Nature cover: Disruptive progress in science has significantly 'slowed down', with physics research falling 100%

Every disruptive breakthrough in science and technology will bring long-term progress to human society. One of the breakthrough manifestations is to subvert the existing knowledge system and guide the development of science and technology in new directions.

The law of universal gravitation unifies the motion laws of ground objects and celestial bodies in the universe; Maxwell's equations unify electricity and magnetism in an almost perfect way, and predict that light is an electromagnetic wave; the proposals of relativity and quantum mechanics, laid the foundation of modern physics.

In the long history of mankind, there are many scientific and technological achievements that have brought qualitative changes to real life. However, the study found that disruptive science and technology in the past 60 years has become increasingly scarce, and scientific progress is "slowing down."

Scientists from the University of Minnesota and the University of Arizona analyzed 25 million papers (1945–2010) in the Web of Science (WoS) and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) PatentsView The 3.9 million patents in the database (1976-2010) found that:

• Papers and patents published in recent years are unlikely to be disruptive or make previous discoveries (such as DNA double helix) become obsolete and push science and technology in new directions;
• In contrast, papers and patents are more likely to consolidate or further develop previous work, such as Cohen-Shen Lu Kohn-Sham equation;
• Scientists and inventors are increasingly using narrower pieces of knowledge to develop their new work;
• This model applies to all major scientific fields, including technology, medicine, and the social sciences.

The related research paper is titled "Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time" and has been published in the authoritative scientific journal Nature.

According to the paper, this downward trend is unlikely to be caused by changes in the quality of published work or citation policies, but because scientists and inventors have been Relying on a narrower set of existing knowledge is good for one's career, but not good for scientific progress more generally.

"A healthy scientific ecosystem includes both consolidation and improvement of previous work as well as new disruptive discoveries, but the nature of research is changing," said the corresponding author of the paper, Russell Funk, an assistant professor at the University of Minnesota, said, "As incremental innovation becomes more common, it may take longer in the future to achieve key breakthroughs that significantly advance science." fruit"?

Discoveries and inventions are considered natural by-products of scientific theory and technological change, allowing previously accumulated knowledge to drive future development and progress. In Newton's words, the knowledge accumulated in the past can allow future generations to "stand on the shoulders of giants", thus making future progress possible.

While new scientific and technological knowledge has grown exponentially in recent decades, creating conditions ripe for significant progress, there are also concerns that innovation activity is slowing .

Previous studies have found that research productivity in semiconductors, pharmaceuticals and other fields is declining, with papers, patents and even grant applications becoming less novel and less sophisticated than their previous work. It is possible to connect different areas of knowledge, both of which are prerequisites for innovation.

In addition, the year interval from the discovery to the award of the Nobel Prize has also increased, which shows that the scientific and technological contributions in recent years are no longer comparable to those in the past.

This trend has also attracted the attention of policymakers because of their significant implications for economic growth, human health and well-being, national security, and global efforts to address major challenges such as climate change. threaten.

To date, the evidence pointing to a slowdown in disruptive science and technology breakthroughs is based on studies of specific fields, using different, field-specific indicators that are difficult to account for in science and technology fields. of changes are occurring at a similar pace.

To this end, Funk et al. analyzed 25 million papers and 3.9 million patents in 60 years using a new quantitative indicator CD index, which can be used to describe papers and patents How to change citation networks in science and technology.

They found that papers and patents published in recent years are increasingly less likely to push science and technology in new directions, a phenomenon that applies across fields and across many different citation-based and Text indicator.

In terms of papers, the social sciences’ disruptive score fell by 91.9% between 1945 and 2010, while in the physical sciences it fell by 100%; in terms of patents, 1980-2010 During the year, the decline in computer and communication patents was 78.7%, and the decline in pharmaceutical and medical patents was 91.5%.

Disruptive scientific and technological breakthroughs are slowing

WORTH IT Note that Funk et al. also replicated the above findings by analyzing alternative measures including text diversity in papers and the use of disruptive versus improving terms.

Unique/total word count for paper titles from 1945-2010 and patent titles from 1980-2010 shows a decrease in the diversity of languages ​​used in science and technology (Figure a, below) d); The number of new word pairs/total word pairs introduced per year in paper titles from 1945 to 2010 and patent titles from 1980 to 2010 shows that the novelty of language used in science and technology is also declining (Figure b below , e); The frequency of the most commonly used verbs in paper and patent titles also changed significantly during the first (red) and last (blue) decade of the observation period (Figures c, f below).

Language changes in papers and patents

Funk et al. Their study also has certain limitations. For example, although research to date supports the validity of the CD index, it is a relatively new indicator of innovative activity that would benefit from future work on its behavior and properties, particularly across data sources and contexts. Research that systematically examines the impact of different citation practices in different fields would be particularly valuable.

Nonetheless, a more comprehensive understanding of the decline of disruptive science and technology can lead to a much-needed rethinking of our future strategies for organizing the production of science and technology.

Do not publish or perish?

One theory about the current trend is that all the “low-hanging fruit” of disruptive innovation is already there because off-the-shelf productivity-enhancing innovations have already been implemented.

At the same time, academics sometimes face a publish-or-perish research culture in which their success is determined by the number of papers they publish or patents they develop. .

"A lot of innovation comes from trying new things, or pulling ideas from different fields and seeing what happens," said Michael Park, the paper's lead author. "But if you If you are just worried about how to publish one paper after another as soon as possible, you will rarely read in depth and think about some big issues that may lead to these disruptive breakthroughs."

Although currently Such a trend exists, but researchers say it's important to note that it doesn't mean there are fewer technological advances to be found.

"From climate change to space exploration, we urgently need innovation to solve today's most pressing challenges," Funk said. "It is clear that there are still huge opportunities for disruptive innovation to occur, And bring improvements to humanity."

They suggest that in order to promote disruptive science and technology, scholars need to read widely to keep up with the rapidly expanding frontiers of knowledge .

At the same time, universities may need to abandon the quantitative requirements for papers/patents, instead pay more attention to and reward high-quality papers/patents, stay away from the "publish or perish" research culture, and do Produce truly meaningful work.

The above is the detailed content of Nature cover: Disruptive progress in science has significantly 'slowed down', with physics research falling 100%. For more information, please follow other related articles on the PHP Chinese website!