Check the released programme rules. No account required.
Encoded rules only, not a funder decision. Additional financial or study evidence may be needed. Amount is compared with the published planning cap, not a guaranteed award.
Programme rules load after you focus or point to this screen. No profile facts are sent.
The funding landscape
Where your next question begins.
Explore the records. Then check the applicant conditions behind the map.
Programmes by funder jurisdiction. Location is not applicant eligibility. European Union and Global scope are listed separately. Source snapshot: . Map methodology
United States 28European Union 20United Kingdom 10Austria 5Australia 5Germany 5Canada 3Netherlands 3Ireland 2Switzerland 1Denmark 1France 1Norway 1Poland 1Singapore 1Global scope 1
888888Programmes
151515Jurisdictions
656565Funders
474747Deadlines ahead
Awards up to USD 34.5m per programme. Figures as of 3 October 2026, from the funders' published pages.
Figures as of , from the funders' published pages. Deadline count is the release snapshot, not today's calendar.
German Federal Ministry of Research, Technology and Space (BMFTR, formerly BMBF), through Projektträger Jülich
Outline sketches close ·
Confirm current call scope and eligibility on the original funder page. Source checked 2 Oct 2026.
One evidence base
From the first question to the final file.
Explore what you can use today, and the connected work being built around it.
01
Discover
Funding Atlas
Find programme records relevant to your organisation and development stage. Compare the encoded rules, keep a local shortlist and open the funder source.
Explore the questions your scientific and regulatory strategy needs to answer. Planned software reasoning would link those questions to evidence for a person to review, not replace an expert.
Understand the roles and scopes a proposed project needs. Planned role mapping would distinguish sourced profiles and cost references from actual partners, capacity or quotations.
Check your draft against the company facts and evidence behind it. The internal workflow identifies unsupported statements for your work list; you remain the author and decide every change.
Bring protocol, investigator, CMC and quality evidence into a reviewable package. Planned source-traced sections support human review, not compliance certification or regulatory filing.
Prepare a handoff for the authority and channel your submission requires. The planned desk does not file, act as a legal representative or remove your responsibility for the final submission.
Registered trial outcomes and reasons from registries and regulator documents, with the asset's attempt history. Nothing is published until its first release.
The evidence came first. The person made the call.
A clinical-stage company measured its draft funding application against its own evidence base and received a work list of unsupported statements before submission. The person decided every change.