Thread by @IlanGur

Appreciated the chance to share thoughts on gov-funded R&D for @techreview's #innovation issue. Some highlights below.

What resonates with you? What's off/missing?

This is important: next 12 months may be a once-in-lifetime oppty to course correct.

technologyreview.com/2020/06/17/100…

Wake up call: The US spends more on research in human health than agriculture, space, and energy combined, yet we were unprepared for covid-19—not because we weren’t spending enough, but because we weren’t spending effectively.

Thesis: The world has changed dramatically since WW2, yet the US is largely working off the same science policy playbook. We built the most powerful infrastructure for academic research...but our capacity for turning scientific advances into practical solutions has withered.

Three things we need to do:

1. Don’t just fund research; fund solutions.
2. Get over our aversion to funding industry research.
3. Focus now on what matters for the future.

One can easily look up how much money the US spent on biological science last year, but good luck figuring out how much was spent on pandemic prevention and response. That’s because, outside of the military arena, our system is set up to fund research, but not solutions.

Big corporations have moved away from funding early-stage science innovation. The US government has failed to react. The result is that people in industry who know how to implement technology are less connected to cutting-edge research and government priorities than ever.

Government is unequipped to support the most vibrant mode of industry research today: startups. Companies excluded from applying for vast majority of federal research funding, & startups at a disadvantage b/c funding rules built for large research institutions.

Our system is too entrenched in the research priorities and approaches of the last century. It is failing to refocus quickly enough on issues that matter for our future, like climate change, information security, and aging infrastructure.

The current US research portfolio, as an example, is egregiously underplaying the risks imposed by carbon dioxide emissions. For every dollar the US spends on biological and medical research, a mere 15 cents go into research in chemistry and physics.

It is not a zero-sum game.

(In fact, I'd argue that by more strongly & intentionally supporting solution-driven innovation, we open up opportunities to more strongly & intentionally support fundamental research...an area which also needs a course correction!)

Some related data (1)

Next time you hear policy folks bemoan the decline of US government funding for R&D, kindly point out that nearly all substantive declines are related to decreased funding to industry. Source: NSF

Some related data (2)

Next time you hear policy folks claim that the government should only fund fundamental research because the private sector will take care of the rest, kindly point out how far off base, and how detrimental, that logic is to the U.S.

hbr.org/2019/11/why-th…

Some strong voices on this topic:

A. Prabhakar, fmr Director @DARPA
livestream.com/accounts/57123…

R. Reif, President @MIT
washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-bet…

T. Kalil, Chief Innovation Officer @SchmidtFutures
barrons.com/articles/the-a…

And many others...please tag along with your comments.

And some great orgs working to improve science innovation in the U.S. along these lines:

@NSFSBIR @ARPAE @DARPA @ITIFdc @BPC_Bipartisan @fascientis @Lux_Capital @enginexyz @Breakout_Labs @btenergy @PARCinc

And many others...please tag along with your comments.

As a final note: if you care deeply about these issues and want to support top science innovators directly, come join our team at @activatefellows - we're hiring for a number of positions as we look to expand our impact.

activate.org/jobs