Summary: Innovation chief says “pressure test” your pet hypothesis. It’s guaranteed to be wrong by Ian Scheffler and Astro Teller

Recommendation

A member of Robert Oppenheimer’s original team developing the atomic bomb, Edward Teller went on to help create an even more apocalyptic bomb – the hydrogen bomb. Later in life, however, Edward Teller focused on how atomic energy might be used to aid humanity rather than for destruction. In this intriguing interview, Teller’s grandson, X laboratories director Astro Teller, discusses the idea of innovating for the greater good. He discusses what “moonshot” innovation entails and why scientists and others today should balance the need for profit with a sense of higher purpose.

Take-Aways

• A radically innovative pursuit, or “moonshot,” consists of a huge problem, a groundbreaking solution – and the technology needed to test it.
• “Pressure testing” is not only focused on the tech.
• Purpose and profit can go together.
• The stories people tell about new technologies matter immensely.

Summary

A radically innovative pursuit, or “moonshot,” consists of a huge problem, a groundbreaking solution – and the technology needed to test it.

The term “moonshot” originated in the 1940s in reference to the seemingly impossible aspiration to land a human being on the moon. At least for researchers at Google X, now just X, a moonshot has several features. First, the team must identify an enormous problem in today’s world. Second, someone must propose a “radical solution” to solve the problem. Third, some technology must exist that will allow the team to create an initial version of the proposed product or service to test its viability as a solution.

“When Kennedy said we [are going to the moon], there was something powerful about the determination to do it, long before it was clear whether it could be done. [But] that is not necessarily efficient.”

The moonshots pursued during the Second World War and the Cold War didn’t have to be efficient. Since private investors fund X’s work, the team must pay attention to both innovation and efficiency. Radical innovation in this context isn’t just a single genius coming up with a visionary idea. It’s a complicated process that involves teams working across disciplines.

“Pressure testing” is not only focused on the tech.

When you start working on a big moonshot project, you start small and do a lot of testing. You need to test the technologies involved, of course, but you also test your assumptions. You must ask yourself whether anyone really wants or would benefit from what’s being proposed. A lot of the time, the answer is no.

“The ethos of X is one of pressure testing.”

You need to be versatile and flexible to innovate. You have to disregard the standard way of doing things. But since you have to consider efficiency, you can’t just pay some brilliant narcissist to go wild, come what may. Team leaders must balance disruption and order – giving their creative people direction and freedom. The point of innovation is to enter into new territory but with a concrete purpose.

Purpose and profit can go together.

X aims to create viable, sustainable businesses that also improve the world. Proposals to solve moonshot-level world problems could also be called investment proposals. Aspirations and profits should feed into one another. Money-making ventures that harm the world are a no-go, but so are ideas that could help the world but are financially unsustainable.

“Let’s fish at the intersection of…where the profit the company makes is aligned with the goodness it’s doing in the world.”

Once you have something to test, you must explore how people are using or experiencing the project and whether it generates any unexpected consequences. That’s how your project and hypothesis will change over time – and improve. People often look down on failure, but it’s through failure that people learn, improve and move forward.

The stories people tell about new technologies matter immensely.

As early as the 1960s, Astro Teller’s grandfather, Edward Teller, understood the effects of climate change and how nuclear power could mitigate those effects. Unfortunately, fear of the destructive power of atomic weapons created a negative attitude toward nuclear power. If people hadn’t developed a confused and inaccurate picture of nuclear power, they might have made early headway toward addressing the real problem – climate change.

“Technology can be misused. It’s the responsibility of the technologists, the inventors, as a group, to avoid that where they can. But as a society, we also need to make sure that we don’t let those fears cause us to miss out on all the benefits of the technology.”

The way nuclear bombs compromised people’s perception of nuclear power suggests that the narratives connected with various technologies shape their fates. Stories help people better grasp a technology’s nature and purpose. People can have a powerful reaction to a technology without actually understanding it, and that will affect their ability to figure out what to do with it. When people don’t tell a technology’s story properly, the voices that oppose it can impede society’s ability to find a “middle ground” use for that innovation.

About the Authors

Ian Scheffler has written for The New Yorker, The Guardian, the Los Angeles Times, and the Los Angeles Review of Books. His first book was Cracking the Cube. Eric “Astro” Teller is an American entrepreneur, computer scientist and author. Since 2010, Teller has directed Google X (which has become X) laboratories.