“Airbnb, Uber and Lieferando are not making people’s lives better”

Berlin The head of the Federal Agency for Jump Innovations Sprind, Rafael Laguna, is a key figure in the German innovation scene. In an interview with Handelsblatt, the former entrepreneur differentiates between “good” and “bad” innovations. The latter includes new services such as those from Airbnb or Lieferando. These companies would only strive to gain a powerful and lucrative market position as platforms. Good innovations, on the other hand, would satisfy basic human needs.

For the next federal government, the chief innovator would like either a traffic light coalition (i.e. a coalition of the SPD, FDP and the Greens) or Jamaica (i.e. a coalition of the CDU, FDP and the Greens). It takes “a mixture of experienced and fresh people so that the greenhorns can learn from the experienced”.

The Union and the SPD have been around for a long time and “are usually much more stuck in the past – similar to how the carmaker was stuck with petrol engines for too long,” says Laguna. And: “If you only think in terms of the existing system, you only improve within the system.” After all, “even the digital cameras were not invented by Kodak or Fuji, they missed the trend”.

Top jobs of the day

Find the best jobs now and
be notified by email.

Take more risk

In addition, Laguna is calling for a “radically simplified approval of drugs”. Because this often costs more than 500 million euros per drug. “Wherever people are in acute danger of death, such as cancer or end-stage Alzheimer’s, years of toxicity studies are not required,” he says. “As soon as it is clear that mice and dogs will not die from it, they should be tested for their effectiveness in sick people with their consent.” Because every month that is lost in admission kills people.

In order to alleviate the housing shortage and promote ecological construction, the state itself must take action: “The German state purchases around 500 billion euros annually, which is an extreme lever. Why not put out 250,000 social housing units in ten metropolitan areas with strict ecological standards at a fixed price – and bet on competition? ”The federal government could have ten to 20 providers built, check standards, continue screening -“ and in the end you have the top performers ”, the could build cheap and at the same time sustainable housing.

Read the entire interview here:

Mr. Laguna, the message in your book is: We can save the world with innovation and in ten to 20 years we will have so much clean energy that it will no longer be worth accounting for. In earnest?
Sure – if we free ourselves from some thought shackles, that’s the way it is. We are swimming in a sea of ​​energy, even if it has not yet been used very cleanly. Solar panels are already very cheap – we still have to do that for storage and transport. That is all solvable. And with enough investments, we can also make nuclear power safe.

Nuclear power?
Naturally. Water, sun and wind alone are not enough for the gigantic energy demand and, above all, not for the basic industrial supply. Technically, nuclear power is pretty much “green” energy. Instead of making it secure, we stopped advancing this technology. For example, the rubbish from fast breeders only has a half-life of 20 to 200 years instead of the terrible 24,000 – you can deal with that. Instead of uranium, one could use tritium reactors or other, cleaner technologies for nuclear fission and further develop nuclear fusion, even if it costs many billions. So far, we have been looking very anxiously at the use of nuclear power, which – unlike oil – has so far cost practically no human lives if you look at it soberly.

You criticize the “innovation theater” …
We finally have to differentiate between good and bad innovations. Good people meet basic human needs – from food to self-fulfillment – and thus reduce environmental destruction and wars. Innovations like Airbnb, Uber and Lieferando are bad in this sense because they don’t add up to make people’s lives better. The platforms penetrate markets through price dumping. In the end it will be more expensive for almost everyone, only the platform monopoly will benefit.

The autonomous car serves our convenience – not a good innovation?
It would be good because it saves lives. Because people don’t drive their cars very well and often get drunk too. In addition, autonomous cars can be sent to park in front of the city – and inner-city areas can be shared much better. Also, 95 percent of the cars would no longer have to stand around unused, which not only saves space, but also raw materials. But I doubt that the autonomous car will come anytime soon – maybe in ten to 20 years.

How do we get more good innovations?
There is neither a lack of ideas nor a lack of money, just the right system. We have to orient ourselves towards companies that are constantly adapting their planning: breaking down long-term programs into small parts, constantly measuring progress, making adjustments and maintaining competition – that is, always let several teams work on the problem.

Our mega strategies for AI and hydrogen are designed for many years …
This is crazy. We don’t even know when the next technology shift will come, what is the next big thing in AI. Roadmaps for many years make us miss important turns while others turn. Darpa, the big innovation agency in the USA, says: “We don’t bet on individual horses, but on the race.” Dan Wattendorf, who invested in mRNA technology there in 2011, gave ten teams money at the same time: With three – Biontech , Curevac and Moderna – it worked. We have to extend the principle from Sprind to research organizations and universities.

The liberal Thomas Sattelberger calls our large research organizations “fat cats” …
The entire research funding is not very agile compared to companies. Projects are applied for at great expense and then approved for three to five years, but no further adjustments are made during this period. In terms of incentives, that is at least unfortunate. In addition, the non-university research institutions will get three percent more budget annually until 2030 – regardless of what they do. That invites sedation. Of course, basic research has to be financed in the long term. But we should set short- and medium-term goals – and pay everyone adequately who approaches the goal.

And how do we measure the research output?
We are currently measuring this on the basis of publications and citations. In the future, spin-offs, patents, jobs, tax revenues, market value, etc. must be at least as important. This is already standard in the USA and China. Quite a few of our researchers feel that they are prisoners of the existing system because they actually see the point of their research in practical application, but we have constructed an artificial contradiction between basic and applied research.

Is the pandemic spurring innovation?
With Türeci and Sahin from Biontech and Hoerr from Curevac we have found our Elon Musks – economically, Biontech has overtaken Bayer Leverkusen on the left. What an amazing story! What better could not have happened to us innovation promoters. The impact is gigantic – despite the small tick that their IPO was not in Germany, but on the US tech exchange Nasdaq. Otherwise, the pandemic has also made it clear to people who are far from technology that they are dependent on digitization. Today three quarters of the citizens want digital methods in schools – unthinkable before Corona.

Do we need a European Nasdaq?
In the end, yes. But first we have to repair the financing cycle for innovations, which broke down 20 years ago with the new market. We now have Sprind and a good ecosystem for the first phase of funding. But after that, when start-ups need 50, 100 or even 300 million euros, there is nothing. Asians or Americans get on board.

The federal government founded the ten billion euro future fund for this …
That’s great. But even that has not yet flowed into the late-stage financing. Either a sovereign wealth fund à la Norway or a state-initiated private fund that invests in disruptive deep-tech solutions over the long term is required. To do this, he would need 100 billion euros in the medium term. Only then can he invest half a billion in a company or wait 15 years for something like Biontech. The next government has to cope with that.

Private pension insurers are repeatedly mentioned as a source of money …
There are, in fact, trillions unused. Decades ago, the USA supported the development of the tech biotope in Israel with a so-called “waterfall model”, which attracts private capital through state security – today one of the leading tech nations in the world.

Public procurement is also considered a magic tool to promote innovation …
The German state buys for around 500 billion euros annually, which is an extreme leverage. Why not advertise 250,000 social housing in ten metropolitan areas with strict ecological standards at a fixed price – and bet on competition? Have ten to twenty providers built, check standards, sift further – in the end you have the top performers. This can also be applied to cybersecurity. Perhaps then someone will finally invent a completely new chip architecture. All of today’s chips are based on the 75-year-old Von Neumann architecture. But IT will never be secure because it is “genetically dirty”.

Since Corona it has been discussed whether one should crack pharmaceutical patents in order to inspire innovation …
Bad idea. Then there would be even less money for developments like mRNA vaccines. Instead, we have to radically simplify the approval of drugs, because they can quickly cost 500 million or more. Wherever people are acutely threatened with death, such as cancer or Alzheimer’s in the end-stage, years of toxicity studies are not required. As soon as it is clear that mice and dogs will not die from it, they should be tested for effectiveness immediately in sick people with their consent. Every month we lose kills people.

So patents are not a problem?
Yes, if they are misused for industrial policy. In the USA there are tons of trivial patents for software that act like a minefield for new providers. Europe has so far fended off this and must absolutely stand firm. In addition, no more natural discoveries can be patented, such as the functionality of an enzyme. That has to stay free so that everyone can use it.

All of this sounds as if you would prefer a green and yellow federal government.
Well, those who have been around for a long time tend to be much more stuck with the past – similar to the way car makers were stuck with gasoline engines for too long. If you only think in terms of the system, you only improve within the system. The digital cameras were not invented by Kodak or Fuji either, they missed the trend. On the other hand, new minds have less or no experience. I was also a federal government greenhorn when I started at Sprind two years ago – and got some unnecessary bumps. Seen in this way, a mixture of experienced and fresh people – like in a traffic light coalition or Jamaica – might be very good, so that the greenhorns can learn from the experienced. Because we have no time to lose.
Mr. Laguna, thank you very much for the interview.

More: These future technologies want to drive the parties after the election

.