In the past, scientific and technological articles were published at a slower pace. In recent decades, the number of published articles has grown exponentially. Yet despite this increase, the "disruptiveness" of these articles and related scientific discoveries has greatly diminished.
An analysis of data from millions of scientific manuscripts shows that, compared with searches and patents in the 50s and 60s, those in the 2000s were far more likely to incrementally push science forward, rather than divert it to new ones. directions and make previous work obsolete.
In other words? It seems that scientists are becoming more and more focused on small incremental improvements rather than big "disruptive" scientific breakthroughs.
The end of the scientific revolutions
"Data in hand, there is a change taking place." To say it is Russell Funk, a sociologist at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis and co-author of the analysis recently published in Nature (I link it to you here). "There aren't the same amount of groundbreaking scientific discoveries as there used to be."
To test their thesis, the researchers used ben's citation data 45 million research manuscripts and 3,9 million patents. They calculated a disruption index, called CD index, ranging from -1 for the least revolutionary work to 1 for the most disruptive. The results showed that from 1945 to 2010 the mean CD index decreased dramatically, about 90% for research manuscripts, and 78% for patents.
Collapse of "disruptive" scientific discoveries. Because?
To understand the reasons behind this drastic change, it is important to analyze the dynamics within the scientific environment, the researchers emphasize.
The downward trend of new discoveries could be due to several factors. One of these could be the increase in the number of active researchers in the field. This has created a more competitive environment and upped the ante for publishing research and seeking patents. A dynamic that is ending up literally "shaping" the direction of scientific research and discovery.
For example, large research teams have become increasingly common: these teams are more likely to produce research that makes smaller increments rather than breakthrough breakthroughs.
Is it bad?
The "disruptiveness" of scientific discovery isn't inherently good, just as incremental science isn't necessarily bad, the study authors say.
Sure, a healthy mix of incremental and disruptive research would be ideal, he says john walsh, science and technology policy specialist at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta.
In short, revolutionizing a field and then improving scientific discoveries, rather than just launching forward with a few practical applications in the short term, or getting lost in infinite and tiny improvements.
I hope that science is moving towards a "mixing" of the two trends, and that these data do not indicate stagnation instead. In which case, our system of incentives and scientific programs should be completely overhauled.
