The current generation of startup entrepreneurs believe that the past two decades have been the most innovative and prosperous. While from a certain perspective that statement is correct as we have seen an explosion of entrepreneurs and startups, we have to wonder what level of innovation we have achieved and whether it is sufficient enough to propel society to the next level of innovation.
While we have seen a number of startups that have revolutionized customer user experience around the world from neobanks in the financial services sector to Amazon and its significant impact on the retail sector, there is no doubt that society has achieved a great number of innovations over the past half century. One has to ask, however, what leads to this growth in innovation and whether we are making the same investments now to generate the next phase of innovation.
One could argue that the advancements that society has seen over the past half century has been due to the investments, both public and private, that we made not for short-term purposes but for long-term and non-commercial purposes. From the investments by DARPA that ultimately led to the Internet to the technological and scientific advancements that came from the Space Race, a plethora of multi-billion dollar technology companies owe their very existence to these investments.
While we know where our technological advancements are coming from in the past and present, the future is more muddled. No one can predict either how long it will take to discover the next lynchpin technological innovation or what that lynchpin technological innovation is. In many respects, for all the advancements in human society over the millennia, humanity is still at the whim of chance. The grand debate that society is currently having is how do we minimize chance and encourage faster and more deliberate innovation.
In the past, we have relied on a significant amount of government funding to drive technological innovation and advancement. Society saw this with the DARPA investments that created the Internet and the plethora of scientific advancements that were derived from the Space Race. While proponents of government scientific research and funding can point to these successes, numerous critics can point to dramatic failures as well.
As such, governments around the world are searching for an alternate means to fund scientific research and innovation. Driven not only fiscal realities but a desire to find a faster and more deliberate pace of innovation, governments are turning to the private sector for advice and new business models. The public private models that have been experimented with in the 21st century are a result of this pairing.
While there are a number of different public private models in existence, there are a number of well known examples to point to. The one that is most relevant to the theme being explored is the NASA driven competition for the next American Space Shuttle.
With the retirement of the old Space Shuttle, NASA has been relying on Russian Soyuz capsules to reach the International Space Station. Considering that NASA now is focused on longer range exploration of the Solar System (i.e. Mars), NASA has decided to develop the next American Space Shuttle via a private sector competition between Boeing and SpaceX.
Proponents of this new public private model state that it has lead to faster innovation as private companies not only have to win but to deliver their win in the most efficient and economical means possible. Indeed, SpaceX decided to develop reusable booster rockets to reduce costs and launch turnaround times, an approach that may not necessarily have been considered with a 100% government funded approach.
While there is no doubt that there has been incremental innovations and processes brought about with the introduction of the private sector, can it be considered true scientific achievement and advancement? Indeed, the question becomes whether it will be sufficient to drive the next wave of undiscovered innovation and technological advancement.
The public private model and its commercialization approach relies on pursuing a very structured approach to innovation and advancement. The model is focused on achieving a very specific set of objectives in the most efficient and quickest manner possible. An excellent model if one is relatively confident in the existing technology available but what if one is not?
In many respects, we are starting to reach the limits of current technology. Moore’s Law which estimated the doubling of processor power every two years is finally hitting a wall with existing technology. If we are are starting to hit the wall with current technology, there are two fundamental questions that need to be asked:What is the best approach to fund basic research to achieve the next level of innovation and growth?Who is responsible for the funding and ultimately the objectives?
Indeed, what is more critical than ever is the address the conundrum that is basic research. While there still needs to be work done on the commercialization angle of scientific research and innovation, the reality is that the biggest reward will be solving how to fund and proceed with basic research.
Fundamentally, basic research and human individuals are the same due to the fact that they are unpredictable and cannot be refashioned into a linear process. While humanity would like to think that it is omniscient, the reality is that we are far from it. Indeed, the number of times that scientists and researchers are shocked by the results they obtain after following the scientific method are too countless to mention.
The unfortunate problem is that in our request for cost savings and efficiency, it is increasingly apparent that we are eliminating our ability to explore the unknown with basic research. There is no doubt that commercializing scientific research is a critical component to the overall research and development lifecycle but overemphasis on it is extremely dangerous.
Basic research and the ability to explore questions that have no commercial value as well as potentially contradicting established orthodoxy is critical to advancing not only scientific knowledge and innovation but overall human evolution as well. Indeed, we have seen time and again throughout human history, how our society and our knowledge is advanced by those who challenge established orthodox. Galileo is a prime example.
If we as a society are not willing to fund basic research in the long term, particularly basic research that may upend conventional thought, we are condemning society is a dramatically slower pace of innovation when it is most needed. With climate change starting to have a more pronounced impact on human civilization and the countless other societal issues that need to be addressed, we need more investment in basic research than ever before.
Leave a Reply