OK.

Or and.

Might have been.

And.

The last thing.

Look at.

Your wallet.

Which are about.

Or are you.

So.

Well.

You're.

That.

Right.

Or so common.

On.

This.

An allotment.

Well thanks a lot Danny I
appreciate the introduction.

We miss you in in in Boston and

I hope that you are appreciated
here in an Atlanta.

I should say that Danny
is is is a broad and

deep thinker who crosses
disciplinary lawns.

In much.

I'd like to think that I
taught him how to do that but

I think he I think you're either born now.

Or you like to go now.

Or indeed.

OK so I'm going to talk about that

is I find myself in a situation where
I'm sort of giving a public lecture.

And what I've prepared really or what I
have here is a seminar presentation and

it's a presentation about
every kind of research that

is very much in in in progress.

And a little hesitant myself
to draw firm conclusions.

As you will see there are a lot
of on finished finished pieces.

And I hope that I will
present it in a way which

stimulates questions and
comments from from you before I've done.

I've prepared a Powerpoint presentation.

It's a mode of speaking that I've come
to very late in life and which I hate.

In fact because you sort
of get trapped into

a series of slides which carry you along.

And you end up not really
thinking about what.

Not being able to think of or
about your presentation and.

So I'm going to try and use the slides but
at some point if I just

suddenly go off in a direction that's
not written on the on the board.

You should follow me and not text OK.

OK so I've got this long long title here

and but basically.

This is a project which started
out looking at the effort

to create a new research agency
in the Department of Energy.

That would promote.

Radical innovation in in energy and
environmental conservation.

In this new agency was modeled on

an older agency called DARPA which
is a defense department agency.

Which was created in
the late late fifty's.

This is part of a larger project which

is financed by the door
stoop foundation at MIT.

Designed to look more broadly in ovation.

In energy and on and I am interested in
this particular aspect of the project for

reasons I'm going to try and
explain in I'm in a moment.

So if this works.

So what I thought I would do is try and
explain to you what the problem is that

got me interested in this research but
also presumably interests.

Some of the sponsors anyway to tell
you why that an important problem

to talk a little bit about the research
approach and then to talk in more

detail about the model which
we're trying to understand for

this type of research which is
the Defense Department model.

And then talk about the issue
of replicating that model.

In a different agency in a different time.

OK So the problem is sort of as follows.

DARPA was founded in one nine hundred
fifty eight as a response to Sputnik.

Which looking around the room.

I realize that many of
you probably have no

recollection of but for

people of my generation it was
a seminal event in in in the U.S.

role in the world economy to talk about to
go to the question of globalization and

it was seminal because all the sudden
the Soviet Union launched.

A satellite into space and
it was a total surprise to the US.

Scientific and military establishment.

And it made us feel as if we were way

behind in terms of military
military technology.

So it had a shocking impact on this sense.

Both of well being in the United States
in the sense which is deep in our culture

of American technological superiority.

So the kind of conclusion that
people draw drew from that event.

Was that the U.S.
really had quite a conservative approach.

To technological development.

And that we needed to develop it.

Both to catch up with the Soviet Union.

But also to continue or reassert
ourselves as a leader in technology.

To promote.

What was thought of as radical innovation
particularly in military and military.

Related to technology.

And in terms of thinking
about radical innovation and

thinking about how we had fallen
behind the Soviet Union for

oil in was the National Science Foundation
which was the major effort

to the federal government.

To encourage research and development.

And in in this piece of research.

And in a lot of the discussions on which
it's based the National Science Foundation

considers continues to be for oil.

So the idea of R.P. is that the society
faces that is energy and environment.

Poses a similar problem for for
the society not so much in the sense

that we are being challenged in a military
sense but in the sense that the existing.

Well I mean all of you know the.

The routine the continued existence
of mankind depends on our ability

to control the environmental damage and
to find new ways of both of living.

And of energizing our
lives which have less

and less detrimental to
the continued existence

of the of the of the planet and
if you look at the ways in which energy.

That is the trends in energy use.

It's impossible to really see how we
could begin to meet this challenge

without much more radical innovation and
we've had and

therefore people turn to the DARPA model.

And in and created this new agency
in the Department of Energy.

I was little bit more of a history than.

That but
I'm going to talk to skip over the.

A lot of the history so
the question is can you.

We so the research question here
is what does it mean to reproduce.

One institution.

Namely DARPA in a different environment.

And actually the attempt to do

this in the Department of Energy
is not the first effort to do it.

That is that similar effort was made
to create a DARPA like agency in

the CIA and then one in the Department
of Homeland Security and

in neither case have those
efforts have to locations.

Been very successful.

OK So the question is what would it.

What does it mean to do
this in this other case.

OK So why is this relevant.

So I mean of course we're all interested
and concerned about energy and so

it has direct direct implications for

that particular policy problem but
it has broader implications as well.

And it has and part of
the implications are for the general

will of government in the promotion of
research and development in Industrial.

Industrial policy.

This is not an area in which I have

a lot of personal experience but

Fred Block who is
a sociologist of science.

Estimates that eighty five percent of
the major of the innovations in the U.S.

economy in the last twenty years have come
out of government was sponsored research.

So although the kind of ideology in the
United States or the conventional wisdom

is that were private economy and the
government doesn't play an important role.

In the evolution of the economic system.

It does appear that that and that
the government sponsorship of research and

development has been has been
actually quite important.

And DARPA and if you think that true.

DARPA certainly deserves
a lot of of credit for

it and DARPA is responsible for
major innovations like the World Wide Web.

Cellular phone G.P.S. and

then a series of military
technologies like the stealth bomber.

A lot of new materials and so on.

So the question of what is DARPA and
how does it operate and so

on is has these very
broad implications for

industrial and industrial policy.

I got interested in this problem
from it's actually quite a different

different perspective.

I've been working on the labor
market regulation and

health and
safety wage regulation and so on.

The U.S. has a particular system in which
those regulations are spread out over

really a dozen different agencies each
with a very narrow jurisdiction and

that kind of regulation is alleged to
be very detrimental to the economy

because it's in inflexible and
doesn't adjust to economic conditions.

There's another model of the labor market
regulation which emanates from France and

is very widespread in Latin America in
which you have one agent line agent

who administers the whole of the labor
code which is a code something like this.

And so when he or she will or
she walks into the factory.

It's impossible.

Look at all aspects of the factories
operation and so the eighty.

And has to decide which aspects
of the code to enforce and

under what circumstances so on and

this gives the line age an enormous
amount of power and discretion.

It also makes for
a government regulatory agency that has

granted a lot of potential for
abuse but a lot of

potential to adjust to the to be flexible
and just to the conditions of the economy.

And the society and so
and so the question which

that poses is how do you manage an agency
like that which is called the street level

bureaucracy in which the line eight which
is not the typical bureaucratic hierarchy.

But in which the line agent has all the.

Has all the power.

How do you manage a bureaucracy
like that in order to have the have

the gains without the abuses and

what interested me initially in
DARPA is Darpa is that kind of you

ocracy it's a street level bureaucracy
in the sense that the characteristic

of DARPA is that the program manager
at the very base of the organization.

Originates the research program.

Follows it through finds the researchers
essentially picks the researchers.

Pushes the researchers
to achieve the results.

So as you'll see

as our move on it contrasts
fundamentally with something like.

Well with all of the other
government research organizations

of which there are quite a few actually.

But particularly with and
and and S.F. OK so this

this question of street level bureaucracy
which is embedded in this research

research program goes to the larger
question of how else what other intro.

And can you use to manage
the economy in the society.

Besides the marketplace.

Besides monetary incentives and so on.

And it opens up the very broadest
questions about how you can

put together an industrial and
industrial society which is dynamic and

which also meets a variety
of different social goals.

OK.

So that's a long introduction.

In the end it turned out although we
were supposed to be investigating.

Arthur in the.

R. for he didn't really get
started on told last year.

And so there's not a lot to investigate
and instead we focused on DARPA

as the model what is Darpa really how
does it operate what makes it effective.

And so what elements of this institution
would you are going to be key

to deciding whether it is pursuing
the mission in which it was intrusted.

And in the end this.

This is a research project which
up to now has depended heavily on

on interviews with key informant.

We interviewed a lot of people in
Washington who were kind of promoted.

The legislation and

current of the ethos that took
the DARPA model and attempted to.

And and pushed it towards the Department
of Energy we interviewed people at the top

of the world the hierarchy who knew a lot
about the Department of Energy which you

some of you may know exactly
what the background is.

But the department here in this room
with their apartment energy has.

One of the worst reputations
of any of the US.

US government department so people were

quite willing to expand on what was
wrong with the Department of Energy.

But then we interviewed a lot of

researchers at MIT particularly
because it was very convenient.

Who had research grants from DARPA and

most of what I'm going to talk
about today is is is based on

their what we're really open and
it interviews on their

comparison of DARPA to the other
agencies from which they were.

Have received funding and
their discussion of how it is.

That DARPA and talk of funding has
shaped their research in a way that it's

different from other research
grants that they've received.

I want to particularly mention a colleague
who was once a student of mine.

Eric a few bucks who is working
on the top or not on our part and

who has gathered spoke here I don't
know whether she spoke about DARPA but

I assume she said something about it.

And I'm sure you'll see.

The interplay between her ideas and knows
which I'm going to be talking about here

and then I've had the help of two very
good research assistant at Cole and will.

Mars.

OK so what's the DARPA model.

So I'm going to try and weigh it
out in the in in the following way.

I'm going to talk about the staff
program development and

then I'm going to talk about
the contrast to other organizations.

Faculties perspective.

In the end I'm going to emphasize
the following characteristics of

DARPA as a research agency
that distinguishes from.

Other agencies.

One is the enormous
discretion which I've already

underscored of the program manager.

Second there were Cruithne
of the program manager.

How have you get these program
managers and fact which.

I'm not going to put much emphasis on but
you could that that

DARPA is scapes from the civil
service requirements.

So if you think that DARPA is a good idea.

One lesson you might draw from it is what
stifles innovation in the government

is civil service salary restrictions and
so on and

never mind all this other
crap which I mean out here.

If you just a limb unaided that from
any agency you would get better

better performance.

That's not a view which I
personally subscribe to.

But it is I think a strong contender to
the views which I'm going to express here.

And I can't really take it off the table.

OK so the third element is
that the program manager

builds a scientific community in a process
which I'm going to talk a little that.

Little about.

Later on.

Still another element is that DARPA
gives out contracts not grants

that is from an assessment from most from
the National Institute of Health so on.

You get grants from DARPA
you get a contract with.

Specific were performance.

Requirements and then I'm going to put
a lot of emphasis on a process which

doesn't have a good name but
there is a good technical name but

it is a process of continual review
of the contract of performance

of what you're trying to do in
terms of specific quantitative.

Benchmarks.

But the benchmarks are extremely
flexible and mutable and they keep.

Keep keep changing.

OK so what.

Let me talk a little bit about a dog and
an organization.

I'm having a little trouble keeping
up here with with my slides.

OK So DARPA is a flat organization and
it really has three formal web.

Levels.

One is there's the director who
has a small staff around her.

And and and runs the the agency

under the director set of what
are called office managers that

group several different programs in
different specific areas like for example.

When R.T. was important and

technology at the moment was probably
an area of materials and so on.

OK And then on to the office manager or

these program managers and
the program managers are essential.

You know.
The key to emphasize to

the whole operation.

OK And then.

And if you look at the formal presentation
of the organization that's what you

see right.

But there's no turn out to be a set of
the civil rights and ciliary people on

the on on the edges that may be important
to the way this thing operates and.

It's interesting how these things sort.

Come come out in these
interviews in the indirect ways.

But it turns out that almost all of

the kind of administrative
aspects of this operation are.

Subcontracted to Booz Allen.

But the other element which I guess I'm
not going to talk a great length about but

which is interesting important
are the federal contract officers.

OK the federal government has a very large
apparatus for insuring the honesty of

contractors and particularly for
military contractors and

the people who supervised that is
who audit these contracts and so

on are experts and
they go through a series of of exams and

so on which give them the right to
review different kinds of contracts.

So some of these people have one
centrally what I think of as a license

to do look at a very narrow range
of things some of these people look

have five or six licenses and can review
almost all the kinds of federal contracts.

And so
one of the things that has been involved

in daughter success is
recruiting contract officers

who have the broadest possible experience
with administering contracts and

are able to tailor contracts to
the needs of the particular people

who the program manager wants
to get involved in the research.

So you have a situation of getting your so
I guess I didn't lay this out in a way in

which you can see the significance of this
but the program manager goes out into

the world and
he has a she has an idea for research.

And and he or she surveys the world and
finds the people

that are going to be
most of the they think.

Going to be most effective in this
particular kind of research and

then recruits them tries to recruit them
to be interested in the prom problem.

As the program manager has
has has defined it and

then to participate in this research.

It's not like you take N.S.F.
sends out a program announcement and

then the sits there and waits for
people to come in in DARPA

the program manager goes out and
gets the people that come in.

All right well sometimes it's private
industry are very concerned about

intellectual property.

Sometimes it's a university researcher
who has the opposite problem.

They don't want the research
to be secret and so on.

And so the contract officer
becomes very important

in terms of tailoring the contract.

To the requirements of recruiting
the particular people.

People in and involved.

OK so
I'm gonna go head to head of the story but

turning to program development now.

So you get a contract officer who

is interested in a particular area.

And that contractor officer sets up and
runs the program

then you negotiate a contract to supervise
and this is what I just talked about these

are the various tasks involved contracting
review the contract performance.

There's a budgeting process.

There's a process of continual
review of why you're doing this and

of goal setting and so on.

I to one can lay out the series of tasks.

Sort of in a tailor stick fashion
as to what's involved hear what.

Interesting about this particular agency
is there's very little division of labor.

OK everybody does essentially everything.

So the person who originates the program
is also the person who's going to be

running it and and
critically involved in the view.

So OK so how does this this operate.

So you have a program manager
the program manager I guess and

maybe I should have said
this earlier is recruited.

There is it really.

In two ways One is the director of the OR
of the organization of the office

manager says this is an area of priority
research and I'm going to go find somebody

who's really interested in this area
of research and so on and goes out into

the business community into the university
community and so on using their network.

This is not.

I mean this is a there's an in-group and
crew.

And using a network of acquaintances.

And so that's one way in which these
program managers are recruited

they come sometimes from industry
sometimes from research labs.

Those are the major major sources.

But the other way is is that somebody
with an idea comes to the agency and

says I want to run a program
in this in this area.

And DARPA has a reputation in
the research community for

being open to people coming in
from the outside with with ideas

that may well be off
the wall initially anyway.

But look to be promising.

OK So

you were quote a program manager about the
and the program manager comes on board.

These program managers generally
are there for five or six years.

They don't have a law.

Civil service life.

There are not careers
in this organization.

Although the OR

role of the program managers
important in these people's careers.

At any rate the new program manager spends
three to six months reading the literature

going out and talking to people finding
out what's really going on in in the area.

He had or she will have a series of
meetings in Washington invite researchers

from different parts of the.

Of the world but particularly
from different universities and

different companies to come in and
participate in the sky

kind of skull session and the next step is

the development of a series
of quite specific projects

in consultation again with
people in the government and

who've been invited in and
then it's and then at some point.

They issue.

What's called to be a which
is really an Oral B.

at that point the program officer
stops talking to the world and

and and and
you do have something of a distance speed.

You know between
the government officers and

the research community who
are applying for these things

a certain So they submit these
proposals the proposals are reviewed

by the Program Manager and

a series of people in different government
agencies are outsiders the program manager

is free to get advice from the world
at large but in the end it's

the program manager who decides what's
going there is he he or she is really the.

The agent who makes this decision.

OK.

And number of these things are selected.

Sometimes they cover their different
approaches to covering the same tech.

Technological.

Mission or sell them directly
competitive with each other in

the sense that there is if you take
the cell stealth bomber which is

a bomber that was supposed
to not show up on radar.

There were several different
ideas as to how to develop it.

And so
several different proposals were funded.

But they want the same basic technological
approach there are different technological

progress which are competing
with each other.

But once these things are selected.

The right or contract and
the contract is are set a contract for

a specific performance goals laid
out in the contract as to what

there is what people are supposed to
produce in what period of time in general

the program is divided into
three different stages and

they write or contract for
the first stage and if you succeed

in the first stage you get then you can
apply for the second stage and third.

OK.

And if you don't succeed in some
sense you can be dropped and

they do drop people off art but
what what's interesting or

what I found most interesting about this

is that the performance targets
are treated as benchmarks

and even though you can be dropped for
failing to meet the performance targets.

If you fail to meet the performance
targets and essentially initiate a.

Skosh about whether these are the right
performance targets and so

there is a constant debate going on within
the agency between the Program Manager and

the contractor between
the program manager and his or

her supervisors the office manager and
the.

Director of the agency as
to what the right measure

of success in a particular area and

then there's a similar discussion
about what would constitute success.

Maybe that is what's the goal of this
program why are we interested in it so

that is information technology
in which they say Agency.

Who are apostles of and

in some ways you could claim credit for
the information revolution.

The justification for working in this
area was in terms of coordinating bout

the battlefield a lord or
battlefield area.

So the question is What does it mean to
coordinate the battlefield their area

better how that is how would you how
how would you even think about that and

given all of the uses that we
now see information technology

can be applied to which of those
uses should be used to judge

the success of this this this program.

So there are there quantitative
measures of success.

It's our goal oriented a operation but
the goals and

measures of success are subject of
continual discussion and and vision so on.

The one hand it sounds crazy but
on the other hand in the end

I guess I've come to believe that
it's precisely that discussion.

And the conversation that's generally.

Very good about it.

That makes this agency.

Most effective.

So what did I hear.

So OK so the and these these contracts
are continually under review.

And the people who were view
them in the first instance

before they get to the program
manager are these contract officers.

These kind of bureaucratic officials and
what's interesting when you talk to people

about that is researchers is how
that they emphasize that it's not

just the Program Manager but it's also the
contract officers that have the technical

knowledge of the of the field
in which which which the.

Researcher is working and
discuss the technical aspects of

of of the research and

engage in real dialogue
with the researchers.

OK So this is actually I feel one comes
talking longer than I had really intended.

But let me.

Contrast this agency with other
agencies which is in some sense the.

The meat of trying to
understand what's particular

about this this is this approach.

OK so.

We didn't start out with a list
of agencies we we went to

these researchers at MIT
who had DARPA contracts

and we asked them to talk about what their
contract was how they got involved and

so on and in the process of conversation.

They ended up mentioning a series of
other government agencies and compared.

There were what their view of what
the difference between these agencies

were OK and agencies most frequently
mentioned as resources of funding.

With the National Science Foundation
the National Institute of Health health.

I listed the national labs here.

Actually the Energy Department runs
a number of national national while

the labs don't usually fund research
in universities or industry but

the labs or within the Department of
Energy a chief competitor with for

funds with say so.

One is really interested in what
the incentive structure and

the research program of these
national labs is likely to be

well would have to have a research program
that's going to be generated by our place.

All right.

Then there.

Then each of the military services
has an office of research or

the Office of Naval Research or
the Air Force Research Office

your Army Research Office and
they also fun.

Research projects and

then most of these people discussed
industry funding and and foundations.

OK.

So the thing

that is now let me just see were I can.

The points that are mentioned

most of the certainly the point
that was mentioned most.

Is the peer review process.

And in terms of what is responsible for
a conservative research program and

what's the chief limit
on innovation tech now.

Knology.

I would say there's universal agreement
that it's the peer review process.

That is the culprit.

But there and in the difference
between particularly R.P. and

DARPA and the N.S.F. is your review.

OK but
there are other differences as well.

Second differences and again it's hard for
me to talk about this without using

the National Science Foundation
is the immediate.

Point of reference but there are I will
say a word about these other agencies.

As well as I go along.

But the National Science Foundation
has very little interaction with

the researchers basically they issue a or

P. and and and people apply.

They get some feedback but I mean most of
you probably have experience with this you

get some feedback but
not very much and not in.

Great detail if your proposal is rejected.

If it's accepted you get a grant you
never talk to these people again.

They don't.

That is that they they don't care.

They seem not to care whether what you
spent the money on has anything to do

with what you.

What you propose.

There's no performance
review the program manager

is basically managing
the peer review process.

He or she is not really directly
involved in the research itself.

And the.

And itself is not really concerned with

the participation of the private sector or
with the.

Emotional is ation of
the of the technology.

So let me see would of.

OK.

Let me go back and.

OK so I guess.

Let me just say I guess I'll
just go on with the slide.

All right so
I think you have to understand

the fact of the of this in terms of

the perspective of
the researchers themselves and

coming out of the social sciences I guess
I thought I knew something about the way

the university operated and
and and so on but I guess.

I didn't.

So in in the social sciences
who were primarily concerned

with publication and all these interviews
with the engineer my research assistant.

Incidentally says I'm wrong.

But I never remember once hearing
anybody talk about publication

in in these interviews.

As a couple times they did but
only in response to a question.

So what research scientists seem to be
primarily interested in is funding.

Their research operation.

So they're responsible for.

Two or three graduate students.

Maybe more and funding their doctoral.

Research.

With funding the their own lab the nuff
to get a quote the equipment which they

think they need for their research.

Project.

And then some part of their own salary.

The research that they're
involved in is typically.

Team effort.

It's not that you can't recognize
individuals involved in it with but

the coordinating of a group of people

sometimes a small group
sometimes a large group.

And and so
when you write one of these proposals.

You have to invest
a fair amount of time on

inviting the proposal putting it
together organizing the team work.

The team getting it reviewed recruiting
members of the team and so on and

and so
the way in which these researchers talk.

They're thinking about how they're
going to raise these funds and

in their view they're looking at these
different sources of funds in terms of.

Their chances of getting funded what what
the obligations are once they do get

funded and and so on and very much.

They talk about the pros and
cons of these different.

Funding sources in terms of running
what as I said at the very top

of this law are what is sort of
like a small small business.

OK.

So from their point of view they
have the following perspective.

They view the peer review process
particularly in a safe and

and and
I ate as being a very competitive process.

So the profit.

On the other hand I would say

that particularly senior researchers
seem to have a pretty good idea as to

whether their proposals are likely
to get accepted or not.

But in a peer review process typically the
three peer peer is the way it's set up.

In the end any bad single bad review
is going to kill the project.

OK so you need to get.

You need to have a proposal that's going
to appeal appeal basically to the heart

of the of the discipline and

if you stray too far from the heart of
a discipline somebody is likely to call.

The effort and in into question.

And then people emphasize least
I believe that that the chief

criteria in the peer review
process is can you do it and

that isn't going to be a success and

hence enormous emphasis is
placed on on feasibility and

the result of that this is pretty
much have to have done it already.

Before you apply for the grant and
that people operate.

That is basically they apply for
the grand on the basis of the research

they've already done and
they use that term.

To finance the research that they're about
to do and which the plot for the next.

Next Grant on the other hand and there
are some restrictions on the use of funds.

OK.

But on the other hand once you
get the money you've got it.

OK and the grants or

the there's nobody breathing down your
neck and you don't have to prove.

You don't you know you don't have
to bring in and you were poor.

Monthly reports and and and so on and

also in terms of of university research.

There are no restrictions on
confidentiality publication and

something like that.

OK.

DARPA on the other hand has
all lot of money the size of

the budgets are much larger than you
could possibly finance the one Assef

there are very few restrictions on.

Our equipment and Saudis there's
a lot of guidance in the proposal.

Both writing The propose.

Or.

In the in the first place and
then if you get rejected.

There's a lot of explanation
as to why because they want to

encourage you to stay in
the research community.

Perhaps acquire.

Again but remember these are people that
the program manager has already picked out

as being interesting in terms of his or
her his or her particular program.

So they don't want to lose
the participation of the people.

And then there's an opportunity.

For radical radical ideas.

And what people keep emphasizing is the.

The interest and importance of
the meetings the scientific meetings

the DARPA Grand boast
the plan the programs and and

to review the view the results.

So you're required on the one hand to
participate in these meetings if you have

a DARPA contract on the other hand
people talk a lot about the intellectual

stimulation the fact that they get
new ideas the fact that they may

meet people from different disciplines or
from industry or

from different parts of the world that
are working on problems from a different

perspective that they would never
meet new means otherwise and

what is you know kind of startling
in these interviews is here you have

people who are really running
the small business who are very

career oriented in and in a certain sense

you that is one think
they're very ambitious.

OK On the other hand they're
totally engaged in their work and

when they start talking about evaluating.

Funding opportunities.

They easily switch or get sidetracked from
talking about how something is going to

affect their their careers to how exciting
this meeting was how how interesting.

The process of research funding that

is the reporting is the reporting is a
pain particularly for fear that is an MIT

professor does not appreciate having to
write a report every three months about.

How the research is his is
his going especially as

several of them emphasized in three months
and good research you don't have anything

to report on the other hand.

They talk about how interesting it
is to read the results of that.

Of these these reports or to interact with
people around what their findings were OK.

I think I made most of these other
points in the other thing that should be

said is there are issues with DARPA that
had to do with secrecy publication right.

OK.

So I've said quite a bit about and
there Seth.

And I is similar both and I H N N S F A.

Or have created small programs
which is supposed to be like

OK but the typical program incident.

People talk about industry funding.

I had thought before
that in industry funding

was very goal oriented at
least at MIT it isn't.

Most of the people that we talked to

said that the motivation of industry
is they want to see what's going on.

The university they want to have contact
with the industry with research they

want to have access to students and
so on and they really don't put

much restriction on what you do with
the funds as long as you talk to them.

OK.

The problem with the government labs is
which is not directly competitive with

the people we were interviewing but
is in the larger.

Certainly in the larger our project.

Is that the government labs have a.

Investment heavy investment
in equipment and

in personnel and so
their research program is

heavily there is they're out there trying
to get the money which will finance and

their their operations and that leads to.

Conservative bias in their research

which is different from the conservative
bias produced by the peer review.

But is is

is is still doesn't lead
to radical research and

finally I don't I would like
to know more about how these

individual research operations
of the services operate.

Most of what we learn largely from
people who had worked with them

is that they're tend to be very Bure
bureaucratic and they don't have.

This constant interchange
among researchers nor

do they have this continual
view of why are we doing this.

What's it good for
how would we measure it.

It's all OK.

So I'm going to try and in here with your.

A few comments about transferring this.

Agency.

I guess I'm not going to go back to.

OK Well the.

The problem with e

is and

the difficulty with viewing it
is there are payee was funded by

it is was funded by Tor A By and
by the student stimulus funds.

And so it was under a lot of
pressure to expand the funds.

Before they had a staff and

they had one program manager in
the office no office director

program director and they had to spend
one hundred fifty million dollars So

the way they did this was
they issued an R.F.P.

and for people who were interested
interesting ideas in and

in research on energy and environment and
they got four hundred thousand

how cation and out of that those
four hundred now put cations.

They funded thirty three projects actually
to go out of the West four hundred.

So right away.

You have a program.

That is supposed to get people to
think outside the box to reach out

innovative kind of ideas and

to see it and to be seen as a target for
really expanding.

The horizon of the the the research.

And and and

they were forced to be extremely
selective and how did they select

they selected on through a peer review
process organized by the South.

So in terms of the qualities
which seemed to make.

Daughter a successful model our payee
started out without any that is

any of those qualities but
it is now moving back towards the DARPA

daughter model it has finally
finally appointed a director.

It's the directors who recruited.

A series of program managers some
of whom actually worked in DARPA

earlier earlier on and
so it remains to be seen

whether this is an agency
which is going to be able to

recover from its initial and
their short beginnings.

But it does given what was
a very unfortunate beginning.

It seems to be moving in
the direction of of the DARPA model.

I think.

In terms of.

That is putting aside this question of.

The way in which it began.

The basic question is
the difference between energy and

military research and and.

Particularly if you believe that
this constant discussion around

goals on the one hand and and
benchmarks which measure those goals.

On the other is critical
to the way in which

these there's an agency like this
of all because the military.

Granted that a lot of
the projects are very for

from direct military applications but
the military does have a mission.

And it.

It.

May be a difficult mission
to define in a way which is

operational in terms of innovation but

in a way that's the interesting
part of this is it has a mission.

And and you can constantly discuss it.

It is a target which
animates a discussion.

Around the innovation.

You know vacation process and
I think the the the biggest question

in energy research is is
the mission in energy and

environment sufficiently it is is

it's different from the military and
obviously it's different.

But the question isn't so
much that the different for say but

the question of whether the.

The issues are such that one can
animate the kind of discussion.

That seems to make.

DARPA.

A catalyst to the innovation and

the answer to that I think
very much remains to be seen.

So that's healthy but
what I plan to have more to say about it.

In another six months.

OK so I'm going to stop there and I would
be happy to take questions and comments.

Thank you.

At.

Every.

My you know another I guess that's
what I'm about what you were OK.

Yes.

We're.

The.

You know what.

We're.

You.

Know I think though a lot of power
isn't in other organizational areas

and that the whole issue of street
level of bureaucracy that is is

really the same issue is
decentralization of power and

authority and and
in large large companies.

So yeah I think that and I think the Skunk
Works is a good example though I haven't.

Even thought about Scott who works
seven and when I one point I.

I've looked at some of these things but
not at all.

All recently.

I I guess I mean what interests
me most in this research is that.

I think the dichotomy
between the market and

government has been way over
drawn on in our society.

And that one can create
government agencies

that have much of the flexibility
of the market and

that DARPA is in that sense it's it's it's

a model of how this can can be done.

I tend to think that the fact that it
escapes civil servants requirements and

so on is not really the key
factor in the way or

the way it operates and
if you take the military itself.

The military has guaranteed employment.

It has.

It has careers within it.

It's that is if you try and

I mean one of the things I'm going
to talk about is the career.

That is what motivates
these program managers and

how do they how does this
job fit into their careers.

And what's interesting
is that the careers.

So they begin outside the government they
come in into the government for five or

six years and then they go on often

to into research management
in universities or in.

Industry and so
they very much see their success.

That is their.

Motivated by the idea that if they're
successful program managers in DARPA

that there are other places
in the society that value.

That.

And so this is an organization
where the motivation.

Has to be understood in terms
of the openness of the of

the work of the career path
outside the organization.

But if you take the military if you take
police if you take these labor inspectors

that I've been looking at and so on.

They they they also are in organizations
that tend to be flexible and

have a lot of discretion a at the bottom.

But they're like the time their life time.

Or organization so not sense the.

You know they're there different.

But I do see this is really
part of a general problem

of organizational management and
daughters are particular and.

Yes I would say what you're.

Really like.

Or.

You are WAY.

That.

All.

But very little.

Or.

Above forty five are very.

Well there's no question
that this particular

that if if you are focusing
your full on defense.

You know you know I mean I'm
an economist you're not going to spend

spend them elsewhere you.

I mean we have sway then
there is agriculture however

there's an area where
we've invested satisfied.

We're about to start a project at
MIT on manufacturing again on what's

the relationship between manufacturing or
other aspects of economic reform and.

So I don't you know when when
we get into that project.

I've And
I guess I hope to have more to say.

On it.

DARPA however is interested
in manufacturing.

And they're concerned that the problems
in American manufacturing or

limit on the ability to implement some of
the innovations that are important for.

For for defense and

our ears going to be concerned
with manufacturing too.

So I don't know I mean I don't
know specifically what you can do

about you know what ought to be done about
manufacturing but I think that under this

administration the bias
is shifting a little bit

in in in favor of manufacturing and

energy is is a vehicle for.

With that.
I mean we've invested it was part of or

two billion dollars in the construction of
manufacturing facilities in the Midwest

to make batteries to two
different kinds of batteries for

electric cars and and and and so on.

So I think you're you're right
that relative to these other

concerns manufacturing has not
been the center of attention but

perhaps it will be the balance
will shift a little bit.

So when the man you're
certain way in the back.

I don't know I certainly know
nothing about the agency.

But there in general the rap on

DARPA is that the existing
bureaucracy is very resistant

to this and works to kill it and
DARPA and getting started.

Was very concerned about
the military structure not

morning to have a new
competitor in there and

there's a whole they engaged in
a whole set of strategies early on

to find people in the military service who
were interested in the technologies that

they were working on to develop the
constituency to hire program managers out

of the military services to get these
contract officers from from the military.

And to integrate themselves in and into

into the military informal

structures the lads

constitute in the Department of Energy
the labs keep clearly constitute

a big competitor for
the funds that DARPA is is getting

in the question is can you what do
you do about that in the military.

I'm sorry in the Department
of Energy Secretary Chu

is a who comes out of the university and

the research tradition and so
on is is it is at the moment the big

protector of of of or

how whether whether this
new agency will survive.

A change in in.

I don't know I mean one can't say but

I mean the military at least these
structures that are pretty ears or

DARPA is overcoming are there for
a reason.

I mean I hesitate to well and
they're there because

the peer review process is is fair or
in some demonstrated way.

And in some character who's obsessed
by some technology going out and

getting his friends.

I had I mean just to show you that I think
this is interesting and I think it's good

and it's good for the country but just
to illustrate the limits of all this so

I had one faculty member
at MIT was quite eminent.

And yours are advisor to has
been an advisor through three or

four directors of of DARPA.

Who told me in an interview he explained.

He had a lab that developed was developing

cons of technology that were
interest was interested in DARPA.

He was an advisor to the door.

DARPA the program managers for
this technology came out of his lamp.

The this laboratory generated two

new onto printer of that made
piles of dough for the founders.

And in the personnel

who invested in you know who work for
these companies came out of his way.

This gentleman said to me that
the good thing about DARPA and

what made the difference between doctor
and other agencies is Darpa only funded

eighteen and the trouble with.

With funding the B. team was not just

that the funds which could have gone
to the A team went to the B. team but

that a team had to spend time talking to
the B. team and that was a waste of time.

So I don't so
you know where that is that is if you

put that in if you start
displaying that Congress

which is concerned with equity fairness
geographic distribution and and

and and so
on you you're going to get a lot of rules

that interfere with the operation
of something like like DARPA and

most of the government restrictions
on spending and so on.

Come out of an attempt to
get it to be it to be fair.

Basically you know in
in in in the process.

So I don't and I don't I don't really want
to argue that those restrictions are or

norms or are wrong or

I'm a stay so but

they do kind of explain where
the resistance to these kinds

of innovations in the operation
of a government agency or

Whitewater to come from so and and

and and and
that ultimately the source of the.

Particular pressures or
the it's maybe not the source.

You know in any bureaucracy they're
going to be people who have

different tariffs and everybody wants
to protect protectors first but

they but these restrictions are the info.

Commands that established bureaucratic

actors used to protect their their
their their their territory.

You know I'm not.

Is

it.

No no no I'm talking about he he
had the world ranked in terms of

there were a recent mean this is
nothing to do with he in his view.

OK There were a players there was a day
team in a big team and there was a.

Seat.

Not real way you know I bet it but
you're right it's.

There is the vocabulary is confusing.

Now I think I don't mean to be
subscribing to the scarves view

what he was in this conversation.

What he was against was the pressure of
for geographic distribution of research on

and and and I'm sorry if I got this far
used vocabulary that that implied that

that that that that he was specifically
talking that that program.

You know.

Yes I mean.

It was this was a we do and we did discuss
that we did interview a couple of firms.

But it was just convenient schedule these

interviews at MIT It's not that that is
I don't mean to suggest that this gives.

Well I haven't had enough
interviews with industry to really

talk about that the industry's
issues are different.

I mean they're completely
different in that sense and

in the sense that they are and
so I think that the.

The problems of of attracting industry and
to this.

Idea.

And the industry is to talk
about industry and one.

You know that there is a some government.

You know there are some.

Large government contractors that one.

Are you completely used to operating
within the contract provisions

with we're talking about here and
and and who want to

participate in these researchers these
of this research because their future.

Depends on the ability
to stick it to to keep

up with the advancement of
the kind of technology.

The government is interested in no other
start up from little start up from.

Dealing with new technologies that
are primarily interested in venture in and

getting venture capital and the kind of.

Certification which OP eat

particularly can give in terms of their
ability to attract first the interest and

the resources of venture capital and
that was the motivation of those two kinds

of industry players and there probably
were those who bit of moved them all.

I mean the but
they're completely different

areas.

OK I didn't mean to imply that
there was not good at all.

So I'm wondering where her.

Wow.

I don't I don't know I don't
know how I don't have a I don't

have an answer to that younger faculty.

I mean a lot of people we talked
to were senior faculty who

were not really concerned about
tenure darkness an inside game

and you can work your way into
it from the outside but I don't.

It takes a lot of time and energy from
people who are very conscious of time and

energy so young.

Researchers to get involved now DARPA as
a program for getting young researchers.

So it sort of conscious of
these these problems but

the the unknown unknown that I can
I'm hesitant to generalize but

we talked to several young researchers who
were introduced into the DARPA community

by their mentors by either their thesis
advisor or by the senior faculty.

Who were whose lab they were
working with associated with and

and and and and they were.

Well I mean what So that was very
important in terms of their that is.

There was very important in terms of
their career but whether it was important

because they were certified by DARPA or
whether it was important because and

you know that is that that is that
people who are interested enough and

to guide them into you
know this community.

I could would say I mean

I'm I'm I'm hurt by the idea
that I'm creating a been online.

If you of the your universe or just for

a term but and you know I love
the university it's been great for me but

I don't think it's really all that
a line of anon in its institutions.

Yes.

Yes you are very right.

Your life your right.

Your life you live.

This life like your very very hard.

You look back at dark dark dark.

Right.

Back.

Right.

There.

Yeah I think that's a better word.

You know I think that's that's.

I definitely.

Like well we hope to have a report
by the end by the end of the song.

But whether it's you can say it.

Well I think what I'm working on now.

But.

Well I think you lay out you know the use.

Well.

Of.

I'll talk to it nor get.

Yeah.

You know.

What we're going to see.

And this is ministration.

Is you know very supportive of this

whether it would survive a different
administrations is very problem.

I think that operate the current.

Administrator I've never heard him say
this but look at what they're doing.

I think what they hope is they're
going to get a couple big hits.

Before before they lose their

patrons at the top of government and
that then they're going to be able to

say look you know this is the proof or
the putting.

Is and you know.

I think that's what they'd like to do
I guess are here and this is you know.

I don't know what this
offer is off the record.

Completely but
I think in going for big hits.

They're not taking the kinds
of chances that DARPA.

Talk.
I mean they're they're looking for

big things but they're in the end.

How they're.

Well lining on proven
researchers in the energy in

the energy field on the other
hand what interesting

to me in these interviews we have is
that the fact that they're out there.

Gets people to think people
are thinking then in news.

That they never would have
entertained before you know how

far they carry them in terms of so
many of those it's not

just the fact that there's
an agency like that is I mean it's.

It's changes people's imagination.

Very.

Well.

We are.

So.

Very you know what.

Well.

I'm.

I don't think I'm really I that
is one researcher who didn't.

Get funded had I mean Vic I'm
not a engineer so I can't

I can't really judge these things but
some rather clever ideas.

People were taught throwing around.

I have no idea where the end of it.

I don't really feel comfortable
telling you what they are because

they're not monarchy has and.

I'm afraid of giving away somebody.

A ticket.

To a Nobel Prize.

So.

But but the the imagination.

A lot of imagination
which is stimulated by

the prospect of this is fun.

What about.

Really.

Great.

You

know great I like it or not.

But thank you.