You have to understand that's a ludicrous fallacy of the excluded middle argument you're making.
There is a long way between wanting nobody to work on this problem, and thinking it's a good idea to give tens of millions of dollars to a bright but utterly inexperienced college student to work on this problem because she happened to be school friends with some VC's daughters.
> How do we invest in potentially innovative ideas in more complex fields before they have proven it out?
Honestly, you invest in carefully proving out those potentially innovative ideas before you release them. That way you have good data convince people who claim your ideas don't work.
I do, however, question what the after-the-fact self-righteousness does for anyone.
Should no one be working on this problem? How do we invest in potentially innovative ideas in more complex fields before they have proven it out?