[kds]

Big problems - sometimes before even to be formulated and asked - require big fundamental and applicative science research programmes and the respective advancement.

These are not something to be expected from venture capital. They are something resulting from deliberate state scientific and industrial policy, longterm goals, and adequate funding.

Examples from 1950s-1970s: DARPA/USA, and the resp. space and rocketry programmes in the former USSR.

Private capital - be it venture or not - comes later (and this is not a bad thing) when the new technologies are relatively well understood , "tameable", and can be applied to mass human consumers' or corporate needs (perceived or not, new or old) yet to be satisfied.

Private capital doesn't like fundamental scientific research risks - even in the pharmacy industry. It tries to bear mostly the market-related and implementational risks.

A thought experiment: Think on what funds and in what conditions happened the development of packet switching, TCP/IP protocols suite, HTTP, (examples of fundamental breakthrough). Then think the same about Facebook, for example.

My point summarized => States/Governments shouldn't worry about entrepreneurship programmes, clusters, tech-business climat, etc.

If adequate funding is provided for breakthrough scientific research and to the universities in general (so there are also the high-quality scientists to do it), breakthrough technology business solving big problems will happen inevitably.

[MordinSolus]

On the pharmaceutical industry: part of the problem is the government and the enormous number of regulations and necessary steps to bring a drug (which still could harm people regardless of how many trials are done) to market. As such, while someone may want to research some new but unproven idea, the time and cost and risk involved would be far too great as a result of regulations.

I do agree with your point though. The government should invest in research, not companies.