do you have any criteria for impact? Programmable matter? Fusion? microfission? batteries?  novel wireless? new materials in general? droneswarms? autoresearchers?

Neglectedness is often a trap. 

If nobody is working on a problem, there's usually a reason:

1. It's not a real problem
2. It's already solved - you just don't know it yet
3. There's some other reason not to work on it (e.g. nobody will fund it)

Heuristics for finding good problems others will miss

• You could realistically be the best in the world at it, even with 100+ people working on it. Rewards (money, status, influence) go disproportionately to the best people in a space. You can channel those rewards into impact.
• It's high-risk, high-reward. Most people are overly risk-averse.
• It takes a long time (people overly discount the future) and has a strong feedback loop, so you know you're actually making progress.
• Solving it would cost the incumbents money. Permanent solutions threaten expensive, recurring short-term ones e.g. if Ozempic's makers had a one-shot vaccine with the same effect, they wouldn't sell it.
• You can otherwise establish that people avoid it for non-impact reasons (e.g. it's low status, boring)
• Only powerless entities have the problem e.g. animals, people in extreme poverty).
• Existing solutions are terrible but still widely used. strong validation that it's a big problem.

I am not aware of such a list, but I will propose a scientific problem neglected for cultural reasons:

Are UAPs advanced technology? We've received funding to investigate this question with distributed passive radar nodes.