siege_engineer

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”

Author here. I actually wrote a discussion of the Endless Frontier Act: https://benjaminreinhardt.com/the-endless-frontier-act/

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.

Author here. Good point about DARPA serving a political-economic role. It's a different lens on the coordination role.

Is the corporate-political landscape becoming more trust-based than the Military-Industrial Complex that Eisenhower warned about?

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.

Proxy question: Do you want to be a professor? If "yes!" go for a PhD. If there's any uncertainty, don't.

I wish someone had told me that before I started.