Choosing the right NIH Institute or Center (IC) is the highest-leverage decision in your SBIR application -- and the one most founders get wrong. NIH has 27 ICs, each with its own strategic plan, review panels, SBIR priorities, and program officers. Pick the wrong one and you'll spend 40-80 hours writing a proposal that never had a chance.
An NIH IC strategic plan is a publicly available document, typically covering 5 years, that outlines each institute's research priorities, Compelling Questions, and technology gaps. For SBIR applicants, these plans reveal exactly what language reviewers use to evaluate "significance" -- and whether your technology matches the IC's current investment thesis.
This guide teaches you how to read IC strategic plans, extract the alignment signals that matter for SBIR proposals, and systematically evaluate which of NIH's 27 ICs is the best fit for your technology. We're sharing the exact methodology Cada uses internally to match companies to ICs -- the same process that has contributed to an 86% success rate across 50+ SBIR applications.
Why Does IC Selection Matter More Than You Think?
Most founders choose their IC one of two ways: they pick the one whose name sounds closest to their disease area, or they default to NCATS because "translational science" seems like a safe bet.
Both approaches waste time and reduce your chances of funding.
Here's what IC selection actually determines:
- Which reviewers see your proposal. Each IC routes applications to specific study sections. NHLBI cardiac device applications go to different reviewers than NIBIB imaging applications -- even if the technology is the same device.
- What "significance" means. NCI reviewers evaluating Cancer Moonshot alignment look for population-level cancer prevention impact. NIMH reviewers look for novel intervention mechanisms for mental health disorders. Same review criterion, completely different expectations.
- Whether your technology matches the IC's funding priorities. ICs publish what they want to fund. If your technology doesn't map to any stated priority, you're applying to the wrong place.
- Your competition pool. Smaller ICs like NIDCD receive fewer SBIR applications than NCI, often resulting in higher success rates for well-aligned proposals.
IC selection uncertainty is the single most common decision point we see among founders pursuing NIH funding. It's consistently underestimated.
What Is an NIH IC Strategic Plan and How Does It Affect Your SBIR Application?
Each of NIH's 27 Institutes and Centers publishes a multi-year strategic plan outlining their research priorities. These aren't bureaucratic shelf documents -- they're the roadmap that program officers use to set funding priorities and that study section reviewers use to evaluate whether your proposal aligns with the IC's mission.
What Types of Strategic Documents Do NIH ICs Publish?
Not all ICs use the same format:
| Document Type | What It Contains | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Strategic Plan | Multi-year research priorities, Compelling Questions, crosscutting themes | NIMH Strategic Plan for Research |
| Strategic Vision | Broader goals with detailed objectives and 100+ research questions | NHLBI Strategic Vision FY 2026-2030 |
| Annual Plan | Fiscal year priorities, budget allocations, specific funding initiatives | NCI FY 2026 Annual Plan |
| Implementation Plan | How the strategic plan translates to specific FOAs and programs | Varies by IC |
Where Can You Find NIH IC Strategic Plans?
Every IC publishes its strategic plan on its website. The pattern is typically:
[IC].nih.gov/about/strategic-plan
For example:
- NHLBI: nhlbi.nih.gov/about/strategic-vision
- NIMH: nimh.nih.gov/about/strategic-planning-reports
- NCI: cancer.gov/about-nci/overview/strategic-planning
- NIDCD: nidcd.nih.gov/about/strategic-plan
NIH also maintains IC strategic planning information through the NIH Office of Extramural Research. Search "NIH strategic plans" at the NIH website for the most current directory.
Important caveat: Not all ICs update their plans on the same cycle. Some plans are current (NHLBI FY 2026-2030, released October 2025). Others may be several years old. Always check the date range -- an expired strategic plan still reveals the IC's long-term direction, but specific priorities may have shifted.
The 5-Step IC Matching Process
This is the exact methodology Cada uses to evaluate IC fit for every NIH SBIR engagement. We're publishing it here because understanding the process helps founders make better decisions -- whether they work with us or not.
Step 1: Search seed.nih.gov for Your Disease/Condition + "SBIR"
NIH's SEED (SBIR/STTR Evaluative and Exploratory Data) portal at seed.nih.gov shows which ICs actively fund SBIR research in specific disease areas. Search for your condition or technology area combined with "SBIR" to see historical funding patterns.
What to look for: Which ICs appear most frequently? If NHLBI funds 80% of the SBIR awards in your cardiovascular area and NIBIB funds 15%, that tells you where the money and reviewer expertise sit.
Step 2: Search NIH Reporter for Comparable Awards
Go to reporter.nih.gov and search for R43 (SBIR Phase I) and R44 (SBIR Phase II) awards with keywords matching your technology. Look at the past 5 years.
What to extract for each comparable award:
- Which IC funded it
- What study section reviewed it
- The award amount and duration
- The project title and abstract (to gauge similarity to your approach)
Target 5-8 comparable awards. If you can't find any, that's either a sign of genuine novelty or a red flag that your technology doesn't fit NIH's SBIR portfolio.
Step 3: Read the Target IC's SBIR Priority Page
Beyond the broad strategic plan, most ICs maintain a dedicated SBIR/STTR page listing current priority areas for small business funding. These are more specific than the strategic plan and updated more frequently.
What to look for: Does the IC list your technology area as a current SBIR priority? Are there specific RFAs (Requests for Applications) with set-aside funding for your area?
Step 4: Identify the Likely Study Section
The Center for Scientific Review (CSR) assigns your application to a study section for peer review. The study section determines who reviews your proposal -- and different sections have very different reviewer pools and expectations.
Search the CSR study section index at csr.nih.gov for sections that review your technology type. For SBIR applications, look specifically for Special Emphasis Panels (SEPs) in the ZRG1 series.
Why this matters: If your technology is a cardiac AI diagnostic tool, you want it reviewed by a study section familiar with computational cardiology, not one that primarily reviews drug candidates. Knowing the likely study section helps you calibrate the technical depth and framing of your proposal.
Step 5: Contact the Program Officer
This is the step most founders skip -- and it's arguably the most valuable. Every IC has designated SBIR Program Officers (POs) who will tell you directly whether your project fits their portfolio.
How to find the PO: Search "[IC abbreviation] SBIR program officer" or check the IC's SBIR/STTR page for contact information.
What to ask:
- "Is this technology area within your IC's SBIR priorities?"
- "Are there specific FOAs I should target?"
- "Is there a particular study section you'd recommend for this type of application?"
POs are not gatekeepers -- they're navigators. A 15-minute call can save you months of wasted effort on a misaligned application.
How to Read an IC Strategic Plan for SBIR Alignment
Once you've identified your target IC, here's how to extract the alignment signals that strengthen your proposal.
What Alignment Signals Should You Look For?
Compelling Questions. Many strategic plans list specific research questions the IC wants to answer. If your technology directly addresses one of these questions, say so explicitly in your Specific Aims page. This is the strongest alignment signal you can send.
Crosscutting Themes. These are priorities that span multiple research areas within the IC. Common crosscutting themes include health disparities, precision medicine, and data science. Addressing a crosscutting theme strengthens your significance argument even if your primary technology area is niche.
Technology Gaps. Strategic plans often identify technologies the IC needs but doesn't currently have. If your technology fills a stated gap, you have a built-in "significance" argument that reviewers can't ignore.
Priority Populations. Some ICs prioritize research in specific populations (pediatric, aging, underserved communities). Aligning your application's target population with the IC's stated priority populations strengthens your proposal.
The Strategic Plan Keyword Technique
Here's a practical technique we use at Cada: download the strategic plan PDF and search for your technology keywords.
- 3+ hits: Your technology area is explicitly mentioned. Strong alignment signal.
- 1-2 hits: Tangential mention. You'll need to frame your technology in the IC's language.
- 0 hits: Your technology isn't in this IC's vocabulary. Either reframe your approach using the IC's terminology or consider a different IC.
Next, reverse the search: look for the IC's priority keywords in your Specific Aims page. Every priority term from the strategic plan that appears naturally in your proposal strengthens the alignment signal for reviewers.
Side-by-Side Example: Same Technology, Different ICs
Consider a startup building an AI-powered cardiac arrhythmia detection wearable. How does the same technology map to different ICs?
NHLBI alignment (strong):
- Strategic Vision FY 2026-2030 lists "precision prevention of cardiovascular disease" as a priority
- Crosscutting theme: digital health tools for cardiovascular monitoring
- The technology directly addresses NHLBI's stated interest in wearable cardiac diagnostics
- SBIR priority page lists "portable cardiovascular monitoring" as a special interest
NIBIB alignment (possible but weaker):
- NIBIB funds biomedical imaging and bioengineering broadly
- The AI/sensor technology fits NIBIB's engineering focus, but the disease-specific application (arrhythmia) isn't NIBIB's primary concern
- NIBIB reviewers would evaluate the engineering innovation; NHLBI reviewers would evaluate the cardiovascular health impact
Verdict: NHLBI is the better fit because the strategic plan explicitly prioritizes the disease area (cardiovascular) and the technology approach (digital health, wearables). NIBIB would evaluate the technology in isolation from its clinical impact.
NIH IC Strategic Plan SBIR Priority Matrix: 10 Major ICs for Health Tech Startups
The following matrix covers the 10 NIH ICs most relevant to health tech and biotech startups applying for SBIR funding. For each IC, we've extracted the key priorities from their current strategic plans that map to startup technology areas.
Note: Strategic plans are point-in-time documents. Verify current priorities against the IC's website before submitting your application. Plans are typically updated every 3-5 years. Budget figures are approximate based on NIH DataBook FY 2024-2025 data -- verify current figures at report.nih.gov/NIHDatabook.
NCI -- National Cancer Institute
| Field | Details |
|---|---|
| Current Plan | National Cancer Plan + NCI FY 2026 Annual Plan |
| Focus Years | Ongoing (National Cancer Plan); FY 2026 (Annual Plan) |
| Top SBIR-Relevant Priorities | Early-onset cancer detection in young adults, cancer as a whole-body disease (systemic effects), cancer-targeting vaccines and immunotherapies, reducing financial toxicity for cancer patients |
| Technology Domains | Liquid biopsy, AI-driven diagnostic imaging, immunotherapy platforms, digital health for survivorship, pediatric cancer data tools |
| Crosscutting Themes | Cancer Moonshot goals, data sharing via Cancer Research Data Commons, health equity in cancer outcomes |
| Annual SBIR Budget | ~$120M (largest SBIR program at NIH) |
| Compelling Questions | "How can we detect the earliest molecular changes that initiate cancer before clinical symptoms appear?" / "What vaccine platforms can target shared tumor antigens across multiple cancer types?" |
| Key Note | NCI's SBIR program is the most competitive at NIH due to volume. Niche areas (pediatric cancer, early detection) may have higher success rates than broad oncology applications. |
NHLBI -- National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
| Field | Details |
|---|---|
| Current Plan | Strategic Vision FY 2026-2030 (released October 2025) |
| Focus Years | FY 2026-2030 |
| Top SBIR-Relevant Priorities | Precision prevention of cardiovascular disease, regenerative medicine for heart failure, digital health tools for hypertension management, portable pulmonary function testing |
| Technology Domains | Wearable cardiovascular monitors, AI-driven cardiac risk prediction, point-of-care coagulation testing, sleep disorder diagnostics, sickle cell disease therapies |
| Crosscutting Themes | Health equity in cardiovascular outcomes, data science, 130+ Compelling Questions spanning 8 objectives |
| Annual SBIR Budget | ~$45M |
| Compelling Questions | "How can we predict and prevent sudden cardiac death in apparently healthy individuals?" / "What digital health technologies can improve chronic cardiovascular disease management in underserved communities?" |
| Key Note | The FY 2026-2030 Strategic Vision is one of the most detailed IC plans. Its 130+ Compelling Questions provide precise language for aligning your Specific Aims. |
NIMH -- National Institute of Mental Health
| Field | Details |
|---|---|
| Current Plan | NIMH Strategic Plan for Research (updated annually) |
| Focus Years | Ongoing with annual updates |
| Top SBIR-Relevant Priorities | Digital health technologies for symptom identification and personalized intervention, computational approaches to brain circuit modeling, suicide prevention tools (20% reduction goal), genomic psychiatry for risk prediction |
| Technology Domains | Mental health digital therapeutics, remote patient monitoring for psychiatric conditions, AI-powered diagnostic tools, mobile mental health interventions, telehealth platforms |
| Crosscutting Themes | Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) framework, precision psychiatry, health disparities in mental health access |
| Annual SBIR Budget | ~$25M |
| Compelling Questions | "How can digital technologies identify clinical symptoms of mental illness earlier than current clinical practice?" / "What personalized interventions can meaningfully reduce suicide risk in high-risk populations?" |
| Key Note | NIMH is particularly interested in digital health tools that can scale. NIMH website updates have been affected by HHS restructuring in 2025-2026 -- verify current priorities directly with the SBIR PO. |
NIAID -- National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
| Field | Details |
|---|---|
| Current Plan | NIAID Strategic Plan (updated with pandemic preparedness priorities) |
| Focus Years | Ongoing |
| Top SBIR-Relevant Priorities | Pandemic preparedness and rapid response diagnostics, antimicrobial resistance countermeasures, universal vaccine platforms, point-of-care infectious disease testing |
| Technology Domains | Rapid diagnostic assays, vaccine adjuvant platforms, antiviral therapeutics, multiplex pathogen detection, biosafety/biosecurity tools |
| Crosscutting Themes | Emerging infectious diseases, global health security, microbiome science, immune-mediated diseases |
| Annual SBIR Budget | ~$40M |
| Priority Gaps | "How can rapid diagnostics be deployed within days of a novel pathogen emergence?" / "What platform vaccine technologies can address multiple pathogen families simultaneously?" |
| Key Note | Post-pandemic priorities have expanded NIAID's interest in rapid diagnostics and surveillance tools. NIAID's SBIR program is particularly receptive to platform technologies that address multiple pathogens. |
NIDDK -- National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
| Field | Details |
|---|---|
| Current Plan | NIDDK Strategic Plan for Research |
| Focus Years | Ongoing |
| Top SBIR-Relevant Priorities | Artificial pancreas and closed-loop glucose monitoring systems, non-invasive liver disease diagnostics, kidney disease biomarkers and early detection, obesity treatment technologies |
| Technology Domains | Continuous glucose monitors, gut microbiome analysis tools, digital health for diabetes management, non-invasive body composition measurement, chronic kidney disease monitoring |
| Crosscutting Themes | Precision nutrition, health disparities in metabolic disease, pediatric endocrinology, artificial organs |
| Annual SBIR Budget | ~$20M |
| Priority Gaps | "How can closed-loop insulin delivery systems be made more accessible and reliable for diverse populations?" / "What non-invasive technologies can detect liver disease progression before irreversible damage occurs?" |
| Key Note | NIDDK has a strong track record of funding medical device and digital health companies. The diabetes technology space is particularly active. |
NICHD -- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
| Field | Details |
|---|---|
| Current Plan | NICHD Strategic Plan |
| Focus Years | Ongoing |
| Top SBIR-Relevant Priorities | Pediatric medical devices (an underserved market), maternal health monitoring technologies, developmental disorder screening tools, contraceptive technology innovation |
| Technology Domains | Neonatal monitoring, pediatric drug formulations, reproductive health diagnostics, autism spectrum screening, fetal monitoring devices |
| Crosscutting Themes | Pediatric device gap (FDA priority area), maternal mortality reduction, rare pediatric diseases |
| Annual SBIR Budget | ~$15M |
| Priority Gaps | "How can we close the pediatric medical device gap with technologies specifically designed for children?" / "What technologies can reduce maternal mortality and morbidity, especially in high-risk populations?" |
| Key Note | NICHD is especially relevant for startups addressing the pediatric device gap -- there's a well-documented shortage of medical devices designed and tested for children, and both NICHD and FDA prioritize this area. |
NIDCD -- National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders
| Field | Details |
|---|---|
| Current Plan | 2023-2027 NIDCD Strategic Plan: "Advancing the Science of Communication to Improve Lives" |
| Focus Years | 2023-2027 |
| Top SBIR-Relevant Priorities | Precision medicine for hearing loss treatment, advanced technology for hearing and communication devices, data science applications in communication disorders, clinical translation of regenerative therapies |
| Technology Domains | Next-generation hearing aids and cochlear implants, voice disorder diagnostics, speech recognition for clinical applications, tinnitus treatment devices, auditory neural prosthetics |
| Crosscutting Themes | Six themes including precision medicine, advanced technology, and biomedical data science |
| Annual SBIR Budget | ~$8M |
| Compelling Questions | "How can precision medicine approaches improve hearing loss treatment outcomes across diverse genetic backgrounds?" / "What advanced technologies can restore or augment communication abilities for individuals with severe disorders?" |
| Key Note | Smaller IC with a focused mission. If your technology addresses hearing, balance, voice, speech, taste, or smell disorders, NIDCD is likely a better fit than a larger IC. Theme 6 (advanced technology) explicitly prioritizes device and tool development. |
NEI -- National Eye Institute
| Field | Details |
|---|---|
| Current Plan | NEI Strategic Plan: Vision for the Future |
| Focus Years | Ongoing |
| Top SBIR-Relevant Priorities | AI-driven retinal disease detection, gene therapies for inherited retinal diseases, neuroprotection for glaucoma, regenerative medicine for vision restoration |
| Technology Domains | Retinal imaging devices, ocular drug delivery systems, smart contact lenses, low-vision assistive technology, teleophthalmology platforms |
| Crosscutting Themes | Audacious Goals Initiative (regeneration of retinal neurons, development of visual prosthetics), AI in ophthalmology, health disparities in eye care access |
| Annual SBIR Budget | ~$12M |
| Priority Gaps | "How can AI improve early detection of retinal diseases in underserved populations with limited access to ophthalmologists?" / "What gene therapy approaches can treat the broadest range of inherited retinal diseases?" |
| Key Note | NEI's Audacious Goals Initiative provides very specific research targets. If your technology aligns with one of these goals, reference it directly in your proposal. |
NIGMS -- National Institute of General Medical Sciences
| Field | Details |
|---|---|
| Current Plan | NIGMS Strategic Plan |
| Focus Years | Ongoing |
| Top SBIR-Relevant Priorities | Computational biology and bioinformatics tools, pharmacogenomics platforms, structural biology imaging technologies, quantitative systems biology approaches |
| Technology Domains | Drug discovery platforms, protein structure prediction tools, high-throughput screening systems, biomedical simulation software, analytical chemistry instruments |
| Crosscutting Themes | Basic science underpinning drug discovery, training the next generation of biomedical researchers, sepsis and trauma research |
| Annual SBIR Budget | ~$15M |
| Priority Gaps | "What computational tools can accelerate drug discovery from target identification to lead optimization?" / "How can systems biology approaches improve understanding of complex biological processes at the cellular level?" |
| Key Note | NIGMS funds basic science tools and platforms rather than disease-specific applications. If your technology is a broadly applicable research tool (not disease-specific), NIGMS may be a better fit than a disease-focused IC. |
NCATS -- National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
| Field | Details |
|---|---|
| Current Plan | NCATS Strategic Plan |
| Focus Years | Ongoing |
| Top SBIR-Relevant Priorities | Rare disease platform technologies, drug repurposing tools, clinical trial innovation, tissue chip and organ-on-a-chip technologies |
| Technology Domains | High-throughput drug screening, biomarker validation platforms, patient registry software, translational science informatics tools, 3D tissue models |
| Crosscutting Themes | Translational science methodology (not disease-specific), rare diseases, reducing time from discovery to delivery |
| Annual SBIR Budget | ~$10M |
| Priority Gaps | "What platform technologies can accelerate rare disease diagnosis from years to weeks?" / "How can drug repurposing be systematized to identify new therapeutic uses for existing approved compounds?" |
| Key Note | NCATS is the most commonly misselected IC. Founders assume "translational science" means any health tech -- it doesn't. NCATS funds tools that improve the translational process itself (rare disease platforms, screening tools, clinical trial methodology). If your technology is a specific therapeutic or diagnostic, NCATS is probably not your best fit. |
What Are the Most Common IC Selection Mistakes?
Mistake 1: Defaulting to NCATS
NCATS stands for "National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences," which sounds like it should fund any health tech startup translating research into products. It doesn't.
NCATS funds technologies that improve the translational process itself -- rare disease platforms, drug repurposing tools, tissue chips, clinical trial methodology. If you're building a specific diagnostic or therapeutic, you almost certainly belong at a disease-focused IC.
Mistake 2: Choosing the Biggest IC
NCI has the largest SBIR budget at NIH ($120M annually), which makes it tempting. But larger budgets mean more applications and more competition. Smaller ICs like NIDCD ($8M) or NEI (~$12M) receive fewer applications, and a well-aligned proposal may face less competition.
The right question isn't "which IC has the most money?" -- it's "which IC's priorities best match my technology?"
Mistake 3: Ignoring IC-Specific FOAs
Beyond the omnibus SBIR parent FOA (PA-24-XXX series), individual ICs publish their own RFAs (Requests for Applications) and PARs (Program Announcements with special Review) for specific technology areas. These IC-specific FOAs often have set-aside funding and higher success rates than the omnibus.
Search grants.nih.gov/grants/guide for "[your IC abbreviation] SBIR" to find these.
Mistake 4: Not Reading the SBIR Priority Page
Every IC's strategic plan covers all research -- basic, clinical, translational. But the SBIR-specific priority page is a subset of those priorities that the IC has identified as appropriate for small business funding. These are not always the same as the IC's top research priorities.
A 15-minute read of the IC's SBIR page can save you from writing a proposal that aligns with the IC's research mission but doesn't fit their SBIR portfolio.
Mistake 5: Skipping the Program Officer Call
Program Officers (POs) will tell you directly whether your project fits their portfolio. They'll also tell you about upcoming FOAs, suggest alternative ICs if you're misaligned, and recommend study sections.
This is free, expert guidance. Founders skip it because they don't want to "bother" the PO or they're afraid of hearing "no." Hearing "no" from a PO before you spend 80 hours writing is a gift.
Frequently Asked Questions About NIH IC Selection for SBIR
Can I submit the same SBIR application to multiple NIH ICs?
No. You cannot submit the same application to multiple ICs simultaneously. However, you can apply to the same IC's omnibus FOA multiple times with different projects, and if your application is rejected by one IC, you can resubmit (with revisions) targeting a different IC. Some applications are also reassigned by CSR to a different IC during the referral process if the reviewers determine a better fit exists.
How do I find out which study section will review my application?
The Center for Scientific Review (CSR) assigns study sections. Search the CSR website at csr.nih.gov for study sections matching your technology area. For SBIR applications, look for ZRG1 Special Emphasis Panels (SEPs). You can also ask your target IC's SBIR Program Officer -- they typically know which study sections review proposals in their priority areas.
What if my technology spans multiple ICs?
This is common. A diagnostic tool for both cardiovascular disease and diabetes could fit NHLBI or NIDDK. The answer depends on which disease application is primary in your SBIR proposal. Frame your Specific Aims around one disease area and target that IC. You can always apply to the other IC with a separate proposal focused on the other application.
Some applications are dual-assigned to multiple ICs during the CSR referral process. This happens when the technology clearly spans IC boundaries. Your PO can advise on whether dual assignment is likely for your proposal.
How often do NIH ICs update their strategic plans?
Most ICs update their strategic plans every 3-5 years. However, the update cycle varies. NHLBI released a new Strategic Vision in October 2025 (FY 2026-2030). NIDCD's current plan covers 2023-2027. Some ICs publish annual updates or addenda rather than full plan refreshes.
Always check the date range on the strategic plan you're reading. A plan from 2018 may still reflect the IC's general direction, but specific priorities and technology interests may have evolved.
Does IC selection affect my chances of getting funded?
Yes, significantly. Your application is scored by reviewers selected for expertise relevant to the IC's mission. A well-aligned application at the right IC gets reviewers who understand and value your technology area. A misaligned application gets reviewers who may not see the significance of your approach -- not because it lacks significance, but because it doesn't match what they're looking for.
Even after a strong review score, the IC's council makes final funding decisions based on portfolio balance and strategic priorities. An application that aligns with the IC's stated priorities has a better chance of being funded after review.
What Should You Do Next?
If you've read this far, you have the methodology to evaluate IC fit on your own. The 5-step process works -- we've used it across 50+ NIH SBIR engagements.
That said, reading strategic plans for 10+ ICs, searching NIH Reporter for comparable awards, and mapping your technology to IC priorities takes real work -- easily 10-15 hours of systematic research for a thorough analysis.
If you want a straight answer on which IC fits your technology, Cada offers a free 15-minute NIH program fit assessment. We'll tell you which IC (or ICs) align with your technology, whether there are IC-specific FOAs worth targeting, and what study section is likely to review your application. No pitch, no obligation.
For founders who want a complete funding strategy beyond a single NIH application, our grant roadmap consultation maps your technology across multiple agencies, programs, and ICs to identify the highest-probability funding path.
The goal is the same either way: don't spend 80 hours writing a proposal for the wrong IC.