Perhaps I should not post this message here because one of these
fellows might be thinking of calling me back, and this might upset him . . .
I have been contacted by venture capitalists from time to time, more
often after the 60 Minutes program. Several researchers I know have
also been contacted. The conversation may be short or long but boiled
down to its essence it is a Repeat Until loop with the condition
Until True=False. It goes something like this:
V.C.: If you can show me a cell that produces steady heat in a
controlled reaction, I can get you lots of money.
Me: If I had a cell that did that, I wouldn't need your money.
V.C.: What will it take to make a cell like that?
Me: Money. We need money to get from where we are now to the steady,
controlled reaction.
V.C.: How would you do it? Which researcher knows how to do it?
Me: We don't know how to do it. The purpose of research is to find
out. All of the researchers think they know how to do it. Otherwise
they would not be doing the research. Until one of them succeeds it
will be impossible to say whether he or she really knows. I have my
opinions about which ones are closer to success, but I may be wrong.
V.C.: But isn't there a risk that we might back the wrong person?
Me: Yes, that's why it is called "venture" capitalism. A venture is
"a business enterprise involving some risk in expectation of gain."
And so on . . .
I think some of these people are looking for a sure thing, not a
risk. They do not know much about science or R&D, or they would not
be asking such questions. What they really want is to get in early in
financial trickery such as a dot-com stock (a.k.a. tulipmania or the
Greater Fool principle), or to place a bet you are likely to win
unless everyone else also places it, such as derivatives ("financial
weapons of mass destruction" and "contracts devised by madmen" - W.
Buffett, 2003).
McKubre has described skeptics who do not understand that a large,
controlled reaction is the goal of the research. It is the end point,
not the starting point. They would make funding "contingent upon
success" in the sense that you have to finish the job before you
start it. As I said this calls for a time machine or finding a
suitcase full of money.
One other exchange often occurs during these conversations:
V.C.: What about intellectual property?
Me: Unfortunately, the US Patent Office will not allow it.
That usually ends the conversation abruptly.
- Jed
