When "No" is the First Step: How Biotech Startups Can Turn Grant Rejection Into Strategic Advantage

For biotech and deeptech startups applying to Israeli or European grant programs, rejection is common. Whether it's the Israel Innovation Authority, Horizon Europe, EIC Accelerator, or national-level translational funds, competition is intense and success rates are low.

But rejection isn’t the end of the story. In fact, it can be the beginning of a stronger, more strategically aligned proposal.

Why grant rejection still matters—even outside academia

Many founders come from academic research backgrounds, where grant rejection is frequent and sometimes opaque. That culture of "revise and resubmit" can actually serve startups well if it’s applied with the right lens.

The key shift is this: in translational or commercial grant writing, rejection is rarely about the science alone. It’s about fit, framing, and feasibility.

Common reasons proposals get rejected and what they reveal

Recent funder reports and feedback highlight recurring themes in rejected proposals across Israeli and EU funding schemes:

• Misalignment with the funder's mission. Too many applications read like research proposals instead of solutions to defined industry or societal challenges.

• Unclear impact. Reviewers can't see how your work leads to practical outcomes—clinical, commercial, regulatory, or environmental.

• Poor narrative structure. A proposal that lacks logical flow or buries key points makes the reviewer’s job harder. And hard-to-read proposals rarely get funded.

• Unrealistic scope or milestones. Overpromising within a tight Phase I timeline or failing to define measurable outputs signals inexperience.

• Inexperienced or unsuitable team. Reviewers often doubt the team’s ability to execute if roles are unclear, relevant expertise is missing, or key capabilities are outsourced without explanation.

• Non-realistic or unjustified budget. Budgets that are inflated, vague, or poorly connected to the work plan raise red flags.

• Misalignment with the grant’s expectations. Submitting a project at the wrong Technology Readiness Level (TRL) or failing to clearly explain your TRL progression can undermine the proposal.

• Unfocused or fragmented work plan. A plan that tries to do too much, lacks prioritization, or doesn’t show a clear logic of progression weakens the overall credibility.

Rejection as a strategic tool

One of the most overlooked benefits of rejection is the feedback—formal or informal—that comes with it. Even generic reviewer comments often point to deeper problems in positioning or clarity.

Here’s how biotech founders and scientists can use that feedback strategically:

• Reassess your narrative. Are you assuming the reviewer understands the significance of your technology—or are you clearly articulating it?

• Reframe the problem. Instead of starting from your innovation, start from the need: regulatory bottleneck, clinical pain point, industrial gap.

• Clarify your path to impact. Use feedback to tighten the story arc from current state to proposed solution, with specific milestones.

• Evaluate fit. Not every funding program is right for every technology. Use rejection to refine your targeting.

The stakes are higher, but so are the insights

In Israeli and European grant programs, especially those focused on commercialization, there is less tolerance for ambiguity. Funders want to see technical excellence, but also a clear market orientation, feasible execution, and a credible team.

That’s why every rejection is valuable. It reveals where your proposal is out of sync with the expectations of commercial-stage funders or regulatory reviewers.

Final thought

The best proposals aren’t just well-written—they’re strategically constructed. Rejection, frustrating as it is, often shows you what’s missing.

Treat every "no" as data. Then revise accordingly.