The vast majority of new ideas and technologies are never reproduced or achieve large-scale impact
In part, this is because Academic culture prizes individual recognition
Only realize their value on timescales beyond the horizons of typical venture investment, or that depend for their impact on results being public::Need list of examples of these::
Academia incentivizes novelty, not focus
Innovation is one of the key criteria by which grant applications and academic publications are judged. To fulfill the innovation criterion, academics are incentivized to distinguish themselves from others and to pursue novel research. In the academic sciences, novelty comes in the form of new discoveries, whereas in academic engineering it comes in the form of proofs of concept.
Academia occupies a critical point in the innovation cycle, as the primary source of new ideas::Not sure I agree, but it’s definitely a source of new ideas::
Metrics driven::need to have a good way of establishing the right metrics::
Janelia has found that “without an opposing force provided by management, there is a slow, steady drift toward a more conventional environment increasingly focused on maintaining successful programs and documenting individual achievement at the expense of risk taking and collaborative, interdisciplinary work”
Alternatively, one could imagine the creation of a dedicated umbrella organization or a government program with the specific goal of initiating and supporting FROs.
Each FRO should have its own board of directorsThis seems like massive overheard
Draft roadmap for second phase of BRAIN initiative
- A. P. Alivisatos et al., A National Network of Neurotechnology Centers for the BRAIN Initiative. Neuron. 88, 445–448 (2015). ::roadmapping example?:: - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5283530/pdf/nihms844886.pdf - The Comptroller General of the United States, “[[Nanomanufacturing - Emergence and Implications for U.S. Competitiveness, the Environment, and Human Health]]” (2014), (available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/670/660591.pdf). - G. M. Rubin, E. K. O. Shea, Looking back and looking forward at Janelia (2006). ::incentive drift:: - M. Watzinger, T. A. Fackler, M. Nagler, M. Schnitzer, How Antitrust Enforcement Can Spur Innovation: Bell Labs and the 1956 Consent Decree (2017) (available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=2904315). - D. W. Braben, Pioneering research: A risk worth taking (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2004). - J. Segal, How Social Entrepreneurship is Changing Chicago (and the World). Technori (2012). ::low profit llc::