Ask HN: Should hard-tech founders join a problem or technology-first PhD lab?
I'm an engineering undergrad considering a PhD with the goal of founding a hard-tech startup, but I'm unsure whether to join a problem-first lab (e.g., Yet-Ming Chiang's at MIT) or a technology-first lab. I've seen conflicting advice from entrepreneurs: some say work backwards from a problem, while others argue deep tech breakthroughs can't be forced and usually come first. Pillar VC says most deep-tech companies are technology-first. I'm seeking advice on which type of lab would better prepare me for founding a hard-tech company.
I think the answer depends on your personality and risk tolerance. If you're the type who can fall in love with a problem and persist for years, a problem-first lab might be better. But if you're more excited by new science and are willing to pivot, technology-first could lead to unexpected opportunities.
From my experience, the best hard-tech founders are those who deeply understand a specific technology and its potential applications. A technology-first lab gives you that deep knowledge, and you can always find a problem later. Problem-first often leads to incremental improvements, not breakthroughs.
I'd suggest joining a lab that has a strong track record of spinning out companies, regardless of whether it's problem-first or technology-first. The culture and mentorship matter more than the label. Look at labs like Chiang's or those at Stanford's SLAC.
Don't overthink the lab type. Instead, focus on the problem you're most passionate about. If you're genuinely excited about industrial decarbonization, find a lab that works on that, even if it's more applied. Passion will sustain you through the PhD and beyond.
Consider doing a PhD in a technology-first lab but also take entrepreneurship courses and intern at startups. That way you get the deep tech knowledge and also learn how to commercialize. It's not either/or.