Really its just an ad for SBIR but what ever. It is certainly a different fundraising taxonomy going through the research grant process than through the VC process. A number of grants that 'swing for the fences' although its not clear that the batters are always up for it.
This post makes me think I'm confused about the interests and projects most HNers are working on.
I suspect most people here on HN (if not the world) are interested in 'tech', and consider it 'high-tech'. I consider tech to be consumer tech 80% of the time. This report is looking more at Defense (Military I assume is what that means), Space (Satelittes, Rovers, etc), Health (drugs, and hopefully some of the tracking tech), Science (I have no idea what that means as an investment vehicle), other (THAT's US!).
Are there many people here working in Defense, Space or Health ?
Also, as this lists the percentage of a portfolio that is invested in these sectors, is that really the measure of who's 'top'? Don't we have to consider how large the funds are?
Sam Altman has recently expressed interest in seeing more 'high-tech' submissions to YC http://blog.samaltman.com/new-rfs-breakthrough-technologies. I agree that defining 'high-tech' vs 'tech' is a bit ambiguous and fraught with potential disagreement, however for the purposes here, we are talking about companies that engage in some type of basic R&D in pursuit of the core product development.
'Science' is a grouping used to categorize funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF) - cross-functional, but a good enough bucket for the purposes of the key used.
Please don't comment 'good read', just upvote the article.
Comments are for... commentary, add to the discussion, ask questions, learn, etc. etc.
Welcome to HN.
