‘Today the sciences anticipate that it is outrageous’, they sang in the famous zarzuela, but perhaps they have begun to lose their rhythm. A curious study published in the journal ‘Nature’ suggests that scientific advances are becoming less disruptive, that is, they have less capacity to break paradigms, entail radical innovation and change our understanding of the world. The research, carried out from the analysis of 45 million scientific articles and 3.9 million patents in six decades, it concludes that progress is slowing down in several important fields.
The paper’s lead author, Russell Funk, a professor at the University of Minnesota’s Carlson School of Management, acknowledges that the volume of new scientific and technical knowledge has grown exponentially in recent decades. However, new ideas have less ‘punch’.
The researchers applied a “disruption score” to patents and scientific articles, based on citation patterns five years after publication, to assess the extent to which articles and patents propel ideas onto new trajectories. In this way, they determined that papers and patents are less likely to disrupt or make previous findings obsolete and push science and technology in a new direction. It is about those studies that are recognized with Nobel prizes or are among the most cited in each field. An example would be the discovery of the double helix structure of DNA.
Instead, papers and patents are more likely to consolidate or build on previous work, such as the Kohn-Sham equation, which improved existing equations on electron particles.
For authors, scientists and inventors tend to use narrower slices of knowledge to develop their new work. This pattern holds across all major fields of science, including technology, medicine, and the social sciences.
“A healthy scientific ecosystem is one in which there is a mix of disruptive discoveries and consolidation of improvements, but the nature of the research is changing,” says Funk. “As incremental innovations are more common, it may take longer to achieve those key breakthroughs that propel science forward most dramatically,” she notes.
In scientific articles, the decline in the disruption score between 1945 and 2010 ranges from 91.9% for the social sciences to 100% for the physical sciences. In patents, the decrease between 1980 and 2010 ranges from 78.7% for computers and communications to 91.5% for drugs and medicine.
«Publish the perish»
One theory for the current trend is that all the “low-hanging fruit” of disruptive innovations has already happened. The researchers also point to the increasing knowledge load scientists require to learn, which means more time spent training rather than pushing the boundaries of science.
According to the authors, their findings call for a need to reimagine how science is done. Scholars are sometimes faced with a “publish or perish” research culture, in which their success is based on the number of papers they publish or the patents they develop. The researchers suggest that federal agencies (in the US) could introduce funding changes to better support the long-term careers of academics.
“A lot of innovation comes from trying new things or taking ideas from different fields and seeing what happens,” says Michael Park, a co-author of the study at the University of Arizona. “But if you’re worried about publishing one article after another as quickly as you can, that leaves a lot less time to read deep and think about some of the big problems that could lead to these disruptive advances,” he muses.
pressing challenges
Despite the current trend, the researchers say it’s important to note that this doesn’t mean there are fewer technological breakthroughs to discover. “There is a great need for innovation to find answers to today’s most pressing challenges, from climate change to space explorationsays Funk. “It is clear that there are still great opportunities for disruptive innovations to happen and make improvements for humanity.”
Luis Sanz Menéndez, research professor at the Institute of Public Policies and Goods (IPP-CSIC), explains to SMC Spain that “the consequences of the study for science policies in the countries are very important”, especially to “guarantee that may contribute to disruptive scientific activities.” In his opinion, this “requires not only scientists with individual talent”, but, above all, institutions with “high degrees of organizational flexibility, interdisciplinarity, internal diversity, stable funding with the capacity to develop projects in the medium term and good conditions of work to attract talent», some attributes »still scarce among Spanish institutions«.