Overall, very neat and I’m glad it’s being done, and some of the projects look promising. All of the people selected seem exceptionally bright.
However, it seems that some of the projects are so unrealistic as to be counter-productive. As the most glaring example, one person wants to “develop space industry technologies to solve the problem of extraterrestrial resource extraction.”
Really? With $100K? I am fairly confident that the probability of that is extremely low. I think it would be better, in this case, if the individual went through college and did some directed research, since there is a good chance he’d create something valuable. Directly attempting this goal right now seems like a waste of talent.
I wonder why the candidates with unrealistic projects were chosen. Any ideas?
My guess would be that the simplest answer is the most likely: a filter tight enough to weed out every completely unrealistic project, will necessarily also weed out at least some that are just within reach and have very high potential payoff. Most of our civilization’s funding sources are attached to pretty tight filters; I think we could do with a few more on looser filters.
As for “unrealistic” projects, the thing is—many “unrealistic” projects have long time-horizons, so they need external funding in order to continue. But after some time, the payoffs can be huge. Agencies like DARPA are typically the agencies that fund projects that sound unrealistic, but we need more than just DARPA. And Thiel wants to demonstrate that maybe there are alternative ways of getting long time-horizon projects (like aging prevention) supported.
In the words of Thiel Fellow Laura Deming...
Too often, researchers design quick incremental projects to please grant-making bodies instead of taking on risky, long time horizon problems. With her fund IP Immortal, Laura plans on commercializing anti-aging research, bringing therapies out of the lab and into the market sooner.
I agree that unrealistic projects have long time horizons. They ALSO require lots of people and capital. Starting a NEW, long-term project is NOT a task cut out for a young person—you need connections and experience for it to have a good chance of succeeding.
The candidates who want to work towards these unrealistic goals SHOULD—but they should do so in a way that is more likely to succeed. In this case, a better use of the person and $100K would be giving him a job at SpaceX (which Thiel is an investor in), and using the $100K to hire another person there too :)
Also, it’s funny that you mention that other quote. Am I the only one that reads that and sees a contradiction? You cant fight the problem of “oh no researchers aren’t thinking long-term enough” by telling them to “bring technologies out of the lab and into the market sooner...” I understand what she’s trying to do, it’s just written strangely.
I understand your confusion re the seeming contradiction re Laura Deming’s desire to promote a long-term research orientation vs getting technologies out of the lab and into the market sooner. I know Laura very well. Do not bet against her. Ever. Look up “implacable” or “relentless” in any dictionary and that’s her.
She has developed a pragmatic strategy to change the entire way we fund scientific research. There’s a reason for the seeming contradiction that can be easily explained to anyone who understands how markets work. I can’t go into details but it is one of many sub-components of the main funding structure. It makes use of shorter-term opportunities that crop up to generate revenue that would be re-channeled back, as additional funding, into longer-term research. Note the “IP” in the title of her proposed fund.
Her strategy, which will surely change as she gains experience, is impressive because, for someone who just turned 17, she included so many powerfully aligned, pragmatic proprietary incentives that balance the shorter-term need for large amounts of funding with longer-term focus of research. Crazy yes, for a 17 yr old, to undertake… until you get to know Laura. When you do, it’s not hard to see why The Thiel Foundation chose her. But know what’s crazier? Death. Death is also banal, horrific and pathetic. Go Laura!
Overall, very neat and I’m glad it’s being done, and some of the projects look promising. All of the people selected seem exceptionally bright.
However, it seems that some of the projects are so unrealistic as to be counter-productive. As the most glaring example, one person wants to “develop space industry technologies to solve the problem of extraterrestrial resource extraction.”
Really? With $100K? I am fairly confident that the probability of that is extremely low. I think it would be better, in this case, if the individual went through college and did some directed research, since there is a good chance he’d create something valuable. Directly attempting this goal right now seems like a waste of talent.
I wonder why the candidates with unrealistic projects were chosen. Any ideas?
My guess would be that the simplest answer is the most likely: a filter tight enough to weed out every completely unrealistic project, will necessarily also weed out at least some that are just within reach and have very high potential payoff. Most of our civilization’s funding sources are attached to pretty tight filters; I think we could do with a few more on looser filters.
As for “unrealistic” projects, the thing is—many “unrealistic” projects have long time-horizons, so they need external funding in order to continue. But after some time, the payoffs can be huge. Agencies like DARPA are typically the agencies that fund projects that sound unrealistic, but we need more than just DARPA. And Thiel wants to demonstrate that maybe there are alternative ways of getting long time-horizon projects (like aging prevention) supported.
In the words of Thiel Fellow Laura Deming...
I agree that unrealistic projects have long time horizons. They ALSO require lots of people and capital. Starting a NEW, long-term project is NOT a task cut out for a young person—you need connections and experience for it to have a good chance of succeeding.
The candidates who want to work towards these unrealistic goals SHOULD—but they should do so in a way that is more likely to succeed. In this case, a better use of the person and $100K would be giving him a job at SpaceX (which Thiel is an investor in), and using the $100K to hire another person there too :)
Also, it’s funny that you mention that other quote. Am I the only one that reads that and sees a contradiction? You cant fight the problem of “oh no researchers aren’t thinking long-term enough” by telling them to “bring technologies out of the lab and into the market sooner...” I understand what she’s trying to do, it’s just written strangely.
I understand your confusion re the seeming contradiction re Laura Deming’s desire to promote a long-term research orientation vs getting technologies out of the lab and into the market sooner. I know Laura very well. Do not bet against her. Ever. Look up “implacable” or “relentless” in any dictionary and that’s her.
She has developed a pragmatic strategy to change the entire way we fund scientific research. There’s a reason for the seeming contradiction that can be easily explained to anyone who understands how markets work. I can’t go into details but it is one of many sub-components of the main funding structure. It makes use of shorter-term opportunities that crop up to generate revenue that would be re-channeled back, as additional funding, into longer-term research. Note the “IP” in the title of her proposed fund.
Her strategy, which will surely change as she gains experience, is impressive because, for someone who just turned 17, she included so many powerfully aligned, pragmatic proprietary incentives that balance the shorter-term need for large amounts of funding with longer-term focus of research. Crazy yes, for a 17 yr old, to undertake… until you get to know Laura. When you do, it’s not hard to see why The Thiel Foundation chose her. But know what’s crazier? Death. Death is also banal, horrific and pathetic. Go Laura!