The Engineering Innovation Newsletter. Every piece in this newsletter shares a common goal: to propose concrete ways forward for those looking to help shape the future of technological research and innovation.
I love your focused list of targets for research labs to improve the human condition. But is that really what research labs are best at? Electricity and electrification were a failure of science. Tesla (the guy) and Edison did far more to advance our understanding of ⚡️ than the academy. Antibiotics, sure, but even that was more of a happy mistake than a directed effort. I’m not discounting the role of science to create a platform for innovation, but perhaps it’s the capital allocation (what do people want to fund), the problem set (what do nerds want to work on), and the population (what do people pay for). We need better translation of science into value for humanity, not more science.
This piece was more or less written conditional on these new science orgs with big goals already existing. But I think it’s fair to be somewhat skeptical of basic research institutions in achieving certain goals.
I’m more of an applied research guy in general. That’s largely what I cover in my MIT series as well as my Bell Labs and GE Research pieces. You might enjoy checking those out and/or this piece that uses the facts from all of those to put forward an alternative model of deep tech VC that might be a little closer to your tastes: https://www.freaktakes.com/p/an-alternative-approach-to-deep-tech
Interesting analysis and a differentiated take on the emerging field of Progress Studies, I look forward to more posts
I love your focused list of targets for research labs to improve the human condition. But is that really what research labs are best at? Electricity and electrification were a failure of science. Tesla (the guy) and Edison did far more to advance our understanding of ⚡️ than the academy. Antibiotics, sure, but even that was more of a happy mistake than a directed effort. I’m not discounting the role of science to create a platform for innovation, but perhaps it’s the capital allocation (what do people want to fund), the problem set (what do nerds want to work on), and the population (what do people pay for). We need better translation of science into value for humanity, not more science.
This piece was more or less written conditional on these new science orgs with big goals already existing. But I think it’s fair to be somewhat skeptical of basic research institutions in achieving certain goals.
I’m more of an applied research guy in general. That’s largely what I cover in my MIT series as well as my Bell Labs and GE Research pieces. You might enjoy checking those out and/or this piece that uses the facts from all of those to put forward an alternative model of deep tech VC that might be a little closer to your tastes: https://www.freaktakes.com/p/an-alternative-approach-to-deep-tech