Previously, Russell wrote “Everybody complains about lack of information security research, but nobody does anything about it.”
In that post, he argues for a model where
Ideally, this program should be “idea capitalists”, knowing some people and ideas won’t payoff but others will be huge winners. One thing for sure — we shouldn’t focus this program only on people who have been “officially” annointed by some hierarchy, some certification program, or by credentials alone.
I agree that a focus on those anointed won’t help, but that doesn’t mean it’s easy to set up such an institution.
The trouble with the approach is that we have such institutions (*ARPA, venture capital) and they’ve all failed for institutional reasons. However high their aspirations, such organizations over time get flack from their funders over their failures, their bizarre and newsworthy ideas and the organizations become conservative. They trend towards “proven entrepreneurs” and incrementalism. The “Pioneer Fellows” idea does not overcome this structural issue. (There is an argument that the MacArthur genius grants overcome it. I’m not aware of any research into the relative importance of work done before and after such grants, but I have my suspicions, prejudices and best practices.)
Of course, I might be wrong. If you have a spare million bucks, please set this up, and we can see how it goes. An experiment, if you will.
Experiments are a big part of why Andrew and I focused on free availability of data. With data, those with ideas can test them. There will be a scrum of entrepreneurial types analyzing the data. Fascinating stuff will emerge from that chaos. With evidence, they will go to the extant ‘big return’ organizations and get funding. Or they’ll work for big companies and shift product directions.
That is, the issue in infosec is not a lack of interesting ideas, it’s the trouble in testing them without data. We need data to test ideas and figure out how they impact outcomes.