This is a really important point. DARPA is one of the few funding organizations that can--and will--pay for experienced technical staff.
Most other funders like the NIH and NSF have an odd split. The principal investigator is rewarded for having a track record (e.g., a prof with a history of similar papers), but the bulk of the work is to be done by trainees. This is sometimes baked into the grant itself: involving students is a good way to meet the NSF's "Broader Impact" requirements. Other times, it's a de facto restriction based on the budget. The standard NIH grant, a modular R01, will barely stretch past the PI + one staff scientist; trainees are cheaper and can often be offloaded onto other fellowships or other training grants entirely. Training future scientists is obviously important, but we've also got to make good use of the ones we already have.
Other agencies are dropping that ball. The NIH has a staff scientist program, but it funds literally a few dozen people per year vs. thousands of trainees. Dramatically expanding this would, I think, produce better science AND ease the academic job market crunch at the same time.
This is a really important point. DARPA is one of the few funding organizations that can--and will--pay for experienced technical staff.
Most other funders like the NIH and NSF have an odd split. The principal investigator is rewarded for having a track record (e.g., a prof with a history of similar papers), but the bulk of the work is to be done by trainees. This is sometimes baked into the grant itself: involving students is a good way to meet the NSF's "Broader Impact" requirements. Other times, it's a de facto restriction based on the budget. The standard NIH grant, a modular R01, will barely stretch past the PI + one staff scientist; trainees are cheaper and can often be offloaded onto other fellowships or other training grants entirely. Training future scientists is obviously important, but we've also got to make good use of the ones we already have.
Other agencies are dropping that ball. The NIH has a staff scientist program, but it funds literally a few dozen people per year vs. thousands of trainees. Dramatically expanding this would, I think, produce better science AND ease the academic job market crunch at the same time.