The Missing Link: Why the Netherlands Needs a DARPA

With their petition for a National Agency for Disruptive Innovation (NADI), Prins and Blom urge the cabinet formation to institutionalize this culture [1]. The proposal: a Dutch version of the American DARPA, the agency that brought forth GPS, the internet, and self-driving cars. We join this call.

The valley of death

The problem that NADI needs to solve is structural. The Netherlands has strong universities and plenty of technical talent. However, promising technologies get stuck between research and application, in what is internationally known as the valley of death [1]. Researchers with groundbreaking ideas find no funding. Entrepreneurs aiming to create new markets encounter risk-averse investors. And when technologies are commercialized, it often happens outside the Netherlands.

The figures confirm this 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 primarily benefit a small group of large, established companies. It is precisely young and new players, historically responsible for a significant share of radical innovation, that miss out. The current instruments are designed for consensus and predictability, not for breakthroughs.

"Change has never come from people with an attitude of 'just act normal, then you're already acting crazy enough'." — Jelle Prins [3]

The DARPA model

DARPA operates fundamentally differently from traditional research organizations. The agency consists of a small, rotating team of about 200 employees. Project managers, often from the business or academic world, are given five years to achieve a radical leap forward in a technology area [4]. No committees, no endless consultations, no bureaucracy. Instead, an extremely ambitious mission, a bag 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 started the Grand Challenge: a competition challenging researchers to drive a self-driving car through the desert. Twenty years later, autonomous taxis operate in Los Angeles and San Francisco [4].

Europe has since adopted the model. Germany established SPRIND, and the United Kingdom established ARIA. Both organizations operate independently of political steering and existing bureaucratic frameworks. This autonomy is crucial: without the freedom to fail, there is no scope to succeed.

Why now

The timing of the petition is no coincidence. The interim report by informateur Buma explicitly mentions the possibility of mobilizing part of the NADI budget from defense funds [1]. With pressure to increase the defense budget to 5 percent of GDP, there is an opportunity to allocate a fraction of those billions to breakthrough innovation.

Prins and Blom advocate for a structural budget of €1 to €2 billion every five years for NADI, supplemented with a reservation of 3 percent of the defense budget for breakthroughs in defense technology [1]. It sounds like a lot of money. But for comparison: DARPA has an annual budget of over $4 billion. The economic and societal returns of successful projects far exceed that investment.

The initiators emphasize that NADI should be broader than just defense. Breakthroughs in energy, digital infrastructure, health, food, and safety are inextricably linked. A broadly established agency not only enhances security but also societal resilience and the future earning potential.

The pitfalls

Critics warn of the risks. The Netherlands is small. The budgets are more limited 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 lengthy trajectories to secure funding and intense checks to ensure everything innovates as planned [5].

The lesson from Germany is telling. SPRIND required a separate 'freedom law' to break free from the bureaucracy that paralyzed it in the early years. Prins and Blom are aware of the danger. They stress that NADI must be established as an independent organization, distanced from daily political steering, existing bureaucratic frameworks, and previously founded organizations [1].

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

What this means for startups

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

Equally important is the government's role as a launching customer. DARPA procures innovations before the market is ready. That first customer makes the difference between a promising prototype and a scalable product. Dutch startups currently hampered by risk-averse procurement procedures could find a market path via 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 risks and seeking consensus. Other countries are now purposefully investing in ARPA-like organizations, attracting talent, capital, and knowledge. Delaying increases the risk that the Netherlands will structurally lag in technologies that will define the coming decades.

We urge our readers to sign the petition at nadi.nl. Not because breakthroughs are guaranteed, but because they become impossible if we don't try.

Max Pinas
Founder Dutchstartup.ai