The application window officially opens January 27, 2025 and closes in February 28, 2025.

For this cycle of Garden Grants, we aim to fund the de-risking work for ambitious ideas addressing important problems at the translational intersection of biotech and greenhouse gas removal. The proposed work should be the first step on a novel path, not an incremental next step on an existing path.

The problem statement should make it clear why the proposed work addresses an important problem. Examples of good problem statements can be found in our Problem Statement Repository. 

Please see our Garden Grant Application Guidelines and Template. Concise summary below:

Homeworld Garden Grants applications include two main sections: a Problem Statement (≤3,000 characters, public if funded) and a Solution Statement (≤10,000 characters, private).

Key Details:

• Problem Statement: Describes the sustainability challenge and its context. Focuses on clarity and impact.
• Solution Statement: Details methods, risks, milestones, and budget. Addresses how the project tackles the problem.

Structure:

• Project Overview: Abstract, budget summary, milestones, and team bios.
• Science Content Review: Detailed technical proposal written in Experiment.com’s “Lab Notes” feature.
• Visuals: Upload a high-quality cover image (required).

Submission:

Applications are reviewed for quality, importance, awareness, viability, and uniqueness. Submit via Experiment.com when the platform opens in January. Drafts can be prepared using the provided Google Docs template above.

Anyone at a university or non-profit institution can apply: we encourage students and post-docs to be the lead applicants.

Homeworld Collective supports researchers and organizations globally, with funding subject to U.S. legal and banking requirements.

All non-US applicants must certify that they (please note this is different than the general Experiment.com guidelines):

• Are not from an OFAC sanctioned country, controlled by a US-sanctioned entity, or on the OFAC sanctions list.
• Can legally receive funds through approved banking channels
• Will use grants exclusively for research and in compliance with U.S. laws

There is no requisite credential or academic affiliation: all that matters is the quality of your idea, the clarity by which you describe your first efforts to bring it to life, and the evidence you provide for your ability succeed in your endeavor.

Applications from companies such as startups will face significantly higher scrutiny and will require outputs that are for the public good, open access, etc, as grant funds must be used in accordance with our 501(c)3 mandate.

This section is updated periodically as we refine our answers here. Last revision Feb 26, 2025. 

Yes, but startups will undergo significantly higher scrutiny during the review process and will need to demonstrate outputs that serve the public good, such as open-access resources. Homeworld and the grantee must show that grant funds resulted in public benefit more than private benefit, in alignment with our 501(c)(3) mandate. The best way to ensure this is that an open-source output (such as a report) that shows “How you did it”, not a vague “What you did”.

Some other requirements and limitations for startups may include any or all of the following:

• Startups cannot use funds for direct commercial activies including commercial technology development, marketing, or business development.
• Funded startups must demonstrate open-access or public-benefit outputs, ensuring research and findings remain accessible​.

We understand that patent and commercialization in biotechnology is complex. On a case by case basis, Homeworld will work with grantees to determine grant terms.

The grantee. Homeworld Collective makes no claim on any work product you produce.

We want to support you in de-risking your first experiment.

An ideal proposal has problem statement that clearly demonstrates its importance, a clear experimental plan, and an articulated sense of awareness of next steps based on the results of the experiments that we fund.

Is it a “big, if true” idea? Go for it! 

The goal of these grants is to help you de-risk your best idea so other sources of funding can support you to take it to the next level if it shows promise.

We can provide $50k to $150k. 

We DO consider the amount requested during review; all else equal, projects that require less funding will be favored.

1. Your Problem Statement will be evaluated for importance and potential impact. 
2. Your Solution Statement will be evaluated by 3-5 members of our Scientific Review Team for feasibility and alignment with your Problem Statement. The Scientific Review Team is composed of subject matter experts in application spaces across sustainability and protein engineering.
3. Final review of your entire proposal will be done by Homeworld’s Core Review Team, who will synthesize the scientific reviews and assess overall impact of the proposed work and alignment with the goals of Garden Grants. The Core Review Team is composed of a small group of experts that skew senior. Funding decisions will be based on their recommendations.

We fund the direct costs of research, but we also recognize that there are real indirect costs that host institutions incur while managing grants. Therefore, we also support limited requests for indirect costs.‍

Indirect costs for proposals funded by Homeworld Collective will be capped at 10% of the award.

Your primary responsibilities will be to fulfill the reporting requirements as outlined in our Data Policy and engagement with mentors following the award decision. Our aim is to have these responsibilities to be as minimal as possible while still being effective.

By default, your project page on experiment.com, which features your publicly-accessible Problem Statement, will stay up after the application window closes and funding decisions are made. We hope that page is an asset for you regardless of the funding outcome, by indicating you as a potential thought partner or collaborator for others interested in the same problem. That said, you have the ability to delete the page at any time.

To enable us to efficiently carry out our grantmaking program, our policy is not to adjust established details at this time.

If you feel that an adjustment is crucial to your project’s success, we invite you to communicate that as feedback and we will give serious consideration to our protocols for future grant cycles.

Our primary mission for this funding is translational in nature, aiming to be a bridge towards something impactful. Whether a project is applied or purely theoretical isn’t as significant as the ambition and the ability to de-risk efforts. If there’s foundational understanding that could lead to applications or addresses an open need in an application space, that would be in scope.

We aim to de-risk ambitious experiments and provide a bridge to what could be downstream funding. If your project is in an early stage and can lead to a mature project or another significant outcome, that aligns with our goals.

While the emphasis is on lean thinking and being experiment-focused, we understand that for individuals to dive into projects, they might need a salary. Thus, a reasonable salary component in the budget is acceptable.

We do factor in the budget when making the final decision. All else equal, a project with a lower budget is preferred. Projects with higher budgets will need to demonstrate greater possible value.

We value innovative approaches and transformative ideas. While it’s essential to be grounded in scientific principles, we appreciate the ambition behind transformational concepts that might seem like they’re “jumping into the unknown.”

Yes, grad students can apply. We encourage grad students to take the initiative and advocate for their projects, ensuring that it’s clear it’s being pursued within the context of your lab.

The subtlety of defining a problem statement is crucial. It’s about convincing readers that a given issue is significant.

Also, even if solutions like lab-grown meat may have divided opinions, our core review team contains diverse viewpoints. Our decision-making process is not consensus-based, so if a core review team member feels strongly that a project is valuable, it doesn’t need buy-in from other members in order to be funded..

While having some preliminary data can be beneficial, it’s not a strict requirement. The primary goal is to fund projects that might not receive funding elsewhere and help de-risk ideas. Part of that means funding projects that haven’t yet generated much data. However, if you’re in the early stages of a project and you have initial data showing potential, that’s welcomed.

While it’s possible for multiple applications to address the same problem statement, we aim to treat them all independently during the review process.

Our aim is to be additional, preferring to fund projects that may not receive funding elsewhere. For example, projects from less-resourced labs might receive higher priority than ones from well-established mega labs.

Yes, we’re open to funding purely in silico projects as long as the problem statement clearly explains why the in silico work contributes to advancing a frontier sustainability challenge.

We welcome all interested funders to our growing list of supporters. Please contact Daniel Goodwin (daniel@homeworld.bio).