NSF Tech Labs FAQs
And thoughts about new institutional models for research.
This is a post from the IFP Metascience team and represents our understanding of NSF’s new Tech Labs initiative and our thoughts on IFP’s X-Labs proposal. We hope you find it useful!
The National Science Foundation recently announced the Tech Labs Initiative, a new grant program that innovates on how the government funds scientific research. As part of the announcement, the Technology, Innovation and Partnerships (TIP) Directorate launched a Request for Information (RFI) to solicit potential Tech Labs applicants and advice on the structure of Tech Labs. Comments are due by January 20, 2026 at 3:00 PM EST.
Tech Labs builds on a long lineage of experiments on scientific institutional models. The idea of independent, non-profit research organizations dates back to the turn of the 19th century, starting with the Pasteur Institute and the Max Planck Society. In recent decades, philanthropists have funded new institutions in pursuit of breakthroughs in biology and neurobiology (Janelia Research Campus), brain science (Allen Institute), and biomedical research (Arc Institute and Broad Institute); Convergent Research has incubated several focused research organizations (FROs) to produce high-impact public goods to unblock scientific progress. These new institutions give scientists and organizations flexible funding, allowing them to focus on research rather than chasing money or reporting on grants.
But philanthropic funding is dwarfed by the federal science enterprise, which is why NSF’s investment in independent research organizations is so exciting. In 2022, Ben Reinhardt argued that the newly founded NSF TIP Directorate should “fund a portfolio of independent research organizations instead of funding specific research initiatives.” With Tech Labs, TIP appears to be doing exactly that.
The case for alternative funding models is clear. Research shows that flexible funding for scientific discovery can produce higher research impact than conventional grants. Tech Labs shares DNA with IFP’s X-Labs framework; both are visions to expand the government’s science portfolio beyond incremental, project-based grants.
We can see enthusiasm for funding independent, flexible research institutions across the political spectrum. White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Director Michael Kratsios celebrated the Tech Labs announcement, and Democratic Congressman Josh Harder (CA-9) and Republican Congressman Obernolte (CA-23) just cosponsored legislation to launch X-Labs at the National Institutes of Health.
Below, we answer some common questions about Tech Labs, including how the initiative compares to the X-Labs model. We obviously can’t speak for NSF; rather, these responses are based on a thorough review of all publicly available information on Tech Labs and our own perspectives.
1. Why are Tech Labs needed right now?
As TIP assistant director Erwin Gianchandani said in the Tech Labs announcement, “As scientific challenges have become more complex and dependent upon the work of cross-disciplinary teams of experts, our nation must expand its scientific funding toolkit to adapt.”
We agree. By focusing most of our federal research dollars on smaller, more incremental grants, the government misses out on higher-risk, higher-reward opportunities that can lead to breakthroughs. And as the structure of frontier scientific production continues to evolve, it’s important for the federal government to create and support new frontier scientific institutions.
The RFI states:
“The Tech Labs initiative…is designed to address systemic barriers in the innovation ecosystem, including the limited translation of emerging technology to impact and limited industry engagement in early-stage technology development…Many of the most pressing challenges in technology translation require coordinated, interdisciplinary teams working with urgency and purpose. These challenges often face market failures that deter private investment, despite their potential for transformative impact.”
2. How will Tech Labs be structured?
RFI responses will inform how Tech Labs is ultimately implemented, but we can get a sense of the likely Tech Labs structure from the information and questions provided in the RFI. The RFI requests feedback on funding per institution, length of commitment, and stages of NSF financial support. It proposes $10-50 million in annual funding per institution, provided based on milestones, for up to 5 years.
From the announcement:
“The Tech Labs initiative will support full-time teams of researchers, scientists, and engineers who will enjoy operational autonomy and milestone-based funding as they pursue technical breakthroughs that have the potential to reshape or create entire technology sectors. Tech Labs teams will move beyond traditional research outputs (e.g., publications and datasets), with sufficient resources, financial runway, and independence to transition critical technology from early concept or prototypes to commercially viable platforms ready for private investment to scale and deploy.”
From the RFI:
“This initiative will bet on teams – not individual projects – by funding full-time, dedicated teams which may transcend existing institutional structures and limitations to provide technologists with the autonomy to pursue ambitious goals… The Tech Labs initiative will include a lightweight application process (90 days), a 9-month planning phase, and 24-month performance phases with the intention of renewing high-performing teams for an additional 24 months or more.“
“The planning phase would allow the applicant to work directly with the NSF to co-develop their project. This unique detail should allow for higher-quality team development and strategic planning than in a traditional grant process, where these details need to be worked out at the application stage.”
3. How much money will be allocated to Tech Labs?
Tech Labs will invest up to $1 billion over five years. That’s a lot of money, but only a small share of the NSF budget. If appropriations stay roughly constant, then this funding amounts to a 2-3% share of the NSF budget (which totals around $10 billion per year, or $50 billion over five years) for this experiment in funding new institutions.
4. How does Tech Labs relate to IFP’s X-Labs framework?
Tech Labs are similar to the X02 awards we defined in our X-Labs proposal. They would fund scientific entities dedicated to solving critical infrastructure, tooling, or data challenges.
Our X-Labs proposal describes four award types:
X01 Awards that fund cutting-edge basic science institutions with flexible research environments. These institutions would focus on foundational scientific discovery with stable, long-term support. The core bet behind X01s is on people, not projects. The goal is to assemble the best team in the world to pursue open-ended scientific inquiry with minimal bureaucratic constraint.
X02 Awards that fund scientific entities dedicated to solving critical infrastructure, tooling, or data challenges. These labs would be designed for time-limited, high-impact interventions and use multi-year block grants with milestone-based evaluations. The fundamental selection principle is the challenge, funding a talented group with a nimble organizational structure to execute against a clearly defined bottleneck in the scientific ecosystem.
X03 Awards that fund portfolio-based regranting and incubation organizations, acting as alternative funding institutions outside of the traditional government grant selection process. The animating principle behind X03s is to empower scientific scouts: individuals or organizations with the insight, network, and conviction to identify high-potential ideas, talent, or research directions long before they become consensus picks.
X04 Awards that provide seed funding to support the formation and planning of new scientific institutions, enabling teams to refine their vision, build key partnerships, and develop initial proof-of-concept work before applying for additional X-Labs funding.
Given TIP’s focus on applied and translational gaps, an X02-style program design fits well within the directorate’s remit. As Tech Labs generate evidence for this funding strategy, we hope science funders will take up other parts of this model in basic science domains as well.
5. How are Tech Labs different from university center grants?
Tech Labs differ in size and structure from NSF’s other large-scale research grants, which include the Science and Technology Center: Partnership Grants and Engineering Research Centers (both with grants of up to $6 million per year), and Global Centers and AI Research Institutes (both with grants of up to $5 million per year).
We’ve identified five key differences between Tech Labs and existing NSF grant programs:
Even the largest grants (up to $6 million per year) are much smaller than the scale of the Tech Labs (up to $50 million per year).
Depending on the specific implementation details, Tech Labs would likely have more independence from NSF and potentially lighter reporting requirements than university center grants.
Tech Labs will have more budgetary flexibility and can avoid the (sometimes arbitrary) distinctions between direct and indirect costs. Ideally, Tech Labs will empower scientists to decide whether their marginal dollar should go toward additional grad students, more GPU training time, or an updated electron microscope.
Center grants are often spread across numerous institutions and approximate a research consortia model. This can add to administrative complexity and often means that scientists are spread across physical distance. By concentrating teams and leadership within one institution, Tech Labs will be better able to capture the efficiencies and knowledge spillovers of colocated science.
Tech Labs establish concrete milestones, measured by progress on technology readiness levels (TRL) and technology platforms rather than basic research.
Below is a table comparing Tech Labs and other NSF funding mechanisms.
6. How will Tech Labs involve universities?
Here’s what the RFI says about institutional independence (emphasis ours):
“Tech Labs program will offer sustained, multi-year support to innovative and institutionally independent organizational structures operating outside of existing academic, start-up, and industry constraints to fill a vital gap in the innovation ecosystem.”
We don’t yet know what this will mean for university involvement, but it’s likely that universities cannot apply to be a Tech Lab. It’s possible that the grantee can be a nonprofit that has a university affiliation (e.g., shares faculty, some facilities, equipment). The Arc Institute and Broad Institute are both university-affiliated (Stanford/Berkeley/UC San Francisco and MIT and Harvard, respectively), and we wouldn’t be surprised if Tech Labs allows this sort of relationship.
That said, there’s value in trying to deliberately seed new institutions of science. The US government has done this before, from the establishment of the land grant universities to the national laboratories. At a certain level of scale, spinning out research activities into adjacent institutions would allow for symbiotic work with universities with the added benefit of institutional autonomy.
RFI responses may influence which university affiliation structures Tech Labs allow. The Federation of American Scientists published a piece encouraging universities to respond to the RFI and help shape the relationship between higher education and the Tech Labs. We think that’s a good idea.
7. How can I comment on the NSF Tech Labs idea?
Respond to the RFI by emailing TechLabs@nsf.gov with the subject line “NSF Tech Labs RFI Response” by January 20, 2026 at 3:00 PM EST. No need to respond to every question in the RFI, but don’t miss the deadline!