (CHE), and colleagues: Refined a biological process by which methane could be cleanly converted to several products including a precursor to plastic or clean fuel.
• Scott Phillips (CHEM) and colleagues: Developed an inexpensive, easy to use, microfluidic device composed of paper useful for diagnosing a wide variety of contaminants, such as detecting lead in water or pesticides on fruit.
• Mauricio Terrones (CHEM/PHYS) and colleagues: Developed a thin graphene film that can be woven into fabrics or chemically altered to provide a wide range of properties. Find out more from the Invent Penn State IP Navigator.
• Stephen Benkovic (CHEM), James Marden (BIOL), and colleagues: Developed a screen for new boron compounds displaying anti-fungal activity useful in agriculture and environmental settings.