In the past, the publication of scientific and technological articles had 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 to research and patents in the 50s and 60s, those in the 2000s were much more likely to push science forward incrementally, rather than veer into 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 large, “disruptive” scientific discoveries.
The end of the scientific revolutions
“Fact in hand, there is change afoot.” 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 is no longer 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 disruptive work to 1 for the most disruptive. The results showed that from 1945 to 2010 the average CD index decreased dramatically, about 90% for research manuscripts, and 78% for patents.
Collapse of “disruptive” scientific discoveries. Why?
To understand the reasons behind this drastic change, it is important to analyze the dynamics within the scientific environment, the researchers point out.
The downward trend of new discoveries it 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 raised the stakes for publishing research and seeking patents. A dynamic that is ending up literally "shaping" the direction of scientific research and discoveries.
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 discoveries is not inherently good, just as incremental science is not necessarily bad, the study authors say.
Of course, 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 instead indicate stagnation. In which case, our system of incentives and scientific programs should be completely overhauled.
