Tips & Tricks for a successful HORIZON-EIC-2026-PATHFINDERCHALLENGES-01-II2-2 proposal
Opening
22 July 2026
Deadline
Keywords
EIC Pathfinder
Healthy ageing
Biotechnology
Hallmarks of ageing
Biomarkers
Organ-on-chip
Longevity
human cells
microphysiological systems
Your microfluidic SME partner for Horizon Europe
We take care of microfluidic engineering, work on valorization and optimize the proposal with you
HORIZON-EIC-2026-PATHFINDERCHALLENGES-01-II2-2: Biotechnology for Healthy Ageing
The Commission wants decades of ageing research turned into real interventions under HORIZON-EIC-2026-PATHFINDERCHALLENGES-01-II2-2. Not another pile of papers on the hallmarks of ageing. This EIC Pathfinder Challenge funds proof of concept work on therapies, biomarker tools or new methodologies that go after the biology of getting old. The aim is healthy longevity, backed by validation solid enough to survive a regulator’s questions later.
Download the MIC Horizon Europe 2026/2027 Calls Calendar:
Discover more!
Administrative facts: what do we know about the HORIZON-EIC-2026-PATHFINDERCHALLENGES-01-II2-2 call?
Which call is it, and when is the opening and the deadline?
- Call name: EIC Pathfinder Challenges 2026
- Identifier: HORIZON-EIC-2026-PATHFINDERCHALLENGES-01
- Destination: EIC Pathfinder, Challenge II.2.2
- Topic: Biotechnology for Healthy Ageing
- Opening date: not stated in the work programme documents we hold. Check the Funding and Tenders Portal
- Deadline: 28 October 2026, 17.00 Brussels time
- Type of action: EIC Pathfinder Challenge grant
What about the budget and estimated size of the project?
- Overall budget: EUR 96 million for the whole Challenges call, split across the three 2026 Challenges
- Number of projects: up to 10 for this Challenge (max 5 interventions, 3 biomarkers, 2 NAMs)
- Budget per project: grants up to EUR 4 million, higher if duly justified. The work programme gives no separate figure for this single Challenge
What are the key eligibility and evaluation conditions?
- Thresholds: Excellence 4/5, Impact 3.5/5, Implementation 3/5 (weights 50, 30, 20 percent)
- Eligibility: single legal entity or consortium. A two partner consortium needs entities from two different Member States or Associated Countries
- JRC: no JRC participation clause for this topic
- Clustering: portfolio approach, steered by an EIC Programme Manager, projects expected to collaborate
- Other: sex and gender must be addressed, reproductive ageing in scope. Page limit 30 A4 pages
Scientific range: what does the Commission expect from the HORIZON-EIC-2026-PATHFINDERCHALLENGES-01-II2-2 grant?
What outcomes are expected?
A completed TRL3 proof of concept, tested in a physiologically aged model. Publication series are not what the Commission is after. What should exist at the end is a working intervention, biomarker tool or methodology, with a credible read on regulation and on whether people would actually accept it.
What is within scope?
Three routes are open, and you pick one.
- Preventative or therapeutic interventions hitting a hallmark of ageing, with proof of concept in a vertebrate model that is genuinely old, not a young animal with an induced phenotype
- Biomarker based tools that fold several ageing signals into one actionable signature, tested on real longevity cohorts
- New Approach Methodologies (organ-on-chip, microphysiological systems, in silico models) that capture aged status across more than one tissue
Off the table: biomarker discovery, precision nutrition, new ageing clocks, wellness apps.
What are the specifically proposed research directions?
- Show your intervention generalises. It should help with a second ageing trait, not only the disease you started from
- Prove when to intervene. Timing is one reason past ageing therapies flopped
- Biomarker teams: demonstrate you already hold access to longevity cohorts (this one catches people off guard)
- Go deep on at least two exploitation angles, say ethics and regulation, rather than a light touch across all four
The wording leans toward interventions over tools. The portfolio caps make that reading fairly clear.
Scientific strategy: how can you enhance your chances of being funded through HORIZON-EIC-2026-PATHFINDERCHALLENGES-01-II2-2?
What scientific choices matter most?
- Target a root mechanism, not a symptom: Reviewers reward work aimed at a hallmark of aging over one downstream marker.
- Show the aged model early: A physiologically aged vertebrate, or a NAM that truly looks aged, is the credibility test
- Build sex and gender in from day one: It is scored, not a footnote.
- Plan the regulatory conversation early: The call says “deliver science,” but what evaluators respond to is a team that already sees the road to a clinic.
- Show how your project talks to the rest of the portfolio.
Consortium & proposal-writing plan: what works best with this type of call?
- For an EIC Pathfinder Challenge, somewhere between four and eight partners usually works, maybe a couple more if the animal model or clinical side needs it. Small enough to stay agile.
- Mix public labs with at least one innovative SME. The SME keeps the exploitation story honest, and evaluators notice. From what we have seen across many Horizon Europe consortia, that mix moves the Implementation score.
- Bring ageing biologists, a modelling or biomarker group, and if you go the intervention route, someone who knows regulatory approval.
- If you can add a clinical partner, do it. Even just to anticipate the human trial.
- Writing tip: 30 pages goes fast, spend most of them on Excellence, it carries half the score.
How would microfluidics contribute to this topic?
Animal models age slowly and cost a fortune, and they do not always tell you what happens in human tissue. Microfluidics gives you a smaller, faster window. Organ-on-chip devices let you watch aged human cells behave under controlled flow, exactly the kind of NAM this Challenge names.
- The call lists organ-on-chip and microphysiological systems as valid NAMs. So a chip based proposal is on target here.
- Say you want to know whether a senolytic really rescues an aged blood vessel or just delays the damage. A vessel-on-chip lets you run that experiment on human cells, directly.
- You get the same answer twice. Chips give consistent results across runs, which matters when a reviewer probes cause and effect.
- Multi-tissue chips can capture the systemic side of ageing the call keeps asking about. One tissue is never the whole story.
- At MIC we work on aging biology in house, so your consortium gets people who know both the chips and the underlying ageing questions.
Point is, microfluidics hands your proposal a credible NAM, a way to test interventions on human tissue, and a stronger answer when the panel asks how you moved past animal models. For a Challenge built around healthy ageing, that fits the brief.
About the author
Christophe Pannetier, PhD
Biology of aging specialist
Scientist and biotech entrepreneur. Investing his extensive experience across molecular biology, immunology and microbiology in microfluidic solutions towards healthy aging
The MIC already brings its expertise in microfluidics to Horizon Europe:
H2020-NMBP-TR-IND-2020
Microfluidic platform to study the interaction of cancer cells with lymphatic tissue
H2020-LC-GD-2020-3
Toxicology assessment of pharmaceutical products on a placenta-on-chip model
FAQ: HORIZON-EIC-2026-PATHFINDERCHALLENGES-01-II2-2
What is the HORIZON-EIC-2026-PATHFINDERCHALLENGES-01-II2-2 call about?
It funds proof of concept work that turns ageing biology into real interventions: therapies, biomarker tools or a New Approach Methodology aimed at healthy longevity.
Who can apply and how much funding is available?
Single legal entities or consortia can apply. Grants run up to EUR 4 million, higher if justified, within a EUR 96 million envelope shared by the three 2026 Challenges.
When is the deadline for this call?
The deadline is 28 October 2026, 17.00 Brussels time. The opening date is not stated in the work programme, so check the Funding and Tenders Portal.
What are the three eligible routes?
An intervention against a hallmark of ageing, a biomarker based tool built from existing candidates, or a NAM such as organ-on-chip. You choose one.
What is explicitly out of scope?
Biomarker discovery, precision nutrition, new ageing clocks and wellness apps fall outside this Challenge.
How many projects will be funded for this Challenge?
Up to ten, capped as no more than 5 interventions, 3 biomarker tools and 2 NAMs, selected through a portfolio approach.
What are the evaluation thresholds?
Excellence 4/5, Impact 3.5/5 and Implementation 3/5, with weights of 50, 30 and 20 percent. Excellence carries half the score.
Does the proposal need to address sex and gender?
Yes. Sex and gender determinants must be built into the design, and reproductive ageing is in scope.
How does microfluidics fit this topic?
Organ-on-chip and microphysiological systems are named NAMs. They let you test interventions on aged human tissue and strengthen the case that you moved past animal models.
Why include an innovative SME like MIC in the consortium?
An innovative SME keeps the exploitation and engineering credible. MIC contributes microfluidic organ-on-chip work and aging biology expertise, and has supported many Horizon Europe consortia.
For more information about this topic, visit the page