

Venture Capitalists Return to Backing Science Startups - adventured
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/13/business/venture-capitalists-return-to-backing-science-start-ups.html

======
perlpimp
Andresen has mentioned that government's funding of science is more crucial
because it takes a while for a breakthrough into a new area to happen, like 20
years long - companies can grow on results achieved in science. However well
intentioned VCs are they are more goal oriented.

Bell being huge and not unlike government organizations had bell labs - i am
sure you all know that transistor came from there. Idea for bell labs was to
put many great scientists together and wait for things to happen. Internet is
the other thing - one cannot imagine private money investing that much in such
nebulous goal - where everything from microcircuits to software stack had to
be developed to birth the Internet.

VC doing science is not a bad thing but in the long run government can provide
a steadier hand to people that do science than market driven entities.
Financial market cycles are detrimental to projects that run on 20-30 year
span or clusters of research projects.

If VCs can do a hybrid model where government can step in during lean times
and help science projects survive with minimal bearacratic interference I
think that could the best IMO.

~~~
michaelochurch
I have mixed feelings about an impending Flight to Substance.

It's a good thing overall, but it can be bad for talented generalists. If
there's enough demand for smart people that science and "real technology"
companies will train talented generalists up into the specialties they need,
then it's good. On the other hand, genuine research and technology have been
so under-funded that the culture has become parochial and unreasonably elitist
(against talented generalists). I deal with a ton of PhD bigotry in machine
learning. (I don't have a PhD, but I read papers and I'm more current and,
almost certainly, more effective than someone who stopped reading papers 5
years ago.)

For example, there used to be BA-level science jobs. There still are-- but
they're filled by PhDs. Real science has been under-invested for years and
we're paying a price because a lot of our brightest people don't have any
experience with real work, because they can't get jobs on projects that
actually matter.

In the 1970s to '90s, Silicon Valley wasn't pedigree-obsessed and talented
generalists could "just fucking build it" without having to acquire
permissions and credentials. What happened later, unfortunately, is that
smooth-talkers moved in, outcompeted us on social polish, and are now raising
huge sums of venture capital on lame "social media" ideas and build-to-flip
bullshit. Right now, the genuinely talented generalist engineer loses in both
theatres. He can't get a proper role in the Substance world (real science and
technology) because he's not a PhD with at least one paper per year since
graduation, but he can't get a proper role in the generalist's promised land
of Silicon Valley because the smooth-talking douchebags with lame ideas have
taken it over. Between "ultra-hard" science that requires either 5+ year job
tenures (to make it worth it for employers to train people up) or advanced
degrees, and that typically involves a decade between innovation and profit;
and the "easy" social media stuff that any idiot can do (scaling such services
is genuinely hard, but tech talent can be back-filled later) there is a
"moderately hard" space that is under-explored.

~~~
nostrademons
The value of a Ph.D isn't in the knowledge you learn or papers you read, it's
in demonstrating the ability to take on a vaguely-specified original research
task where you can't see the eventual outcome at the beginning, and drive it
forward until you come up with something useful. All without having the
support of other people who actually know what they're doing to guide you. If
you're measuring knowledge by what you've learned from papers, you're missing
the point.

There are other ways to develop this skill. I've never once felt hampered by
the lack of a Ph.D, but that's because fairly early on in my career, I took on
tasks that were scary, that nobody knew how to do, and drove them forwards
until they were useful to other people. But it does require _following
through_ on original work, and pushing your projects forwards even when other
people think they're a bad idea, and accepting responsibility for results
rather than effort or ability.

~~~
michaelochurch
_The value of a Ph.D isn 't in the knowledge you learn or papers you read,
it's in demonstrating the ability to take on a vaguely-specified original
research task where you can't see the eventual outcome at the beginning, and
drive it forward until you come up with something useful. All without having
the support of other people who actually know what they're doing to guide
you._

Fair, and I think it's pretty obvious that the education of a PhD (including
the meta-education of having to teach yourself how to solve a new problem) is
quite valuable, and that it's relatively rare that a person gains that outside
of a degree program.

I don't like the hypocrisy and inconsistency. There are a lot of jobs that
(even if the work doesn't require it) expect an advanced degree in the better
jobs, but refuse to ante up and pay for employees to get them. If they really
thought that the education was important, they'd hire people without the
degree on condition that they pursue one, and pay for it.

~~~
dragons
_they 'd hire people without the degree on condition that they pursue one, and
pay for it_

It's my understanding that some companies will still fund your education,
although it's not as common as it used to be. Here's a sampling:
[http://www.businessinsider.com/companies-that-will-pay-
for-y...](http://www.businessinsider.com/companies-that-will-pay-for-your-
tuition-2014-6)

Maybe that's not really what you mean, though...

I think the kind of deal that you're thinking about between an employer and an
employee may have made sense at one point, when companies thought of employees
as long-term assets, and employees had a reason to be loyal. The only way this
might work now would be for an employee to agree to reimburse the education
expenses if they leave before x years of employment are complete. That sounds
like a loathsome form of indentured servitude, to me. I guess if you're
desperate then you'll take it, and that's why some people sign up to the armed
services in the US. But someone who is capable of PhD quality work probably
has more flexible options.

------
danieltillett
We must be at the top of the market if VC's are backing science. I know that
investing in real science is the most important thing that we as a society can
invest in, yet as an asset class it has never done anything other than lose
money for investors. What is the date - February 2000?

~~~
dpflan
Do you suggest it's desperation - VC's finally are bored with or are
exhausting the software space? Rationally, they would only invest if the
incentive for sufficient return existed.

So what has changed with regard to starting a "science company"? I assume it's
easier to begin prototyping and have a POC to convince investors. The issues
of scaling such "science" to real-world levels is definitely more resource
intensive and can be hit with more regulatory steps (biotech for example).

But what other factors have changed for "science companies" that make them
more attractive investments?

~~~
JimmyM
Major tech companies - Google, Tesla, Facebook - seem to be investing more and
more heavily in their long-term future and diversifying what areas they're
involved with. Perhaps the goal is to be bought out by a Musk or Musk-lite?

~~~
dpflan
I think that is reasonable - these science companies prove a concept then get
moved in house or are deeply assisted by a company with much more resources
and capital to allow the idea to evolve and to thrive.

