RFA-OD-25-010: Resource-Related Research Projects for Development of Models and Related Materials for Studying Human Health and Diseases (R24 Clinical Trials Not Allowed)

RFA-OD-25-010: Resource-Related Research Projects for Development of Models and Related Materials for Studying Human Health and Diseases (R24 Clinical Trials Not Allowed)

NIH’s Office of Research Infrastructure Programs (ORIP) designed this call to solve a specific system problem: many researchers build excellent disease-specific tools, but those tools often remain isolated, difficult to reproduce outside narrow domains, or inaccessible to the broader NIH ecosystem. The program is not asking for one disease project or one institute’s mission. It is asking for reusable research resources with broad impact across NIH’s biomedical landscape.

The opportunity is currently listed as active for FY 2026–2029, with recurring application due dates and an intended annual funding pool of $5 million. That makes it a strategic fit for teams that can produce infrastructure-like outputs with clear reuse pathways and evidence of cross-disciplinary value.

Unlike grants that fund direct clinical interventions, this NOFO is explicitly focused on resource-related research. Think: model systems, related biological materials, and methods that increase rigor, reproducibility, translational value, and accessibility of preclinical knowledge for multiple disease areas.

Key details at a glance

What makes this NOFO distinct

Most calls with similar language sound broad: “develop models,” “develop methods,” “improve infrastructure.” This one is specific in ways that change application strategy.

First, it is about reach and applicability. Your proposed output should not only solve your immediate question. It should be positioned as a resource for other investigators, across disciplines, across institutes, across organ systems. This is why ORIP repeatedly requires applicants to show relevance beyond one scientific island.

Second, it is about practical deployment beyond publication. The NOFO expects applicants to think about distribution, accessibility, and continuity. In practice this means your model or tool should be packaged with dissemination plans, stewardship strategy, and preferably integration with repositories or stock centers.

Third, it is about scientific maturity without narrowness. The page allows a wide range of outputs (animal models, NAMs, informatics tools, biological materials, reagents, phenotyping platforms), but it rejects work that is basically one-problem, one-bucket, one-lab output. Broad impact is not optional language; it is structural eligibility logic.

Fourth, this is an R24 program where clinical trials are prohibited, so animal and in vitro or in silico approaches, biological materials, and resource development models must stay non-trial. Teams must align research design accordingly.

This creates a useful opportunity for labs that can generate durable resources rather than one-off findings.

Who this opportunity is intended for

You should consider this opportunity if your team can answer all of these at once:

• Can we build a resource that multiple labs can use?
• Does it address needs in more than one NIH IC area?
• Does it support a model or material relevant to multiple organ systems?
• Is there a credible plan to share and sustain the output?

This includes:

• preclinical methodologists building NAMs used by different disease teams,
• imaging or computational groups creating reusable workflows,
• translatable biology labs that can scale model characterization across conditions,
• investigators developing reagents or biological lines that answer broad mechanistic questions.

It may be less suitable if your project is narrowly aimed at one disease and one lab network with no clear NIH-wide reuse.

The eligibility section is intentionally broad in organization type: higher education, nonprofits, for-profits (including small businesses), and various government entities can apply. So this is not limited to universities only. What is excluded is any organization that depends on a foreign-submission pathway: non-domestic entities and foreign components are not eligible.

In short, this is accessible to many U.S.-based institutions, but those institutions must be NIH-compliant and route grant administration properly.

What this program funds (and what it does not)

The NOFO defines a practical taxonomy of outputs. Good candidates include, for example:

• new approach methodologies (NAMs) that replicate physiological or disease processes,
• informatics or systems tools integrating multi-omics or phenotype-level data,
• methods that strengthen rigor and reproducibility in model science,
• mutant/transgenic model systems that address multi-organ disease biology,
• reagents, genetic resources, and supporting characterisation infrastructure,
• biological materials and knowledge resources with broad reuse pathways.

Reviewers and program staff are also clear on examples that are not suitable:

• resource work tied to a single disease or one institute’s narrow mission,
• projects built around one single cell type without wider relevance,
• husbandry and collection management with no high-value reusable insight,
• pure cataloguing or maintenance of single repositories,
• primary use of wild-type models under narrow perturbation schemes,
• threatened/endangered species work and purely human-cell-only work where scope exceeds this call’s boundaries.

This boundary is often misunderstood. A project can be excellent science, but if it does not create broad, cross-program value, it is likely to be judged non-responsive.

Eligibility, scope, and “fit by default” checks

A key compliance point: this NOFO is an NIH-wide mechanism designed for cross-IC value. The NOFO language is explicit that proposed work should impact at least two NIH ICs and involve multiple organ systems.

When doing your first draft screening, use this three-column filter:

• Relevance breadth: Is this applicable only to one disease area, or to multiple high-value biomedical domains?
• Reuse architecture: Is there a clear path for other labs/institutions to adopt this output?
• Sustainability: Will the resource remain useful and accessible after funding cycles?

If the answer is “single-discipline only” or “one model in one niche,” narrow and reframe may help, but if not reframeable in good faith, the opportunity is wrong.

Eligibility of applicants is broad by entity type, but not open to every collaboration style. Foreign entities and non-domestic components are explicitly not eligible, which is stricter than many NIH mechanisms that sometimes allow partial foreign components. So ensure your funding model and consortium structure are fully domestic.

A second operational check: because project costs are not capped by a fixed dollar amount in the same way as some mechanism-specific opportunities, teams can wrongly think this allows unlimited budget scaling. In reality, typical NIH oversight plus proposal review expectations mean budgets should remain tightly justified by the resource objective and sharing plan.

Funding mechanics and budget planning

The NOFO includes clear program-level funding intent:

• $5,000,000 per year in FY 2026–2029,
• minimum six awards per fiscal year,
• include Down Syndrome-related awards when meritorious (explicitly called out in the program text).

Crucially, this does not replace project-level justification. It establishes scale expectations and helps with competitiveness analysis, but does not define your grant amount.

How to interpret this for planning:

• If your team needs a small resource pilot, do not overspecify into a large infrastructure project.
• If your concept needs very heavy capital and multi-site rollout, you should still define a compact first wave because this mechanism is evaluated as resource development, not broad-scale commercialization.
• Plan for up to four years duration, with milestones that show continued community value.

For renewals, resubmissions, and revisions: the NOFO applies normal NIH rules and allows renewal pathways but does not automatically relax scope expectations. If you are renewing, you still need to justify broader impact, dissemination, and measurable use-case expansion.

Application timing and strategy

The program is active with recurring opportunities through multiple rounds. As of the latest NIH page, key due dates are:

• Jan 27, 2026
• May 27, 2026
• Sep 28, 2026
• Jan 26, 2027
• May 26, 2027
• Sep 28, 2027
• Jan 26, 2028
• May 26, 2028
• Sep 28, 2028

The opportunity is scheduled to expire Sept 29, 2028.

Because of recurring dates, teams often treat this like a standing grant and postpone planning. That is dangerous. A practical strategy is to target the first available cycle and build an internal cut-off at least a week before the official NIH date for internal quality and system checks.

Recommended timeline for each submission round

• 90 days before due date: Finalize scientific scope and decide which output is truly reusable across at least two NIH ICs.
• 60 days before due date: Draft Specific Aims + resource impact narrative; get internal peer review on cross-IC relevance.
• 30 days before due date: Resolve compliance items, registrations, registration health checks in SAM/eRA/Grants system flow.
• 14 days before due date: Lock a complete draft against the official NOFO structure; remove items not aligned to R24 deliverables.
• 7 days before due date: Final budget narrative review and stewardship/dissemination proof points.
• before due date: Submit; build time to test submission packaging and metadata.

You will want to prove that the project is not just technically useful but deployment-useful.

Application content blueprint for competitive submissions

1) Problem statement

Phrase your problem as a community obstacle rather than a single-lab challenge:

• “Model X currently exists, but there is no standard characterization pipeline for disease classes Y and Z.”
• “Resource Z cannot be validated across two or more NIH-supported programs due to limited characterization.”

The proposal should explain what is blocking reuse now and why NIH-wide resources are worth investing in.

2) Work package design

Build your methods around three explicit outcomes:

• Creation/enhancement: what resource you are adding,
• Validation: how you will ensure reliability, reproducibility, and relevance,
• Distribution and adoption: where and how the research community can use it.

Reviewers reward clarity when each output maps to at least one NIH-wide use case.

3) Resource accessibility and lifecycle

The NOFO language repeatedly implies persistence beyond the award period.

Your application should include:

• planned deposit points (stock center/databases),
• identifiers and documentation strategy,
• metadata plans, including reporting/identification standards,
• continuity plan (post-award maintenance and transfer strategy).

Do not present resource release as “nice to have.” Make it mandatory in budget and methods.

4) Multi-system relevance

Because NIH wants two or more NIH ICs potentially benefiting, the “why this matters beyond one program” argument should be explicit, repeated, and testable:

• define at least two distinct user communities,
• define two potential disease domains,
• provide sample use cases outside your own program area.

5) Feasibility realism

Given review emphasis on broad impact, teams sometimes overpromise scale. A strong proposal explicitly links project duration, staffing, and deliverables.

A practical budget logic:

• one primary platform or model line,
• one rigorous validation package,
• one dissemination route,
• one plan for reproducibility and reuse,
• one risk-adjusted contingency when validation fails.

Common mistakes and how to avoid them

Mistake 1: Submitting single-disease resource work

If your output is primarily one disease, one model, one assay, with no transfer pathway to broader programs, reviewers may classify the application as outside the NOFO logic.

Fix: Reframe by adding at least one secondary use-case and demonstrate utility across a second disease family.

Mistake 2: Treating it as a conventional hypothesis-driven grant

This mechanism is resource-driven, not primarily discovery hypothesis-driven.

Fix: Lead with the resource, validation, and adoption pathway first; mention discovery outputs as secondary evidence.

Mistake 3: Weak dissemination planning

If you have no concrete path for resource availability, the project may be judged as low system value.

Fix: Include repository/stock center plans, sharing standards, and sustainability logic. Mention resource identifiers and publication practices.

Mistake 4: Ignoring domestic eligibility boundaries

A common submission error is accidental foreign component complexity.

Fix: Ensure all applicant and component structures are domestic and compliant with NIH rules.

Mistake 5: Overly unconstrained budget and timeline

Because some mechanisms lack tight dollar caps, teams may expand scope and lose focus.

Fix: Keep to one clearly bounded resource stream per submission with strict scope controls and milestone-based reporting.

Eligibility and operational readiness checklist

Before finalizing your draft, complete this checklist:

1. The opportunity fits the R24 structure.
2. No clinical trial components are essential to core aims.
3. The expected deliverable is applicable across at least two NIH ICs.
4. The resource addresses multiple organ systems or broadly relevant disease pathways.
5. A distribution and retention plan is written into the project design.
6. Registration requirements (institutional and NIH systems) are confirmed early.
7. A compliance matrix is built for NIH application type requirements.

If two or more of these are unresolved, pause and rescope before submitting.

What reviewers look for in this mechanism

From the NOFO framework, review quality usually lands on:

• evidence that the output is genuinely needed beyond one PI and one institution,
• quality of characterization and validation strategy,
• practicality of distribution and accessibility,
• alignment to NIH-wide need, not niche grant-seeking,
• demonstration that the resource or method is designed for broad adoption.

The strongest applications rarely rely only on novelty. They are judged for practical contribution to shared infrastructure and scientific reproducibility.

FAQ for teams considering this call

Can non-academic entities apply?

Yes, depending on type. The NOFO lists multiple eligible org types, including nonprofits, for-profits, and governmental entities.

Is the NOFO open right now for 2027 planning?

Yes, with recurring due dates and active status at the time of the official NIH listing. Multiple rounds allow 2026/2027 planning.

Is there a fixed maximum award amount?

No hard fixed per-award cap is stated in the NOFO sections we can directly verify in this pass. The program-level intent is explicit about annual budget and minimum number of awards.

Can foreign collaborations submit through U.S. institutions?

Non-domestic components are disallowed in this NOFO, so this is not the right mechanism if your model requires foreign partner administration in the award structure.

Is this only for models, or can it include methods and materials?

It includes both. The NOFO explicitly supports development of models, methods (including NAMs), related materials, reagents, and associated knowledge resources.

Practical next actions

If your team wants a strong submission, build your draft around a reusable-resource narrative.

1. Define one primary resource outcome with clear broad impact.
2. Tie it to at least two NIH IC domains and at least two organ systems or cross-cutting biological questions.
3. Add a realistic dissemination plan (where and how others access/use it).
4. Convert outputs into milestones that can be reported annually.
5. Submit a pre-review version through your compliance team to catch administrative issues before final packaging.

A good NOFO response in this category feels less like a standard grant and more like a mini-infrastructure architecture proposal. The review question is simple: will this materially increase the value of NIH-supported research for the broader community? If your answer is strong and evidenced, this can be one of the highest-leverage opportunities for a research group with strong preclinical assets.

Official links

• Official NIH list showing active opportunities and dates for this NOFO
• Full NOFO text (official) — revised full announcement
• NIH ORIP funding context page
• NIH grants policy framework