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're into cleantech startups, here'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
"Patenting and business outcomes for cleantech startups funded by the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy"
View-only PDF: https://rdcu.be/b7bEA
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
View-only PDF: https://rdcu.be/b7bE5
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't have any advantage in business outcomes like raising venture capital.
But they didn'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't happen in this case. Why not?
We don'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'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'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't enough.
But it isn't enough.
The climate doesn'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!
