The Valley of Death in Research
The Head of the National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN), Arif Satria, has identified a problem that sounds like a horror movie title: The Valley of Death. He is not referring to a place inhabited by ghosts, but rather the abyss that often swallows research results before they can ever become products.
Arif expressed this concern during the Kick-Off of the Indonesia Innovation Summit & Expo (IISE) 2026 in Jakarta on Tuesday (8/9/2026). A month earlier, similar concerns were raised by the Minister of Higher Education, Science, and Technology, Brian Yuliarto, during the launch of the Merah Putih Development Policy Research Program (PRIMA).
On one side, there are researchers with new findings; on the other, there is industry in need of technology. Between them lies a gap that causes many discoveries to end up merely as prototypes, research reports, or seminar materials, eventually disappearing quietly into archives.
This phenomenon is not unique to Indonesia. Innovation literature has long recognised the ‘technology valley of عدم death’. This refers to the fact that many innovations that successfully pass initial research stages fail when they must move towards mature prototypes, production, certification, funding, and market entry.
Academic research often stops at proving that something ‘can be done’. Industry, however, asks much harsher questions: Can the research result be produced? What is the cost? Who will buy it? Who will guarantee its quality? And when will it generate profit?
Laboratories operate on the logic of knowledge, whereas companies operate on the logic of value. A researcher may take pride in creating a new material in a few grams, but a factory will not automatically applaud. Factories require consistent quality, reasonable prices, available machinery, clear permits, and real buyers.
Consequently, the ‘Valley of Death’ consists of several distinct gaps: a technological gap when prototypes are immature; a funding gap when research funds run out but investors are hesitant to enter; an industrial gap when universities lack production facilities; and a regulatory gap when permits and standards fail to keep pace.
Ultimately, innovation is like a car that has an engine but lacks a road, registration, and a buyer.
An example brought by Arif from India illustrates how this gap can be narrowed. At IIT Madras in Chennai, there is a Research Park designed to bring campuses, industry, and startups together. One startup that emerged from this ecosystem is Agnikul Cosmos, which develops rocket technology, including 3D-printed engines. IIT Madras lists Agnikul as an incubated startup within its Research Park ecosystem.
The result is more than just a research poster. Agnikul developed semi-cryogenic rocket engines and, in 2024, successfully performed a suborbital flight using a single-piece 3D-printed rocket engine from a private launch pad in Sriharikota.
The most interesting aspect is not the rocket itself, which is merely a dramatic example, but the ecosystem. Agnikul was not sent home by the university with the advice, ‘Go find your own investors.’ Its founders gained access to the IIT Madras environment, faculty expertise, research facilities, industrial networks, incubation, and connections with ISRO.
The university does not merely produce knowledge; it helps that knowledge travel towards usable technology. This is often what is missing in discussions about innovation. We tend to view innovation solely as the act of discovering something. However, discovery is only the first chapter. Following that is a long process of testing, refining, producing, managing standards, finding users, seeking capital, and ensuring there is a market.
Discovery without a downstream ecosystem is like finding a superior seed and locking it in a safe. It is safe, certainly, but it will never grow.