The apparent slowdown in innovation and scientific breakthroughs (coupled with the rising costs of such breakthroughs) is something I’ve touched on a number of times over the past few years. Research from the University of Minnesota reaffirms this and highlights that despite knowledge growing exponentially, the rate of notable scientific and technological breakdowns has slowed considerably.
The researchers rated the disruptiveness of 45 million scientific papers published between 1945 and 2010, as well as nearly 4 million US-based patents from 1976 to 2010. This disruptiveness was assessed based on the extent to which the ideas broke away from existing ideas and pushed science into new territories.
Building on the past
As with previous work, the research found that scientific research had become more likely to build on what had already come before than to chart new territory entirely. This was especially so in areas like chemistry and physics.
The authors discount the notion that the “low-hanging fruit” has been plucked, as this would suggest that disruptiveness would fall at different speeds in different disciplines, which isn’t the case.
Instead, they believe that the burden of research has risen considerably. This means that scientists have much more to learn to just master their chosen field, which therefore makes it that much harder to fundamentally advance it.
As a result, researchers tend to focus on a relatively narrow slice of existing knowledge and try to build on that. This, coupled with the strong incentive to publish regularly in academia, means that quantity rather than quality tends to be published.
Changing the picture
They believe that the situation could be improved if funding agencies and universities focus more on quality research rather than quantity. This could also be helped by providing full funding for year-long sabbaticals that give academics more time and space to think about things deeply.
There isn’t really any indication that we’re becoming less innovative as a species, but more that we’re in an era of ultra-specialization, with many papers now being sliced up to increase publication numbers, which inevitably leads to a dulling of research.
