By Jason Crawford
Technological progress is the engine of societal advancement, and at its heart lie three crucial domains: science, invention, and business. Science expands the frontiers of knowledge, invention transforms that knowledge into tangible creations like machines and processes, and business scales and distributes these innovations to the world. While this model simplifies the intricate dance of progress, it highlights the distinct roles and ecosystems each domain inhabits.
Each of these domains attracts individuals with unique skill sets, operates under different principles, and is judged by disparate metrics of success. Consequently, distinct communities and subcultures have flourished around science and business. However, a critical piece of this innovation puzzle seems to be missing a vital support structure.
The central hypothesis is this: while well-defined career paths propel individuals in science and business, invention today lacks a clear and supportive professional trajectory.
Consider the well-trodden path of a scientist. A student harboring a nascent interest in science finds a clearly marked route ahead. “Scientist” is a recognized career. The path is laid out: a Bachelor of Science degree followed by a PhD in a specialized scientific field. Research institutions and labs actively recruit scientists, integrate them into teams, and furnish them with the necessary resources and infrastructure. Funding flows from governmental bodies and philanthropic organizations. Success is measured and communicated through presentations, publications in peer-reviewed journals, and participation in conferences. Prestige and recognition are conferred through awards and honors, some of which, like the Nobel Prize, resonate even in the public consciousness.
This robust framework constitutes a functional career path for scientists. Individuals with dedication and talent can embark on this path, and those with exceptional abilities and ambition can aspire to lofty goals. Crucially, progress within this career path is self-reinforcing. Tangible accomplishments pave the way for further opportunities. A scientist’s growing body of work enhances their ability to secure grants, attain prestigious positions, and attract talented collaborators. Financial rewards, professional prestige, and the chance to engage in meaningful research are, broadly speaking, aligned.
Entrepreneurship, while structured differently, also offers a recognizable career path. “Startup founder” isn’t a position one applies for; it’s a role created through self-initiative. Founders are responsible for securing funding, building organizations, and assembling teams. In some respects, the founder’s journey is less supported than that of a scientist. However, established funding mechanisms exist in the form of venture capital. The title of CEO is widely understood and respected within the industry and society. Success is objectively measured by company profitability and market valuation.
The career path for a founder is defined by building a thriving company. Success in this endeavor unlocks further opportunities. Highly successful founders gain the resources and reputation to launch even more ambitious ventures, as exemplified by figures like Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk. Importantly, entrepreneurial failure doesn’t necessarily spell career doom. In innovation hubs like Silicon Valley, failure is often seen as a learning experience, and a founder can pivot to another startup or transition into roles in engineering, design, sales, or management.
A career path, in essence, is a societal support system built around a core value. In science, the value is the pursuit of new knowledge. In entrepreneurship, it’s the creation of a profitable business. This support structure ensures that individuals motivated to pursue these values can earn a living doing so, and that success is rewarded with both prestige and expanded career prospects.
But What Is The Career For Inventing? What is the professional trajectory for an individual whose primary drive is to create novel technologies?
“Inventor” is not a job title one can apply for in the traditional sense. Aspiring inventors often find themselves at a crossroads between science and business, yet not fully aligned with either. They might consider joining a research lab or becoming an engineer in a technology-driven corporation. However, in both scenarios, their inventive spirit may be misdirected. In research environments, the primary value is the generation of new knowledge. An invention, even if practically groundbreaking, may be undervalued if it doesn’t illuminate new scientific principles. In corporate settings, the focus is on business objectives. Engineers may be tasked with refining existing products, with limited scope to create truly disruptive innovations. Neither environment inherently prioritizes the act of making fundamentally new technologies functional and viable.
Alternatively, an inventor might embrace entrepreneurship, launching a startup to commercialize their invention. However, this path demands that the inventor possess the multifaceted skills of a startup founder – fundraising, team building, and business management. While these demands are inherent to the nature of entrepreneurship, it’s unreasonable to expect every inventor to also be a capable founder. We don’t expect every scientist to establish their own research lab, and similarly, we shouldn’t assume every inventor must become a businessperson.
In the early 20th century, inventors had more viable options. Some found homes in the burgeoning corporate research labs of giants like General Electric, Westinghouse, Kodak, Dow, DuPont, and the famed Bell Labs. Others operated independently, patenting their inventions and selling or licensing these patents to established businesses. This allowed them to earn a living through invention, without bearing the full burden of commercialization, scaling, and distribution. Of course, even this path often required initial capital; many inventors supplemented their income with second jobs or secured early funding through personal networks.
However, for reasons that are still debated, both of these pathways have diminished. Corporate research has largely shifted away from ambitious, long-term projects. The archetype of the lone inventor also seems to be fading into history.
The fundamental issue remains: for a young individual seeking a career focused purely on invention—distinct from scientific research, corporate engineering, or entrepreneurship—a robust support structure is lacking. There isn’t a clear entry point, no established institution readily hires for this specific role, and no dedicated community that unequivocally values invention and rewards success with prestige and career advancement. In essence, there is no recognized career for inventing.
It’s crucial to understand that simply providing funding doesn’t automatically create a career path. One could establish an “invention lab” and employ individuals specifically to invent. Compensation, rewards, and promotions could even be tied to inventive output. However, attracting ambitious academics or individuals seeking corporate career progression to such a role would be challenging, as it wouldn’t align with established career trajectories in science or business. While attracting talented individuals wouldn’t be impossible, significant obstacles would remain.
This lack of a clear career path might explain why even the “transformative research awards” at the NIH tend to receive relatively conventional grant proposals, as observed by the Open Philanthropy Project in their analysis of NIH transformative research applicants. Similarly, Donald Braben notes in Scientific Freedom that building deep trust with researchers was essential before they would even disclose their truly ambitious research goals. A career path fosters a community with its own culture, including an informal transmission of career advice from experienced members to newcomers. This includes guidance on goal setting, job selection, and opportunity evaluation – a form of professional folklore. A single grant program or call for proposals cannot easily overcome a culture that implicitly communicates: “the reliable way to build a scientific career is by proposing incremental, consensus-driven research goals.”
Efforts like PARPA (presumably referring to an initiative similar to DARPA but focused on progress) or FROs (Focused Research Organizations) represent both a challenge and an opportunity in this context. The challenge lies in the fact that a career path needs the backing of a whole community to thrive. However, these initiatives offer an opportunity to bootstrap such a path. Funding alone is insufficient, but it can attract pioneering individuals who value independence and are less driven by conventional prestige. Success in these ventures could attract further funding and inspire similar initiatives. A critical mass of such efforts could create a nascent ecosystem. Sustained success would eventually confer prestige upon the field of invention as a career.
Building a career for inventing will not be straightforward, but the potential impact on technological progress is immense. Initiatives that actively cultivate and support inventors are a vital step towards unlocking a new wave of innovation. We urgently need to establish a clear and viable career path for invention to revitalize the engine of progress.
Thanks to Ben Reinhardt, Matt Leggett, and Phil Mohun for reading a draft of this.
