RFA-NS-25-017: BRAIN Initiative—Optimization of Instrumentation and Device Technologies for Recording and Modulation in the Nervous System

RFA-NS-25-017: BRAIN Initiative—Optimization of Instrumentation and Device Technologies for Recording and Modulation in the Nervous System

Historical status

RFA-NS-25-017 was a National Institutes of Health (NIH) BRAIN Initiative Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for new U01 cooperative-agreement applications. The final application receipt date was June 15, 2026, and the official NOFO lists June 16, 2026 as its expiration date. Both dates have passed. The official RFA page and the related NIH notice reviewed for this update do not announce a replacement or next cycle, so this page is a historical reference rather than an active application listing. Do not treat the dates below as an invitation to submit now or assume that a future reissue will use the same schedule.

The final date was not the result of the local stale-page scan. NIH’s notice NOT-NS-26-005, released February 13, 2026, added June 15, 2026 as an additional receipt date and moved the expiration date from January 21, 2026 to June 16, 2026. That change notice is linked from the RFA page. It is the reason the retained deadline in this archive entry is June 15, 2026 rather than the earlier January 20, 2026 receipt date.

Opportunity at a glance

The program’s purpose was to move an existing or emerging neural technology beyond initial proof of concept. NIH sought instrumentation, devices, and associated software for recording or modulating neural cells and circuits in the central nervous system. The work needed to address major barriers to neurobiological experiments and to make the technology more practical for routine research. The RFA specifically emphasized iterative engineering, end-user feedback, measurable performance, and a credible path toward reliable and sustainable dissemination.

What the NOFO was designed to support

This was an optimization opportunity, not a general neuroscience research award. A responsive project would start with a technology that had already shown transformative potential through publications or preliminary data. The proposed work would then improve the system through engineering and use-case testing. Examples in the official description included optical, electrical, magnetic, and acoustic approaches, provided that they addressed recording or modulation of CNS activity at cellular or circuit resolution.

The RFA described three broad goals. First, applicants could develop new network-recording capabilities, including methods for recording neuronal or non-neuronal activity across neural networks and over extended periods. Second, they could develop tools for circuit manipulation, such as hardware or software for activating or inhibiting specific neural populations. Third, they could improve techniques for recording or manipulating CNS activity during behavior. The examples included miniaturized head-mounted devices for freely behaving animals, high-density or multifunctional electrode platforms, cellular-resolution imaging, combinations of recording and stimulation methods, and computational or statistical tools tied to a recording or manipulation technology.

The central test was practical capability. A proposal needed to explain the current state of the art, identify the barrier that prevented researchers from using the technology more effectively, and define how the proposed improvement would be measured against a current best practice or a close comparison technology. The application also needed to explain how requirements would be gathered from end users and incorporated into the design. NIH expected clear and quantifiable metrics for the end-user experience, not only a claim that the device would be more innovative.

Validation experiments were expected to take place in vivo during the project and to be compatible with experiments in behaving animals. Those experiments were intended to demonstrate what the technology could do and its potential impact. They were not supposed to make a biological discovery the primary objective. The official instructions also called for iterative refinement, a limited rollout to selected users where appropriate, and a strategy for moving toward routine neuroscience use and broad dissemination.

What was outside scope

The RFA expressly excluded projects primarily focused on developing or optimizing molecular tools for recording or manipulating neural activity. Applicants whose main work involved molecular constructs were directed to other BRAIN Initiative opportunities. The same boundary applied to proposals centered on biological mechanisms, disease understanding, or therapeutic outcomes rather than technology development and capability demonstration.

Other nonresponsive areas included technologies primarily intended for the peripheral nervous system, theoretical models without experimental validation, and technologies incompatible with behavioral experiments. Primarily noninvasive neuroimaging such as fMRI or PET was also outside this opportunity when it was not expected to reach cellular or circuit resolution for CNS recording or modulation. These exclusions mattered because the RFA’s U01 mechanism was aimed at an engineering and deployment stage: the team needed a credible starting technology and a plan to reduce barriers for neuroscience users.

Eligibility for the closed cycle

NIH listed a broad set of eligible organization types. They included public or private higher education institutions; nonprofit organizations with or without 501(c)(3) status; small businesses and other for-profit organizations; state, county, city, township, special-district, and tribal governments; eligible federal agencies including the NIH Intramural Program; U.S. territories or possessions; independent school districts; public or Indian housing authorities; tribal organizations; faith-based or community-based organizations; and regional organizations.

Foreign organizations were eligible to apply. The official eligibility section also states that non-domestic components of U.S. organizations were eligible and that foreign components, as defined by the NIH Grants Policy Statement, were allowed. Eligibility of the organization did not remove the need to meet the scientific scope, registration, application, and policy requirements of the NOFO.

The applicant organization had to complete and maintain its registrations before submission. NIH identified the System for Award Management (SAM), eRA Commons, and Grants.gov. The organization needed an active SAM registration and a Unique Entity Identifier, and a foreign organization needed an NCAGE code in place of a CAGE code where applicable. eRA Commons required an organizational Signing Official and a Program Director/Principal Investigator account. Each PD/PI needed an eRA Commons account, and Grants.gov registration depended on an active SAM registration. NIH warned that registration can take 6 weeks or more and that an incomplete registration was not a valid reason for a late submission.

The NOFO did not require cost sharing. An organization could submit more than one application if each application was scientifically distinct, but NIH would not accept duplicate or highly overlapping applications under review at the same time. Eligible individuals were those with the skills, knowledge, and resources needed to carry out the proposed research, working with an eligible organization. Multiple-PD/PI applications were allowed under NIH’s applicable policy and submission instructions.

How applications were submitted in the closed cycle

There is no open submission route for this expired NOFO. The following describes the official process that applied to the closed cycle and is preserved for reference only.

1. Confirm fit and consult NIH staff. NIH strongly recommended contacting the scientific or research staff listed in Section VII, preferably well before the Letter of Intent milestone. Staff could discuss whether a proposed technology matched the goals of the BRAIN Initiative and whether a different NOFO would be more suitable. This consultation did not replace peer review or evaluate scientific merit.

2. Complete organization and investigator registrations. The organization needed active SAM, eRA Commons, and Grants.gov registrations before submission. The PD/PI accounts and organizational Signing Official roles also had to be established. Because NIH warned that registration could take 6 weeks or more, this step belonged at the beginning of the preparation schedule.

3. Request the application package through an approved channel. The program-specific forms package was available through ASSIST, Grants.gov Workspace, or an institutional system-to-system solution. Applicants using institutional system-to-system submission were directed to their administrative office for local instructions.

4. Follow the NIH Research instructions and the NOFO supplements. The application had to follow the Research (R) Instructions in the NIH How to Apply—Application Guide, except where RFA-NS-25-017 supplied different instructions. NIH stated that conformance was strictly enforced and that noncompliant applications could be delayed or not accepted for review.

5. Build the research strategy around measurable optimization. The research plan needed a current-state-of-the-art benchmark, a clear account of the scientific barrier, proof-of-concept evidence, end-user requirements, quantifiable performance metrics, iterative testing, and a credible path to routine neuroscience use. The plan also needed annual milestones with verifiable go/no-go criteria. Proposed comparisons to current best practices were expected where appropriate.

6. Prepare the budget and sharing plans. The budget was not subject to a fixed ceiling, but it had to match the project’s actual needs. It was expected to include travel funds for up to two key personnel to attend a BRAIN investigator meeting for up to two days and two overnight stays each year. Applicants also had to follow NIH requirements for data management and sharing, resource sharing, and technology-transfer or patent planning where applicable.

7. Submit by the applicable receipt date. The RFA listed June 2, 2025, January 20, 2026, and June 15, 2026 for new applications. All applications were due by 5:00 PM local time of the applicant organization, and NIH encouraged early submission to allow time to correct errors found during the electronic submission process. The final receipt date has passed.

Review and award structure

Applications were to be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by a Scientific Review Group convened by NINDS. Reviewers considered the project’s significance, investigators, innovation, approach, environment, and the way the technology could become useful and adoptable. For this RFA, optimization strategy and end-user engagement mattered alongside novelty. Reviewers were asked to consider whether the work could produce unbiased, reproducible, robust data; whether the design included suitable controls and a justified sample size; and whether analysis and reporting plans were adequate.

The award mechanism was a cooperative agreement, meaning NIH expected substantial scientific or programmatic involvement after award. The RFA described collaboration with NIH staff, participation in BRAIN investigator meetings, sharing of information and technology among supported teams where appropriate, and regular attention to milestones. Following peer review, applications could undergo a selection process, and recommended applications received a second-level review by the appropriate NIH Advisory Council or Board. Funding decisions also depended on available funds and alignment with program priorities.

The listed review and award table paired the receipt dates with November 2025, July 2026, and November 2026 scientific merit review; January 2026, October 2026, and January 2027 Advisory Council review; and April 2026, December 2026, and April 2027 earliest start dates. These are cycle-specific administrative dates from the closed RFA, not evidence of a new application window.

Archive guidance

Researchers using this page to understand the BRAIN Initiative technology-development sequence should verify any future opportunity directly on the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts and the BRAIN Initiative site. A future announcement may change the activity code, participating institutes, eligible activities, required plans, budget language, or dates. The historical deadline retained in the front matter is the official final receipt date for RFA-NS-25-017; it is not a guessed date for a successor program.