The promise of smart biomaterials is compelling. Materials that actively interact with the human body, guide tissue regeneration, dissolve once their job is done, or adapt to their biological environment could fundamentally change healthcare. Yet between that promise and real clinical impact lies a long, expensive and risky development path.
According to Jan Rietsema, CEO of the Smart BioMaterials Center (SBMC), co-funding is not an optional add-on in that journey, but a structural necessity.
“Smart biomaterials don’t fail because of a lack of ideas,” Rietsema says. “They fail because the step from laboratory innovation to scalable, validated application is too costly and too complex for one party to carry alone.”
From scientific breakthrough to financial bottleneck
Unlike software or digital health solutions, smart biomaterials must be physically produced, tested and scaled under strict regulatory conditions. That means early investments in material synthesis, biological validation, preclinical testing, quality systems and, eventually, pilot manufacturing. Long before a first patient is treated, development budgets can easily reach several hundred thousand euros, often climbing into the millions.
This is where many promising technologies stall. Startups hesitate to invest heavily before validation. Investors prefer to step in once technical and regulatory risks are reduced. Public funders demand collaboration and impact. The result is a classic innovation deadlock.
Co-funding breaks that deadlock.
Risk sharing as an accelerator
At SBMC, co-funding is embedded in the way innovation projects are set up. Rather than financing projects outright, the consortium typically works with matched funding models, where SBMC contributes alongside industrial partners, startups or consortia of companies and research institutes.
“The principle is simple,” Rietsema explains. “If a company is willing to invest in its own technology, we match that commitment. That shared investment creates focus, ownership and speed.”
Projects supported through SBMC range from early feasibility studies to multi-year R&D trajectories. In early phases, relatively modest budgets can be used to establish proof-of-concept or validate a material platform. Once technical feasibility is demonstrated, projects become significantly more attractive for follow-up funding from regional development agencies, national programmes or European instruments.
In practice, co-funding often acts as a multiplier: a first shared investment unlocks larger external funding streams later on.
Infrastructure as leverage
A key element in SBMC’s co-funding strategy is shared infrastructure. Over the past years, the consortium has invested several million euros in development labs, testing facilities and pilot manufacturing capabilities tailored specifically to biomaterials innovation.
“For individual startups or SMEs, investing in this type of infrastructure at an early stage would be unrealistic,” says Rietsema. “By sharing facilities, we lower capital barriers and significantly improve the business case for innovation.”
Access to this infrastructure also strengthens funding proposals. Projects that can demonstrate immediate access to relevant facilities, expertise and quality systems are more credible to public funders and private investors alike.
What this means for companies seeking additional funding
For companies developing smart biomaterials, co-funding offers more than financial relief. It reduces risk, shortens timelines and increases credibility.
From an investor’s perspective, a project backed by a consortium like SBMC signals that technical assumptions have been challenged, infrastructure is in place, and development is anchored in real application needs. For founders, it means less pressure to raise large amounts of capital upfront, and more room to de-risk technology before major financing rounds.
Importantly, SBMC does not fund open-ended research. Projects must have a clear pathway toward application, scale-up or clinical relevance. That application-driven focus is exactly what funding bodies increasingly demand.
Co-funding as strategy, not compromise
Rietsema is clear that co-funding should not be seen as a loss of autonomy or ambition.
“Co-funding is not about giving something up,” he says. “It’s about moving faster with less exposure. In smart biomaterials, collaboration is not a weakness. It’s the only realistic way to turn innovation into impact.”
As healthcare systems search for smarter, more regenerative solutions, the technologies are emerging. Whether they reach patients will depend largely on how well innovators manage risk, capital and collaboration. In that equation, co-funding is proving to be one of the most powerful tools available.
