I agree that the ARPA model is not suitable for all (or even the majority of research) and the act doesn't inspire confidence that shifting the NSF towards a DARPA-like model would do well.
Just wanted to say, thanks for writing the article about DARPA, and this analysis of the endless frontiers act. From reading both articles, obviously you're very pro-DARPA and anti-NSF.
I have two thoughts that might erode your thesis a bit, that 1) I think you're overestimating the amount of time that faculty spend on writing grants. We like to complain about it, but I've tracked my time to the minute over the past 7 years, and grant writing (both the proposals and the reports) is about 2% of my work time. 2) You might be misunderstanding indirect costs like many people, where you say "Universities can take more than half of grant money as administrative overhead". Indirect cost math is funny, but in order for administrative overhead to be more than half of the grant, the indirect cost rate would have to be over 100%. I can explain more if you're interested.
Obviously we're both biased by our job, but it's still useful to read your perspective.
Appreciate the correction about indirect cost math - I’ve applied for several grants but never did lab accounting so I interpreted it incorrectly when professors told me “50% overhead.” I’ll fix that when I’m at a computer.
I would characterize my position as less “pro DARPA and anti NSF” and more “I think on the margin the world needs more DARPA-like activity more than it needs more NSF-like activity”
I don't understand the comparison in reference to the question of 'Why Does DARPA Work?' or my comment.
Military-Industrial Complex is where defense industry profit motives drive unwarranted political influence that shapes defense policy, foreign policy. Military-Industrial Complex drives defense spending up.
Trust is about the erosion of market competition, which results in decrease product value-price ratio. In the context of defense product, it means that the products that the consumer (here military/govt) can buy from the market become increasingly expensive and weak. Which creates an opportunity for consumers to do-it-better-yourself-and-for-less, which to me, explains DARPA.
To a certain extent the MIC as you define it would explain the erosion of the market wouldn't it?
Also I've read your comments a few times now and I'm not sure if I'm completely understanding your view of what is becoming more "trust-based". Are you saying that DARPA is more trusted by the consumer (the federal government) than the market entities (the contractors)? If so, isn't that exactly what government entities of all types are created for? These agencies exist as part of the government working for the government because it's difficult to have an effective private market created for these similar purposes.
I think it makes the question about "what makes DARPA successful" so much more interesting from if we acknowledge the limitations of the sector. Many agencies, entities, or initiatives of various types have failed when given similar mandates and similar market conditions. That's even if you believe DARPA is truly as effective as is claimed at achieving it's mandate of innovation in the Defense and National Security sector...
Author here. It's an important question. I would argue that DARPA does not work as well as it did in the 1960's but that your experience with PMs isn't representative.
Even though it's less than other government orgs, DARPA still has more process than it used to. Additionally, the opportunity cost for people who would make excellent PMs has become steadily higher over time.
I agree that the ARPA model is not suitable for all (or even the majority of research) and the act doesn't inspire confidence that shifting the NSF towards a DARPA-like model would do well.