Skip to content

· Public charity

Bioindustrial Manufacturing and Design Ecosystem Inc

Biomade's mission is to enable domestic bioindustrial manufacturing at all scales, develop technologies to enhance u.s.

$37M
Granted FY2025still arriving
73
Grants FY2025still arriving
26
States reached
$8.8M
Largest
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2021 to 2024.

Science & Tech$71MEmployment$2.9MEducation$1.4MEnvironment$1.1MHealth$510kYouth Development$380kFood & Nutrition$251k
02FY2025 · 73 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k11 grants · $321k
  • $50k–250k24 grants · $2.6M
  • $250k+38 grants · $34M
$253,860
Median grant
26
States reached
$99M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CLEANJOULE$8,826,381
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY$4,717,143
FARMED MATERIALS$1,712,020
GENOMATICA INC$1,661,361
AMYRIS INC$1,461,081
3CLOUD$1,198,521
MANGO MATERIALS$1,043,790
KULTEVAT$824,376
INDUSTRIAL MICROBES$736,505
CAMBIUM BIOMATERIALS INC$726,759
TEGA THERAPEUTICS INC$666,905
THE REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA UC DAVIS$644,984
MANUS BIO$574,318
THE REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY-CONTRACTS & GRANTS ACCOUNT$535,120
GRASPXR$528,165
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY21–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 70% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%GINKGO BIOWORKS INC: $1.4M → 16%BLUESTEM BIOSCIENCES INC: $527k → 12%TANDEM REPEAT TECHNOLOGY INC: $704k → 22%INDUSTRIAL MICROBES: $942k → 10%3CLOUD: $1.2M → 10%GENOMATICA INC: $2.2M → 11%ORIGIN MATERIALS: $689k → 16%CAMBIUM BIOMATERIALS INC: $4.9M → 18%GRASPXR: $528k → 12%KULTEVAT: $824k → 11%EAST TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY: $547k → 14%CLEANJOULE: $8.8M → 8%MANUS BIO: $574k → 18%FARMED MATERIALS: $1.7M → 16%NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY: $4.7M → 14%UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS: $551k → 19%MITRE CORPORATION: $3.1M → 6%CAPRA BIOSCIENCES INC: $862k → 9%GINKGO BIOWORKS INC: $506k → 16%INDUSTRIAL MICROBES: $737k → 10%GENOMATICA INC: $1.7M → 11%CAMBIUM BIOMATERIALS INC: $3.9M → 18%EAST TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY: $504k → 14%CLEANJOULE: $7.8M → 8%FARMED MATERIALS: $524k → 16%MITRE CORPORATION: $1.0M → 6%TEGA THERAPEUTICS INC: $667k → 11%THE REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA UC DAVIS: $1.8M → 16%CAMBIUM BIOMATERIALS INC: $727k → 18%TECHNOLOGY HOLDING LLC: $2.7M → 8%GENOMATICA INC: $613k → 11%THE REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA UC DAVIS: $1.2M → 16%CAMBIUM BIOMATERIALS INC: $625k → 18%FARMED MATERIALS: $2.6M → 8%ZERO ACRE FARMS: $733k → 16%THE REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA UC DAVIS: $645k → 16%LYGOS INC: $797k → 10%MANGO MATERIALS: $1.0M → 10%AMYRIS INC: $7.0M → 10%AMYRIS INC: $5.0M → 10%AMYRIS INC: $3.9M → 10%AMYRIS INC: $1.6M → 10%AMYRIS INC: $1.5M → 10%AMYRIS INC: $868k → 10%THE REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY: $1.2M → 10%THE REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY: $577k → 10%THE REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY-CONTRACTS & GRANTS ACCOUNT: $535k → 10%THE REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY: $488k → 10%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.

Which US states its grants reach

ME
MN
IL
MI
NY
MA
SD
IA
OH
PA
CT
CA
UT
CO
NE
MO
VA
MD
DE
KS
TN
NC
SC
HI
LA
GA
TX
FL
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

66%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$75M · 50 repeat orgs$39M to everyone else

50 repeat relationships: 36 still active in FY2025, 14 since wound down; 19 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

50
36

Total granted

$75M
$20M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+11%
+14%

Still filing today

14%
19%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 49% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $19M went to new ones.

50%100%’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’21’22’23’24’25
EducationScience & TechRecreation & SportsCommunity ImprovementHealthOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as new. Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.

Backed again, and grew

  • TM
    THE MITRE CORPORATION
    3× · 2023–2025 · $4.4M · revenue +4%
  • TRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY
    3× · 2023–2025 · $778k · revenue +6%
  • UO
    University of Georgia Research Foundation Inc
    4× · 2022–2025 · $495k · revenue +28%

Funded once

  • C
    CLEANJOULE
    one grant, 2024 · $7.8M
  • CB
    CAMBIUM BIOMATERIALS INC
    one grant, 2024 · $4.9M
  • RO
    REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
    one grant, 2024 · $2.4M
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

The mission of mit is to advance knowledge and educate students in science, technology, and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world in the 21st century.

Education
2
Trustees of Dartmouth College

Dartmouth College educates the most promising students and prepares them for a lifetime of learning and of responsible leadership, through a faculty dedicated to teaching and the creation of knowledge.

Education
3
The George Washington University

The mission of the george washington university (gw) is to educate individuals in liberal arts, languages, sciences, learned professions, and other courses and subjects of study, and to conduct scholarly research and publish the findings…

Education
4
The Trustees of Princeton University

Research, education and general - princeton university is a private not-for-profit, non-sectarian institution of higher learning with approximately 5,700 undergraduate and 3,300 graduate students. 2,500 students graduated in the 2024-2025…

Education
5
President and Fellows of Harvard College

Undergraduate, graduate, and professional education and research across a broad array of academic domains.

Education
6
Vanderbilt University

See Disclosure Above.

Education
7
Lehigh University

The university's goal in the coming decade is to advance learning through the integration of teaching, research and service to others. the core of this goal is to prepare graduates to engage with the world and lead lives of meaning. to do…

Education
8
Furman University

The primary mission of furman as a liberal arts institution is to provide a distinctive education in fine arts, humanities, social sciences, mathematics and the sciences, as well as selected professional disciplines.

Education
9
University of New Haven

The University of New Haven is a student-centered comprehensive university with an emphasis on excellence in liberal arts and professional education. Our mission is to prepare our students to lead purposeful and fulfilling lives in a…

Education
10
Illinois Institute of Technology

To provide distinctive and relevant education in an environment of scientific, technological, and professional knowledge creation and innovation.

Education
11
The University of TexasTexas a&M Investment Management Company

To generate superior long-term investment returns to support The University of Texas and Texas A&M University systems as they provide world-class teaching, push the boundaries of discovery, and achieve excellence in patient healthcare for…

Education
12
Augusta University Research Institute Inc

Augusta university research institute, inc. (the "institute") was incorporated under the laws of the state of georgia as a nonprofit corporation on july 31, 1980. the institute qualified as a tax-exempt corporation under section 501(c)(3)…

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Worcester Polytechnic Institute; the most unlike its peers is Advanced Regenerative Manufacturing Institute Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

19 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 19 of the 105 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
19/19
Grantees still filing
15/19
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

AMYRIS INC: $21,159,100 · OtherAMYRIS INCCLEANJOULE: $8,826,381 · OtherCLEANJOULECLEANJOULE: $7,837,323 · OtherCLEANJOULEGENOMATICA INC: $5,844,573 · OtherGENOMATICA INCCAMBIUM BIOMATERIALS INC: $5,358,118 · OtherFARMED MATERIALS: $5,215,839 · OtherCAMBIUM BIOMATERIALS INC: $4,911,050 · Other+82 more: $42,966,626 · Other+82 moreTHE MITRE CORPORATION: $4,408,856 · Science & TechCHARLES STARK DRAPER LABORATORY INC: $391,115 · Science & Tech+2 more: $69,028 · Science & TechNorthwestern University: $4,717,143 · Recreation & SportsEAST TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $546,579 · EducationUniversity of Georgia Research Foundation Inc: $494,642 · EducationTrustees of Tufts College: $459,091 · EducationJOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: $306,661 · EducationBIOBUILDER EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION: $292,875 · EducationThe Research Foundation for The State University of New York: $252,965 · EducationUTAH STEM FOUNDATION INC: $227,396 · Education+2 more: $61,802 · EducationGEORGIA TECH RESEARCH CORPORATION: $120,984 · HealthAdvanced Regenerative Manufacturing Institute Inc: $40,809 · Community Improvement
Other$102,119,010Science & Tech$4,868,999Recreation & Sports$4,717,143Education$2,642,011Health$120,984Community Improvement$40,809

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTHE MITRE CORPORATION: $4,408,856 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetTRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY: $777,716 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetEAST TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $546,579 over 1y, 2.8% of budgetUniversity of Georgia Research Foundation Inc: $494,642 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetTrustees of Tufts College: $459,091 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCHARLES STARK DRAPER LABORATORY INC: $391,115 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetJOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: $306,661 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetBIOBUILDER EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION: $292,875 over 2y, 12% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE: $280,080 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetThe Research Foundation for The State University of New York: $252,965 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetUTAH STEM FOUNDATION INC: $227,396 over 1y, 30% of budgetGEORGIA TECH RESEARCH CORPORATION: $120,984 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetWilliam Marsh Rice University: $53,786 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetUniversity of Kansas Center for Research Inc: $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetWORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE: $23,616 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetSouthwest Research Institute: $19,028 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE UNIVERSITY OF AKRON FOUNDATION: $8,016 over 1y, 0.0% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

  • Who funds Northwestern University ↗
  • Who funds THE MITRE CORPORATION ↗
  • Who funds TRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY ↗
  • Who funds EAST TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds University of Georgia Research Foundation Inc ↗
  • Who funds Trustees of Tufts College ↗

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Northeastern UniversityMA15.4× affinity5 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Northeastern University · University of Delaware · National Collegiate Inventors & Innovators Alliance Inc · Carnegie Mellon University · Johns Hopkins University · Folds of Honor Foundation · Tulsa Community Foundation · Columbus Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Bioindustrial Manufacturing and Design Ecosystem Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Bioindustrial Manufacturing and Design Ecosystem Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%3%10%23%40%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 12%
  • Charles Stark Draper Laboratory Inc: 100% of income from government
  • University of Delaware: 30% of income from government
  • Trustees of Boston University: 12% of income from government
  • Johns Hopkins University: 12% of income from government
  • Worcester Polytechnic Institute: 8% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get no government money at all
1rely on government for over half their income
typical government reliance, FY20–25
How this is measured
Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12 to 24 months.
05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to Bioindustrial Manufacturing and Design Ecosystem Inc?

Find your warmest path to Bioindustrial Manufacturing and Design Ecosystem Inc through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 105 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

How this is measured
Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

Generated from the IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Bioindustrial Manufacturing and Design Ecosystem’s filings →

More from the funding graph