The possible budget for programs created through this initiative is open and flexible, but it should be well justified and commensurate with the size of the research community to be impacted and the scale / impact of the work to be undertaken. We encourage proposers to think carefully about what is needed to be impactful and scale requests accordingly. 

We expect that programs that include funding for seed / pilot projects will have awards that fall within the norms of previous OVPR internal funding programs, unless strong justification is provided. 

Programs may include requests for other resources, such as access to / development of datasets, that will enable research advances in areas of opportunity or need. 

• Any full-time UConn/UConn Health faculty member, with a rank of Assistant Professor or higher, may propose an internal funding program under this initiative.
  
  • Includes tenured/tenure-track, in-residence, clinical, extension, and research faculty 
• It is expected that the faculty member proposing the program would serve as the Program Manager (PM), unless otherwise indicated. 
• PM responsibilities include: 
  • Shaping the description and scope of the program 
  • Identifying potential reviewers for applications 
  • Interpreting review scores and making funding recommendations to OVPR leadership based on those reviews 
• PMs will be supported administratively by the Quest Portal and OVPR’s Internal Funding team (Charlotte Nelson and Kaylei Arcangel).  Our team will: 
  • Advertise the program to the UConn community 
  • Respond to questions about the program and application submission 
  • Handle outreach to reviewers and set up review assignments 
  • Process review information and feedback to share with PM 
  • Support PM and reviewers with program development and administration 
  • Work with OVPR Research Finance to set up awards 

• Given the role that PMs will play in shaping the program, they are not eligible to serve as PI or co-PI on proposals submitted to the program. 

Application Form – available on the QUEST Portal 

• Applicant information 
  • First name
  • Last name'Home Department
  • Other department (optional)
  • School/College
  • Email
  • What is your faculty / academic rank?
  • Primary employer
  • Is your position contingent on grant funding?
  • Eligibility (by checking this box I attest that I am a full-time faculty member at UConn/UConn Health)
• Program title
• Leadership Approval:  Download the Project Regenerate Leadership Approval Template, and ask your leadership (Department Head or C/I Director, whomever you report to, or Dean, if you are a Department Head) to read through the application, sign and date the the Leadership Approval for you to upload it to the application in the QUEST portal.
• 1-slide quad chart and 1-2 page white paper: Download and complete the Project Regenerate Quad Chart Template, and write up a 1-2 page white paper describing the need you see and what kind of program would meet that need.  The quad chart and white paper should address the questions below, with the quad chart presenting brief bullet responses within the four headings; identified need, stakeholders, alignment with state investment areas, deliverables and benefits and the white paper providing additional information (data, analysis, and arguments) in support of claims made in the 1-slide quad chart. We encourage you to read through the questions listed under the heading ‘Review Criteria’ to ensure that your application addresses the areas that the reviewers will be examining.
  • Identified needs
    • What is the unmet need or gap your program will address? 
    • Why is it important / urgent to meet this need? 
    • What are you proposing to meet this need?   
    • Could the funding need be met by any other means (internal or external?) 
  • Stakeholders
    • Who will benefit from this program?  Estimate size of stakeholder group who will leverage the program, disciplines engaged, etc.) 
    • Who will be the program manager for the proposed program?  Why are they qualified to serve in that role? 
  • Alignment with State Investment Areas
    • What existing areas of strength at UConn/UCH does this program engage/build upon? 
    • How does this program align with  
      • Areas that have been deprioritized on the federal level since 2025 (supported by data/argument).
      • CT State strategic priorities: bioscience, advanced manufacturing, quantum technologies, and health innovation.
      • Federal R&D priorities: See the administration’s FY28 Federal R&D Priorities memorandum. 
      • Areas of demonstrated, unmet, and urgent societal need (supported by data/argument). 
  • Deliverables and Benefits 
    • What are the expected outcomes of this program that can be reported back to the State? 
      • Examples of potential outcomes may include jobs preserved or extended, students impacted, communities/individuals impacted, dollars saved, economic impact generated, new interdisciplinary collaborations, increased UConn engagement with industry and local communities and strengthening of UConn research reputation/standing, etc.
    • What benefits or impact do you expect to follow from this program? 
    • If applicable, how will this program increase UConn/UCH’s competitiveness for other funding? 

If you have an idea, and you do not want to manage the program, we encourage you to reach out to a Center/Institute to sponsor it for you. (Name of C/I, contact name and email can be included in the 1-2 page white paper) 

• Graduate student support (priority) 
• Percentage of faculty AY salary for internal research activities (that will be sent back to the school / college) 
• Limited summer salary, and “buy-outs” of teaching or other responsibilities with approval of unit head and dean 
• Project-related costs (no capital expenses) 
• Cost-sharing from unrestricted faculty / unit accounts will be allowable  
• Use of core facilities / “recharge” 
• Undergraduate student labor costs 
• Development / refinement of institution core infrastructure (e.g., database, system, service) 

After submission, the application will be reviewed by the OVPR to ensure that all the components needed are included and will either reach out to the Program Manager for further information or move it forward to the area leadership for review and approval.  Once approved by area leadership, the application will be routed to the Project Regenerate review committee for review. The review committee will consist of an interdisciplinary group of Associate Deans for Research, Center/Institute Directors and members of the Research Advisory Council (RAC). The review committee will review applications based on the following 7 criteria - NOTE: Below are specific questions that reviewers can look for answers to in the application.  Not all questions posed below are applicable to each application. 

• NEED:  

• • Does this program clearly identify/articulate a specific area of need or opportunity? 
  • Does the application provide compelling justification that the focus area of need or opportunity is significant and/or urgent 
  • Does the application make a strong case that investment is needed for UConn researchers to meet/prepare to meet the identified need/opportunity 
  • Does the application make a strong case that the funding need identified cannot be met through other means, either internal or external?  Is Project Regenerate the best way to support this effort? 

• ALIGNMENT WITH PRIORITIES:  

• • Does the program seek to leverage existing areas of strength within UConn/UConn Health? 
  • Is the program well aligned with one or more of the following priority areas: 
  • Areas that have been deprioritized on the federal level since 2025 (supported by data/argument)
  • CT State strategic priorities: bioscience, advanced manufacturing, quantum technologies, and health innovation 
  • Federal R&D priorities: See the administration’s FY28 Federal R&D Priorities memorandum. 
  • Areas of demonstrated, unmet, and urgent societal need (supported by data/argument)
• FEASIBILITY:
  
  • Based on the information provided, is the proposed program likely to effectively address the area or need or opportunity being targeted?
  • Is there a sufficient stakeholder community within UConn/UConn Health to leverage this program, if it is offered? 
  • Does UConn/UCH’s research environment have the necessary resources / infrastructure to support the activities of the proposed program?   
  • Are there any barriers or bottlenecks that will limit the ability of the proposed program to effectively accomplish its objectives?

• PROGRAM MANAGER:
   
  • Is the identified Program Manager (PM) well equipped to implement the proposed program? 
  • Does the PM have the right mix of disciplinary knowledge / expertise to lead a program in the targeted area 
  • Does their Bio/CV reflect track record of success? 
  • Do they have leadership and/or project management skills/experience to be effective as a PM?

• FUNDING:  
   
  • Does the application describe the scale of investment needed (individual investments and program aggregate)?
  • Is the requested investment well-justified given the stated objectives?
  • Is the requested investment well-aligned with the size of the stakeholder community that could participate in the program?
  • Are there any cost sharing commitments (internal or external) that could extend the impact of the program? 

• IMPACT:  

• • Is the proposed program likely to produce outcomes that are meaningful for the targeted areas of need/opportunity?  Will it “move the needle”? 
  • Will the proposed program be instrumental for supporting/growing UConn/UConn’s research capacity in the targeted research area? 
  • Will the proposed program produce meaningful engagement by UConn and UConn Health researchers within the targeted areas of need/opportunity? 

• OUTCOMES AND ANTICIPATED ROI:  

• • Does the application clearly articulate the anticipated outcomes of the proposed program? 
  • Is the proposed program likely to improve UConn’s competitiveness for external funding (short or long term) in the targeted area?  
  • Is the proposed program likely to help stabilize research staffing levels (including graduate students) in the stakeholder community? 
  • Is the proposed program likely to help generate new collaborations, particularly across disciplines?
  • Is the proposed program likely to increase UConn’s engagement with industry? 
  • Is the proposed program likely to strengthen Connecticut’s workforce in areas of need? 
  • Is the proposed program likely to strengthen UConn’s research reputation/standing? 
  • Is the proposed program likely to include engagement with local communities within the state? 
  • Is the proposed program likely to lead to societal and/or economic benefits for the State? 

After awards are made and the project has been completed, the OVPR (Office of the Vice President for Research) needs to evaluate project progress and to learn more about the impact of the work that has been done.  To this end, you will receive a link to a short survey asking you questions about the outcomes and impacts of your project once your project has been completed and then again, one and three years post award project completion. 

• Assistant/Associate/Full Professors in a tenured/tenure-track position
• Assistant Professor rank or higher clinical and extension faculty
• Assistant/Associate/Full Professors-in-Residence 
• Although no minimum effort level is required for USG projects, a PI/Co-PI must have institutionally funded research time available during the award period. 
• Research Professors / those whose positions are contingent on grant-funding (soft money positions) must include details about their institutionally funded research time as part of the budget justification to confirm eligibility. 
• The USG program is open to faculty who do not have access to any investigator accounts with available balances over $10,000.00 (after specific costs committed for the next 6 months have been deducted). 

Please be sure to read all the guidelines thoroughly. Proposals must be submitted electronically through the UConn Quest Portal by 9/14/2026 12 noon and will require the following information:

Faculty Applicant Information Form: (some information may pre-populate into the form)

• Submitting PI Name 

• Home Department 

• School/College 

• Email 

• Faculty/Academic Rank 

• Primary Employer 

• Question - is your position contingent on grant funding? 

Urgent Seed Grant Application Form 

• Project Title

• Statement of Urgent Need – In 2-3 paragraphs articulate why seed funding is urgently needed and address funding needs within the research group, other funding sources available, and the importance of the work proposed. 

• Proposed Budget Requested – Indicate the total budget requested (capped at $25,000.00) 

Project Proposal (pdf upload)

Proposals should be written in straightforward language, keeping in mind that reviewers will possess general content knowledge but not necessarily specific expertise in the area of study. References should be included in the appendices and will not be counted against page limits. The Project Plan document (2-3 pages, 12-pt font and 1” margins) should address each of the areas below in sufficient detail using the headings provided. 

• Significance/Importance: Provide a clear and compelling rationale for the proposed project, scholarly activity, or creative work matters. Indicate how the proposed project will advance knowledge, address an important scientific or scholarly problem, demonstrate intellectual or creative significance, and/or benefit society in meaningful ways. If applicable, include hypotheses to be tested, specific goals/aims, and relevant background/information or preliminary data in support of the project. 

• Approach and Timeline: Describe the plan for carrying out the proposed activities, including research design, work plan, and methodological approach.  Describe how the environment in which the work will be done and the resources available will contribute to the probability of success. Describe the timeline projected for completing this work.  If funding is requested for more than one year, provide a rationale and justification for the request. 

Team: (pdf upload)

•  Upload one page overview of the team (names, roles, activities) 

Proposed budget: (pdf upload)

• List and justify each budget item. Please see Internal Funding Budget Guidelines for instructions and download the internal funding program budget template needed; either for 6 months or 1 year.  Be sure to list the items and their respective costs. Please provide a justification for each budget item in the appropriate column in the spreadsheet. If additional space is needed, you may include a budget justification document as an appendix. 

Appendices: (PDF upload, single document)

• Additional information may be included when it is truly essential for review of the proposal. 

All proposals will be evaluated using review criteria referenced below by a review committee composed of Associate Deans for Research, Center/Institute Directors, and members of the Research Advisory Council (RAC) and overseen by the OVPR. 

• The review committee will make their recommendations to the OVPR. 

• Final awards are made by the OVPR leadership based on the review committee recommendations, program objectives, equity factors (including disciplinary representation), recent internal funding history, and alignment of projects with other institutional priorities or investments. 

Review Criteria 

Awards are made based on the justification of the statement of urgent need and proposed budget as well as the criteria listed below. 

Using a 5-point rating scale from 1 (Excellent) to 5 (Poor), reviewers will rate and evaluate 2 criteria (Significance/Importance and Approach/Timeline) 

 Significance/Importance 

• Does this study address an important scientific / scholarly / creative problem or gap? 

• How well articulated are the project's hypotheses, aims, and/or goals?  Are these goals well-reasoned and adequately supported? 

• If the aims of the project are achieved, will scientific knowledge, technical capability, clinical practice, and/or social conditions be advanced in meaningful ways? 

• Does the proposed project significantly contribute to the concepts, theories, methods, technologies, applications, treatments, outcomes, services, and/or preventive interventions that drive the field/discipline? 

Approach/Timeline

• To what degree does the proposal outline a clearly articulated and well-reasoned plan of action? 

• Are the conceptual, theoretical, or clinical frameworks and research methods adequately developed and clearly articulated?  To what degree are they appropriate to the aims of the project and reflective of intellectual rigor? 

• Is the timeline adequate for achieving goals and meeting the project aims? For proposals requesting funding to exceed one year, is the request justified and supported? 

• Are the resources and time available for this project adequate to ensure success? 

• Does the environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? 

Budget Evaluation 

• Is the project budget appropriate and sufficient to carry out the proposed work? 

• Are the budget requests adequately justified, clearly articulated, and necessary for the scope of work and timeline? 

Funding Recommendations 

Reviewers will be asked to make funding recommendations based on the merits of each proposal. 

After awards are made and the project has been completed, the OVPR (Office of the Vice President for Research) needs to evaluate project progress and to learn more about the impact of the work that has been done.  To this end, you will receive a link to a short survey asking you questions about the outcomes and impacts of your project once your project has been completed and then again, one and three years post award project completion.  

Research Impact comes in many forms!  We've created broad categories for some of the most common varieties for easy of tracking.  Applicants may choose all the categories that apply.

• Academic -is the demonstrable contribution that excellent research makes to academic advances, across and within disciplines, including significant advances in understanding, method, theory and application.
• Cultural – contribution to people’s understanding of ideas and reality, values and beliefs.
• Economic – contribution to a company’s revenues and profits (micro level), and economic returns through increased productivity or economic growth (macro level)
• Educational – contribution to education, training and capacity-building, including through curricula, educational tools, and qualifications.
• Environmental – contribution to managing the environment, such as protecting natural resources, reducing environmental pollution, improving weather forecasting, and tackling the climate crisis.
• Health – contribution to public health, life expectancy, health-related quality of life, prevention of illness, and reduced health inequality.
• Legal - contribution to how legal decision makers (courts, legislators and policy makers) understand and develop the law in ways that promote justice, fairness and democratic values.
• Political – contribution to how policymakers act, to how policies are constructed, and to political stability.
• Social – contribution to community welfare and quality of life, and to behaviors, practices, and activities of people and groups.
• Other

The Transformative Impact Award is available to: UConn/UConn Health faculty researchers and their teams who worked on a research project that was completed (or had significant deliverables) within the last five years and who is a/an

• Assistant/Associate/Full Professors in a tenured/tenure-track position
• Clinical and extension faculty
• Assistant/Associate/Full Professors-in-Residence

Transformative Impact Research Award Program applications must be submitted electronically through the UConn Quest Portal by Monday October 5th (if the date falls on a weekend, a grace period in the system will allow applications to be accepted beyond the deadline until 9am of the next business day) and will require the following information:

Faculty Applicant Information Form (The form needs to be completed in the QUEST portal faculty account). 

• Faculty researcher name
• Home Department(s)
• School/College
• Faculty researcher email address
• Faculty/Academic rank
• Primary employer
• Team size and overview

UConn Transformative Research Impact Award Application Form

Impact Categories (Select all that apply)

• Academic-Contribution to advances across and within disciplines, including significant advances in understanding method, theory and application
• Cultural – contribution to people’s understanding of ideas and reality, values and beliefs.
• Economic – contribution to a company’s revenues and profits (micro level), and economic returns through increased productivity or economic growth (macro level)
• Educational – contribution to education, training and capacity-building, including through curricula, educational tools, and qualifications.
• Environmental – contribution to managing the environment, such as protecting natural resources, reducing environmental pollution, improving weather forecasting, and tackling the climate crisis.
• Health – contribution to public health, life expectancy, health-related quality of life, prevention of illness, and reduced health inequality.
• Political – contribution to how policymakers act, to how policies are constructed, and to political stability.
• Social – contribution to community welfare and quality of life, and to behaviors, practices, and activities of people and groups.
• Technological – contribution to the creation or improvement of products, processes and services.
• Other

Title of the transformative Research Impact (maximum100 characters) A short, easy-to-understand title in plain English that describes the impact of the research (not the research itself).

Write a brief summary of the impact and the research that led to it. This section will give reviewers context for evaluating your story of impact.

• A concise summary of the main impacts, their reach, and significance (no more than 120 words). How widespread are the impacts and how important are they to each beneficiary?
• A concise overview of the research and key findings (no more than 250 words), avoiding jargon and technical language. It is a good idea to start with the results and then say how you got there. Include the timeframe (when the project ended and the impact began) and address how the research (and associated impact activities) was funded.

Section 1. Upload a list of your team members and their roles

Section 2. For the application form aspects below, applicants can choose to submit the following part of the application in a written format, or by addressing the aspects in any form of modality, such as, but not limited to, audio, video, images, infographic, or a combination, etc. The story of the impact should be limited to 5 minutes or if in a written format, 500 words.

Provide a Narrative (story of impact), with supporting evidence, to explain the nature and extent of the impact (including how the research made a distinct contribution).

Be as clear as possible about exactly WHAT the impact was, adding precise quantification wherever possible. Numeric data and indicators need to be meaningful and contextualized to clearly support the case being made (not used as a substitute for a clear narrative). Avoid generalized or exaggerated statements about impact.

Clearly identify specifically WHO has benefited from the work or which groups/organizations have changed something because of it (bear in mind that this may include ‘intermediary’ organizations as well as your intended ‘end users’ or audiences). Describe HOW you engage with these users and beneficiaries. It can be useful to indicate the number of people impacted and WHEN these impacts occurred. Also relevant is WHERE the impact occurred, particularly whether it is local, national or international in scale.

Please keep in mind that research impact can be 'conceptual' or ‘instrumental’. Conceptual impact, for example, might include evidence of having influenced public debate on an issue, or having better informed policymakers, or having enabled wider thinking about cultural issues. Whereas instrumental impact includes more direct effects of research, like specific inventions or changes in the law.

Section 3. Research and Impact documentation

Upload evidence of impact and research evidence (a pdf with links can be uploaded in lieu of full text documents): (maximum 200 words, if written)

• Evidence of impact Include sources to corroborate the impact, e.g. policy documents, news articles, videos, testimonials. Case studies can be greatly improved with quotes that illustrate the impact, especially if they are from people with high profiles and relevant job titles.
• Research References: Include (no more than 10) references to support the research e.g. publications, web links, awards, reviews, peer review or other quality assurance processes. If referring to publications, please include a link and the Digital Object Identifier (DOI).

Transformative Research Impact Award Program applications will be evaluated on three main criteria: Before submitting your application, ensure your application addresses each criterion as detailed in the descriptions below.

Articulation: How clearly is the impact or potential impact communicated?

• Presented / written concisely, in plain English, avoiding technical jargon.
• Stays within the word/time limit.
• Clearly makes a case for how andy why the outcomes of the research had impact.
• Conveys the impact in a way that would hold the attention of a lay person (average adult member of the public)

Beneficiary Engagement and Research Contribution: How have the beneficiaries been engaged with, and what evidence is there that the research* contributed to the impact?

• To what extent does the evidence demonstrate that the research contributed to the claimed impact? Aspects reviewers will look for in the application:
  • Beneficiaries are clearly identified.
  • Conveys quality and depth of engagement activities.
  • Conveys evidence of participation, collaboration, co-production, or stakeholder involvement.
  • Includes metrics, testimonials, or other supporting documentation
• The evidence was strongly convincing that the research made a significant contribution to the claimed impact. Aspects reviewers will look for in the application:
  • There is a clear link between the research and the impact.
  • Demonstrates strong and credible supporting evidence.
  • Conveys the extent to which the impact is reasonably attributed to the research.

Reach and Significance**: How widespread are the impacts and how important are they to each beneficiary?

**The reach and significance of the impact should be judged relative to the academic discipline and the scale of the research.

• Describes with evidence, how many beneficiaries there are and if the impacts are at a local, regional, national or international level.
• Describes with evidence, the intensity of the impact, how meaningful or valuable it is to each beneficiary.
• Describes with evidence, the social media engagement/digital impact – restacks/distributions, testimonials, pick up by schools, oral histories, etc. if relevant.
• Describes the time horizons and if the impacts are short-, medium-, or long-term. Gives timeline if relevant.

The QuantumVenture program is available for any quantum startup in Connecticut.  

• Location: Headquarters in Connecticut, Majority of Employees in Connecticut, or Commitment to establish operations in CT within 12 months. 
• Startup: Company must be a startup. This opportunity defines startup as: 
  • Less than 7 years old from date of incorporation 
  • Has fewer than 25 employees 
  • Is engaged in development and commercialization of innovative technology or intellectual property 
  • Has not reached sustained profitability, OR is still in a pre-growth/scale phase 
  • Is independently owned 
• Operates around a core quantum technology. Quantum technologies refer to technologies that leverage the principals of quantum mechanics, such as superposition, entanglement, and quantum coherence, to enable new or significantly enhanced capabilities. To qualify, the company must demonstrate that quantum mechanical effects are central to the technology’s function or value proposition, not merely a downstream application or marketing label 
• Eligible categories: 
  • Quantum computing 
  • Quantum algorithms 
  • Quantum error correction 
  • Quantum communications/networking/cryptography 
  • Quantum sensing and metrology 
• Enabling technologies: 
  • Cryogenics, control electronics, photonics, or materials specifically developed for quantum systems 
  • Fabrication techniques for qubits or quantum devices 
  • Software tools for quantum system design, simulation, or orchestration 
• Quantum Adjacent 
  • AI/ML applied to quantum systems 
  • Classical infrastructure supporting quantum workflows 
• Number of submissions: Eligible companies may only submit one proposal for QuantumVenture funds per startup. Individuals may serve as collaborator on multiple projects. 

Elements to include in the full application are as follows: 

• A Project title
• A one-paragraph abstract  
• Project plan document two page maximum, 11-pt font and 1” margins including explanation of technology and relevance to the state.  
  • Competing products
    • Include descriptions of competing products
    • Identify any currently available products/technologies and explain why they do not adequately satisfy the problem or unmet need.
    • Explain how the proposed innovation is different from or better than those that are already available.
  • Intellectual Property (IP)
    • Describe your IP position, and the competitive IP landscape. List your current patent applications or patents pending as well as any granted patents related to this project. If you currently have no patent applications, please mention plans for future invention disclosures. 
  • Commercialization Plan
    • Explain how the available funds can derisk commercialization activities and will allow you to achieve the major milestones required to further develop the technology for market entry. 
    • Describe your plans for funding development of this technology beyond the QuantumVenture award 
    • Preliminary evidence: Summarize any preliminary data available that substantiates the proposed innovation usefulness for the applications envisioned. 

• Biosketches/CVs
  • Include brief biosketches/CVs (formatted as appropriate for your field) for all PIs/Co-PIs (No more than 2 pages).  Biosketches/CVs may be attached as one PDF or as separate PDF documents. 
  • Include your most recent publications or those most relevant to the work proposed.
  • Include current/pending support from external sponsors and UConn sources (including start-up funding).
    
• Budget
  • Provide a preliminary budget estimate and proposed use of funds. Please see Internal Funding Budget Guidelines for instructions and a budget template. 

Proposals will be scored based on the following 4 criteria:
  

Market Need—does the innovation address an unmet need and is there evidence that there is a market for the proposed solution? 

• Does the applicant make a strong case that there is a need/problem that needs to be met? 

• Is the science/technology strong enough to evidence its success 

• Does the proposal include data about how much of the market the technology may realistically capture?
    

Innovation and Novelty—Is the innovation novel and/or does it make a significant improvement over currently-available solutions? 

• Does the proposal make a convincing argument that the innovation is novel and or makes a significant improvement over currently-available solutions? 

• Is there existing or the potential for intellectual property protection? 

• To what degree does the innovation solve the unmet need differently (e.g., better, faster, cheaper) than the current state-of-the art? 

• If novel, is the innovation a disruptive technology, a platform technology, or an incremental improvement over the current state-of-the art?
    

Commercialization Plan—Is there a realistic path for commercializing the innovation? 

• Does the proposal present a path to bring the innovation forward to market? 

• Does the proposal present plans for future financing of the project, such as SBIR/STTR or industry investment? 

• For future development, will this technology require regulatory approval?  If so, does the proposal address plans for successfully navigating the process? 

• Does the applicant point to any obvious potential licenses / commercial partners for this innovation?
    

Approach and Feasibility—Are the activities proposed attainable in the proposed timeline and are they consistent with the high scientific/scholarly standards? 

• Does the investigator/team have appropriate expertise and laboratory facilities available to conduct the work? 

• Does the project include the involvement of a UConn core facility or a third party be required to complete the work (e.g prototype development)?  If so, have appropriate commitments been obtained? 

• To what degree will the activities proposed de-risk and advance the development of the innovation?