Norwegian tech startup Watchbird faces a major setback after the government canceled a 100 million kroner contract for its Safegaiter protective mask. The reversal follows investigative reporting that questioned the mask's effectiveness against chemical agents, despite the company receiving 9.8 million kroner in state research funding to develop a 'buff against chemical weapons' just months prior.
From Research Grant to Scrapped Contract
In November last year, the Norwegian Research Council awarded Watchbird 9.8 million kroner. The funding was for developing the Safegaiter CBRN, a project aiming to create a protective neck gaiter against chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) threats. The grant application, obtained by media, stated the goal was to make a mask or buff against chemical weapons. This research grant was separate from a subsequent major government procurement deal.
The situation changed dramatically in January 2025. The government announced it was scrapping a separate 100 million kroner supply agreement with Watchbird for the Safegaiter mask. This decision came after published tests compared the Safegaiter, which uses a simpler FFP1 filter sewn into a fabric buff, against a cheaper mask with a higher-grade FFP3 filter. The tests, conducted in a gas chamber with tear gas, showed the cheaper alternative performed better.
Testing Controversy and Company Defense
Watchbird has consistently criticized the methodology of these independent tests. The company argues its mask is designed to protect against particles from tear gas, not the gas itself in a vapor form. In statements, they have maintained that the Safegaiter provides the protection it claims. However, the test results raised significant public and parliamentary questions about procuring protective equipment based on its stated capabilities versus independent verification.
Line Diana Blytt, one of three experts who assessed Watchbird's original research grant application for the Research Council, clarified the panel's role. "Our assessment is based solely on the content of the application," Blytt said. "We cannot verify references or test the claims beyond the knowledge we already possess." She noted the expert panel is only part of the Research Council's process, which has the final responsibility for grant decisions.
A Rapid Resubmission and Evolving Claims
Documents show a rapid timeline of applications from Watchbird. The company first had a grant application rejected in the fall of 2024. That application was for a 'Safegaiter 2.0'. Just seven months later, they submitted a new application. Notably, this new 'Safegaiter CBRN' application was sent just one week after the company secured the now-canceled 100 million kroner government supply deal. This sequence highlights how quickly the project's scope and branding evolved from an upgrade to a device aimed at countering chemical weapons.
Impact on Norway's Innovation Ecosystem
This case sends ripples through Norway's tech and startup community, particularly in Oslo's innovation districts where hardware and safety tech startups operate. It underscores the tension between supporting domestic innovation through grants and procurement, and the stringent, evidence-based validation required for life-saving protective equipment. The Research Council's grant focused on development and innovation, while the later procurement deal was for mass supply to official users, representing different stages with vastly different accountability requirements.
For Norwegian tech startups, especially in the growing safety and security sector, the episode highlights a critical path from lab to market. It shows the intense scrutiny products face when public safety and large sums of taxpayer money are involved. Developers and CTOs in similar fields note that while research funding can help prove a concept, commercial contracts, particularly with the state, demand transparent, third-party testing and certified performance data.
A Look at the Funding Process
The process for Research Council grants involves an initial screening by the Council itself before a panel of external experts reviews the technical and scientific merits of the application. As Blytt explained, the panel's assessment is confined to the application documents. This system is designed to fund a wide range of research and innovation ideas, but it is not a product certification or procurement approval body. The Watchbird case illustrates the potential gap between a project deemed worthy of research funding and a product deemed ready for widespread operational deployment.
What Comes Next for Protective Tech?
The government's reversal leaves questions about the future of lightweight CBRN protection development in Norway. Will this case lead to more stringent pre-procurement testing protocols for startups seeking government contracts? Will it affect how the Research Council evaluates applications for safety-critical hardware? Other Nordic tech hubs are watching, as digital transformation in public safety procurement becomes a broader trend. The demand for innovative protective equipment has not diminished, but the path to securing public contracts may now involve a higher bar for demonstrable, verified performance.
The lasting question for Norway's innovation landscape is how to foster cutting-edge technology development while implementing fail-safes that prevent substantial public investment in solutions that may not perform as expected under real-world conditions. This balance is crucial for maintaining trust in both the startup ecosystem and the government's ability to wisely invest in the nation's security and technological future.