> That doesn't change the face that most research and technological development fail

I agree. So what? If you have a better way, you will no doubt be very, very successful and your name will be in history books.

But so far nobody has a better way. It follows that we cannot predict which R&D will fail to be developed or fail to be useful - otherwise we wouldn't have so many failures. And therefore the claim upthread, that they know now the future outcome of this research, is false.

Your comment "Or most research and technological development requires years or generations ..." has an implicit but important missing qualifier.

"Or most SUCCCESSFUL research and technological development requires years or generations of experimentation and failure before success."

Most research and technological development fail, which is why creators and innovators may be told they are wasting their time by looking at well-traversed, almost certain dead ends in hopes of finding a new, long-overlooked path, rather than putting their efforts into R&D more likely to succeed.

We can absolutely predict that some R&D will fail to be useful - I mentioned a few. Here's another - a radium-powered reading lamp.