The missing link: why the Netherlands needs a DARPA

With their petition for a National Agency for Disruptive Innovation (NADI), Prins and Blom are calling on the cabinet formation to embed that culture institutionally [1]. The proposal: a Dutch equivalent of the American DARPA, the agency that gave rise to GPS, the internet and self-driving cars. We support this call.

The valley of death

The problem NADI is meant to solve is structural. The Netherlands has strong universities and a wealth of technical talent. But promising technologies remain stuck between research and application, in what is internationally known as the valley of death [1]. Researchers with groundbreaking ideas cannot find funding. Entrepreneurs seeking to create new markets run up against risk-averse investors. And when technologies are commercialised, it often happens outside the Netherlands.

The figures confirm the picture. The Netherlands invests 2.2 to 2.3 percent of GDP in R&D, well below the 3 percent target [2]. At the same time, existing innovation instruments largely benefit a small group of large, established companies. Younger and newer players, historically responsible for a significant share of radical renewal, are left out. Current instruments are designed for consensus and predictability, not for breakthroughs.

"Change never came from people with an attitude of 'just act normal, that's already crazy enough'.", Jelle Prins [3]

The DARPA model

DARPA operates in a fundamentally different way from traditional research organisations. The agency consists of a small, rotating team of around 200 employees. Programme managers, often drawn from industry or academia, are given five years to achieve a radical leap forward in a technology area [4]. No committees, no endless deliberation, no bureaucracy. Instead: an extremely ambitious mission, a pot of money and complete freedom.

The approach is high-risk, high-reward. Many projects fail. But the successes more than compensate for the rest. In 2004, DARPA launched the Grand Challenge: a competition in which researchers were challenged to drive a self-driving vehicle through the desert. Twenty years later, autonomous taxis are operating in Los Angeles and San Francisco [4].

Europe has since adopted the model. Germany established SPRIND, the United Kingdom ARIA. Both organisations operate independently of political direction and existing bureaucratic frameworks. That autonomy is essential: without the freedom to fail, there is no room to succeed.

Why now

The timing of the petition is no coincidence. The interim report by informateur Buma explicitly mentions the possibility of mobilising part of the NADI budget from defence funds [1]. With pressure mounting to raise the defence budget to 5 percent of GDP, an opportunity exists to direct a fraction of those billions towards breakthrough innovation.

Prins and Blom advocate a structural budget of €1 to €2 billion per five years for NADI, supplemented by a reservation of 3 percent of the defence budget for breakthroughs in defence technology [1]. That may sound like a large sum. But for comparison: DARPA has an annual budget of over $4 billion. The economic and societal returns from successful projects exceed that investment by orders of magnitude.

The initiators stress that NADI should extend beyond defence alone. Breakthroughs in energy, digital infrastructure, health, food and security are inextricably linked. A broadly conceived agency would not only enhance national security, but also societal resilience and future earning capacity.

The pitfalls

Critics warn of the risks. The Netherlands is small. Budgets are more constrained than in the US. And the consensus culture runs deep. Bert Hubert, tech entrepreneur and former member of the Cyber Security Council, fears that NADI will end up as a department within existing structures, with drawn-out procedures for obtaining funding and intensive scrutiny over whether innovation is proceeding as agreed [5].

The lesson from Germany is telling. SPRIND required a separate 'freedom law' to break free from the bureaucracy that paralysed it in its early years. Prins and Blom are aware of the danger. They stress that NADI must be established as an independent organisation, at arm's length from day-to-day political direction, existing bureaucratic frameworks and previously established bodies [1].

That means: no say for Invest-NL, TNO or government ministries. NADI needs leaders who combine technical depth with entrepreneurial experience and an eye for the public interest. Ilan Gur, the head of the UK's ARIA, holds a doctorate in materials science and engineering and has founded companies in Silicon Valley [5]. That is the profile that works.

What this means for startups

For Dutch AI startups and deep-tech entrepreneurs, NADI could make a real difference. The agency could fund projects that are traditionally too risky for investors, but that have the potential for enormous impact [3]. Quantum technology, biotechnology, new energy sources: fields where the Netherlands has scientific expertise, but where the translation to commercial application stalls.

At least as important is the role of government as a launching customer. DARPA purchases innovations before the market is ready for them. That first customer makes the difference between a promising prototype and a scalable product. Dutch startups currently held back by risk-averse procurement procedures could find a route to market through NADI.

The petition by Prins and Blom is more than a policy proposal. It is a call to break with the Dutch habit of avoiding risk and seeking consensus. Other countries are now making targeted investments in ARPA-style organisations, attracting talent, capital and knowledge in the process. Further delay increases the risk that the Netherlands will fall structurally behind in technologies that will be decisive in the decades ahead.

We call on our readers to sign the petition at nadi.nl. Not because breakthroughs are guaranteed, but because they become impossible if we do not try.