Thank you for sharing this insightful framework—I find it very helpful to get an overview of the field.
The goal of my comment is to initiate a process of making the framework more accessible, particularly by sorting/ranking the two axes. Epistemic status: a non-expert guessing , mainly from structured thinking process (<20min) - hence, good chance I am fundamentally wrong, esp. on “B)”.
A) On the x-axis/columns/tech areas
Would it make sense to rank them in order of the “risk chain”? Something like
Monitoring (”is there something harmful?”)
Diagnostics (”what exactly is it?”)
Barriers (”how can we physically block it?”)
Prophylactics (”how can we medically/biologically/chemically block it?”)
Therapeutics (”how can we cure it?”)
Forensics (”where did it come from?”)
B) On the y-axis/rows/tech dev goals—very uncertain about this
Can we find a way to rank/sort them along a line of ‘what enables what’? Something like
“Robust” seems a baseline enabler for all others, i.e., we want all technologies that scale (cheap, fast and general) to be robust in the first place, or can we scale a non-robust technology?
“General” seems to be a good lead indicator for “scalable”, i.e., given it’s robust, if a technology is also generalizable, it is more/very likely to scale?
“Cheap” and “fast” seem a) correlated and b) results/lagging indicators from being (robust, generalizable and) scalable
So there might be a case for a dummy like me to say: we first and foremost, focus on “robust”, then see if “generalizable”, then if “scalable”, and then “cheap” and “fast” are likely to follow.
Thank you for sharing this insightful framework—I find it very helpful to get an overview of the field.
The goal of my comment is to initiate a process of making the framework more accessible, particularly by sorting/ranking the two axes. Epistemic status: a non-expert guessing , mainly from structured thinking process (<20min) - hence, good chance I am fundamentally wrong, esp. on “B)”.
A) On the x-axis/columns/tech areas
Would it make sense to rank them in order of the “risk chain”? Something like
Monitoring (”is there something harmful?”)
Diagnostics (”what exactly is it?”)
Barriers (”how can we physically block it?”)
Prophylactics (”how can we medically/biologically/chemically block it?”)
Therapeutics (”how can we cure it?”)
Forensics (”where did it come from?”)
B) On the y-axis/rows/tech dev goals—very uncertain about this
Can we find a way to rank/sort them along a line of ‘what enables what’? Something like
“Robust” seems a baseline enabler for all others, i.e., we want all technologies that scale (cheap, fast and general) to be robust in the first place, or can we scale a non-robust technology?
“General” seems to be a good lead indicator for “scalable”, i.e., given it’s robust, if a technology is also generalizable, it is more/very likely to scale?
“Cheap” and “fast” seem a) correlated and b) results/lagging indicators from being (robust, generalizable and) scalable
So there might be a case for a dummy like me to say: we first and foremost, focus on “robust”, then see if “generalizable”, then if “scalable”, and then “cheap” and “fast” are likely to follow.
Would love to hear/read feedback on this!