Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

When it's VCs investing private money, on a high risk, high return (to private individuals) that's celebrated. The recipients (aka founders) will mostly lose that "grant" money, and end up with nothing to show for it. Of course the winners produce massive economic gains to the general public.

Alas when the govt follows the exact same model, taking high risk, high reward bets, then it's seen as "wasteful spending". Despite the staggering value of the wins, it becomes better to "spend nothing" than waste a penny on research that goes nowhere.

The levels of cognitive dissonance, not to mention hypocrisy, are truly incredible.

And the charge is being lead by someone who literally made his wealth from this model.






Research funding isn't really that high-risk, proposals are scrutinised on a level far exceeding any investors in the private world.

DARPA is high risk.

ARPA-E is high risk.

ARPA-H is high risk.

Much of NSF is high risk, like NSF Engines, NSF Future Manufacturing, NSF Convergence Accelerators.

DoD SBIR/STTR is high risk. (Confirm it for yourself and look at this month's topics in https://www.dodsbirsttr.mil/topics-app/.)

AFWERX is high risk.

SpaceWERX is high risk.

DIU is high risk.

NASA SBIR is high risk.

NASA NIAC is ultra-high risk.

DoD Office of Strategic Capital is high risk, the kind of risk no investors would fund.

Investors scrutinize pitch decks and then do hard company due diligence which frequently falls through. And conversations die-off with no obligation to provide feedback, unlike in government. And investors will not fund true R&D. They fund scale.

So no, your statement does not hold.


None of these agencies fund high-risk grants. I don't think there is such a thing. What you're talking about is the difficult-to-quantify relationship between a define advance in knowledge, and possible commercial applications.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: