请问HN：硬科技创始人应该加入以问题为导向还是以技术为导向的博士实验室？
我是一名工程本科生，考虑攻读博士学位，长期目标是创办一家硬科技初创公司。目前我对具体的研究领域尚未确定，只对一些领域有模糊的兴趣，比如工业脱碳、矿业/矿物加工和先进材料等，这些领域目前让我感到兴奋。
然而，我不确定哪种类型的博士实验室能提供更好的准备：是以问题为导向的实验室（例如麻省理工学院的Yet-Ming Chiang实验室），还是以技术为导向的实验室（例如那些专注于新科学而没有预定应用的典型学术实验室，商业化往往是偶然发生的——当某项技术恰好有了有价值的市场应用时）。
我在网上查阅了成功的硬科技企业家的建议，但得到的答案相互矛盾。有些人说应该从问题出发反向思考，但也有人认为以问题为导向的方法往往行不通，因为深科技本质上是不同的：你通常无法为了预定的问题强行实现科学突破。相反，他们认为大多数硬科技公司之所以成立，是因为有人取得了科学突破，之后才意识到可能存在商业应用。事实上，风险投资公司Pillar VC表示，他们所了解的大多数深科技公司都是“以技术为导向”的。
考虑到这一点，有人能给我关于选择哪种类型的博士实验室的建议吗？
查看原文
I'm an engineering undergrad considering pursuing a PhD with the long-term goal of founding a hard-tech startup. I’m undecided about the specific area and only have a vague sense of what interests me -- industrial decarbonization, mining / mineral processing, and advanced materials are a few areas that currently seem exciting.<p>However, I'm unsure which type of PhD lab would provide better preparation: either a problem-first lab (e.g., like Yet-Ming Chiang at MIT) or a technology-first lab (e.g., your typical academic lab that focuses on novel science without a predetermined application, and where commercialization happens largely by chance — when a technology happens to have a valuable market application).<p>I've looked at advice online from successful hard-tech entrepreneurs, but the answers are conflicting. Some say to work backwards from a problem, but others argue that problem-first approaches often don't work since deep tech is inherently different: you often can't force a scientific breakthrough for a predetermined problem. Instead, they argue that most hard-tech companies are only founded because somebody made a scientific breakthrough and realized afterwards that there might be a commercial application. Indeed, the VC firm Pillar VC says that most deep-tech companies they know were "technology-first."<p>With that in mind, does anybody have any advice on which type of PhD lab to join?