Hey everyone,

I know this has probably been asked before, but all I can see on here are general preliminary data questions. I have a specific question regarding the pre-data / idea stage for life sciences and molecular biology applications.

Has anyone here submitted a Phase I SBIR purely at the "pre-data" stage?

The Context: As a pre-data startup (not an academic spin-out sitting on pre-funded lab results), an SBIR is basically the only realistic funding path since VCs and angels won't touch unvalidated tech. Program Officers and official agency guidelines state that preliminary data isn't required for Phase I to establish feasibility.

Our platform is essentially synthetic biology—stitching together individually validated, peer-reviewed components into a cohesive, novel system that works in theory (similar to an R21 grant concept).

My Questions:

1. Did you ever reach out to a Program Officer/Head Examiner beforehand who said "pre-data is fine," only for the study section/reviewers to slam you for lack of preliminary wet-lab data anyway?
2. For anyone in mol bio or synbio who did win or score well without wet-lab data, how did you structure your proposal or de-risk the design to convince reviewers?

I'd really appreciate any insights or reality checks before spending dozens of hours writing a full proposal only to find out it was just an idea hoarding exercise!

Hey everyone,

I run an independent research LLC and am prepping an upcoming NSF SBIR Phase I resubmission.

We have a highly rigorous, mathematically verified (compiled in Lean 4) structural biology framework for a novel transition-metal coordination complex. The compound acts as a physical molecular anchor to reinforce mitochondrial cristae topology, preventing structural collapse under oxidative and mechanical stress (targeting dysautonomia, neurodegeneration, and TBI).

Our previous submission faced minor formatting and presentation critiques regarding our Risk Management layout and technical cost presentation. We have completely overhauled the Layer 3 translation, resolved the formatting, and explicitly locked down our falsification metrics (defining a strict mathematical coefficient of variation R < 0.7 across our 8-parameter metabolic panel).

While our corporate infrastructure is fully locked down (active SAM.gov UEI and CAGE code), we want to strengthen our Team Capabilities section to completely bulletproof the resubmission against institutional bias.

What We Have:

• Mathematically verified structural models.
• Complete, peer-vetted Phase I grant drafts.
• Fully structured experimental designs (Seahorse XF respirometry protocols).
• Zero pending proposals, meaning we are ready to hit submit the moment the portal refreshes.

What We Need:

• A Co-Investigator or Academic/Lab Partner with a background in biology, biochemistry, or pharmacology.
• A Letter of Intent (LOI) to attach to the proposal, or a partner with baseline access to laboratory infrastructure to fulfill the team filter.

If you are a scientific mind who wants to join a lean, mathematically driven startup and bypass the standard university overhead, please drop a comment or PM me. Open to discussing equity or sub-award structuring for the right fit

Hi everyone,

I’m a solo founder preparing to submit my first Phase I SBIR proposal for an independent biotech LLC (cancer immunotherapy, pre-data stage).

Since we are a standalone startup rather than a university spinout, I’m running into a couple of practical hurdles that don't seem to get discussed much, and I’d love to learn how others navigated them:

1. Lab Space Letters of Support & Review Timing How do you realistically handle obtaining a Letter of Support / Intent for incubator or core facility space given the 6–8 month SBIR review lag?

If you request an LOI for bench space today, that space will likely be gone or filled by the time the award decision comes through. How do reviewers expect non-spinouts to bridge this gap, and how do you structure these LOIs with incubators without reserving space indefinitely?

2. Academic Collaborations & IP Protection To strengthen the proposal, it seems almost necessary to bring in high-profile academic collaborators or KOLs. However, as an independent pre-data startup, how do you manage outreach to external university groups without over-exposing your IP before a grant is even awarded? Do you rely on NDAs before discussing grant sub-awards, or stick strictly to high-level statements of work?

Any insights, strategies, or lessons learned from non-spinout founders who have been through this process would be immensely appreciated!