This study examines how research agendas in neuroscience have evolved over time. Drawing on a large-scale bibliometric and topic modeling analysis of 3 million scientific publications and 20 thousand patents, we show that agenda-setting neuroscience is dependent on both authors’ institutional affiliation and the possibility of commercialization of research through patenting. Using data from the Web of Science and USPTO databases, we identify 495 research topics and map their evolution over time by relating topic prevalence and publications’ impact with the type of affiliated and funding institutions, namely universities, governments, firms, hospitals, and nonprofits. Overall, results show a clear division of labor: universities publish, governments fund, and firms patent. However, this structure is shifting over time: we observe a transition from basic research on brain mechanisms toward applied, technology-driven, and patentable domains, particularly in neurodegenerative diseases and neurotechnologies. Furthermore, universities are increasingly patenting, while firms produce fewer but more influential publications. These findings suggest that specific institutional incentives have oriented neuroscience toward commercially viable areas, raising questions about the research priorities and the balance between innovation, public health, and fundamental knowledge production.