HN 提问：硬科技创业者应该加入以问题为导向还是以技术为导向的博士实验室？
4 分•作者: misterballer•大约 2 个月前
我是一名工程学本科生，正在考虑攻读博士学位，长远目标是创办一家硬科技初创公司。我尚未确定具体的研究方向，只对一些领域有模糊的兴趣——工业脱碳、采矿/矿物加工以及先进材料是目前看来比较吸引我的几个方向。
然而，我不确定哪种类型的博士实验室能提供更好的准备：是“问题优先”型实验室（例如麻省理工学院的Yet-Ming Chiang教授的实验室），还是“技术优先”型实验室（例如典型的学术实验室，它们专注于新颖的科学研究，没有预设的应用，商业化很大程度上是偶然发生的——当某项技术恰好有有价值的市场应用时）。
我查阅了网上关于成功硬科技创业者的建议，但答案相互矛盾。有人说要从问题出发，但也有人认为“问题优先”的方法往往行不通，因为深度科技的本质不同：你通常无法为预设的问题强行实现科学突破。相反，他们认为大多数硬科技公司的成立是因为有人取得了科学突破，之后才意识到可能存在商业应用。事实上，风险投资公司Pillar VC表示，他们所知的绝大多数深度科技公司都是“技术优先”的。
考虑到这些，有人能就选择哪种类型的博士实验室提供建议吗？
查看原文
I'm an engineering undergrad considering pursuing a PhD with the long-term goal of founding a hard-tech startup. I’m undecided about the specific area and only have a vague sense of what interests me -- industrial decarbonization, mining / mineral processing, and advanced materials are a few areas that currently seem exciting.<p>However, I'm unsure which type of PhD lab would provide better preparation: either a problem-first lab (e.g., like Yet-Ming Chiang at MIT) or a technology-first lab (e.g., your typical academic lab that focuses on novel science without a predetermined application, and where commercialization happens largely by chance — when a technology happens to have a valuable market application).<p>I've looked at advice online from successful hard-tech entrepreneurs, but the answers are conflicting. Some say to work backwards from a problem, but others argue that problem-first approaches often don't work since deep tech is inherently different: you often can't force a scientific breakthrough for a predetermined problem. Instead, they argue that most hard-tech companies are only founded because somebody made a scientific breakthrough and realized afterwards that there might be a commercial application. Indeed, the VC firm Pillar VC says that most deep-tech companies they know were "technology-first."<p>With that in mind, does anybody have any advice on which type of PhD lab to join?