← Back to Eldari
EldariEldari

Reclaim $80,000 per scientist, per year.

40% of a senior scientist's time goes to the business of science — comms, grants, slides, reporting — not the science itself (Harvard Business Review). Eldari reclaims those hours so your $200K scientists go back to the bench.

AI transformation for the business of science.

Book a 30-minute walkthroughRun the numbers on your team →
EldariMeet Therapeutics RX
M
T
W
T
F
S
S
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
What's eating the month
  • Investor update8h
    Monthly · CEO + CFO
  • LinkedIn / social2h
    Weekly · anyone who'll do it
  • Press release10h
    Clinical milestone · Comms contractor @ $6–10K
  • NIH Specific Aims24h
    R01 renewal · PI, 80+ total hrs
  • AACR slides14h
    Conference prep · PI stays up late
  • Paper draft20h
    Senior-author pass · PI solo
  • Reviewer #2 response12h
    Nature submission · PI + postdoc
  • Newsletter18h
    Monthly · Comms, 3 days of work
  • SOP / safety review6h
    Audit readiness · Nobody wants it
Your month — with the science back

This is every biotech.
Including yours.

~8 weeks reclaimed. The science is back.

Eldari
Eldari
The science is back. Where next?

Every biotech. Including yours.

Why not ChatGPT?
The truth problem
Go →
The 28 workflows
Everything around the science
Go →
Run the math
Your team's ROI
Go →
Investor case
How it compounds
Go →
Book a demo
30 minutes, your data
Go →

The shape of the bet: Therapeutics RX keeps the scientists focused on science, replaces the patchwork of contractors + AI wrappers + tribal knowledge with one corpus and 28 workflows, and spends per month what a comms contractor charges per press release. The CFO sees one line item. The CEO sees faster programs.

Why not just use ChatGPT?

The real question isn't "Eldari vs. ChatGPT." It's what happens when a hallucinated citation ships in your newsletter, or when your grant lifts language from a paper you don't own. Scientific writing is a truth problem, not a style problem.

CapabilityEldariChatGPT / ClaudeHiring a comms contractor
Cites only your tenant's own corpusYesNoPartial
28 workflows for the full research lifecycleYesPartialNo
Stays on-field and on-voice (Science + Tone profiles)YesNoPartial
Tenant-isolated data, SSO, BYOK, audit logYesNoNo
Scales team output without new headcountYesPartialNo
Lock-in grows with the customer's libraryYesNoNo

Deeper side-by-side comparison with seven concrete scenarios: /why-eldari.

Jump to
Watch the story →The 28 workflows →Run the math →Investor case →

What Eldari does, today

28 production workflows across the six modalities a scientific organization actually produces. Every workflow runs on your tenant-isolated corpus and uses your Science Profile to stay on-field and on-voice.

Marketing & Communications

8 workflows
  • Social Media Campaign
  • Multi-Platform Campaign Converter
  • Email Newsletter
  • Scientific Press Release (audience-aware)
  • + 4 more

Grants

4 workflows
  • Grant Writer / Editor (solicitation-driven)
  • Grant Scorer (NIH / NSF rubric-aware)
  • Grant Finder
  • Grant Compliance Panel

Papers & Literature

4 workflows
  • Paper Writer / Editor
  • Paper Outliner
  • Journal Match
  • Review Response Writer
  • + 1 more

Presentations

3 workflows
  • Presentation Outliner
  • Presentation Writer / Editor
  • Script Writer (with PPTX export)

Lab Operations

3 workflows
  • Procedure Recording
  • Lab Safety Review
  • Experimental Design Assistant
  • Chemical Inventory Normalizer

Partnerships & Discovery

6 workflows
  • Collaborator Finder
  • Collaborator Literature Summary
  • Socratic Generalist (thinking partner)
  • Mass Investor Outreach
  • + 2 more
Corpus-grounded
Every workflow cites from your tenant's own research library. No hallucinated references.
Science Profile
22 field presets tune terminology, citation format, and regulatory posture per tenant.
Tenant isolation
Strict per-tenant DB, vector namespaces, and storage. Your data never trains a shared model.
Jump to
Watch the story →Why not ChatGPT? →Run the math →Investor case →

What is Eldari worth to your team?

Pick the profile that's closest to your organization, then adjust the inputs. The calculator maps every number to specific workflows, and the output panel attributes savings back to the capabilities that deliver them.

The persona behind the numbers

A CEO running a 30-person Series A biotech. Senior scientists in the US earn roughly $150K–$300K depending on the market — RTP and Philly on the lower end, Bay Area and Boston on the upper — and 40% of their calendar is grants, slides, investor updates, and press. That's $60K–$120K per scientist per year spent on the business of science, not the science itself. A full-time comms hire is $180K and still wouldn't match the voice of every PI.

Your team

How many people on YOUR team spend time on these tasks today, and what does each cost your org? (This isn't Eldari's price — that's lower down. It's your fully-loaded labor cost, used to translate hours-saved into dollars.)

Marketing & communications

Covered by: No-Gap Campaign · Multi-Platform Converter · Newsletter · Press Release · Research Announcement Pipeline · Social Asset Generation · Post Conversion · Audience-Targeted

Grants & funding

Covered by: Grant Writer · Grant Scorer (NIH / NSF rubric-aware) · Grant Finder · Grant Compliance

Papers & literature

Covered by: Paper Writer · Paper Outliner · Journal Match · Review Response · Topic Literature Summary

Presentations

Covered by: Presentation Outliner · Writer · Script Writer (with PPTX export)

Lab operations (optional)

Covered by: Procedure Recording · Lab Safety Review · Experimental Design · Chemical Inventory Normalizer

Eldari plan

Jump to
Watch the story →Why not ChatGPT? →The 28 workflows →Investor case →

What "from your corpus" actually looks like

Same prompt to both tools. Left: Eldari, drafted from the lab's own published papers and matching house voice. Right: raw ChatGPT.

EEldari · Grant aims, drafted on corpus

Aim 1. Quantify the cooperative binding kinetics of the receptor–ligand interface we previously characterized[1] using single-molecule FRET under physiological salt conditions, extending the in vitro framework described in our 2024 study[2].

Aim 2. Test whether the conformational dynamics observed[2] explain the divergent IC50 values across our cell-line panel[3].

On-corpus citations

  1. [1] Lab Author et al., Nat. Chem. Biol., 2022
  2. [2] Lab Author et al., JACS, 2024
  3. [3] Lab internal assay panel, dataset 2024-Q3

Drafted in the lab's house voice from the ingested corpus. Citations clickable.

GRaw ChatGPT · Same prompt, no corpus

Aim 1. Investigate the binding properties of receptor-ligand systems using established biophysical techniques to better understand cooperative interactions.

Aim 2. Examine structure-function relationships across model systems to identify potential therapeutic targets.

Citations

None. Generic phrasing. Doesn't reference any of the lab's prior work or assays.

Illustrative side-by-side. Reach out for a demo on your own corpus.

Why Eldari compounds

Science communication is a time tax.

Every year of delay costs a pharma asset $1–2B in lost exclusivity. Eldari eliminates the friction on the highest-frequency, highest-leakage activity scientific organizations do — communication.

One platform for every output.

Grants, papers, press releases, newsletters, slides, SOPs, investor updates — one corpus, one Science Profile, one voice. The customer's library becomes the switching cost.

Enterprise security at pre-seed.

SSO, BYOK, TOTP, three-layer masking pipeline, tenant-isolated vector DB, append-only audit log. Shipped. A 6–12 month head start on pharma procurement reviews.

Jump to
Watch the story →Why not ChatGPT? →The 28 workflows →Run the math →

See the ROI on your own data.

30 minutes. We wire the calculator to your team, your corpus, your workflows. You walk away knowing exactly what Eldari collapses on your P&L.

Book a 30-minute walkthrough
or start a free trialread the deeper Eldari vs. ChatGPT comparison
How these numbers are calculatedShow methodology ↓

The 40% non-science time figure comes from “Make Time for the Work That Matters” (Harvard Business Review, 2013), Birkinshaw & Cohen's study of knowledge-worker time allocation. We map it to a fully-loaded scientist salary you control via the input above.

OutputHours per output (status quo)Reduction with EldariHours saved per output
Newsletter18 hrs75%13.5 hrs
Press release10 hrs60%6.0 hrs
Social post1.5 hrs70%1.0 hrs
Grant (full submission)120 hrs40%48.0 hrs
Grant progress report14 hrs60%8.4 hrs
Paper80 hrs35%28.0 hrs
Reviewer response12 hrs55%6.6 hrs
Presentation14 hrs50%7.0 hrs
SOP / safety review6 hrs50%3.0 hrs

Reduction percentages are deliberately mid-range, not best-case. Newsletters at 75% reflect Eldari grounding the draft in your published corpus and tone profile, leaving editorial polish (the 25% that's actually worth a human). Papers at 35% reflect the irreducible scientific writing that only the author can do.

Grant funding uplift is reported as a separate upside line, not folded into the headline ROI. The default is 3 percentage points — a deliberately conservative estimate of what rubric-aware scoring + corpus-grounded drafting can do over a baseline submission. Set it to 0 if you want to see time savings alone.

These numbers aren't commitments. Want the editable spreadsheet model with your actual hours? Email jessica@eldaribio.com.