Regarding the point "Age(s) of innovation": not sure if I red the paper after seeing it mentioned on EV or in some other source. But the chapter 3.1. of the paper "TALENT VERSUS LUCK: THE ROLE OF RANDOMNESS IN SUCCESS AND FAILURE" ( https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/10.1142/S0219525918500145 ) shows very interesting suggestions (and simulation results) how funding for scientific research can be improved. And, at least from my perspective, the correlation between "randomness", "serendipity" and "theoretical / conceptual breakthru" makes intuitively sense.
The gist in terms of funding approach: give chance a chance - instead of trying to reproduce hindsight success.
Yes - giving chance a chance is a great way of putting it. I suspect, but willing to be informed, that the incentive structure of Uni research (or, indeed, commercial research) is hindering that.
Regarding the point "Age(s) of innovation": not sure if I red the paper after seeing it mentioned on EV or in some other source. But the chapter 3.1. of the paper "TALENT VERSUS LUCK: THE ROLE OF RANDOMNESS IN SUCCESS AND FAILURE" ( https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/10.1142/S0219525918500145 ) shows very interesting suggestions (and simulation results) how funding for scientific research can be improved. And, at least from my perspective, the correlation between "randomness", "serendipity" and "theoretical / conceptual breakthru" makes intuitively sense.
The gist in terms of funding approach: give chance a chance - instead of trying to reproduce hindsight success.
Yes - giving chance a chance is a great way of putting it. I suspect, but willing to be informed, that the incentive structure of Uni research (or, indeed, commercial research) is hindering that.