Alex van Someren on deep tech, national security and how investors can navigate the innovation frontier
Alex van Someren has spent four decades at the intersection of technology, investing and national security. Today he serves as operating partner and advisory board member for Octopus Energy Generation’s growth equity strategy, which invests to de-risk climate technologies. His breadth of experience leaves him very well placed to discuss how innovation, politics and investment collide.
An engineer by training, van Someren cut his teeth at Acorn Computers in the 1980s before co-founding several technology ventures. In 2021, he was appointed the UK’s Chief Scientific Adviser for national security. He has also advised the €1 billion NATO Innovation Fund, which focuses on deep tech.
Andrea Ash, an independent private markets professional, interviewed van Someren at Longview Networks’ Institutional Venture & Growth Forum, an event which she chaired.
Andrea Ash: We’ve seen a shift in recent years from software to science. You’ve had a long career on the science and engineering side. How have the trends evolved?
Alex van Someren: Over the past decade, early-stage venture has become much more open to deep tech. Previously, hardware and engineering-heavy businesses were less popular than software as software scaled so easily – the marginal cost per customer was essentially zero. That model powered the dot-com boom and built the Internet as we know it.
Now, deep tech areas like artificial intelligence (AI), quantum technologies, semiconductors and synthetic biology have become more interesting to investors. AI, for example, connects software with the physical world – through drones, autonomous vehicles and more. Quantum covers sensing, computing and timing, while engineering biology spans drug discovery and healthcare. These things have started to become a much more acceptable form of investment at the early stage.
That said, while early-stage funding has grown, there’s still a gap at growth stage. Scaling deep tech companies remains very capital intensive. And, most recently, sustainability technologies – those enabling the net-zero economy – are rapidly emerging as highly desirable investment classes.
Ash: You sit at the intersection of science, innovation and politics. Which themes have been preoccupying government recently?
van Someren: National security has dominated. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the deteriorating situation in Gaza, and concerns about China and Taiwan have put pressure on the defence situation and has been hugely distracting for government.
This focus reinforces themes in energy and technology. Governments are worried about the resilience of energy grids, supply chains and sovereignty over new energy technologies. Questions like: Can we deliver the energy we need? Are we dependent on vulnerable imports? Could cyberattacks disrupt infrastructure? These overlap directly with the deep tech and sustainability investment themes.
In the sustainable energy domain, the national security preoccupation is with the resilience of our country’s energy grid, our ability to deliver energy where it’s wanted, the resilience of our supply chains, getting access to energy, and the degree of sovereignty and control we have over new energy technologies in the UK. And then whether cyberattacks against infrastructure are a potential threat to the grid. These are a preoccupying coincidence of the deep-tech and the national security investing themes.
Ash: Is national security simply about defence?
van Someren: I’d almost say the opposite. I’ve briefed ministers that climate change is the single biggest threat to national security. It drives migration, destabilises regions and interacts with conflict. Traditionally, we’ve separated defence and national security. Defence is the military – kinetic action including bombs, missiles and bullets – while national security is everything else, from energy to intelligence.
Defence aims to deter or, if necessary, take offensive action. Intelligence is continuous as governments always need to know what their adversaries are doing, whether or not they are actively at war. While defence surges during conflicts, intelligence is a constant requirement.
If pension funds want long-term prosperity for their beneficiaries, then enabling defence and security investment may be essential
Alex van Someren, Octopus Energy Generation
Ash: How is innovation meeting national security needs?
van Someren: A prime example is ensuring our electricity grid operates in a reliable and consistent way. Increasing sustainable energy has potentially severe consequences for the grid, as we saw recently in Spain. The collapse of its grid was essentially caused by sudden changes in the sources of generation. Providing improved resilience is a critical enabling technology for national security, as we all depend heavily on having electricity available all the time. Technologies such as battery storage and AI-driven demand control are critical to making grids reliable.
Beyond energy, synthetic biology is developing new drugs. AI is reshaping intelligence and defence decision-making. And access to space has become vital infrastructure. Innovation is expanding the toolkit for managing national security challenges.
Ash: How do you get institutional investors comfortable – particularly from an ESG perspective – with investing in national security?
van Someren: Many funds have blanket exclusions on defence technologies, which can be too broad. A more reasonable approach is to exclude purely offensive or kinetic technologies designed to kill.
But Russia’s war in Ukraine has changed the conversation, especially in continental Europe. If you live in Poland, the threat is very real. There’s been a radical change in the way in which the countries in continental Europe think about this, and rightly so. If pension funds want long-term prosperity for their beneficiaries, then enabling defence and security investment may be essential. We have to defend ourselves – and that often requires revisiting fund agreements and paperwork.
Ash: What role do you see for the UK in the global innovation economy?
van Someren: The UK still has an incredibly strong set of innovative capabilities. Our universities produce world-class research and talent, which feeds into entrepreneurial ecosystems. Per capita, our innovation output is far higher than GDP alone would suggest.
Sometimes there are concerns about acquisitions by overseas buyers or an academic brain drain. But global flows of talent and capital cut both ways. For example, restrictive US visa policies have pushed some top academics to look to the UK instead. That’s helping our innovation flywheel to continue.
Ash: Should national security innovation come from UK suppliers only, or is there a role for foreign collaboration?
van Someren: It’s absolutely not necessary for most of the technology to come from UK indigenous suppliers, and frankly nor is that a very realistic prospect. The UK is not big enough to deliver everything domestically, nor does it need to. That is the purpose of partnerships and alliances.
Take the Five Eyes intelligence partnership – UK, US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand – which involves highly sensitive collaboration. NATO is another example, with 32 member countries pooling capabilities from munitions to drones and future technologies that together can deliver absolutely everything required. The NATO Innovation Fund is designed precisely to support shared investment. These alliances mean no single country has to reinvent capabilities.
Ash: What can UK institutional investors do to support national security and clean tech?
van Someren: Investors need structures that can back innovation over longer horizons. Traditional closed-end venture funds don’t always fit technologies that take decades to scale. We need evergreen vehicles and new liquidity solutions.
But the opportunities are compelling: AI, quantum, climate tech and even space. They involve huge, but also huge potential upside. That’s the nature of venture. And some drivers – especially climate change – aren’t going away. Long-term investors must engage if they want resilient portfolios.
Ash: Are there key questions investors should be asking?
van Someren: At early stage, it comes down to three things: the team, the technology, and the market. Technology matters, but teams must execute and adapt – or pivot – when needed. Above all, potential market size is critical. A strong team and good tech in a small market won’t deliver big returns.
The most successful bets – think of Elon Musk with Tesla and SpaceX – were on enormous markets. Even when the tech or teams faced hurdles, the size of the prize kept capital and talent engaged. Investors should always ask: how big can this get?