The importance of time between acceleration and friction - insights into the future of innovation system from Silicon Valley

Team photo with Vinnova Wallenberg fellows and our hosts at the University of California, Berkely

Returning to Silicon Valley is always a form of temperature measurement of the future. But this time it is not only the pace that stands out, but also the direction.

At first glance, it may all seem familiar: capital, talent and ambition are still gathered in a unique concentration. But beneath the surface, a clear shift is underway. The conversation is less about the next “moonshot” and more about control, over data, computing power, security and distribution channels. The future feels noticeably more geopolitical than before.

At the same time, it becomes clear that we are not moving towards a single future, but several parallel ones.

The concentration of capital, and Europe's opportunity

One of the most tangible signals right now is how capital is increasingly being allocated to a few very large actors, especially linked to AI. The investments required to build and run the most advanced models is so extensive that it effectively excludes many smaller companies.

At first glance, this may be seen as a risk to the breadth of innovation. But it also opens up other scenarios.

As capital and focus are concentrated, gaps arise. Smaller companies, and not least European ecosystems, can find room to grow in areas that do not require the same extreme resources, or where other values, such as trust, regulatory understanding or domain knowledge, become crucial.

The question then becomes:
Kommer Europa to take this opportunity, or continue to define himself in relation to others?

Technology before the organisation

Another clear observation is that in many cases the technology is already in place. AI solutions can streamline, automate and transform entire value chains. Yet implementation is slow.

It's rarely about technology. It's about leadership, incentives, and risk appetite.

Many organisations find themselves in a middle ground: they see the potential, but lack the courage, or the structures, to fully act. The result is pilots, experiments, and isolated initiatives, rather than real transformation.

This creates an interesting future track:
Maybe it's not those with the best technology who win, but those who dare to change their working methods the fastest?

Dual-use and the path via commercial

A third clear movement is the increasing importance of so-called dual-use technology, innovations that can be used both civilian and military.

Historically, much development has been driven from the defense sector towards civilian applications. Today, we often see the opposite: commercial solutions are developed first, scaled globally, and then adapted for defense and security purposes.

This changes both innovation logic and responsibility.

When technologies can rapidly find new uses, questions arise about ethics, control, and long-term consequences. Who is responsible for how a technology is used, and when in the process should these issues be addressed?

The impact of AI – and its limitations

AI permeates virtually every conversation at Silicon Valley today. Not just as a technology, but as a fundamental force for change in how research, development and decision-making are done. At the same time, there is a growing awareness of the limitations.

Issues around reliability, data quality, bias and security are far from resolved. In some contexts, not least in life science and socially critical systems, these challenges become crucial.

This opens up several possible futures:
One where AI is rapidly being widely integrated, and one where adoption is slowed by eligibility requirements on robustness and responsibility.

From vision to control, a changing story

Perhaps the most subtle, yet most significant, change is how we talk about the future. Where Silicon Valley was previously characterized by visions of “changing the world,” there is now a clearer emphasis on control, security, and positioning. It is less about what we can create, and more about who owns, controls, and has access.

This raises questions about which futures are allowed to take their place. Which perspectives risk disappearing when the focus shifts? And how do we ensure that the future is not only shaped by those actors who have the most resources?

Navigating multiple futures

Foresight is not about predicting a linear development, but about understanding possible directions and the choices that shape them. What we see now is not a uniform development, but a landscape of parallel movements:

• centralization and fragmentation
• acceleration and inertia
• open innovation and increased control

In this landscape, the ability to interpret signals, question assumptions, and act strategically becomes more important than ever.

Open questions

How can we in Europe position ourselves in a landscape where resources and power are concentrated?
What does it take for organisations to go from insight to real change?
How do we balance rapid technological development with responsibility, trust and a long-term perspective?
And perhaps most importantly – which futures do we choose to actively contribute to?

About the author

Rickard Mosell is an entrepreneur, investor and Chairman of ImmuneBiotech AB and Skåne Ventures AB, as well as Senior Advisor in Investor Relations at Ideon Science Park. He works at the intersection of academia, startups and capital, with a focus on scaling innovations internationally.