The definition of Deep Technology
Joshua Siegel from Michigan State University and Sriram Krishnan from MIT have recently put out this letter sharing their definition of deep technology. This is an important piece and I highly encourage patrons of deep tech to read this.
Dear Josh and Sriram,
Thank you for your important contribution to this space. We are delighted that academia has taken this up and that the term ‘deep tech’ has global recognition today. I wanted to respond via comment to your post, but LinkedIn’s character limit prevented me. So here is a longer response, hopefully this is useful:
When we first started using the term way back in 2014, we used it as a way to categorize startups in the life sciences, energy, clean technology, computer sciences, materials, and chemicals sectors - all of which are technology, but yet distinct from the ‘tech startups’ which included pizza delivery apps. Here is my article that discussed this (bit dated, but still relevant I hope!).
Since then, as you know, ‘deeptech’ has captured the imagination of many, and has become a global thing. But our worry is that most people still default to thinking of deep technology in the realm of information technology and computer sciences alone. Only in passing do people also mention innovations in life sciences or industrial technologies and others in the same breath.
As a result of that narrative, Venture Capital has become solely focused on all things computing (‘AI for everything’ is the byword these days). But other meaningful deep technologies, that have the potential to change the world, still do not get much financing interest. These are often sleeper technologies - it isn’t apparent that they are going to change the world until they do.
Take Tesla as a case in point. The company has changed the world today and generated huge returns for investors, but just a few years back, the company had real difficulty fund-raising and was on life support with government loans and Elon Musk’s own money. Tesla is an electric vehicle - the cornerstone of which is a battery technology, supported of course by smart battery management systems. But fundamentally, it is CHEMISTRY. We need to champion that. We need to champion the disciplines of technology that help us step into the future, that are foundational for the next 100 years or so - be they new ways of manufacturing, new ways of agriculture, new sources of energy, new means of space exploration or others. These are deep technologies.
And your letter certainly refers to them - technologies that were "impossible yesterday, is barely feasible today, and will quickly become so pervasive and impactful that it is difficult to remember life without..." That is a good definition - all encompassing. But when the crowds take it up, somehow all gets lost but information technology.
There are countless such examples. Our universities turn out many many such technologies every year. The SBIR grants funnel $2-$3B every year into helping these companies get on their feet. Yet, there is a break-down in the markets when it comes to private funding for these companies. The famous ‘valley of death’.
We are hopeful that our efforts at Propel(x) and other efforts elsewhere will help bridge that financing gap (although as we have grown, we now help finance all stages of deep tech startups). But we want to make sure that the term deep-tech does not once again get co-opted by information technology alone. We need your help and support on that.
Happy to discuss more. Over zoom these days, but certainly in person when our vaccines (another example of deeptech) rid us of the pandemic. Best wishes in your endeavors. We are rooting for you!
CEO @ IAHV India | ex-Banker | Marathoner
4 年Thanks Swati Chaturvedi for sharing your additional thoughts on the definitional aspect of Deep Tech. Reading the part - "impossible yesterday, is barely feasible today, and will quickly become so pervasive and impactful that it is difficult to remember life without..." ... a thought crossed my mind. At what stage in future does a Deep Tech stops being a deep tech? What are the best examples of "Deep Tech" from a 100 years ago, which is no longer considered such anymore? How do we trace the origin of today's Deep Tech to yesterday's deep tech? Why should be even bother thinking about it? Your article, besides helping me understand the definition of Deep Tech", has left me wondering about these questions. While some of these are obvious & some not-so-obvious. Will appreciate any help to understand the "not-so-obvious" ones. How about putting your pen (or lets say your keyboard) to writing a Part-2? Thanks!
Silicon Valley Robotics | RobotsAndStartups.substack.com
4 年Completely agree with you Swati. I think what is missing from the popularization of the definition of Deep Tech is that these are technologies funded by research grants and with a fundamental scientific advance - that hasn't yet become democratized and easily available. Companies deploying new robotics advances are very different to companies deploying robotics tech that has been available for 50 years. Sometimes you need investors with real awareness of the science behind the startup, as increasingly evidenced by initiatives like PropelX and emerging funds like Robotics Hub, Future Fund, and more well known hardware investors like DCVC, Eclipse and Lux or 'strategic' corporate. Whereas the big name investors of today, who rose to prominence in the information tech era - - only 60% of them have a science degree. Michael Moritz (the legend) has a history degree, Peter Thiel has a philosophy degree and a JD. Peter Fenton of Benchmark has a philosophy degree. When Emily Chang (author of Brotopia) questioned Mike Moritz on Sequoia's inability to hire women investors "because they didn't want to lower their standards" an analysis of to Forbes list of standout investors showed that almost 40% of the men had no STEM degree at all. (Whereas women? almost all did) As someone who champions Deep Tech startups in the AI and robotics space, I can testify to the incredible split between those investors that appreciate the nuances of the field and those that have a lot of money but don't understand who to back or when. We are watching a new form of early stage investment develop - because Deep Tech is different and the Venture Capital community is unable to capture the wave.
ClassVI.AI | Aligned Innovation | Author of Deep Tech | Ex-Nike/USDA/MIT | 2x Exits
4 年This discussion is thrilling (as a practitioner, and author of an upcoming book on the topic https://deeptechbook.com). I'm absolutely smitten with 'deeptech' and appreciate your team's role in bringing it to life. My introduction and experience with the term was much more in line with Siegel and Krishnan's paper, through a practitioner's lens, rather than through the investment world. My mental model is closer to the leading edge Maker space, or Media Lab's "anti-disciplinary" ethos, than investing in emerging innovations. Regardless of how the definition ultimately lands, the general idea of labeling cross-disciplined solutions that leverage emerging tech, that lay within that narrow band between fundamental R&D and ready for scale is something finance/industry has needed for a long time. And that alone makes it valuable, despite (and possibly because of) any debates on precise definitions. Maybe I'm reading too much into the discussion, but I see a tremendous overlap. The beauty of birthing a term is that you get to encapsulate an idea, giving form to an ineffable idea. The downside is that, once it's out in the world, it's no longer your own. But you do get to watch it morph and grow and fill a need, like a proud parent. Congrats on your baby!
Chief Executive Officer
4 年Perhaps, it is the labelling of everything as 'Tech' that has led to the proverbial gold rush amongst investors - Edtech, Fintech, Agtech, Healthtech, Foodtech etc. In reality, it is basic sciences of Chemistry, Physics, Biology, Agriculture, Engineering etc that enable all these. Start-ups need to pursue investors who understand this. Not all funding$ are equal.