> Science agencies such as ARPA-Health hope to replicate the success of the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, but researchers question whether they

> Science agencies such as ARPA-Health hope to replicate the success of the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, but researchers question whether they will thrive. Well, I think one can figure out the answer pretty quickly: > US President Joe Biden’s administration wants to create a US$6.5-billion agency to accelerate innovations in health and medicine ... the Biden administration has proposed launching a second US agency, the $500-million ARPA-Climate (ARPA-C), to spur technologies for fighting climate change. That's per-capita funding of 20 bucks and 1.6 bucks. And I'm not even sure those figures are per annum or just flat sums! So it will fail for lack of funding if for nothing else. The US is notorious for lacking public funding for research, with money much more often coming from private corporations or the military establishment (like DARPA - the Defense APRA; ONS - Office of Naval Research; and such). Another reason one can expect a failure, at least for that second agency, is the problem at hand. The struggle to contend with climate change is, at this point, not so much a struggle for better technology but rather for the necessary socio-economic and cultural changes (within world states and on the international level). Of course, better tech can _mitigate_ the depth of necessary change somewhat, but it is unreasonable to expect deus-ex-technica solution coming out of some lab.