Which companies emerged from DARPA’s RAM and SUBNETS programs and what FDA clearances or clinical trials have they completed?
Executive summary
DARPA’s neuroscience portfolios — notably Restoring Active Memory (RAM) and Systems-Based Neurotechnology for Emerging Therapies (SUBNETS) — spawned research teams that included universities, government labs and some private companies, but public reporting does not produce a definitive, program-by-program roster of “spin‑out” companies; DARPA’s own materials emphasize university-led performer teams for RAM [1] and an MOU with FDA that covers SUBNETS and RAM among other programs [2]. Available reporting and company statements link a small set of commercial actors to DARPA-funded technologies: Neuralink and Stentrode are repeatedly named in secondary reporting as tracing technical lineage to DARPA programs, and Soterix Medical publicly acknowledges DARPA Phase‑2 work while also holding multiple FDA 510(k) clearances [3] [4].
1. RAM: a university-led program with private participants but no public “who came out of it” list
DARPA’s Restoring Active Memory (RAM) program was launched with two universities selected to lead multi‑institution performer teams that explicitly included universities, government research institutions and private companies, but DARPA’s public announcement and program page emphasize academic leadership rather than naming an industry roster that “emerged” from RAM [1]. The agency’s memorandum of understanding with FDA also lists RAM among programs for which FDA provides regulatory advice, underscoring early regulatory engagement but not a public attribution of specific firm spinouts [2]. Public sources reviewed do not provide a comprehensive list tying particular commercial companies directly to RAM outcomes, so any claim that a particular company “emerged from RAM” requires evidence beyond the documents available here [1] [2].
2. SUBNETS: clear technical descendancy for some commercial projects but mixed lineage
SUBNETS is regularly cited in secondary reporting as a source of technologies and methods that later appeared in commercial ventures: Neuralink’s “sewing‑machine” surgical robot has been traced in reporting to work funded under SUBNETS, and the minimally invasive Stentrode concept is tied elsewhere to the RE‑NET program (a different DARPA effort), signaling that DARPA funding created technical building blocks commercial actors later adapted [3]. DARPA’s MOU with FDA explicitly covers SUBNETS among programs for which the agency and FDA coordinate, showing institutional pathways for translation to clinical testing [2]. Independent coverage of SUBNETS also raised ethical and clinical cautions, reflecting debate about whether aggressive device development is outpacing non‑surgical alternatives or conservative clinical pathways [5].
3. Companies, FDA clearances and clinical trials: what the record shows
Soterix Medical publicly reports receipt of a DARPA Phase‑2 contract and also lists multiple FDA 510(k) clearances — including the Neural Navigator and MEGA‑TMS systems — and IDE approvals for trials such as a home‑based tDCS study, providing concrete evidence of DARPA engagement combined with FDA regulatory milestones [4]. Secondary reporting links Neuralink and the Stentrode device to DARPA‑funded research trajectories and notes both are “on their way to human trials,” but the sources reviewed here do not document FDA clearances or completed pivotal trials for those specific companies within the supplied material, so their regulatory status cannot be confirmed from these documents alone [3]. Other small companies historically supported by DARPA (for example, those referenced in an NIH SBIR case study) have at least one product with FDA clearance and another in submission, but the case study does not map those firms explicitly to RAM or SUBNETS in the excerpts available [6].
4. What these links mean — incentives, oversight, and opaque transition paths
DARPA’s role is to create “technological surprise” and catalyze risky R&D; programs like RAM and SUBNETS deliberately assemble mixed teams that can include industry partners, and DARPA formalized FDA engagement through an MOU to smooth regulatory transition [7] [2]. That institutional cooperation accelerates translation, but public dossiers and secondary reporting leave important gaps: program announcements name lead universities and highlight ethical panels, press coverage ties certain commercial technologies back to DARPA technical work, and company press releases (e.g., Soterix) document DARPA contracts plus FDA 510(k) clearances — yet no single public source in this set provides an authoritative roster of companies that “emerged from” RAM or SUBNETS with an exhaustive list of FDA clearances and trial completions [1] [3] [4]. Absent more granular disclosure from DARPA, FDA or the companies themselves, definitive attribution remains limited to documented examples like Soterix and descriptive linkages for Neuralink and Stentrode reported in secondary sources [4] [3].