20 ms·

UK to launch taxpayer-funded high-risk tech research agency exempt from FOI

193 points by cesarosum 6y ago

jokethrowaway 6y ago
First the European fund and now this. The last thing I want is for my taxes is to go into venture capital. Especially if it's run by the government. I wonder what's the best place where to run to, to escape this trend. Maybe South America or South East Asia?
- emteycz 6y ago
  South East Asia is big on government-led venture capital and state-run business incubators/accelerators and other kinds of business development activities. Even the communist countries.
- toyg 6y ago
  There is no escape. The only way out of this is to build better ways to keep the powerful accountable.
gandalfian 6y ago
We did this already and then privatised it as Qinetiq. Round and round we go again.
- londons_explore 6y ago
  QinetiQ wouldn't be profit making if it hadn't been given tens of thousands of acres of land for free. Some of its sites are prime city center real estate too, and it's making a lot of money by selling them off for development...
mensetmanusman 6y ago
That’s great. Removing a platform for people that say, in hindsight, ‘it was obvious that was going to fail’ is a step in the right direction. If western societies insist on outsourcing R&D through misguided tax laws, they have no idea the amount of harm they are doing to the next generation of young people (who will be subservient to the innovating countries that were smarter in their policies).
- toyg 6y ago
  I'm not so positive. There is potential for this to become just another way to channel pork to friends and cronies. Which, considering the track record of the current executive, is probably the most likely scenario. I'm all for DARPA-like initiatives, but when it comes to taxpayers' money we should have decent accountability mechanisms.
  - libertine 6y ago
    Usually these initiatives should be extremely transparent, and they're the exact opposite. That's not good. A current example is the covid 19 vaccine contracts, which were multi billion dollar/euro/pound deals, with accelerated research and approvals, and so far only one contract was made public. It is specially concerning when some vaccines were developed with public funding.
    - dageshi 6y ago
      It doesn't matter. Genuinely, the only thing that mattered was working, safe vaccines as quickly as possible. Whatever government paid is absolute peanuts compared to the costs associated with locking down economies let alone the lives potentially saved. Covid19 was and is a crisis, you may well have a point in terms of other initiatives in this space, but with covid all that mattered was finding a solution as quickly as possible.
      - libertine 6y ago
        Well, I disagree. It matters a lot, because who the hell knows what else is going on those contracts. It's not like any pharmaceutical company was gonna sit this one out. Some of these companies were into shady shit in the past, and while they are playing a role in this pandemic, I'd be way more comfortable know exactly what they are getting out of this and at what cost to the tax payers.
      - lordnacho 6y ago
        > all that mattered was finding a solution as quickly as possible What's to stop someone spending a bunch of money on a dead-end project that benefits them and no-one else, and then saying "hey, it's risky, bummer we couldn't make a vaccine"? We can be generous to make sure it gets done by someone, but we should also make sure that people actually try. The current UK government has a lot of stories about procurement, and it gives the impression that they mainly benefitted their friends, with the procurement of PPE and vaccines being a nice side-effect.
jtbayly 6y ago
So immediately this is where people will go to hide their pork?
bitcharmer 6y ago
Ah yes, another way for the tories and their rich friends to siphon public funds to private pockets with zero transparency.
- atc 6y ago
  Oh grow up and read something other than The Guardian.
maxehmookau 6y ago
What on earth could possibly go wrong with this.
motohagiography 6y ago
I still don't see how any government granting committee can outperform hundreds of private venture funds competing for exposure to new opportunities. Even if you have a government dept. of 10x geniuses, they don't scale to compete with a healthy investment community. As described, the risks I see are that, it has the incentives for a patronage slush fund, there will be selection bias to hedge political risk around people applying, and it will just become another grant vehicle for academics in the publish-or-perish regime, and instead of "making something people want," in the venture model, it means, "find things nobody else understands well enough to care about." To people outside of it, it will look a lot like corruption.
- jdavis703 6y ago
  The internet came out of a US government funded “advanced research projects agency.” It took decades before VCs monetized that research.
  - LinuxBender 6y ago
    Most of the tech industry in fact came out of that government funded research. I bet half of the people working for In-Q-Tel [1][2] and similar gov VC funded companies don't even understand that relationship. I should add that even if a company is not listed, it does not mean some of the VC funding did not come from one of the gov VC's. [1] - https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/in-q-tel/recent_investments https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/in-q-tel/recent_inve... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-Q-Tel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-Q-Tel [note] not every company is listed
  - bko 6y ago
    Finance was very immature industry at that time. There wasn't a lot of money in private investment funds and the investment vehicles to capitalize on this research didn't yet exist. Today's private market would likely seize on an opportunity like the internet. There is appetite for long term focus in today's investors. Just look at PE (price-earnings) ratios of today's stocks, and the frothy revenue multiples in valuations over the last ten years.
marcus_holmes 6y ago
Why is the government spending tax money on creating new technology with huge risk? Surely this is something that investment funds should be doing, with the investors appopriately aware of the risks? Who is going to benefit from any discovered new tech? Are the benefits going to be socialised, or is it just the risk? If it was supporting pure research - finding great researchers and freeing them from the grant treadmill - I'd be supportive, but this doesn't sound like that.
- mcny 6y ago
  > If it was supporting pure research - finding great researchers and freeing them from the grant treadmill - I'd be supportive, but this doesn't sound like that. Same here. I am all for more research but we want more transparency, not less. > Ministers will announce plans tomorrow for an £800 million scientific research agency legally entitled to invest in projects that are likely to fail and which will be exempted from freedom of information laws. This makes no sense to me. Why would they need to be exempt from freedom of information? > It will be exempt from rules designed to prevent taxpayers’ money from being invested in projects with little chance of success. Ministers hope that the agency, to be set up next year, will produce next-generation technology. This I completely support. From what I understand, the COVID vaccine wouldn't be here if it wasn't for some scientists working on some seemingly dead-end path for years. Overall, I don't understand this initiative at all. The last thing I'd want is pulling funding away form fundamental research and putting it in some Instagram clone. I'd even be OK if this money went to some kind of James Bond/Quartermaster/DARPA thing instead.
  - richrichardsson 6y ago
    > Why would they need to be exempt from freedom of information? So no-one can find out where the best part of a billion pounds went?
    - parkersweb 6y ago
      And specifically no-one can tie that billion pounds to the business interests of ministers or their family members...
turbinerneiter 6y ago
* let universities and public research starve for money * drown them in documentation paperwork for the little money they get * give money to private companies for free and without transparency Corruption.
- ChrisRR 6y ago
  Tories* When the tories give out money to their friends, it's for the greater good, remember?
  - BTinfinity 6y ago
    Politicians as a whole are known for lies, deciet and corruption. It's not limited to one specific party nor country. The visibility of corruption may change, but its presence never will.
    - hkt 6y ago
      There is a giant pile of contracts that have been scrutinised that very clearly show the absolutely incestuous nature of procurement since covid and long before too. It isn't "all politicians", it is conservative politicians in the last eleven years. The Good Law Project is a great example of the kind of organisation that investigates this. The Guardian does good work here too. I'm surprised to say it, but even Labour are making noise about it in Parliament. This is historically unusual and a sign of the return of the Old Boys' network. It is a bad sign for democracy. https://goodlawproject.org/case/end-to-cronyism/ https://goodlawproject.org/case/end-to-cronyism/ is a good start to read from.
      - heywherelogingo 6y ago
        "even Labour..." - of course Labour make a noise about it, that's their job. The opposition obviously criticise at any opportunity. Your faith in organisations (the Good Law Project, The Guardian, undoubtedly big left government too) is misplaced given that they're composed of individuals, and small groups within will sieze opportunity. The Guardian journalists show plenty of bias. Clearly the tories are dodgy, but no effort is required to spot the large fly in the anti-tory ointment: Tony Blair - weapons of mass destruction, net worth up to £100m. The narrative of the left being morally superior is absurd. Politicians are low, and I look forward to tech based governance without them. /optimism
throwawaymanbot 6y ago
The UK has been taken over by Spectre from the Bind movies I think. Some bizarre decisions these past few years.
jack_riminton 6y ago
If its our answer to DARPA then good. I only hope the money will be disbursed in ways similar to the DARPA challenges and not in the usual chronyist way of the UK There's a shocking number of people high up in UK tech influence circles who got there solely by networking, holding events and being on the peripheries of successful startups
- nivenkos 6y ago
  > There's a shocking number of people high up in UK tech influence circles who got there solely by networking, holding events and being on the peripheries of successful startups Like Boris Johnson's lover.
  - hkt 6y ago
    Jennifer Arcuri isn't in tech is she? (Apologies if I just ruined the joke and you didn't really mean Carrie Symonds)
  - jack_riminton 6y ago
    Ah yes, she set up a co-working space, held some events and launched (although presumably not heavily involved) in launching a White Hat consultancy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Arcuri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Arcuri Similar to Rohan Silva who advised Cameron; set up a co-working space, is on many boards, speaks at a lot of events
    - lbriner 6y ago
      Everyone is impressive to those who are less impressive!
  - jack_riminton 6y ago
    Oh yes I also forgot to add sexual favours to the key criteria!
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  Yes, it's a good thing the US in general, it's government more specifically, and it's defense establishment particularly are completely free of cronyism, and there aren't huge numbers of people influential in every field even loosely associated with the US’s vast military-industrial complex that have gotten their by networking rather than any other form of merit.
delightful 6y ago
Related recent official report on advanced research: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/4665/documents/47032/default/ https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/4665/documents...
hkt 6y ago
The exemption to FOIA is because the press and civic society in the UK have rooted out cronyism and corruption with gusto in the last year. The conservative party does not believe we have the right to know how we are being governed or who benefits from the process of government. It makes me furious, and it should make you furious too, reader.
suyash 6y ago
good move, more countries should have such entrepreneurial agencies!
raverbashing 6y ago
Sounds like those "good on paper" things. But in practice, we know how it usually goes... Though of course all government will have secret projects in one way or another
tschellenbach 6y ago
Basic research (IE things that are not monetizable in the near(ish) term) don't get anywhere near enough funding. Companies do a great job taking things from 1% to 100. There is a funding gap for the first bit. A solution is definitely needed for that, I don't think a government funded agency will do it though.
oli5679 6y ago
The USA's DARPA program funded important research into - The internet - GPS - Graphical user interface and mouse - Onion routing - Voice assistant Hopefully this program executes well. There is clearly a big social payoff to betting big on credible people doing risky research with high potential impact. https://www.itpro.co.uk/technology/34730/10-amazing-darpa-inventions https://www.itpro.co.uk/technology/34730/10-amazing-darpa-in...
- madaxe_again 6y ago
  That’s nice, but this isn’t what this will be about. This will be a means of funnelling cash to party donors without oversight, nothing more. Hence the FOI exception. I mean, just look at how they’ve fared in the last 18 months alone - how many unaccountable tens of billions did they pay out to their donors? I had Tory ministers’ children approaching me about putting together business plans to help them get covid grants - same crowd who I used to help with R&D grants, which were also used to get high net worth individuals with money of dubious origin into the country. I anticipate I’ll be hearing from them again. This kind of funding will not develop anything but the wealth divide.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - afandian 6y ago
    Anyone who doubts the veracity of the claims of Tory corruption, here and throughout the thread, please check out the Good Law project and the litigation currently in UK courts. https://goodlawproject.org/news/ https://goodlawproject.org/news/
  - grey-area 6y ago
    For those doubting the above, here is an example from the recent past of corruption from the Prime Minister, paying his lover with public funds: https://metro.co.uk/2019/10/31/10000-grant-given-boris-johnsons-friend-jennifer-arcuri-appropriate-11020662/ https://metro.co.uk/2019/10/31/10000-grant-given-boris-johns...
Traster 6y ago
It's absolutely hilarious to watch a Prime Minister, who has previously given £100k in Tech funding to his mistress, now establishing an even bigger tech fund without the FOIA requirements so that he can... get away with giving £100k in Tech funding to his mistresses in the future I guess?
- hkt 6y ago
  And people say he can't plan!
- arethuza 6y ago
  Maybe it will be used to fund new tunnelling and/or bridge technologies - the current government seems surprisingly keen on connecting NI to Scotland....
  - dominotw 6y ago
    > fund new tunnelling is this supposed to be a double entendre ? I don't see how this follows from the parent comment.
    - emptyfile 6y ago
      The comment is making fun of a proposal Boris Johnson once made about building a bridge from Scotland to Northern Ireland, which is considered borderline physically impossible as far as I understand.
      - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
        Bridge, yes. Tunnel, no. It’s very feasible and practical from a civil-engineering perspective, but the economic value of a road connection between NI and Scotland has not been demonstrated to outweigh the economic cost of its construction.
        Chris2048 6y ago
        Infact: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/14/rail-bosses-revive-plan-to-build-tunnel-from-scotland-to-northern-ireland https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/14/rail-bosses-...
acallaghan 6y ago
In my opinion, there should still be an oversight board of non-govt people to stop abuse, and maybe still abide by ethical standards.
dalbasal 6y ago
OK so the British HNers commenting seem to be unimpressed. :) Leaving this specific agency/project aside, what would be the right way to do this? How do we do public investment in high risk projects well?
- mcintyre1994 6y ago
  I'd be fine with this project, just without the FoI exception and under a government that didn't constantly break FoI laws and that didn't have endless examples of giving contracts corruptly to incompetent friends and donors.
  - dalbasal 6y ago
    I understand the FOI misgivings, playing devil's advocate: (1) DARPA (and NASA) appear to be models. Secrecy and unaccountability are a big part of what makes them them. (2) The state of university grant making is currently terrible. A lot of what makes it terrible is accountability. A agree with the premise that you need independence to pursue high risk stuff. The whole premise is investing in things that most people think it are stupid and will never work. That's just not compatible with standard accountability norms. Meanwhile, as you say, contracts go to insiders regardless. It's not like FOI is preventing this corruption. I also feel that (at least on this thread) the British take on corruption is overblown. Was there ever a time or place where sleeping with the mayor of London was not good business? £100k seems cheap. Not saying this is good, just that I don't see the escalation that some here see.
    - drak0n1c 6y ago
      Federal Reserve Banks (including the US) often have no FOI responsibilities either, the reasoning being that it prevents politicization and popular pressure from influencing monetary policy.
- hhmc 6y ago
  Another approach is VCT/EIS, where private investment is incentivized via aggressive tax breaks.
Havoc 6y ago
I mean darpa worked out pretty well. However the tory gov is currently busy handing out questionable contracts to friends like a pez dispenser so not super excited about the no FOI part.
jarmitage 6y ago
The FOI part means this is dead on arrival and will be abused all ends up. For this to work you need the public to understand why DARPA worked. Hiding details of failures makes that impossible (and again, completely open to corruption).
- kurthr 6y ago
  Yep, seems more like a way to keep scandals like Cummings no-bid contract to his friends from coming to light. If it can be used as a slush fund, it probably will be, and eventually probably exclusively. https://www.theweek.co.uk/951989/what-next-for-dominic-cummings-covid-contract-scandal https://www.theweek.co.uk/951989/what-next-for-dominic-cummi...
  - samizdis 6y ago
    The data visualisation exercise My Little Crony [1] was featured in some UK media in November. It is described on the site as: A visualization of the connections between Tory politicians and companies being awarded government contracts during the pandemic based on a wide range of investigative reporting. Perhaps it hit a raw nerve or two. [1] https://www.sophie-e-hill.com/post/my-little-crony/ https://www.sophie-e-hill.com/post/my-little-crony/
    - 45ure 6y ago
      >My Little Crony [1] was featured in some UK media in November. It wasn't widely reported in the mainstream media, but it drew attention via Byline Times. Similarly, the Tufton Street gang, with the same cast of characters, whose tentacles also reach across the Atlantic, will never be featured as comprehensively by the MSM; far too many incestuous relationships. https://www.desmog.co.uk/2020/02/13/mapped-boris-johnson-s-government-and-tufton-street-lobbying-network https://www.desmog.co.uk/2020/02/13/mapped-boris-johnson-s-g...
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    It seems unreasonably charitable to assume that it’ll be used exclusively as a personal slush fund “eventually” and not “immediately”.
Ericson2314 6y ago
We have truly entered the state capitalist era. (Collectively funded research is great, secrecy about it isn't.)
morpheuskafka 6y ago
It makes sense to have a limited amount of funding going towards carefully selected, high-potential projects be exempt from risk limits. However, I do not believe it is a good idea for them to exempt it from public records laws, this will surely reduce public trust in the agency and if anything, high-risk projects need an enhanced level of transparency.
- bigtones 6y ago
  Its also prime for fraud and pork barreling without accountability. The press plays an important role in democratic accountability and without FOI they are unable to do that.
FuckButtons 6y ago
Exempt from foi = is a vehicle for putting taxpayer cash in our mates pockets.
niffydroid 6y ago
It's amazing how government comes around in a circle. There was DERA(Defence Evaluation and Research Agency) which the government pretty much privatised by spinning it off as Qinetiq For me the issue is they intend to invest into 'projects', why phrase it like that? If it's research, then you're finding out new information, proving theories etc, so to deem it as high risk project is strange, just treat it as research, it's allowed to fail! Another one is the FOI. This is just stupid, we should know what the money is being spent on, what the outcomes, things learnt etc. It doesn't have to be the costings down to how much a tea bag costs. Just the top level stuff. I'm happy for top secret projects to be exempt if there is serious national security concerns. But if the public aren't allowed to see it, then who is getting the benefit? Could very well be private companies (which isn't a bad thing, but we've paid for them to gain advantage...) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_Evaluation_and_Research_Agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_Evaluation_and_Researc... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qinetiq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qinetiq
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
kergonath 6y ago
> exempt from FOI That's a terrible precedent.
martingoodson 6y ago
What’s stopping this money going to friends of Tory MPs or, worse, to Deloitte?
GreeniFi 6y ago
What could possibly go wrong?
bArray 6y ago
Non-paywall article: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/feb/17/defence-research-agency-for-high-risk-projects-on-cards-for-uk https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/feb/17/defence-res...
cybert00th 6y ago
I'm going to make a prediction, the leadership of this agency will be in hot water within 5 years. And the whole thing will be abandoned after frittering away billions of tax-payer Pounds within 6 to 7 years. Matt Ridley, author of How Innovation Works, is right, governments are poor drivers of innovation - and this little 'distraction' is going to be another case to prove his point.

193 points by cesarosum 6y ago

First the European fund and now this. The last thing I want is for my taxes is to go into venture capital. Especially if it's run by the government. I wonder what's the best place where to run to, to escape this trend. Maybe South America or South East Asia?

emteycz 6y ago
South East Asia is big on government-led venture capital and state-run business incubators/accelerators and other kinds of business development activities. Even the communist countries.
toyg 6y ago
There is no escape. The only way out of this is to build better ways to keep the powerful accountable.

gandalfian 6y ago

We did this already and then privatised it as Qinetiq. Round and round we go again.

londons_explore 6y ago
QinetiQ wouldn't be profit making if it hadn't been given tens of thousands of acres of land for free. Some of its sites are prime city center real estate too, and it's making a lot of money by selling them off for development...

mensetmanusman 6y ago

That’s great. Removing a platform for people that say, in hindsight, ‘it was obvious that was going to fail’ is a step in the right direction. If western societies insist on outsourcing R&D through misguided tax laws, they have no idea the amount of harm they are doing to the next generation of young people (who will be subservient to the innovating countries that were smarter in their policies).

toyg 6y ago
I'm not so positive. There is potential for this to become just another way to channel pork to friends and cronies. Which, considering the track record of the current executive, is probably the most likely scenario. I'm all for DARPA-like initiatives, but when it comes to taxpayers' money we should have decent accountability mechanisms.
- libertine 6y ago
  Usually these initiatives should be extremely transparent, and they're the exact opposite. That's not good. A current example is the covid 19 vaccine contracts, which were multi billion dollar/euro/pound deals, with accelerated research and approvals, and so far only one contract was made public. It is specially concerning when some vaccines were developed with public funding.
  - dageshi 6y ago
    It doesn't matter. Genuinely, the only thing that mattered was working, safe vaccines as quickly as possible. Whatever government paid is absolute peanuts compared to the costs associated with locking down economies let alone the lives potentially saved. Covid19 was and is a crisis, you may well have a point in terms of other initiatives in this space, but with covid all that mattered was finding a solution as quickly as possible.
    - libertine 6y ago
      Well, I disagree. It matters a lot, because who the hell knows what else is going on those contracts. It's not like any pharmaceutical company was gonna sit this one out. Some of these companies were into shady shit in the past, and while they are playing a role in this pandemic, I'd be way more comfortable know exactly what they are getting out of this and at what cost to the tax payers.
    - lordnacho 6y ago
      > all that mattered was finding a solution as quickly as possible What's to stop someone spending a bunch of money on a dead-end project that benefits them and no-one else, and then saying "hey, it's risky, bummer we couldn't make a vaccine"? We can be generous to make sure it gets done by someone, but we should also make sure that people actually try. The current UK government has a lot of stories about procurement, and it gives the impression that they mainly benefitted their friends, with the procurement of PPE and vaccines being a nice side-effect.

jtbayly 6y ago

So immediately this is where people will go to hide their pork?

bitcharmer 6y ago

Ah yes, another way for the tories and their rich friends to siphon public funds to private pockets with zero transparency.

atc 6y ago
Oh grow up and read something other than The Guardian.

maxehmookau 6y ago

What on earth could possibly go wrong with this.

motohagiography 6y ago

I still don't see how any government granting committee can outperform hundreds of private venture funds competing for exposure to new opportunities. Even if you have a government dept. of 10x geniuses, they don't scale to compete with a healthy investment community. As described, the risks I see are that, it has the incentives for a patronage slush fund, there will be selection bias to hedge political risk around people applying, and it will just become another grant vehicle for academics in the publish-or-perish regime, and instead of "making something people want," in the venture model, it means, "find things nobody else understands well enough to care about." To people outside of it, it will look a lot like corruption.

jdavis703 6y ago
The internet came out of a US government funded “advanced research projects agency.” It took decades before VCs monetized that research.
- LinuxBender 6y ago
  Most of the tech industry in fact came out of that government funded research. I bet half of the people working for In-Q-Tel [1][2] and similar gov VC funded companies don't even understand that relationship. I should add that even if a company is not listed, it does not mean some of the VC funding did not come from one of the gov VC's. [1] - https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/in-q-tel/recent_investments https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/in-q-tel/recent_inve... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-Q-Tel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-Q-Tel [note] not every company is listed
- bko 6y ago
  Finance was very immature industry at that time. There wasn't a lot of money in private investment funds and the investment vehicles to capitalize on this research didn't yet exist. Today's private market would likely seize on an opportunity like the internet. There is appetite for long term focus in today's investors. Just look at PE (price-earnings) ratios of today's stocks, and the frothy revenue multiples in valuations over the last ten years.

marcus_holmes 6y ago

Why is the government spending tax money on creating new technology with huge risk? Surely this is something that investment funds should be doing, with the investors appopriately aware of the risks? Who is going to benefit from any discovered new tech? Are the benefits going to be socialised, or is it just the risk? If it was supporting pure research - finding great researchers and freeing them from the grant treadmill - I'd be supportive, but this doesn't sound like that.

mcny 6y ago
> If it was supporting pure research - finding great researchers and freeing them from the grant treadmill - I'd be supportive, but this doesn't sound like that. Same here. I am all for more research but we want more transparency, not less. > Ministers will announce plans tomorrow for an £800 million scientific research agency legally entitled to invest in projects that are likely to fail and which will be exempted from freedom of information laws. This makes no sense to me. Why would they need to be exempt from freedom of information? > It will be exempt from rules designed to prevent taxpayers’ money from being invested in projects with little chance of success. Ministers hope that the agency, to be set up next year, will produce next-generation technology. This I completely support. From what I understand, the COVID vaccine wouldn't be here if it wasn't for some scientists working on some seemingly dead-end path for years. Overall, I don't understand this initiative at all. The last thing I'd want is pulling funding away form fundamental research and putting it in some Instagram clone. I'd even be OK if this money went to some kind of James Bond/Quartermaster/DARPA thing instead.
- richrichardsson 6y ago
  > Why would they need to be exempt from freedom of information? So no-one can find out where the best part of a billion pounds went?
  - parkersweb 6y ago
    And specifically no-one can tie that billion pounds to the business interests of ministers or their family members...

turbinerneiter 6y ago

* let universities and public research starve for money * drown them in documentation paperwork for the little money they get * give money to private companies for free and without transparency Corruption.

ChrisRR 6y ago
Tories* When the tories give out money to their friends, it's for the greater good, remember?
- BTinfinity 6y ago
  Politicians as a whole are known for lies, deciet and corruption. It's not limited to one specific party nor country. The visibility of corruption may change, but its presence never will.
  - hkt 6y ago
    There is a giant pile of contracts that have been scrutinised that very clearly show the absolutely incestuous nature of procurement since covid and long before too. It isn't "all politicians", it is conservative politicians in the last eleven years. The Good Law Project is a great example of the kind of organisation that investigates this. The Guardian does good work here too. I'm surprised to say it, but even Labour are making noise about it in Parliament. This is historically unusual and a sign of the return of the Old Boys' network. It is a bad sign for democracy. https://goodlawproject.org/case/end-to-cronyism/ https://goodlawproject.org/case/end-to-cronyism/ is a good start to read from.
    - heywherelogingo 6y ago
      "even Labour..." - of course Labour make a noise about it, that's their job. The opposition obviously criticise at any opportunity. Your faith in organisations (the Good Law Project, The Guardian, undoubtedly big left government too) is misplaced given that they're composed of individuals, and small groups within will sieze opportunity. The Guardian journalists show plenty of bias. Clearly the tories are dodgy, but no effort is required to spot the large fly in the anti-tory ointment: Tony Blair - weapons of mass destruction, net worth up to £100m. The narrative of the left being morally superior is absurd. Politicians are low, and I look forward to tech based governance without them. /optimism

throwawaymanbot 6y ago

The UK has been taken over by Spectre from the Bind movies I think. Some bizarre decisions these past few years.

jack_riminton 6y ago

If its our answer to DARPA then good. I only hope the money will be disbursed in ways similar to the DARPA challenges and not in the usual chronyist way of the UK There's a shocking number of people high up in UK tech influence circles who got there solely by networking, holding events and being on the peripheries of successful startups

nivenkos 6y ago
> There's a shocking number of people high up in UK tech influence circles who got there solely by networking, holding events and being on the peripheries of successful startups Like Boris Johnson's lover.
- hkt 6y ago
  Jennifer Arcuri isn't in tech is she? (Apologies if I just ruined the joke and you didn't really mean Carrie Symonds)
- jack_riminton 6y ago
  Ah yes, she set up a co-working space, held some events and launched (although presumably not heavily involved) in launching a White Hat consultancy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Arcuri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Arcuri Similar to Rohan Silva who advised Cameron; set up a co-working space, is on many boards, speaks at a lot of events
  - lbriner 6y ago
    Everyone is impressive to those who are less impressive!
- jack_riminton 6y ago
  Oh yes I also forgot to add sexual favours to the key criteria!
dragonwriter 6y ago
Yes, it's a good thing the US in general, it's government more specifically, and it's defense establishment particularly are completely free of cronyism, and there aren't huge numbers of people influential in every field even loosely associated with the US’s vast military-industrial complex that have gotten their by networking rather than any other form of merit.

delightful 6y ago

Related recent official report on advanced research: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/4665/documents/47032/default/ https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/4665/documents...

hkt 6y ago

The exemption to FOIA is because the press and civic society in the UK have rooted out cronyism and corruption with gusto in the last year. The conservative party does not believe we have the right to know how we are being governed or who benefits from the process of government. It makes me furious, and it should make you furious too, reader.

suyash 6y ago

good move, more countries should have such entrepreneurial agencies!

raverbashing 6y ago

Sounds like those "good on paper" things. But in practice, we know how it usually goes... Though of course all government will have secret projects in one way or another

tschellenbach 6y ago

Basic research (IE things that are not monetizable in the near(ish) term) don't get anywhere near enough funding. Companies do a great job taking things from 1% to 100. There is a funding gap for the first bit. A solution is definitely needed for that, I don't think a government funded agency will do it though.

oli5679 6y ago

The USA's DARPA program funded important research into - The internet - GPS - Graphical user interface and mouse - Onion routing - Voice assistant Hopefully this program executes well. There is clearly a big social payoff to betting big on credible people doing risky research with high potential impact. https://www.itpro.co.uk/technology/34730/10-amazing-darpa-inventions https://www.itpro.co.uk/technology/34730/10-amazing-darpa-in...

madaxe_again 6y ago
That’s nice, but this isn’t what this will be about. This will be a means of funnelling cash to party donors without oversight, nothing more. Hence the FOI exception. I mean, just look at how they’ve fared in the last 18 months alone - how many unaccountable tens of billions did they pay out to their donors? I had Tory ministers’ children approaching me about putting together business plans to help them get covid grants - same crowd who I used to help with R&D grants, which were also used to get high net worth individuals with money of dubious origin into the country. I anticipate I’ll be hearing from them again. This kind of funding will not develop anything but the wealth divide.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- afandian 6y ago
  Anyone who doubts the veracity of the claims of Tory corruption, here and throughout the thread, please check out the Good Law project and the litigation currently in UK courts. https://goodlawproject.org/news/ https://goodlawproject.org/news/
- grey-area 6y ago
  For those doubting the above, here is an example from the recent past of corruption from the Prime Minister, paying his lover with public funds: https://metro.co.uk/2019/10/31/10000-grant-given-boris-johnsons-friend-jennifer-arcuri-appropriate-11020662/ https://metro.co.uk/2019/10/31/10000-grant-given-boris-johns...

Traster 6y ago

It's absolutely hilarious to watch a Prime Minister, who has previously given £100k in Tech funding to his mistress, now establishing an even bigger tech fund without the FOIA requirements so that he can... get away with giving £100k in Tech funding to his mistresses in the future I guess?

hkt 6y ago
And people say he can't plan!
arethuza 6y ago
Maybe it will be used to fund new tunnelling and/or bridge technologies - the current government seems surprisingly keen on connecting NI to Scotland....
- dominotw 6y ago
  > fund new tunnelling is this supposed to be a double entendre ? I don't see how this follows from the parent comment.
  - emptyfile 6y ago
    The comment is making fun of a proposal Boris Johnson once made about building a bridge from Scotland to Northern Ireland, which is considered borderline physically impossible as far as I understand.
    - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
      Bridge, yes. Tunnel, no. It’s very feasible and practical from a civil-engineering perspective, but the economic value of a road connection between NI and Scotland has not been demonstrated to outweigh the economic cost of its construction.
      - Chris2048 6y ago
        Infact: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/14/rail-bosses-revive-plan-to-build-tunnel-from-scotland-to-northern-ireland https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/14/rail-bosses-...

acallaghan 6y ago

In my opinion, there should still be an oversight board of non-govt people to stop abuse, and maybe still abide by ethical standards.

dalbasal 6y ago

OK so the British HNers commenting seem to be unimpressed. :) Leaving this specific agency/project aside, what would be the right way to do this? How do we do public investment in high risk projects well?

mcintyre1994 6y ago
I'd be fine with this project, just without the FoI exception and under a government that didn't constantly break FoI laws and that didn't have endless examples of giving contracts corruptly to incompetent friends and donors.
- dalbasal 6y ago
  I understand the FOI misgivings, playing devil's advocate: (1) DARPA (and NASA) appear to be models. Secrecy and unaccountability are a big part of what makes them them. (2) The state of university grant making is currently terrible. A lot of what makes it terrible is accountability. A agree with the premise that you need independence to pursue high risk stuff. The whole premise is investing in things that most people think it are stupid and will never work. That's just not compatible with standard accountability norms. Meanwhile, as you say, contracts go to insiders regardless. It's not like FOI is preventing this corruption. I also feel that (at least on this thread) the British take on corruption is overblown. Was there ever a time or place where sleeping with the mayor of London was not good business? £100k seems cheap. Not saying this is good, just that I don't see the escalation that some here see.
  - drak0n1c 6y ago
    Federal Reserve Banks (including the US) often have no FOI responsibilities either, the reasoning being that it prevents politicization and popular pressure from influencing monetary policy.
hhmc 6y ago
Another approach is VCT/EIS, where private investment is incentivized via aggressive tax breaks.

Havoc 6y ago

I mean darpa worked out pretty well. However the tory gov is currently busy handing out questionable contracts to friends like a pez dispenser so not super excited about the no FOI part.

jarmitage 6y ago

The FOI part means this is dead on arrival and will be abused all ends up. For this to work you need the public to understand why DARPA worked. Hiding details of failures makes that impossible (and again, completely open to corruption).

kurthr 6y ago
Yep, seems more like a way to keep scandals like Cummings no-bid contract to his friends from coming to light. If it can be used as a slush fund, it probably will be, and eventually probably exclusively. https://www.theweek.co.uk/951989/what-next-for-dominic-cummings-covid-contract-scandal https://www.theweek.co.uk/951989/what-next-for-dominic-cummi...
- samizdis 6y ago
  The data visualisation exercise My Little Crony [1] was featured in some UK media in November. It is described on the site as: A visualization of the connections between Tory politicians and companies being awarded government contracts during the pandemic based on a wide range of investigative reporting. Perhaps it hit a raw nerve or two. [1] https://www.sophie-e-hill.com/post/my-little-crony/ https://www.sophie-e-hill.com/post/my-little-crony/
  - 45ure 6y ago
    >My Little Crony [1] was featured in some UK media in November. It wasn't widely reported in the mainstream media, but it drew attention via Byline Times. Similarly, the Tufton Street gang, with the same cast of characters, whose tentacles also reach across the Atlantic, will never be featured as comprehensively by the MSM; far too many incestuous relationships. https://www.desmog.co.uk/2020/02/13/mapped-boris-johnson-s-government-and-tufton-street-lobbying-network https://www.desmog.co.uk/2020/02/13/mapped-boris-johnson-s-g...
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  It seems unreasonably charitable to assume that it’ll be used exclusively as a personal slush fund “eventually” and not “immediately”.

Ericson2314 6y ago

We have truly entered the state capitalist era. (Collectively funded research is great, secrecy about it isn't.)

morpheuskafka 6y ago

It makes sense to have a limited amount of funding going towards carefully selected, high-potential projects be exempt from risk limits. However, I do not believe it is a good idea for them to exempt it from public records laws, this will surely reduce public trust in the agency and if anything, high-risk projects need an enhanced level of transparency.

bigtones 6y ago
Its also prime for fraud and pork barreling without accountability. The press plays an important role in democratic accountability and without FOI they are unable to do that.

FuckButtons 6y ago

Exempt from foi = is a vehicle for putting taxpayer cash in our mates pockets.

niffydroid 6y ago

It's amazing how government comes around in a circle. There was DERA(Defence Evaluation and Research Agency) which the government pretty much privatised by spinning it off as Qinetiq For me the issue is they intend to invest into 'projects', why phrase it like that? If it's research, then you're finding out new information, proving theories etc, so to deem it as high risk project is strange, just treat it as research, it's allowed to fail! Another one is the FOI. This is just stupid, we should know what the money is being spent on, what the outcomes, things learnt etc. It doesn't have to be the costings down to how much a tea bag costs. Just the top level stuff. I'm happy for top secret projects to be exempt if there is serious national security concerns. But if the public aren't allowed to see it, then who is getting the benefit? Could very well be private companies (which isn't a bad thing, but we've paid for them to gain advantage...) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_Evaluation_and_Research_Agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_Evaluation_and_Researc... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qinetiq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qinetiq

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

kergonath 6y ago

> exempt from FOI That's a terrible precedent.

martingoodson 6y ago

What’s stopping this money going to friends of Tory MPs or, worse, to Deloitte?

GreeniFi 6y ago

What could possibly go wrong?

bArray 6y ago

Non-paywall article: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/feb/17/defence-research-agency-for-high-risk-projects-on-cards-for-uk https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/feb/17/defence-res...

cybert00th 6y ago

I'm going to make a prediction, the leadership of this agency will be in hot water within 5 years. And the whole thing will be abandoned after frittering away billions of tax-payer Pounds within 6 to 7 years. Matt Ridley, author of How Innovation Works, is right, governments are poor drivers of innovation - and this little 'distraction' is going to be another case to prove his point.