Life sciences
Why strong life sciences companies still lose grant funding
Good science is not enough. The recurring reasons Biomedical Catalyst and Horizon Europe health applications score badly, from preliminary data gaps to regulatory hand-waving.
Preliminary data below the panel's bar
Biomedical Catalyst and Horizon Europe health panels apply an informal evidence threshold that is rarely written down. A therapeutic programme with no in vivo signal, or a diagnostic with no clinical sample data, is usually judged premature regardless of how elegant the underlying mechanism is.
Where data is thin, the honest fix is to narrow the claim rather than widen the hedging. A tightly scoped feasibility aim on solid ground scores better with reviewers than an ambitious plan resting on thin ground.
The regulatory paragraph everyone skips
A single vague sentence about future MHRA or notified body engagement tells reviewers you have not thought the pathway through. Name the likely route, the classification you expect, and the studies that route will require before the product can reach patients.
If a scientific advice meeting has already happened, say so and summarise the feedback. It is one of the strongest credibility signals available to an early-stage life sciences company applying for public funding.
Team gaps that are visible from outside
A founding team of scientists with no clinical, regulatory or commercial voice reads as incomplete to a panel. Reviewers are assessing whether this group can convert good science into a product that reaches the NHS or a wider market.
Named advisors with defined roles and budgeted time close the gap credibly. An unpaid list of well-known names on a slide does not.
Choosing the wrong scheme
Platform companies frequently apply to a Biomedical Catalyst or Horizon Europe call whose stated priorities fit one downstream application, while the proposal itself describes the general platform. The result is an application that does not feel owned by any particular reviewer.
Pick the indication, write directly to that call's stated priorities, and keep the platform story as the reason the company can return for further funding once the first indication is proven.
Underestimating the health economics ask
UK and EU health funders increasingly expect an early view of cost-effectiveness and NHS adoption pathway, not just clinical or technical merit. Applications that treat commercial and health economics sections as an afterthought lose marks that good science cannot recover.
A credible, if early, view of pricing, reimbursement route and the evidence base a payer will require strengthens an application considerably, even at feasibility stage.
Ready to turn this into a funded proposal?
Book a free 30-minute consultation with a senior grant consultant. We will check your eligibility, match you to the right program, and map out your submission timeline.
Learn more about our approach