3 ms·
The headline is a little more downbeat than the story, no? As I read it, they say that private VC investment is moving from research to development. This is c
by mathattack 15y ago
The headline is a little more downbeat than the story, no?
As I read it, they say that private VC investment is moving from research to development. This is consistent with the nature of VC funds - they usually have to pay back investor money within 7-10 years. The research cycle in physical sciences is frequently long enough that adding development pushes the idea beyond 10 years. As such, VCs are more interested in bringing already researched ideas (or incremental ideas) to market.
There are 2.5 antidotes to this:
1) The government can fund more basic research, similar to biology.
2) The government can put a revenue neutral tax on unclear energy. (Carbon taxing) They can use to revenue to fund #1, or give it back in the form of lower taxes. Even the latter will create financial incentives to fund alternatives.
2.5) Fund longer term (10-15 year time horizon?) VC style investments with public funds, either through pensions or other dedicated funds. This would be similar to Singapore.
I am fairly confident that #1 will help, as it benefits other areas in science. There is potential for waste, but lots of residual benefits. I am very confident that #2 will work, as it lines up everyone's incentives to solve the problems. I am only slightly confident that #2.5 will work, as it is not a business model that has worked in many other places.