Moonshots and Milestones

Based on research by Christoph Carnehl and Johannes Schneider

The Starting Point: Progress in Uncertain Times

Human creativity has always been a cornerstone of societal progress, but in today’s world, the need to produce innovative ideas feels more acute than ever. With challenges like climate change threatening our planet; healthcare systems grappling with aging populations and emerging diseases; and deep social inequalities demanding our attention, staying at the edge of scientific and technological progress is likely the most promising way to keep societies together and functioning. The recent debate, spurred in part by the Draghi (2024) report, reminds us that Europe may not be at its full potential when it comes to fostering the innovative spirit.

But before jumping to conclusions about whether regulation, incentives, or free-market dynamics best promote scientific breakthroughs, we need to take a step back. How do researchers—those at the heart of this process—decide what to study? What drives their choices about how much effort to invest in a question? And how do the answers they seek depend on the state of knowledge we already have? These questions are not purely academic. To the contrary, they hold the key to designing policies that foster progress.

Learning from the Past: The Role of Similarity

Let us start by imagining a world where similar questions are likely to imply similar answers. Take, for example, the rapid development of mRNA vaccines for COVID-19. At first glance, the speed with which researchers tackled SARS-CoV-2 (the virus behind COVID-19) seems miraculous. But a closer look reveals it was no accident. Scientists had already spent years studying SARS-CoV-1 (responsible for the 2003 SARS outbreak) and MERS-CoV (behind Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome). They had explored how these viruses interact with human immune systems and even experimented with prototype vaccines.

This foundation of knowledge made it much easier to respond to COVID-19. Researchers did not have to start from scratch. The playbook was right there. More generally, when responding to challenges in areas where we know a lot, we can rely on adjacent work which fast-tracks finding a good response. Yet, this hints at an important question: Is it efficient to explore questions adjacent to areas we do know a lot, or do we do better by venturing into unchartered territory?

The Challenge of the Abstract: Beyond Immediate Needs

During a crisis, the path forward is often clear. When COVID-19 hit, developing effective vaccines and treatments became an immediate and obvious priority. The entire world aligned behind this goal, and resources flowed freely. But once the state of emergency ends, priorities become less obvious. Should we, for instance, continue pouring resources into refining vaccines for every potential variant of the coronavirus? Or should we broaden our scope, focusing on other emerging zoonotic viruses that could trigger future pandemics?

The answer is non-obvious. On one hand, focusing narrowly on coronavirus variants might yield faster, more tangible results. On the other hand, broader research into emerging pathogens could help us prepare for a wider range of future threats. Yet, such research is inherently riskier and more abstract. It requires stepping back from the specific problems we face today to think about what we might face tomorrow. The ideal approach, then, is a balancing act: research that is distant enough from current knowledge to generate genuinely new insights but close enough to benefit from what we already know.

The Researcher’s Problem: Effort and Impact

This balancing act, however, is easier said than done. One critical factor often overlooked in our discussions is the personal cost of research. Scientists are not machines; they are human beings with limited time, energy, and resources. Research, especially groundbreaking research, is demanding. It requires years of study, experimentation, and persistence, often with no guarantee of success. For an individual researcher, this creates a dilemma.

Imagine a virologist deciding what to study next. She could pursue a bold, high-risk question about an entirely new family of viruses. But this would demand significant resources, involve unpredictable challenges, and might not yield publishable results for years—if ever. Alternatively, she could focus on a safer, more incremental project, like studying a new mutation of SARS-CoV-2. This project is less risky and more likely to produce immediate results, enhancing her career prospects.

Such considerations skew incentives toward incremental research. While society might benefit more from bold, long-term projects, individual researchers are incentivized to prioritize work that delivers fast and predictable outcomes. This misalignment between societal goals and individual incentives forms a significant barrier to innovation.

A Case for Moonshots: Guiding Long-Term Progress

So how can we overcome this barrier? While there are, in principle, many ways to go about, we look at a particular aspect: incentivizing what we call “moonshots.” Borrowing from President John F. Kennedy’s famous 1961 initiative to focus on landing a man on the moon to direct scientific efforts, a moonshot represents a bold, visionary research project that pushes far beyond the current knowledge frontier. It pushes to a point that it appears, at least in the short-run, ill-suited to serve today’s society best. In fact, the idea is precisely this. A moonshot does not aim to solve immediate problems but is set to offer a long-term direction for scientific progress.

Take, for example, the Human Genome Project, which aimed to map the entire human genome. When it began, many questioned its practicality and relevance. Critics argued it was too abstract and removed from immediate medical needs. But the project ultimately transformed biology and medicine, laying the groundwork for countless breakthroughs, from personalized medicine to CRISPR gene editing.

Moonshots like these provide a roadmap for the future. They give researchers a sense of direction, helping them connect the dots between today’s knowledge and tomorrow’s possibilities. It allows them to search more directly, borrowing both from the moonshot and the previous body of knowledge, and it gives their work a higher value: Not only does it answer a specific question, but it also helps us to interpret (accidental) observations we made during the moonshot better. However, there is a downside to moonshots: in the short term, they do not deliver too many societal benefits. They are, much like infrastructure, an investment that guides the next generation’s search—both for ideas and solutions.

When Moonshots Make Sense

Our analysis suggests that moonshots are most valuable under specific conditions. They are unlikely to benefit society if research costs are prohibitively high or extremely low. Similarly, they are less effective when the practical benefits of research are either critical (say, in a crisis) or negligible (in fields without direct practical relevance). Instead, moonshots shine in scenarios where costs and benefits fall in a middle range, and society values long-term progress over short-term gains.

But, as almost always, there is a catch: moonshots do not happen on their own. Individual researchers, motivated by career incentives, typically prioritize solving today’s pressing problems over paving the way for future discoveries. After all, professional recognition comes from walking the red carpet, not from laying it out such that no one stumbles. In other words, researchers benefit from producing tangible results not from laying the groundwork for others to derive them. Thus, much like infrastructure indeed, moonshots require policy interventions to occur.

Implications for Policy: Supporting Breakthrough Research

In light of these findings, we believe the European Union’s current efforts to promote “breakthrough research” through large-scale funding programs are a step in the right direction. These programs encourage researchers to tackle ambitious, long-term projects that might not otherwise receive funding. However, as groundbreaking work relies on public money, there is always a risk that a shift to toward a more hands-on, problem-solving approach gains traction, with funding tied to solving today’s most pressing problems.

Our analysis suggests caution to give in to such requests. While problem-solving incentives are important and not everyone should search for a moonshot, we need moonshots periodically to guide the way for the more problem-oriented researchers. If they know where things are heading, they will produce solutions to pressing problems at a faster pace and, in addition, we would learn more from their findings. Complicated, abstract, long-term challenges could be addressed better if we invest in the occasional moonshot. Said moonshot then provides the strategic direction needed to tackle tomorrow’s unknowns, ensuring that innovation remains not just sustained but visionary.

By committing to these bold, forward-looking efforts, policymakers can help bridge the gap between what society needs and what individual researchers are incentivized to pursue. It’s a long road, but with the right investments and some patience, we come out better than only pushing for tangible results from every researcher.

About the Authors:

Johannes Schneider is an Associate Professor at uc3m (https://josndr.github.io)

Christoph Carnehl is an Assistant Professor at Bocconi (https://carnehl.github.io)

References:

• Carnehl, Christoph and Johannes Schneider (2024) — A Quest for Knowledge, Econometrica, forthcoming.
• Draghi, Mario (2024) — EU competitiveness: Looking ahead. Report to the EU commission.
• Kashte, S., Gulbake, A., El-Amin III, S.F. et al. COVID-19 vaccines: rapid development, implications, challenges and future prospects. Human Cell 34, 711–733 (2021).