3 ms·

Who Funds Misfit Research?

57 points by surprisetalk 1y ago

searine 1y ago
Most 'misfit research' is funded by the government through broad training grants or broad departmental level support. Parts of those grants get used to fund early career researchers and students. Most often it is funding mainstream science but sometimes it is used just to keep these people on board. So it isn't about funding any one weird thing, but instead giving people the freedom to explore ideas and develop skills. Even when supported by specific grants, PI will use that money to let students / fellows explore more broadly. The idea that VCs or DAOs would give a penny for R&D is a sick joke.
- throwawaymaths 1y ago
  definitionally, no: > work that is a poor fit for academia
  - searine 1y ago
    Academia is already a sandbox. What kind of research would fit poorly? In the article most of the examples of funding sources give their funding to academic labs already. Discussion about non-governmental sources of funding is fine, but they still almost always funnel back into a lab at a university.
    - btrettel 1y ago
      Here's an example of research that I found to be hard to do in academia with details about why: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31154799 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31154799 Note that I don't think VCs or DAOs would care about this research either as it's not flashy enough.
      - growingkittens 1y ago
        I have found that many areas of human knowledge are massively disorganized. Everything is also siloed; knowledge that could easily apply to other domains is hidden by things like specialized terminology. I think it is because science is systematic, or step-by-step, and not systemic - lacking a "whole system" point of view. Both perspectives are needed to understand a reality made of systems.
    - throwawaymaths 1y ago
      anything that is unlikely to produce papers. anything that is unpalatable to the science status quo (so you could produce papers but you'll get extremely critical reviewers or be relegated to low tier journals). research in any field in which you yourself are not established but you have good reason to believe you can make a mark
- godelski 1y ago
  > The idea that VCs or DAOs would give a penny for R&D is a sick joke. Why? The funding required for more fundamental research is significantly lower. The rewards are also significantly higher. Let's be real, academic-like research is usually incredibly cheap. And if we're looking at industry, it's laughable how much vaporware has received over the past few decades. Remember the Rabbit R1 that got over $30m in VC funding? Or the Humane pin which got over $200m and ended up being acquired for over $100m? How many billions has Magic Leap received? Did Theranos not raise well over a billion? Didn't Segway get over $100m back in 2001?! Or go look at any hype craze for VR, cryptocurrencies, or the current AI. I'm sorry, you act like there isn't a massively high rate of failure in industry and that these VCs are making much more intelligent funding decisions. But we routinely see companies like Rabbit or Theranos get funded. Companies who no reasonable expert in their respective fields could conclude is anything short of obvious fraud. I'm not saying there aren't companies and ideas that aren't worth the risks, but I think you don't realize how much your beliefs are based on survivorship bias. This type of investing is inherently high-risk high-reward. Investors, founders, and fanboys are routinely wrong about the level of impact and value something will have even if it is successful and not fraudulent. The fact of the matter is that we tend to fund hype and charisma. Last I checked, these weren't the primary skills of technological innovators. Last I checked, the stereotype was in the exact opposite direction... Do you really think this is a more successful path? > instead giving people the freedom to explore ideas and develop skills This is essentially all you can fund at these stages. Truth is, no one knows the future.
jonathanstrange 1y ago
I've worked more than 15 years as a full-time researcher in a philosophy research institute. At least in my area, I highly doubt that any noteworthy amount of "misfit research" should get funding and is worth pursuing. Research is embedded into and needs to be part of the international research culture where many people and many different institutions work on the same topic. In philosophy, this is and has always been mostly within academia. "misfits" are unfortunately often close to "crackpots." There is a myriad of funding opportunities, some of them rather obscure and based on personal projects with a wide range of application conditions and requirements. For example, I know a colleague who once did research in philosophy for the Volkswagen Stiftung, and another one obtained funding from NATO. Of course, there is research outside of academia in many more practical disciplines like STEM and medical research. But I doubt the situation is very different there. If you're too much of a "misfit" chances are high that your research proposals just aren't good enough. If you have many publications in top journals, you will get funding. What's more concerning is that for lack of career prospects and job security, mostly those postdocs seem to prevail who are very adapted to the system and those who are extremely persistent and willing to relocate indefinitely. There is too much talent wasted in the second category. I've seen too many good and talented people drop out of the "publish or perish rat race" because they got children or wanted to settle down. These were the opposite of misfits, though.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- lemonwaterlime 1y ago
  This is the exact mindset that when used at the level of the grant awarding body causes incremental research to prevail while pushing out outsider thoughts. Things requiring unorthodox (but not incorrect) combinations of knowledge are met with the kind of skepticism that forgets to be skeptical of its own skepticism. Things on longer horizons than the short term, corporatized ROI of our research institutions—who are themselves supposed to be less beholden to quick wins at the expense of knowledge generation—leads to a chilling effect on trying anything revolutionary at all. The outcome is echo chambers, local maxima/minima in research, and promising avenues of research that are underfunded simply because they aren’t popular. Inevitably it also leads to the kind of institutional stagnation that results in p-hacking, and so on.
andyjsong 1y ago
For those who want a live example: MakeSunsets has raised ~$1.8M from angels + VCs and another ~$133K in Cooling Credit sales over the past 12 months from individuals [1]. These purchases directly fund stratospheric aerosol injection — bringing awareness and cooling the Earth. We’ve applied to SBIRs, explored DAOs, crowdfunding platforms, and are in conversations with family offices and UHNWI. Most of our closed deals? They’ve come from Twitter and Substack. The key: talking directly to decision-makers — not committees. [1] Climate dads: https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0685/0042/2976/files/Make_Sunsets_Customers.png?v=1746043043 https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0685/0042/2976/files/Make_...
- jfengel 1y ago
  Uh... I feel like pumping more pollution into the atmosphere isn't really the best solution here. I could see funding research into it, to prove its safety and efficacy, but jumping ahead to doing it sounds reckless. It would likely be illegal if the amount weren't so small as to be useless.
  - godelski 1y ago
    Not all particulates are the same. Their site says they're injecting materials that are biodegradable and seed clouds. Such a thing should be fine, but also needs more physical testing. > I could see funding research into it If they're on SBIR then it should be pretty small scale. SBIR == Small Business Innovation Research. Phase I is up to ~$314k and pretty short term. Phase 2 is up to ~2M and a bit longer. I've worked on and won some NASA, DoD, and DARPA and these were usually around $150k and 6mo for Phase I and $750k for 2 years on Phase II (those were STTRs)[0]. So those maximums aren't always being handed out. (The first few Phase I awards I saw for 2025 were $140k and the first Phase II was <$650k) So yeah, it's not much and they're not going to have a huge impact. > It would likely be illegal if the amount weren't so small as to be useless. ... What? ... => @andyjsong <= do you have a link to your proposals? I can't seem to find them by searching "make sunsets" or "makesunsets" on the SBIR award site[1]. Even "sunsets" isn't showing up and "sunset" is only showing Sunset Laboratory, Inc. That you? Or are you just saying you applied and have no award? Good luck, these can be tricky to write but once you get the hang of it it isn't too bad. [0] They've since bumped the numbers, but not a ton. You can go look at awards on [1] to see actual numbers. [1] https://www.sbir.gov/awards https://www.sbir.gov/awards
munchlax 1y ago
I actually thought MSFT was pronouned "misfit" and they just spelled it out. Oops.

57 points by surprisetalk 1y ago

Most 'misfit research' is funded by the government through broad training grants or broad departmental level support. Parts of those grants get used to fund early career researchers and students. Most often it is funding mainstream science but sometimes it is used just to keep these people on board. So it isn't about funding any one weird thing, but instead giving people the freedom to explore ideas and develop skills. Even when supported by specific grants, PI will use that money to let students / fellows explore more broadly. The idea that VCs or DAOs would give a penny for R&D is a sick joke.

throwawaymaths 1y ago
definitionally, no: > work that is a poor fit for academia
- searine 1y ago
  Academia is already a sandbox. What kind of research would fit poorly? In the article most of the examples of funding sources give their funding to academic labs already. Discussion about non-governmental sources of funding is fine, but they still almost always funnel back into a lab at a university.
  - btrettel 1y ago
    Here's an example of research that I found to be hard to do in academia with details about why: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31154799 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31154799 Note that I don't think VCs or DAOs would care about this research either as it's not flashy enough.
    - growingkittens 1y ago
      I have found that many areas of human knowledge are massively disorganized. Everything is also siloed; knowledge that could easily apply to other domains is hidden by things like specialized terminology. I think it is because science is systematic, or step-by-step, and not systemic - lacking a "whole system" point of view. Both perspectives are needed to understand a reality made of systems.
  - throwawaymaths 1y ago
    anything that is unlikely to produce papers. anything that is unpalatable to the science status quo (so you could produce papers but you'll get extremely critical reviewers or be relegated to low tier journals). research in any field in which you yourself are not established but you have good reason to believe you can make a mark
godelski 1y ago
> The idea that VCs or DAOs would give a penny for R&D is a sick joke. Why? The funding required for more fundamental research is significantly lower. The rewards are also significantly higher. Let's be real, academic-like research is usually incredibly cheap. And if we're looking at industry, it's laughable how much vaporware has received over the past few decades. Remember the Rabbit R1 that got over $30m in VC funding? Or the Humane pin which got over $200m and ended up being acquired for over $100m? How many billions has Magic Leap received? Did Theranos not raise well over a billion? Didn't Segway get over $100m back in 2001?! Or go look at any hype craze for VR, cryptocurrencies, or the current AI. I'm sorry, you act like there isn't a massively high rate of failure in industry and that these VCs are making much more intelligent funding decisions. But we routinely see companies like Rabbit or Theranos get funded. Companies who no reasonable expert in their respective fields could conclude is anything short of obvious fraud. I'm not saying there aren't companies and ideas that aren't worth the risks, but I think you don't realize how much your beliefs are based on survivorship bias. This type of investing is inherently high-risk high-reward. Investors, founders, and fanboys are routinely wrong about the level of impact and value something will have even if it is successful and not fraudulent. The fact of the matter is that we tend to fund hype and charisma. Last I checked, these weren't the primary skills of technological innovators. Last I checked, the stereotype was in the exact opposite direction... Do you really think this is a more successful path? > instead giving people the freedom to explore ideas and develop skills This is essentially all you can fund at these stages. Truth is, no one knows the future.

jonathanstrange 1y ago

I've worked more than 15 years as a full-time researcher in a philosophy research institute. At least in my area, I highly doubt that any noteworthy amount of "misfit research" should get funding and is worth pursuing. Research is embedded into and needs to be part of the international research culture where many people and many different institutions work on the same topic. In philosophy, this is and has always been mostly within academia. "misfits" are unfortunately often close to "crackpots." There is a myriad of funding opportunities, some of them rather obscure and based on personal projects with a wide range of application conditions and requirements. For example, I know a colleague who once did research in philosophy for the Volkswagen Stiftung, and another one obtained funding from NATO. Of course, there is research outside of academia in many more practical disciplines like STEM and medical research. But I doubt the situation is very different there. If you're too much of a "misfit" chances are high that your research proposals just aren't good enough. If you have many publications in top journals, you will get funding. What's more concerning is that for lack of career prospects and job security, mostly those postdocs seem to prevail who are very adapted to the system and those who are extremely persistent and willing to relocate indefinitely. There is too much talent wasted in the second category. I've seen too many good and talented people drop out of the "publish or perish rat race" because they got children or wanted to settle down. These were the opposite of misfits, though.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
lemonwaterlime 1y ago
This is the exact mindset that when used at the level of the grant awarding body causes incremental research to prevail while pushing out outsider thoughts. Things requiring unorthodox (but not incorrect) combinations of knowledge are met with the kind of skepticism that forgets to be skeptical of its own skepticism. Things on longer horizons than the short term, corporatized ROI of our research institutions—who are themselves supposed to be less beholden to quick wins at the expense of knowledge generation—leads to a chilling effect on trying anything revolutionary at all. The outcome is echo chambers, local maxima/minima in research, and promising avenues of research that are underfunded simply because they aren’t popular. Inevitably it also leads to the kind of institutional stagnation that results in p-hacking, and so on.

andyjsong 1y ago

For those who want a live example: MakeSunsets has raised ~$1.8M from angels + VCs and another ~$133K in Cooling Credit sales over the past 12 months from individuals [1]. These purchases directly fund stratospheric aerosol injection — bringing awareness and cooling the Earth. We’ve applied to SBIRs, explored DAOs, crowdfunding platforms, and are in conversations with family offices and UHNWI. Most of our closed deals? They’ve come from Twitter and Substack. The key: talking directly to decision-makers — not committees. [1] Climate dads: https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0685/0042/2976/files/Make_Sunsets_Customers.png?v=1746043043 https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0685/0042/2976/files/Make_...

jfengel 1y ago
Uh... I feel like pumping more pollution into the atmosphere isn't really the best solution here. I could see funding research into it, to prove its safety and efficacy, but jumping ahead to doing it sounds reckless. It would likely be illegal if the amount weren't so small as to be useless.
- godelski 1y ago
  Not all particulates are the same. Their site says they're injecting materials that are biodegradable and seed clouds. Such a thing should be fine, but also needs more physical testing. > I could see funding research into it If they're on SBIR then it should be pretty small scale. SBIR == Small Business Innovation Research. Phase I is up to ~$314k and pretty short term. Phase 2 is up to ~2M and a bit longer. I've worked on and won some NASA, DoD, and DARPA and these were usually around $150k and 6mo for Phase I and $750k for 2 years on Phase II (those were STTRs)[0]. So those maximums aren't always being handed out. (The first few Phase I awards I saw for 2025 were $140k and the first Phase II was <$650k) So yeah, it's not much and they're not going to have a huge impact. > It would likely be illegal if the amount weren't so small as to be useless. ... What? ... => @andyjsong <= do you have a link to your proposals? I can't seem to find them by searching "make sunsets" or "makesunsets" on the SBIR award site[1]. Even "sunsets" isn't showing up and "sunset" is only showing Sunset Laboratory, Inc. That you? Or are you just saying you applied and have no award? Good luck, these can be tricky to write but once you get the hang of it it isn't too bad. [0] They've since bumped the numbers, but not a ton. You can go look at awards on [1] to see actual numbers. [1] https://www.sbir.gov/awards https://www.sbir.gov/awards

munchlax 1y ago

I actually thought MSFT was pronouned "misfit" and they just spelled it out. Oops.