The deep-tech R&D fund is commendable for fostering innovation, but its first round exposed conflicts. Many selected firms linked to panel members. Officials cited disclosure/recusal, yet the author finds these inadequate for fairness, stressing panelists' inherent advantages. Structural reforms are advocated: diversifying selectors, using academic evaluators, separating technical/financial assessments, and mandating public conflict disclosures. This balances innovation with vital public accountability, building trust in the fund.