As governments across the rich world begin to spend more on research and development, the idea of an agency to invent the future is alluring
USING MESSENGER RNA to make vaccines was an unproven idea. But if it worked, the technique would revolutionise medicine, not least by providing protection against infectious diseases and biological weapons. So in 2013 America’s Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency gambled. It awarded a small, new firm called Moderna $25m to develop the idea.
The result is a mirror image of normal R&D agencies. Whereas most focus on basic research, DARPA builds things. Whereas most use peer review and carefully selected metrics, DARPA strips bureaucracy to the bones . All work is contracted out.
DARPA’s budget in 2020 was $3.6bn, equivalent to just 8% of the NIH’s. If all goes to plan, ARPA-H will emerge on a similar scale, but none of the others receive such funding . Since the model works by making lots of bets in the hope that a few will come off, stingier funding means fewer wagers, which reduces the chance of success and thus of continued political support. This is especially true given the inherent difficulties in measuring progress.
When ARPA-E was formed in 2009 the hope was that venture capitalists would pick up innovations emerging from it. They have, however, proved reluctant. Energy technologies typically take far longer to reach market than venture capital’s favourite investment, software. ARPA-E has thus tweaked the DARPA model to add a “tech-to-market” team, to guide projects through the industrial jungle. Last year it began handing out grants of up to $150,000 to promising previous award winners seeking to grow.