Read on Twitter
The world is on fire and it is hard to focus on research. But if you are looking for a diversion and you& #39;re into cleantech startups, here& #39;s a new paper for you! (thread)
Out today in @NatureEnergyJnl by me, Claudia Doblinger, Erin Baker and Laura Diaz Anadon @l_diaz_anadon
"Patenting and business outcomes for cleantech startups funded by the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy"
View-only PDF: https://rdcu.be/b7bEA ">https://rdcu.be/b7bEA&quo...
"Patenting and business outcomes for cleantech startups funded by the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy"
View-only PDF: https://rdcu.be/b7bEA ">https://rdcu.be/b7bEA&quo...
We also wrote a short Policy Brief to summarize the key points: "Startups supported by ARPA-E were more innovative than others, but investment gap may remain"
View-only PDF: https://rdcu.be/b7bE5 ">https://rdcu.be/b7bE5&quo...
View-only PDF: https://rdcu.be/b7bE5 ">https://rdcu.be/b7bE5&quo...
Our focus is on the 25 startups that got ARPA-E funding in 2010 when the agency was first established. For comparison purposes, we identified 39 that were rejected by ARPA-E in that same year and a bunch of others that were just out there doing their cleantech thing.
What we found: In the years following their award (2011-2014), ARPA-E startups patented at roughly twice the rate of a typical cleantech firm with their same pre-2010 profile.
But they didn& #39;t have any advantage in business outcomes like raising venture capital.
But they didn& #39;t have any advantage in business outcomes like raising venture capital.
In theory, more patents should lead to greater business success for technology companies--a patent is both an asset and a signal of quality for investors assessing a company. But that didn& #39;t happen in this case. Why not?
We don& #39;t really know, but we can speculate.
The companies applying for ARPA-E funding might be at higher risk of failure in the first place. This would fit ARPA-E& #39;s rhetoric: they are looking for big ideas, rather than safe bets.
The companies applying for ARPA-E funding might be at higher risk of failure in the first place. This would fit ARPA-E& #39;s rhetoric: they are looking for big ideas, rather than safe bets.
The value added to startups by the technical success of an ARPA-E project might help them compensate for this disadvantage, allowing them to catch up and find equivalent success to lower-risk companies in the same technology area.
This would be consistent with another thing we found: rejected applicants did poorly both on patenting and on business outcomes, compared to similar ARPA-E awardees.
Yes ARPA-E is highly selective, but we controlled for the most obvious predictors, like prior patenting and VC funding. If ARPA-E is reading the tea leaves to foresee which companies/projects will succeed, then kudos to them. This is no trivial feat.
My takeaway is this: our results on patenting in startups look good for ARPA-E. They are doing their job and advancing new ideas for energy technology.
But it isn& #39;t enough.
But it isn& #39;t enough.
The climate doesn& #39;t care about patents or even VC funding. The energy system needs to transform to get to net zero, and we need MORE-- more people, more programs, more resources-- to help commercialize clean energy solutions.
Important to hold two ideas in our heads at once:
1. ARPA-E is great. It should be supported and expanded!
2. ARPA-E is not a panacea for clean energy innovation. We need to also expand the full range of R&D, demonstration and deployment activities!
1. ARPA-E is great. It should be supported and expanded!
2. ARPA-E is not a panacea for clean energy innovation. We need to also expand the full range of R&D, demonstration and deployment activities!
