• 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. The external review will be double blind - reviewers should not know the identity of the applicants. 

• Based on the reviews from the second stage, we will rank proposals and select the awardees through a partially randomized process.

• 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.

• 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, breathwork, high-quality listening, psychedelics, neuromodulation and other techniques. For this RFP, we are particularly, but not exclusively, interested in research related to mental health and wellness in pediatric populations aged 5-18. 

• 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 LOI on our online portal by the deadline.

• To make use of the double-blind peer review mechanism, the required sections should exclude any information about the identity, institutional affiliation, and country of the PIs. 

• 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.

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. To minimize bias, we designed a process to identify applicants hidden from external reviewers. 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:

1. Relevance is unclear.

2. Relevance is clear but modest.

3. Substantial relevance (should include developing or testing interventions that expand Perception Box with quantifiable success metrics).

4. 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:

1. The approach is not well reasoned or unrealistic to reach the project goals.

2. The approach seems reasonable, but it is not clear how the project would come together to reach the project goals.

3. The approach is strong with a realistic plan to reach the project goals.

4. 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:

1. The impact could be unclear or vague.

2. The impact could be significant but likely to be overshadowed by other efforts in the field.

3. The impact could be both significant and unique (i.e. making a distinctive contribution to the field).

4. The impact could be transformative (i.e. setting new standards or influencing a large audience over a long period of time.) 

We will contract out external paid reviewers with expertise in the field. We aim to source reviewers globally with a geographic distribution that reflects that of the applications being reviewed.

• We will use a modified lottery process, which has previously been described as a practical mechanism to offset systematic bias in the proposal selection process. All full proposals will undergo external review, but we find that the highest scores are often awarded to incremental proposals that shy away from ambitious or risky ideas. 

• To address this bias, we will select proposals randomly from a small subset of the proposals that undergo external review. Some projects, however, may be selected because of their direct relevance to the foundation’s mission. We can therefore encourage applicants to propose ambitious ideas because a pioneering but rigorous proposal would be just as likely to receive funding as any other.