What makes a strong C-Further collaboration proposal
C-Further was established as a strategic joint venture to bridge the translational gap in paediatric oncology. We operate under a biotech-style model, so our evaluation criteria differ from those of traditional grant-awarding bodies. In this article, we outline our evaluation framework and share what researchers and future partners from academia and industry should consider when preparing a collaboration proposal.
Strategic scope: the "child-first" mandate
The primary eligibility gate for C-Further is the "child-first" principle. We prioritise therapeutics designed specifically for the unique molecular landscape of children’s and young people’s cancers:
All children's and young people’s cancers
We do not prioritise one indication over another, but we do take into account the unmet need, clinical development feasibility and the overall composition of our portfolio.
All modalities
Small molecules, biologics, targeted protein degraders (PROTACs/glues) and others are all in scope – though we do seek diversity in our portfolio. Please note that newer or unproven modalities may be subject to a higher degree of scrutiny.
Beyond repurposing
We seek bespoke interventions that move the field beyond the repurposing or repositioning of approved adult agents, which often leave children with significant long-term side effects.
Paediatric first
While a project may also have potential applications in adult oncology, the development path must focus on the paediatric indication. We are open to discussing how adult indications may be progressed in parallel.
Internationally open
We partner with research institutes and biotech companies worldwide; geography is not a limiting factor.
Maximising patient impact through strategic portfolio management
The market challenges of paediatric drug discovery and development, characterised by small patient cohorts and high perceived risk, frequently deter traditional commercial development. Backed by an initial investment of $50m/£37m, from some of the UK’s most influential not-for-profit organisations, C-Further was established to absorb early-stage risk and help build viable, investable commercial pathways and models for promising paediatric oncology assets at a phase where incentives have yet to crystallise.
Our pipeline strategy includes a rigorous assessment of clinical trial feasibility, market placement, and long-term therapeutic accessibility to ensure our projects have the best chance of transitioning seamlessly into the clinic. To spread risk effectively, we are building a highly resilient, strategically diversified pipeline, that balances a mix of therapeutic modalities, disease indications, and developmental stages, maximising our overall likelihood of delivering transformative clinical successes for children and young people.
Deep dive: What makes a "strong" collaboration proposal?
Rather than operating as a traditional funding body, C-Further functions as an active strategic partner. Initiating a partnership with us begins with an open, non-confidential, dialogue to co-develop a robust collaboration proposal, one that leverages the unique strengths of each partner to maximise chances of success.
Our evaluation process brings together our experienced in-house drug discovery scientists and business specialists, with strategic oversight from our Scientific Advisory Board and Joint Steering Committee.
Collaboration proposals are evaluated based on the following criteria of scientific and commercial validity:
1. Robust disease association and target validation
Target validation is the bedrock of a strong collaboration. We look for multiple lines of evidence, demonstrating that:
Target modulation would achieve a potential therapeutic effect. Orthogonal validation of target activity in disease-relevant models and the rationale for the targeting mechanism should ideally be demonstrated.
The target would be predicted to be safe, supporting a favourable predicted therapeutic index. For tumour-associated antigens, this could be demonstrating differential expression at the desired cellular location in disease vs healthy tissues.
The target would be suitable for the modality proposed.
We will also evaluate the physiological relevance of your models. A strong case uses models that accurately recapitulate the paediatric disease environment.
Preliminary in vivo data: While not always mandatory for an early-stage conversation, evidence of target engagement or efficacy, in a faithful model of the paediatric disease of interest, significantly strengthens the collaboration project.
2. The evidence of "druggability"
Having a validated target is the first step; the second is proving it can be drugged.
Modulators: Provide potency and selectivity data, if you have used any compound to modulate the target’s activity or demonstrate tumour-killing activity, even if it is a non-optimised drug starting point. If you are pursuing a novel modality like PROTACs or molecular glues, share the preliminary data showing target degradation or engagement.
Structural biology: Mention known crystal structures or computational modelling that suggests a druggable pocket. For biotherapeutics, include data on epitope accessibility and binding affinity.
Secondary assays: If available, include assays (biochemical, biophysical, or cell-based) that are ready for high-throughput screening or Hit-to-Lead.
3. Entry points into C-Further’s pipeline
Projects that are most likely to be considered for a collaboration should focus on one of the following phases:
Hit identification entry: Includes projects where a given target has been thoroughly validated in the context of the proposed disease indication and perhaps early identification of chemical or biological hit matter has begun.
Hit-to-lead entry: Includes projects where hit matter has been identified and the process to select a superior biological or chemical lead and back-up molecules has begun.
Lead optimisation: Includes projects where a lead or lead panel has been established, and the goal is to refine potency, selectivity, ADMET, and developability ahead of preclinical candidate nomination, as well as generating in vivo proof-of concept and efficacy data. This can also include humanisation of lead antibody.
Building on the complementary strengths of each partner, we rely on our collaborators' deep understanding of the underlying biology, together with their established in vitro and in vivo preclinical models and assays, to validate the therapeutic concept. In turn, C-Further brings drug discovery expertise and industry-grade capabilities, supported by the track record, expertise and network of its founding members.
4. IP position and freedom to operate
C-Further seeks to develop an IP framework that protects and enables child-first development. Future collaborators should be prepared to discuss the current IP status and future strategy, including institutional agreements or third-party considerations. A transparent understanding of the "freedom to operate" is essential to ensure the resulting therapeutic can eventually reach the market.
6. Route to patient
Our goal is to deliver unique, child-first solutions that have a clear, unencumbered path to the patient.
You need to demonstrate that there is a well-defined translational plan for the proposed therapeutic in the proposed indication: where would it be positioned compared to current standards of care, what exact population(s) the treatment would be targeting, what cohort size, what clinical trial design, what primary and secondary endpoints should be considered to improve chances of approvability, etc.
Common pitfalls and how to avoid them
Here are the most common reasons why proposals fail to progress:
Lack of specificity
Proposals that are too "broad" or lack a clear therapeutic hypothesis (i.e. "we want to study this pathway") are rarely successful. You should identify a specific target and proposed modality. Successful projects are those focusing on developing a therapeutic agent, not a platform.
Insufficient justification for the “biological target + chosen modality” approach
Potential collaborators should justify their selected modality in the context of the biological target. For example, why a specific modality such as an inhibiting antibody would promote a better mechanism of action over a small molecule or other, based on the target’s biology. This evidence should be supported by high-quality tool agents with consistent data and must be underpinned by a well-defined vision for how the project will ultimately translate into clinical care.
Ignoring the competitive landscape
If another similar project exists, you should define why your approach is superior. If an adult drug in the same class exists, you must articulate why a bespoke paediatric version is necessary (i.e. different isoform expression, better blood-brain barrier penetration, or toxicity profiles, etc.).
No clear path to the clinic
A strong collaboration project is one where there is visibility on how to approach clinical trial design, patient recruitment, defining relevant primary and secondary endpoints.
Underestimating capability gaps
A "perfect" project proposal isn't one that claims to have everything. Those proposals that are most likely to progress are those that identify where C-Further’s expertise, capabilities and network can accelerate the project.
DOs and DON'Ts: top-level summary
DO | DON’T | |
|---|---|---|
Strategic focus | DO prioritise "child-first" biology. Ensure the primary development path is for children’s and young people’s indications. | DON’T simply "repurpose" an adult drug. |
Pipeline stage | DO target the "mid-stage" phase (Hit ID to Lead Op). | DON’T send proposal for clinical trials. If you are ready for the clinic, other initiatives in our network could be a better fit. |
Relevant scientific maturity | DO provide robust target validation. Include any data showing a phenotypic effect in relevant models. DO send data if coming in with an identified hit/lead. Data should be in relevant models along with genetic validation and/or other tools. | DON’T submit for "exploratory" biology. C-Further is not a funder for uncovering new fundamental science. The target must already be clearly linked to disease. Other initiatives in our network could be a better fit. |
Project scope | DO define a specific therapeutic hypothesis. Name a specific target and a proposed modality (ie small molecule, PROTAC, biologic, etc.). | DON’T be vague or overly broad. Avoid sending a proposal if you would like "to study this pathway" or "to identify a target in this space.” |
Data package | DO use human-relevant data. Use patient-derived samples, multi-omics data or patient-derived xenograft models to show clinical relevance. | DON’T rely solely on generic models. We look for physiological relevance to the paediatric environment. |
Collaboration | DO identify your capability gaps. Explicitly state how C-Further’s scientists, capabilities and resources will accelerate the project. | DON’T see C-Further as a "grant-awarding body". We are an active partner with a biotech-type operating model; we provide expertise, capabilities and resource. All projects will be subject to milestones, stage gates and timely delivery of those. |
Competitive landscape | DO articulate your "Unique Selling Points". Explain why your approach is better or safer than existing agents or current standards of care. | DON’T ignore the competition. Failing to acknowledge existing drugs in the same class or neglecting the "freedom to operate" landscape is a common pitfall. |
Engagement | DO book a 1:1 discussion first. Reaching out to our team at eoi@c-further.org before sending proposals is highly correlated with success. | DON’T "send proposals" in a vacuum. Successful collaborations are refined through early dialogue with our team. |
Next steps: from discussion to collaboration
Successful proposals are invited to sign a two-way confidentiality agreement. This will allow us to explore the scientific details and the potential terms of a partnership. At this stage, we are looking for a greater understanding of the matters outlined at proposal stage.
C-Further’s portfolio review cycles
C-Further operates on a rolling evaluation process with two major review rounds per year (late winter and late summer). However, our most successful partners don't just submit a proposal blindly.
We highly recommend reaching out to our team early to initiate dialogue before finalising your collaboration proposal. These early interactions allow us to advise you on how to refine it for a successful outcome, whether additional validation may be required, or whether your proposal is better suited to another initiative in our network.
Your science has the potential to change the lives of children and young people with cancer. C-Further was created to make it a tangible reality.
Let’s start the conversation: info@c-further.org
This was published in July 2026. This document will be updated to reflect any major changes. For the most up-to-date and tailored advice on your collaboration proposal, contact us.
Upcoming deadline: 4 September 2026
We welcome expressions of interest at any time, but to be reviewed in this round, they must be submitted before the closing date at 23:59 GMT. Early submissions are encouraged.
