3 ms·

Startups don't do research. Some may try to commercialize research. Some research labs may also try to commercialize research. But true research is not somet

by jderick 18y ago

Startups don't do research. Some may try to commercialize research. Some research labs may also try to commercialize research. But true research is not something anyone would risk VC on. True research takes decades to see any ROI and usually even then it is unclear exactly what the ROI is, making traditional funding metrics useless. Here is an interesting book about Dupont, IBM, and other research labs trying to quantify the output of their research labs: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6200&page=6 http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6200&page=6 Bottom line: you have to invest in research because you know it will pay off. But it is impossible to say exactly how or when it will pay off. The only kind of institution that can support that kind of investment is government or large (probably monopolistic) corporations.

tudorachim 18y ago
Not that the actual research part has paid off, but companies like Anybots have been much more successful in their bipedal research efforts (see Dexter @ http://anybots.com/abouttherobots.html http://anybots.com/abouttherobots.html) than many academic labs, much less other companies.
- zhyder 18y ago
  Anybots is probably not a traditional company in terms of the desire to make money ("maximize shareholder value").
  - dantheman 18y ago
    I think this concept of a traditional company doesn't really exist, or is fairly rare. Most companies care about their employees, and care about their work. They aren't trying to get every $ they can.
time_management 18y ago
Correct. Starting a company is fun, but it's not a time in which you can do research. Research is inherently risky and long-view oriented. Because startups are inherently risky and must survive in the short-term, the added risk of structuring a company around a research project is likely to lead to so much risk that no one will want to fund it. Well-funded government labs can do R&D because they're in a low-risk position and can take the long view. A government researcher is going to keep his job regardless of whether his findings contribute to the immediate P&L, so he's able to pursue research projects that are unlikely to pay off in the short term. Contrary to the common slight against government regarding innovation, government research projects can be highly innovative and useful. As for CEOs claiming that R&D departments are less innovative than private-sector executives, well... they're CEOs, so of course they're going to be immensely biased in favor of their own kind. Their definition of innovation is based on what they recognize as innovation, so of course most of them will underappreciate the long-term-oriented contributions of R&D. The problem with academia, though, is that it has the worst of both worlds. It's bureaucratic and stuffy, moreso than most government research labs, but the level of risk (career death) for the aspiring professor is intolerably high, meaning that high-risk research projects are unpalatable. Academia's a sinking ship, and no longer a viable career for more than a handful of people per year. I hate to say it, but academia's best days are almost three decades behind it, by this point.

by jderick 18y ago

tudorachim 18y ago

Not that the actual research part has paid off, but companies like Anybots have been much more successful in their bipedal research efforts (see Dexter @ http://anybots.com/abouttherobots.html http://anybots.com/abouttherobots.html) than many academic labs, much less other companies.

zhyder 18y ago
Anybots is probably not a traditional company in terms of the desire to make money ("maximize shareholder value").
- dantheman 18y ago
  I think this concept of a traditional company doesn't really exist, or is fairly rare. Most companies care about their employees, and care about their work. They aren't trying to get every $ they can.

time_management 18y ago

Correct. Starting a company is fun, but it's not a time in which you can do research. Research is inherently risky and long-view oriented. Because startups are inherently risky and must survive in the short-term, the added risk of structuring a company around a research project is likely to lead to so much risk that no one will want to fund it. Well-funded government labs can do R&D because they're in a low-risk position and can take the long view. A government researcher is going to keep his job regardless of whether his findings contribute to the immediate P&L, so he's able to pursue research projects that are unlikely to pay off in the short term. Contrary to the common slight against government regarding innovation, government research projects can be highly innovative and useful. As for CEOs claiming that R&D departments are less innovative than private-sector executives, well... they're CEOs, so of course they're going to be immensely biased in favor of their own kind. Their definition of innovation is based on what they recognize as innovation, so of course most of them will underappreciate the long-term-oriented contributions of R&D. The problem with academia, though, is that it has the worst of both worlds. It's bureaucratic and stuffy, moreso than most government research labs, but the level of risk (career death) for the aspiring professor is intolerably high, meaning that high-risk research projects are unpalatable. Academia's a sinking ship, and no longer a viable career for more than a handful of people per year. I hate to say it, but academia's best days are almost three decades behind it, by this point.