False dichotomy, there are avenues of research that are outside of the traditional academy (and the 'new tradition' of state-funded science) and outside of industry. For example, Janelia Farms, run by HHMI. As I alluded to above, historically, Peter D. Mitchell's work (which garnered him a nobel prize), as well.

The story of how state-run science funding is broken is exemplified by the story of Douglas Prasher.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Prasher

It's not a false dichotomy in the context of the discussion here. The 'bets' alluded to in the title are financial bets. And the first screen of any bet is "how big is the market" etc. In Academia science, the "market" is simply prestige...in "VC" backed systems, the market is simply "money". Basically everything in academic <as a system> is geared to polishing a reputation/presitge of the sponsoring institution. That prestige is the currency that allows the various non-profit entities to raise more money (ie, make money) so even this "prestige" is just another "invisible hand" of the market for donation or tax dollars. The marketing and propoganda around fundraising for universities, foundations, or tax-based government funding sources is "achieving our mission"...and the measurement of the execution along that front ("success"!) is the <term of art> called "prestige". As your story points out, "prestige", and the money that accrues to it, is only loosely correlated with "the truth" or "good science"...{etc}.

Single stories, while meaningful and often illustrative, are not particularly powerful ways of illustrating how a system is broken.

And YC talking about funding startups in Biotech is talking about industry science, so calling is a "false dichotomy" is a little absurd.

I wouldn't describe Janelia Farms as outside the traditional academy. It's just a foundation with great facilities and an extremely high bar to entry, but a low bar for continued funding.

Especially as many HHMI scientists, both within and outside Janelia had very strong careers within "traditional academy" first.

I think that what is different now is the cost of trying out a new idea. A biotech team is able to try something out without buy-in from academia or the big bio-tech firms. They need some money, but much less than they would have needed 10 years ago.

And that is very cool. But frankly, is as true in academia - a new assistant prof. has the startup funding to try something big and splashy without bankrupting the lab.

"Biotech is getting cheaper" applies to both groups.

Yes, but how are new assistant professors selected?

Hell, the same can be true of postdocs. Or grad students. I know I've gotten at least one paper thanks to cheap computational resources for unfunded musings.

As for @danieltillett's comment, "What you need to do for tenure" does indeed promote some conservative and safe thinking, but:

1. Post-tenure you have a great deal more freedom. 2. I'm not convinced it's more conservative research generating than "We need to keep the VCs/Shareholders/etc." happy. 3. A big, splashy, innovative paper that makes it into Science/Nature/Cell/etc. is a high risk but high reward play.

It is not how they are selected that is the problem - it is what they need to do to get tenure. This is what kills all innovation.

Of the members of my committee, and the chair of my former department, there are all of zero publications in Science/Nature/Cell or PLOS Biology. While often a shorthand for what you need, it's hardly a generalizable statement. These are all very good researchers, tenured, with positions at R1 universities. And all of them in fields appropriate to this particular discussion.