REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
We seek to fund up to 10 rigorous, empirical, statistically valid, and sound neuroscientific research projects related to a concept called Perception Box.
The deadline for the first round is October 7th, 2025
Apply via our Application Portal
Learn more about our past awards
Tiny Blue Dot Foundation (TBD) seeks to fund rigorous, empirical, statistically valid, and sound research on neural, experiential, and psychological factors related to a concept called Perception Box. Our grant funds will support research to develop relevant techniques and interventions to expand the walls of people’s Perception Box, to measure the effectiveness of such techniques and interventions for clinical or non-clinical populations, and to track their basis in the brain using appropriate tools. This Request for Proposal (RFP) relates directly to the Expanding the Walls of Our Perception Box programmatic statement.
We seek to support broad neuroscience-based research to allow children, teenagers, and adults to understand that the reality they experience is a construct of their mind, amenable to change. That is, they can learn to expand their Perception Box to reduce the anxieties that come with living in the modern world, minimize strife, and to be more mindful and compassionate with others and themselves. We fund innovative research involving mindfulness, and other meditation practices, breathwork, psychedelics, neuromodulation, technologies such as AI and VR, and other relevant interventions.
For this RFP, we are particularly, but not exclusively, interested in research related to mental health and wellness in pediatric populations aged 5-18. However, all proposals will be reviewed on their own merit, and we continue to be interested in innovative proposals targeting adults. Projects aimed at children aged 0 - 5 are out of scope for this RFP.
Key Features
The Request for Proposal (RFP) will involve a two-stage process to help minimize work for both principal investigators (PIs) and TBD.
Stage One: applicants must submit a letter of intent (LOI). All LOIs will be reviewed by TBD staff and a select panel of existing grantees. Proposals will be evaluated for scientific rigor and relevance toward meeting the overall goals of the RFP.
Stage Two: approximately 30 applicants will be invited to submit a Full Proposal, which will undergo a rigorous external review.
Applicants can seek funding for up to three consecutive years with funding of up to a total of US$900,000. This sum includes a maximum amount of 15% overhead. TBD reserves the right to reduce the request amount based on budgetary constraints or insufficient budget justification.
To help applicants throughout the process, we will host webinars at key stages. Webinars will be recorded to accommodate applicants from different time zones.
Timeline (dates subject to change):
Sep 2, 2025: LOI opens.
Sep 16, 2025 (0800 PDT): LOI Guidance Webinar, open to all.
Oct 7, 2025 (2359 PDT): LOI closes.
Dec 22, 2025: Selected LOIs are chosen.
Jan 6, 2026 (0800 PST): Save the date for Full Application Guidance Webinar.
Feb 9, 2026 (0800 PST): Save the date for Full Application Guidance Webinar.
Mar 2, 2026 (2359 PST): Deadline for submitting Full Proposals.
July, 2026: Funding decision announced.
Proposal Process
This RFP will involve a two-stage process. The first stage of the LOI form is open to anyone with the required credentials and institutional affiliation. We will review the LOI forms using our internal team and an expert panel. We will then shortlist the applicants who submitted the strongest LOIs to complete a full proposal.
During the second stage, invited applicants will complete a full proposal, which will be reviewed internally and externally. Based on the reviews from the second stage, we will rank proposals and select the awardees through a panel-assisted process.
Detailed RFP Criteria
All Proposals must be submitted in English.
Grants can only be awarded to a recognized Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3) medical schools, colleges, universities, or not-for-profit research organizations and, to the extent permissible pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code, to similar organizations located within or outside the United States even if such organization are not recognized as Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3) organizations (collectively referred to as “Applicant Institution”). Applications will be considered from any country except for those on the US’s Office of Foreign Assets Control sanctions list.
All proposals will be screened against our financial compliance criteria. We may require applicants to submit more information if needed. If an extended screening is required, then the review and processing timeline for that proposal may be extended. TBD reserves the right to reduce the request amount based on budgetary constraints or insufficient budget justification.
The Principal Investigator should be a clinical, applied, or basic science researcher at the Applicant Institution with a MD, PhD, or an equivalent degree.
The research should be focused on the discovery or development of tools and interventions to help expand the walls of people’s Perception Box, to measure the effectiveness of these tools and interventions and to track the effects of these on the minds, behaviors, and brains of subjects.
We fund innovative research involving mindfulness, and other meditation practices, breathwork, psychedelics, neuromodulation, technologies such as AI and VR, and other relevant interventions. For this RFP, we are particularly, but not exclusively, interested in research related to mental health and wellness in pediatric populations aged 5-18. However, all proposals will be reviewed on their own merit. We continue to be interested in innovative proposals targeting adults. Projects aimed at children aged 0 - 5 are out of scope for this RFP.
This RFP is intended for scientific research related to humans. Projects that include philosophical enquiry, mathematical models, laboratory animals, or in vitro experiments must provide suitable justification for a grant award.
All finalist Applicants will be expected to pre-register their proposals and to provide a plan to disseminate their methods, data, and code, according to the FAIR principles.
Applicants need to complete a blinded, i.e., anonymous LOI on our online portal by the deadline.
The Full Proposal should briefly address whether the PI has already, or is planning to, obtain permission from the relevant regulatory organizations (e.g., IRB, IACUC, DEA) regarding work with human subjects, laboratory animals, and/or controlled substances. Such approvals can be granted after the proposal submission deadline, but no grant funding will be released until such permissions have been obtained.
Applicants can make more than one submission with the proviso that TBD may decide to only proceed with one. In that case, we may consult with the Applicant, or we may decide internally which one to prioritize. Researchers may also collaborate with teams on more than one proposal providing that does not lead to a conflict of interest.
Applicants from last year who were not selected may submit their applications again providing they can satisfy the criteria of this round.
Completeness Check Criteria
Profile Completed
Letter of intent instructions have been followed, and all sections completed
Project Description is cleared of all personally identifiable information
The entire application contains all related entries and supporting materials
Proposal has been submitted and confirmation email received
Review Criteria
LOIs will undergo several review steps that include a panel of advisors. Full proposals will generally be reviewed by three external, paid reviewers not associated with TBD. Our review process involves multiple stages with separate criteria. The three key dimensions are as follows:
Relevance: To what extent is this proposal relevant to the goals of the RFP? Consider the following scoring guidelines:
Relevance is unclear.
Relevance is clear but modest.
Substantial relevance (should include developing or testing interventions that expand Perception Box with quantifiable success metrics).
Highly relevant (should include the above and contribute to a long-term vision of promoting mental well-being).
Approach: How realistic is the approach to achieving the project goals? Consider the following scoring guidelines:
The approach is not well reasoned or unrealistic to reach the project goals.
The approach seems reasonable, but it is not clear how the project would come together to reach the project goals.
The approach is strong with a realistic plan to reach the project goals.
Everything in Point 3 and the proposal includes reasonable contingencies in case plans fail.
Impact: If the project is successful, what impact could it have on mental wellbeing? The impact could be direct (e.g. developing or testing an intervention) or indirect (e.g. new knowledge that can be used to develop or test an intervention). Consider the following scoring guidelines:
The impact could be unclear or vague.
The impact could be significant but likely to be overshadowed by other efforts in the field.
The impact could be both significant and unique (i.e. making a distinctive contribution to the field).
The impact could be transformative (i.e. setting new standards or influencing a large audience over a long period of time.)
Common reasons for LOI rejections:
To guide applicants, we provide a list of the most common reasons for LOI rejections. Please review this list carefully to help strengthen your proposal.
Lack of relevance to Perception Box: We provide a detailed explanation of Perception Box on the TBD website. All proposals need to align with the approach and aims of Perception Box.
Lack of novelty or clear advancement of existing research: Some proposals fail to demonstrate a clear understanding of the state of the field or fail to specify how their approach offers a significant advance over existing research.
Unclear or weak hypotheses: Some hypotheses are not clearly defined, testable, or supported by strong rationale. A strong hypothesis should be specific and offer a tangible contribution to the aims of the project.
Insufficient justification of research methods: This includes failure to justify expensive methodologies or proposing methods that are not optimally suited to testing the hypotheses in question.
Lack of scalability or real-world impact: Some proposals rely on costly interventions without justifying how they could scale. Others collect data on patients with rare conditions without explaining how the data can be informative in a more general context.
Failure to follow instructions related to key requirements such as anonymization or budget limitations.
Contact Us with Questions
If you have any questions, check out our FAQs or use the form below for a specific inquiry.