Edit: Seriously, I really want to know what people think about the question at the end. I worked with someone who works at cd2, and on a selfish note I'm just curious.
I'm a "pasty scientist" paid by DARPA, in biotech. I work for someone who previously founded a brain-machine-interface company that had a small IPO (cyberkinetics). I would love nothing more than to see things I work on get turned into viable products. This seems to require two things: a) public investment in vague-but-cool-sounding-what-if projects, and b) easy ways to translate them into usable products.
For (a), someone should be funding things that might be valuable "platforms" for society: the human genome project, ARPANet, basic mathematics research (Fourier analysis, instrumental in many, many commercial products, was one such basic mathematical result for a long time). The value of these platforms may take a long time to pan out (if ever), so it makes sense to fund them as a society. Perhaps government per se isn't required - it could be done by some collection of nonprofits - but the funding won't come from many private firms. Further, if we want these platforms to be of use to many companies, perhaps they shouldn't come from private firms.
I think about it like I think about LAPACK. LAPACK is used by almost every scientific computing library for matrix multiplication. Now if Intel and AMD want to come along and make proprietary versions of it (e.g. Intel's Math Kernel Library), or if Matlab or Mathematica want to wrap them into an easy-to-use product, or someone needs it for a robot controller for a factory, that's awesome! The point is that there is some value in public research the market can draw on to make nice things (the ROI on LAPACK must be HUGE for whatever nominal cost + non-nominal man-hours it takes).
(b) is difficult, but there have been some efforts. One such is INVO[0], an effort at Northwestern that helps researchers develop their ideas without losing too much control in the process. They just founded cd2[1], the center for device development, that helps clinicians and engineers navigate the bureaucratic and regulatory hoops, and ultimately pitch. The key is that like YC, they have a strong network of people who understand this process, who to talk to, what you're really signing when you sign a piece of paper, etc. They pay you (for a year!) to work on your project.
My question (updated for clarity): What do potential founders of not-widget-startups want to be able to pursue the kind of innovation mentioned in the article? In particular, what would help translate academic proof-of-concept ideas into viable, fundable, products?
It would seem that asking VC's to fund cooler projects at the expense of profits is not the right way to go. Maybe a better strategy is to ease the link between cutting-edge research and consumer-facing products. What would help with that?
There are no more tech startups. There are startups that use technology, but writing CRUD apps to manage house cleaners and town cars isn't developing new technology.
That's no more true now than it was 15 years ago. There're startups doing amazing things with depth cameras, motion capture, computer vision, robotics, large-scale databases, multimedia processing, collaborative filtering, and so on. They are, of course, a tiny minority of all startups, but that's because it will always be easier to write CRUD apps to manage house cleaners and town cars than to develop genuinely new technology.
I remember a quote from Larry or Sergey back in the early days of Google (before the dot-com implosion) that was to the effect of "Do any of those other tech startups have any actual technology?" It's always been like this - wannabes hoping to get rich quickly outnumber the genuine innovators. It doesn't mean the latter group doesn't exist, only that you have to work to find them.
Your question reminds me of the article yesterday that suggested an "x prize for everything" [0]. I have heard many people say that the really hard part is the goal setting and determining which problems to solve, which you include in your question. Maybe the problem is that there is not a strong enough connection between the academic proof-of-concept ideas and the people who have the power to set the goals. In a perfect world, these proof-of-concept ideas would be the inspiration for an x-prize. The competition itself acts as a map forward which would generate a bunch of competition to tackle something, with a new industry established as the result. It seems the connection you are looking for isn't necessarily between the proof-of-concept ideas and the products, but rather the proof-of-concept ideas and the market-building-of-the-commons which benefits all participants. Once that exists, VC's can do their jobs to exploit the market.
I'll be honest: I'm not clear on what the question at the end is. Are you saying: it's not easy to turn academic research concepts into commercial products? Well this is precisely what Silicon Valley has learned to do better than anywhere else.
If you're asking how we can make the process better, doesn't it boil down to having investors who see the value of these ideas? You need to frame the business case to them in their lingo.
If they don't want to invest in you because they think the can make more money on BS web investments, then we're all losing. But ultimately there will be a shakeout in web investments...and then there will be a shift back.
Foundations are a possible answer. In the last year we've seen foundations give grants to a number of tech groups and/or platforms. iPython via Sloan and Code for America via Knight for example.
There are many areas where venture capital has not and is not well suited for various reasons, many of which you list. I think people's focus on consumer funding won't work because crowdfunding is even more driven by the allure of consumer facing products than VCs are. Foundations seem to me to be a good place for this.
One issue I have not been able to resolve in thinking about the idea of society-funded research has to do with what I'll refer to as "bad" global actors.
It is no secret that China shines for its lack of respect for intellectual property. The same is true for their willingness to steal just about anything from anyone and make it their own.
If we, as an open society, fund programs costing billions of dollars we would, in no uncertain terms, be "giving it away" to the Chinese and other bad world players.
It's the concept of unfairness when on person in a team does absolutely nothing yet benefits greatly from the work of the rest of the team members.
I know I am over-generalizing. Yet, I have to tell you, as an American citizen I despise the idea of investing my tax dollars in something and have it simply given away to other societies who have done nothing to contribute to the cause.
Would I like to invest tax dollars to find the cure for cancer and make it globally available? Absolutely.
Would I like to see the labs and companies we built as part of that process decimated and driven out of business because the Chinese take the work product we funded and drive costs so far down that our companies crumble under the pressure of our pricing models? Nope. Not interested.
Yes, society as a whole would benefit from cheap mass manufacturing of such a drug. And, while that happens, our industry will continue to be shredded by bad players such as China.
I don't have all the answers. I certainly don't know what the solution to this one might be.
I think the worry of giving away research is natural, but misguided. Consider these scenarios:
(1) If Earth's population was 1 billion, would it be worthwhile for society to fund research?
(2) If Earth's population was 7 billion, but 6 billion are freeloaders, would it still be worthwhile for the 1 billion to fund research?
The answer to number (1) is an obvious yes. Even with only 1 billion people, humanity gains when it devotes resources to research.
How about the answer to (2)? I think if you answer yes to (1) you have to answer yes to (2). The costs are the same, but the benefits are even greater. Even though freeloading isn't fair, it doesn't mean we shouldn't fund research.
What examples do you have of the Chinese (or anybody else for that matter) doing this with the innovative high-technology initiatives this article is referring to.
China's space program is fairly recent, they didn't steal from Apollo or the Shuttle program immediately and copy it. They are purchasing energy production technology from other countries (US and France if memory serves correctly).
If you want to really look at this as a global rather than a local issue, we could consider the Chinese and all other countries as partners. Illinois benefits from California, but you don't complain about state to state transfer of knowledge (or do you? I'm Canadian, I don't think we do).
In many cases American companies have labs in China, and according to a contact at Dolby, it isn't because China is cheaper any more, it's because they are good. Very good, and everybody benefits from the collaboration.
If you want to look at innovation only for the purpose of lining somebodies pockets, than their is no difference between making a hugely innovative product vs. something people just pay for.
But if you want to change the world and have an impact, might as well all be in this together. And I suspect the Chinese spending on education and research is near what the US spends in that regard.
Your comment and the dilemma you present are very interesting.
I think part of the problem is that we have reduced everything to a matter of economics and profit. It has become the measure of value for everything, so much so that intelligent, compassionate people can discuss the value of human life in terms of dollars and jobs.
So, I think the problem you suggest is the product of a false choice.
That is, IMO if we had a cure for cancer, it is not that we should find it unfair that the "wrong" people might profit. It is that we should expect that no one would profit. Some things should be done for the good of all humanity. Why need there be financial incentive in ending suffering? And, why should there be financial reward in doing so?
This is the core problem of a capitalism run amok. Governments the world over should be engaged in benevolent research as an expression of the will of the people they represent, and for the betterment of same. It is, in my view, a grievous mistake that we must always seek a way to commercialize our activity in order to justify it.
I wouldn't have a major issue with a company profitting from the cure for cancer. On the other hand, I hate to seethe senior management of said company reaping handsome profits while people without the means to pay for it die without it. And I have major issue with sick people's inability to pay when the initial research was either done by or funded by taxpayer dollars. And then apply that same principle to all the middlemen who handle the drug and add little to no value to it, but still profit handsomely. . .but that's for another thread.
I think it's a slippery slope though: exactly who should profit and how much profit is too much? Posing those kinds of questions raises the ire of the "free market/profit motive cures everything" crowd that drives our current brand of capitalism.
Once we give something over to the machine, we introduce the very problem. IMO, we need to completely rethink what should be left to the markets vs. what we produce as a society for the good of humanity.
That's a tough one because it is beyond clear that --and I am going to use that word-- innovation does not originate in government, master plans or even companies with huge funding.
Make a list of all the major products in the last fifty years, the companies they came from and how they got started to prove the point.
I can't think of a single major scientific discovery in any scientific field over the last, say, 500 years, that was originated or planned by any government or government agency in any country or culture.
Typical examples given are such things as power plants, roads, bridges, water and sewage distribution systems and such large infrastructure projects. These, I argue, have only been created at such scales mostly out of two positions: war-time strategic needs (autobahn and US highway system) and the "natural" evolution of human settlements (as they got larger the infrastructure was a must). In other words, I have never seen any proof that any government engaged in some kind of a long-range master plan to build and deploy infrastructure in support of specific future goals.
Its not always the direct innovation that government creates, is the seeding of an environment that allows the innovation or prevents the rise of extreme elements: Agricultural and mining state colleges in the US, UC system, infrastructure projects like the Hoover Dam, bringing electricity to rural areas during the Great Depression, public work projects that allowed artists to keep on producing works of art, the Space program. All these infrastructure projects and applied research projects helped lay the groundwork for innovation. Sowing seeds and letting the next generation harvest them. The supposed pay forward of Silicon Valley.
The Internet was 100% government funded at it's start. Private companies where involved in it's creation but only as what amounted to paid contractors. And yes they had a clear goal of increasing infrastructure to aid collaboration. Or if you really hate the idea that any private funding was involved at any point, just look at GPS.
More to the point, the vast majority of recent particle Physic's, Astronomy, and basic Medical findings where government funded.
PS: There are literally thousands of counter examples but I think I destroyed your point as it stands.
You are choosing to assign the entire value of the internet to government. This is folklore that is nothing less than nonsensical. If your goal is to "destroy" my argument you have to do far better than that.
The ARPANET was going to go absolutely nowhere without private enterprise rescuing it from obscurity and launching it into every-day life like a rocket.
Government did not PLAN the internet as we know it today. They didn't even have a clue.
Back before the internet got launched to the masses the masses were using services such as Compuserve, AOL and a number of others. The "internet" was going to evolve out of one of these efforts one way or another. It just so happened that industry found something that could be leveraged to make this happen and they did. In fact, I believe Compuserve was one of the first to offer it to it's millions (yes, millions) of customers.
It's almost like the idea of giving some guy credit for the invention of the wheel. What, nobody else was going to invent the wheel if he did not? Nonsense.
For every government project that resulted in a successful transfer to private industry there's probably ten or more that are still sucking money out of all of us and are useless.
Government-funded initiatives are very important, but, please, don't give them god-like attributes as if claiming that without government programs humankind would still be rubbing two sticks together to make fire.
Both IP and TCP where invented by the us government. Just fucking looking at the protocalls makes it clear they where designed for a large global network. I could continue but you sir are an idiot, who seems incapable of accepting when there ideas are clearly wrong.
Yes, GPS is one of my favorite examples, after the internet. Maybe private enterprise would have thought it first. . .maybe someone in the private sector was thinking about it at the same as the Department of Defense, but the fact is the government got it out there first.
GPS was a military technology. The program was not developed with the forward vision of what it is being used for today.
That is the case for a lot of military technology. So, I guess, if we derive such great benefits from war and killing people by the millions we should continue to fund these great government programs. Right?
At one time we believed in tariffs. If they stole it and made it, at least they would have to pay to bring it back to us. We wouldn't tariff countries/products that respected our rules.
I'm a "pasty scientist" paid by DARPA, in biotech. I work for someone who previously founded a brain-machine-interface company that had a small IPO (cyberkinetics). I would love nothing more than to see things I work on get turned into viable products. This seems to require two things: a) public investment in vague-but-cool-sounding-what-if projects, and b) easy ways to translate them into usable products.
For (a), someone should be funding things that might be valuable "platforms" for society: the human genome project, ARPANet, basic mathematics research (Fourier analysis, instrumental in many, many commercial products, was one such basic mathematical result for a long time). The value of these platforms may take a long time to pan out (if ever), so it makes sense to fund them as a society. Perhaps government per se isn't required - it could be done by some collection of nonprofits - but the funding won't come from many private firms. Further, if we want these platforms to be of use to many companies, perhaps they shouldn't come from private firms.
I think about it like I think about LAPACK. LAPACK is used by almost every scientific computing library for matrix multiplication. Now if Intel and AMD want to come along and make proprietary versions of it (e.g. Intel's Math Kernel Library), or if Matlab or Mathematica want to wrap them into an easy-to-use product, or someone needs it for a robot controller for a factory, that's awesome! The point is that there is some value in public research the market can draw on to make nice things (the ROI on LAPACK must be HUGE for whatever nominal cost + non-nominal man-hours it takes).
(b) is difficult, but there have been some efforts. One such is INVO[0], an effort at Northwestern that helps researchers develop their ideas without losing too much control in the process. They just founded cd2[1], the center for device development, that helps clinicians and engineers navigate the bureaucratic and regulatory hoops, and ultimately pitch. The key is that like YC, they have a strong network of people who understand this process, who to talk to, what you're really signing when you sign a piece of paper, etc. They pay you (for a year!) to work on your project.
My question (updated for clarity): What do potential founders of not-widget-startups want to be able to pursue the kind of innovation mentioned in the article? In particular, what would help translate academic proof-of-concept ideas into viable, fundable, products?
It would seem that asking VC's to fund cooler projects at the expense of profits is not the right way to go. Maybe a better strategy is to ease the link between cutting-edge research and consumer-facing products. What would help with that?
[0](http://invo.northwestern.edu/about) [1](http://cd2.northwestern.edu/)