Why Ambitious Startups Don’t Get Funded || SBIR

Why proposals don't get funded. There's too much risks and not enough proof. Let me tell you about Raj and his biotech startup. In his application, he was proposing a new therapeutic platform aiming to show in vivo efficacy in an SBIR Phase 1 application. The ambition made sense, the direction made sense, but when you look at the data, there wasn't any validation of proof of concept. Now you have reviewers scratching their head wondering if this is going to be doable, and it's really difficult for reviewers to fund these types of proposals because you're asking the reviewer to believe in multiple jumps at once. New systems, new models, and new outcomes without showing the steps in between or any data that any of these steps can actually work. Bottom line, there's no bridge, just a leap. And from the reviewers' perspectives, if these proposals are way too risky, just like in the case of Raj's application, they're going to be thinking so many things have to go right in order for this to be a successful project. But that's called risk and high risk in the South. And reviewers are trained to avoid this. When you prepare any federal grants or contracts, make sure the leap from your data to your goal is not too big because in that case it won't get funded. Instead, make sure to build logical progression. So exactly how your current datasets and early experimental data will lead to your next milestone step by step. Because at the end of the day, reviewers aren't just funding your idea simply. They're funding your ability to de-risk and remove the doubt in their mind. That's how funding decisions get made in federal grants and contracts. So let me know what you think if this is helpful, but curious to know what your thoughts are in the comments below.