How to Fund a Biotech Without Giving Up Equity: SBIR, STTR, and Grants

Every dollar you raise from an investor costs you a piece of your company, permanently. Non-dilutive funding costs you none of it. You get the capital. You keep your equity and your intellectual property. In most sectors, that tradeoff is a nice-to-have. In biotech, it is close to essential. You will raise more rounds over more years than almost any other kind of startup, and dilution compounds the whole way. Money you can take without selling a share is one of the most valuable, and most underused, levers available to a biotech founder.

It is also real money, not a rounding error. The federal SBIR and STTR programs alone distribute more than $4 billion a year to small businesses, and the capital comes as grants or contracts, not equity.

This guide: “How to Fund a Biotech Without Giving Up Equity” covers the full landscape: SBIR and STTR mechanics in enough depth to actually apply, the federal programs that sit beside them, the disease foundations and venture philanthropy funds that write checks directly to for-profit drug developers, the smaller state and translational sources worth knowing, and how to sequence all of it, as one piece of a broader capital raise strategy, to de-risk your science and preserve your equity before you ever take an investor’s check.

Why Non-Dilutive Funding Matters More in Biotech

Three reasons this matters more for a biotech founder than for a software founder building on borrowed cloud credits.

You Keep Your Equity and Your IP

• Grants and most federal awards are non-dilutive. The company retains full ownership of its equity and the underlying patents.
• In a sector where founders often exit owning a modest slice of the company after several rounds, every milestone funded without selling equity is ownership kept, not ownership borrowed.

It De-Risks You for the Investors Who Come Next

• Winning a competitive federal grant is a credential. It signals to future investors that an independent expert panel reviewed the science and funded it.
• That validation can be the difference between a hard equity round and a clean one. A founder who arrives with de-risked data has a different conversation than one who arrives with a promise.

What It Cannot Do

Be honest about the limit. Non-dilutive capital is not a substitute for venture funding at scale. Grants will not pay for a full Phase 2 or Phase 3 trial, and they will not build a manufacturing facility. The better way to think about it is sequencing: layering grants, debt, and partnerships to de-risk each stage while preserving optionality, rather than treating non-dilutive money as a replacement for the raise. Non-dilutive money gets a company further before it raises. It does not replace the raise.

The Equity Math

The case for non-dilutive capital is easier to see with real numbers.

A Phase II SBIR award of up to roughly $2.15 million at NIH funds the equivalent of a substantial seed round. Raise that same amount through equity at a 20 percent dilution rate on a $10 million pre-money valuation, and it costs the founder somewhere around 17 to 21 percent of the company. That ownership loss is permanent, and it compounds into every valuation that follows.

Non-dilutive capital that funds the same milestone preserves that ownership entirely. It also generates the kind of peer-reviewed validation that can justify a higher pre-money at the next equity round. That is the double benefit: the founder keeps the equity and arrives at the next raise with a stronger story.

Sequencing non-dilutive capital before an equity round is not just conservative. For a founder who can execute the application process, it is close to financially optimal.

SBIR and STTR: The Largest Source

If you take one thing from this guide, start here. SBIR (Small Business Innovation Research) and STTR (Small Business Technology Transfer) are the largest source of early-stage non-dilutive capital available to a US biotech, including pre-seed companies that haven’t generated clinical data yet, and they have been since Congress created SBIR in 1982 under the Small Business Innovation Development Act.

What They Are and How Much

Eleven federal agencies with extramural research and development budgets above $100 million are required by statute to set aside at least 3.2 percent of that budget for SBIR awards each year. Agencies with extramural budgets above $1 billion set aside an additional 0.45 percent for STTR. That statutory set-aside, not agency goodwill, is why SBIR remains a recurring funding path rather than a one-time competition.

The programs run on a phased model that mirrors how development actually progresses:

• Phase I funds feasibility and proof of concept. At NIH, Phase I budgets may reach $323,090, typically over 6 to 12 months.
• Phase II funds full research and development. At NIH, Phase II budgets may reach $2,153,927, typically over about two years.
• Phase III is commercialization, and SBIR does not fund it directly. This is where the company takes the technology to market through private investment, a non-SBIR government contract, or licensing, with the earlier SBIR work as the technical foundation.

Amounts vary by agency. NSF Phase I awards can reach $305,000, though the program is highly competitive, with historical Phase I funding rates near 10 percent. Most agencies also allow Fast Track applications that combine Phase I and Phase II into one submission, and Direct-to-Phase II applications for companies that have already completed equivalent feasibility work outside the SBIR system.

The 2026 Reauthorization

The programs lapsed for nearly six months after their authority expired on September 30, 2025. The Small Business Innovation and Economic Security Act, signed into law on April 13, 2026, reauthorized SBIR and STTR through fiscal year 2031, the longest planning horizon in the programs’ history.

Two changes from that reauthorization matter for how you plan a grant strategy. First, agencies now have the authority to cap how many Phase I proposals a single company can submit per solicitation cycle, which makes early topic selection and agency targeting more important than it used to be. Second, the reauthorization created a new Phase II Strategic Breakthrough Award with a headline ceiling of $30 million.

Read the fine print on that $30 million before you get excited. It is a late-stage transition mechanism, not early money. To qualify, a company must already hold a prior Phase II award and secure 100 percent matching funds from private capital or non-SBIR government sources.

Because the match can come from an equity round, this award is not automatically non-dilutive, and it rewards companies that already have commercial traction. The standard Phase I and Phase II ceilings that most biotech founders will actually use did not change.

SBIR versus STTR: Which Fits You

They are sister programs with nearly identical funding, and one structural difference decides which one you should pursue.

SBIR requires the small business to perform at least two-thirds of the research in Phase I and at least half in Phase II, and the principal investigator must be primarily employed, more than 50 percent of their time, by the company at the time of award and throughout the project. STTR requires a formal partnership with a nonprofit research institution, typically a university, a federal laboratory, or a federally funded R&D center.

The small business must perform at least 40 percent of the work and the research institution at least 30 percent, and at most agencies the PI can remain employed by the research institution rather than the company.

The practical rule: if your science is led by a professor who is staying at the university, STTR solves the eligibility problem that would otherwise make you ineligible for SBIR. If your lead scientist has already transitioned to primary employment at the company, SBIR is the simpler, faster path. This is worth confirming before you spend weeks on a draft.

A university spinout that submits SBIR with a PI still primarily employed by the university will either be found ineligible or have the award rescinded once employment status is confirmed. The fix is not a workaround. It is applying to STTR.

Eligibility and the Agencies

To apply, a company must be a US-based, for-profit small business with 500 or fewer employees, at least 51 percent owned by US citizens or permanent residents. Eleven federal agencies participate in SBIR; five currently run STTR programs.

For biotech, three agencies matter most.

NIH is the dominant destination for therapeutics, diagnostics, and medical devices with direct biomedical application. Applications go through a single omnibus solicitation spanning all of NIH’s institutes and centers, with standard due dates on September 5, January 5, and April 5, moved to the next business day when those fall on a weekend or federal holiday.

Confirming institute fit before submission matters. Applying to the wrong NIH institute is one of the most common and avoidable application errors.

NSF is the better fit for enabling research tools, platform technologies, and AI-enabled discovery systems with broad commercial application. NSF does not fund clinical trials or preclinical drug candidates directly, so a therapeutic or device development program belongs at NIH instead.

DoD is broader than most biotech founders assume. Historically, DoD and NIH together have accounted for the large majority of SBIR obligations across all eleven agencies, and DoD’s mission scope reaches into biomedical devices for warfighter health, diagnostics, and materials science alongside traditional defense technology. For point-of-care diagnostics and device developers, DoD’s biomedical programs are a real and underused pathway.

The practical decision rule across all three: apply to the agency where the reviewer can most clearly see why the federal mission needs the technical result your program will generate. Choosing the agency by award ceiling instead of mission fit is one of the most common, and most expensive, strategic mistakes in SBIR.

TABA: The Benefit Most Founders Skip

SBIR and STTR awardees can access Technical and Business Assistance (TABA) funding of up to $6,500 in Phase I and up to $50,000 in Phase II, for IP strategy, regulatory guidance, market research, and commercialization planning from a third-party vendor. This money does not come out of the research budget. It is additive, and most founders never request it.

The Reality

This is competitive, and applying well is a skill you build. The founders who succeed treat the application as a serious project rather than a form: they give themselves months to prepare, use the free NSF I-Corps and agency technical assistance resources, and talk to a program officer before submitting.

Budget roughly a year from the decision to apply to actually holding an award, including preparation time, the review cycle, and, for many first-time applicants, at least one resubmission.

The Other Federal Non-Dilutive Programs

SBIR and STTR are the front door, but they are not the only federal money on the table. Depending on your focus, three other programs are worth knowing.

BARDA (the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority) funds companies developing medical countermeasures for public health threats: pandemic influenza, emerging infectious disease, and chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear threats. BARDA typically funds later-stage, higher-readiness technologies across biopharma, medtech, vaccines, and diagnostics, at funding levels larger than SBIR.

ARPA-H (the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health), established in 2021, funds high-risk, high-reward projects with the potential to transform healthcare, spanning chronic disease, infectious disease, mental health, and personalized medicine. It is designed for exactly the kind of ambitious, uncertain work that traditional funders tend to avoid.

CDMRP (the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program) funds biomedical R&D across a broad continuum from basic research through clinical trials, in specific disease areas Congress designates each year, from various cancers to traumatic brain injury. It can be a fit at points in your R&D that SBIR does not cover.

A pattern worth noting: your first federal grant makes the next one easier. Agencies treat prior non-redundant federal funding as validation, so an early SBIR award can open doors at BARDA or CDMRP for a different part of the same technology.

Disease Foundations and Venture Philanthropy

This is the most overlooked source on the list, mostly because the word foundation reads as charity. Many disease foundations built dedicated venture philanthropy arms specifically to fund for-profit drug developers, on the logic that the fastest route to a treatment is to pay a company to build it.

Why They Fund Companies, and Which Do

The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation is the reference case. Its venture philanthropy arm invested roughly $150 million into Vertex Pharmaceuticals to help develop CFTR modulator therapies, then sold its royalty rights on those drugs to Royalty Pharma for $3.3 billion in 2014, a windfall the foundation reinvests into further drug development.

It is one of the clearest examples anywhere of what a foundation can achieve by funding a company directly instead of only funding academic research.

Other groups with company-facing programs include the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, which runs a venture philanthropy fund investing in startups with clinical potential for type 1 diabetes and related autoimmune conditions, the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s disease research, and disease-specific venture arms across oncology and rare disease.

The pitch is different from a VC pitch. These funders want to hear first how the technology helps the patients they serve, and second how it makes money.

How Much, and the Models

Award sizes vary widely. Mainstream venture philanthropy programs commonly run $250,000 to $5 million, while ultra-rare disease programs run smaller, from roughly $25,000 to $300,000. Read the structure carefully, though, because not all of it is non-dilutive:

• Pure grant. Non-dilutive, and the company keeps its IP. This is the version you want.
• Royalty. Non-dilutive to the cap table, but the foundation takes a claim on future revenue, as the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation’s model shows in the clearest possible way.
• Equity. The foundation takes an ownership stake, exactly like an investor. This is dilutive, despite the foundation label.

Many programs also attach milestone clawbacks and field-of-use restrictions that limit the grant to the funded indication. Get the terms in writing before you assume the money is free.

How to Approach Them

• Match the disease exactly. The single most common reason applications get rejected on sight is an indication outside the foundation’s scope.
• Find the venture philanthropy page, not the general donation page. Company-facing money usually lives under “industry partnerships” or “venture philanthropy,” not the main giving portal.
• Lead with a letter of intent. Many programs start with an LOI or concept proposal rather than a full application.

State, Regional, and Other Non-Dilutive Sources

Round out the map with the smaller, easier-to-miss sources:

• State and regional programs. Many states run innovation grants, matching funds for SBIR winners, and life-science economic development programs. These are often less competitive than federal money.
• University and translational funding. If you spun out of a university or partner with one, translational grants, incubator programs, and lab access can fund early work without equity.
• NSF I-Corps. A structured customer discovery program with a stipend, and a strong preparation step for a stronger SBIR commercialization plan.
• Non-equity accelerators. Some programs provide stipends, services, and mentorship without taking a stake.
• R&D tax credits. Not cash up front, but a real way to recover R&D spend and extend runway.

Venture debt and revenue-based financing are sometimes grouped under non-dilutive, and technically they do not take equity. Treat them separately in your head, though. They are obligations you repay, not grants you keep, and they rarely fit a pre-revenue biotech.

How to Write a Winning SBIR Application

The most expensive mistake in SBIR strategy is spending eight weeks writing a proposal before confirming that the agency, the topic, and the program structure are the right fit. Preparation that precedes writing matters more than writing quality alone.

Choose the agency and topic before writing anything. Search SBIR.gov’s award database for past awards in your technology area to understand what funded proposals look like and which program officers oversee the relevant topics. A phone call with the program officer before submission, which most agencies explicitly encourage, is one of the highest-return steps available to a first-time applicant.

Treat the commercialization plan as a primary evaluation criterion, not a formality. SBIR’s statutory mandate is to advance innovations toward market impact, and reviewers weight the commercialization plan heavily even at Phase I. The section should identify the specific customer, the market size grounded in real clinical data, the regulatory pathway, and the milestones the funded work will reach.

Explain technical novelty against the state of the art. Reviewers are domain experts. Describing what your technology does without explaining why it is technically novel compared to existing approaches will not score competitively.

Team qualifications matter as much as the science. Include specific relevant experience, prior publications, and any prior federal grant history that demonstrates the team can execute a federally funded research plan. For STTR, securing the university partner early is essential to the application.

Request reviewer feedback after a rejection, and resubmit. The critique is free, and it is the most accurate guide available to what the next submission needs to fix. Many successful applicants win on their second or third try, not their first.

A Practical 12-Month Non-Dilutive Funding Roadmap

Months 1 to 3: preparation and agency selection

Identify the most relevant agency and specific topics for your technology using SBIR.gov’s past award data. Determine whether SBIR or STTR fits your team structure before investing time in a draft. Register on SAM.gov and SBIR.gov, and allow 30 to 60 days for the registration to complete. If your program is a platform technology or enabling research tool, consider NSF I-Corps as a strategic stepping stone. Contact the relevant program officer at your target agency; this call is free and can save months of misdirected effort.

Months 4 to 6: application and parallel foundation pursuit

Write and submit your Phase I application on the next available deadline, benchmarking against funded proposal abstracts, which are public. Build the commercialization section first, since it sharpens the technical narrative once the customer and market are clear. Identify and apply to a disease-specific foundation program in parallel; most foundation cycles run independently of federal deadlines.

Months 7 to 9: waiting period and investor preparation

Check in with the program officer around the 60-day mark. Begin identifying Phase II topics and timeline before the Phase I notification arrives, so the research plan already points toward Phase II deliverables. Refine your pitch deck’s milestones slide to incorporate the Phase I work as a specific, dated de-risking event. If rejected, request reviewer feedback immediately and plan the resubmission for the next cycle.

Months 10 to 12: post-award deployment

The day an award notification arrives, update your investor-facing materials, cold outreach, and LinkedIn content to reflect the peer-reviewed validation. Begin Phase II application preparation before the Phase I performance period ends; the most common non-dilutive funding gap happens when founders pause after Phase I to assess results and lose months before starting the Phase II draft. Use the Phase II runway to reach the specific milestone that justifies your target equity round valuation, and begin the investor pipeline work that makes the eventual equity raise a warmer process.

Common SBIR and Grant Application Mistakes

Choosing the agency by award ceiling rather than mission fit. The largest award rarely comes from the agency whose mission most closely matches the program. A biomedical device company that applies to NIH because the ceiling is highest, when DoD’s warfighter health program is a clear mission fit, will consistently score lower than a competitor who applied where the fit was genuine.

Treating the commercialization plan as a formality. SBIR is, by statute, a commercialization program. A strong technical section paired with a thin commercialization plan will not fund at most agencies, regardless of scientific merit.

Applying with a PI who is still primarily employed by a university. The eligibility rule is strictly enforced. The fix is STTR, not a workaround.

Defaulting to Phase I when Direct-to-Phase II is available. If the company already has a working prototype or has completed equivalent feasibility work outside the SBIR system, Direct-to-Phase II skips the proof-of-concept phase and applies directly for the larger development award. Many founders default to Phase I simply out of unfamiliarity with this option.

Giving up after one rejection without requesting feedback. The reviewer critique is free and specific. Founders who request it and revise accordingly tend to score meaningfully better on resubmission.

Registering late. SAM.gov and SBIR.gov registrations are required before any application can be submitted, and they can take weeks. Starting at least 60 days before the intended deadline is the minimum comfortable margin.

Using Non-Dilutive Awards as an Investor Credibility Signal

A federal or foundation award is not just a capital event. It is third-party validation, and it should be deployed as such the moment the notification arrives, especially since it becomes part of what investors find when they research you before ever getting on a call.

When an investor sees a company has received an SBIR Phase II award, they are seeing evidence that a rigorous peer review process evaluated the scientific merit, the commercial potential, and the team quality of the program, and found it fundable on all three dimensions.

That is a materially different signal from a company’s own claim of scientific credibility. Investors comparing multiple programs in the same therapeutic area consistently use grant history as a differentiating signal.

Three places to deploy it:

In the cold email subject line and opening sentence. A line like “we received our NIH SBIR Phase II award last month, funding our IND-enabling work” tells the investor that an independent review has already done part of their diligence for them.

On the pitch deck’s traction or milestones slide. An SBIR award belongs there as a specific, dated, peer-reviewed validation event, not buried in a general non-dilutive funding line in the financial section of your deck.

In the quarterly investor update. The quarter an award is announced, the update should cover two things: the factual award amount and funding period, and the specific milestone the award will fund and what that means for the company’s risk profile at the next equity round.

The equity math reframe is worth repeating here too. A Phase II award funding roughly $2 million of preclinical work at zero dilution extends the runway to a higher milestone, which justifies a higher pre-money at the subsequent raise. A founder who can make that argument explicitly, with the numbers, is demonstrating financial sophistication alongside scientific credibility. Both matter to a Series A investor.

The Tradeoffs to Weigh

Non-dilutive funding is not free, even when it takes no equity. Go in clear-eyed:

• It is competitive. Most applicants do not win. A weak or rushed application almost never does.
• It is slow. Federal timelines run months from application to award, on top of prep time. Grants will not solve a cash crisis next month.
• It comes with strings. Milestone clawbacks, field-of-use restrictions, reporting requirements, and matching-fund obligations on some awards. Budget the staff time to manage them.
• Some grants are not non-dilutive. Foundation equity and royalty deals take a financial interest despite the label. Read every agreement.
• It cannot scale you. For trials and manufacturing, venture capital is still required. Non-dilutive money gets a company to that raise in better shape. It does not replace it.

None of this makes non-dilutive funding a bad idea. It makes it a lever to use deliberately, with the tradeoffs understood.

De-risk The Early Science and Preserve Equity

The best-funded biotech founders do not choose between grants and venture capital. They sequence them: non-dilutive money to de-risk the early science and preserve equity, then a raise from a stronger position with validated data and a cleaner cap table.

The playbook, in order:

1. Start with SBIR and STTR, the largest early-stage non-dilutive source, and choose between them based on where your lead scientist is primarily employed.
2. Layer in the federal programs that fit your focus: BARDA, ARPA-H, or CDMRP.
3. Pursue disease foundations and venture philanthropy that match your indication, and confirm the structure is actually non-dilutive before you count on it.
4. Fill gaps with state, translational, and other smaller sources.
5. Sequence all of it before equity, stack it within the rules, and use the validation as hard as you use the cash.

A founder who sequences an SBIR Phase I and Phase II award before a seed round arrives at that conversation with roughly two to three million dollars of funded preclinical work, peer-reviewed validation, and a higher pre-money justified by the milestone the non-dilutive capital reached.

That is a fundamentally different fundraising conversation than the one a founder has after burning personal capital and angel money to reach the same point without the validation signal.

Fund the early work without selling a share, and you reach your first equity round owning more of a more valuable company. In a sector defined by dilution, that is one of the highest-return moves a founder can make.

---

Book a Strategy Call or Explore My Services to see how capital strategy, positioning, and investor readiness fit together.

---

Frequently Asked Questions

---