The science world is in constant motion. Whether we’re talking about sudden breakthroughs or meticulous and consistent efforts with incremental progress, there’s always something new to uncover.
Even the most abstract concepts can feel surprisingly familiar if you’re willing to let them in!
More info:Instagram|X|YouTube
This post may includeaffiliate links.
RELATED:
Interestingly, you could make a case that as we’re seeing an increase in science memes, we see fewer innovative papers.Yes, there aremore scientists than ever, there aremore publications than ever, and there’s much more funding than ever before.In fact, federal funding for research and development has grownfrom $3.5 billion in 1955 to $137.8 billion in 2020, which equates to a more than tenfold increase even after you adjust for inflation.
Interestingly, you could make a case that as we’re seeing an increase in science memes, we see fewer innovative papers.
Yes, there aremore scientists than ever, there aremore publications than ever, and there’s much more funding than ever before.
In fact, federal funding for research and development has grownfrom $3.5 billion in 1955 to $137.8 billion in 2020, which equates to a more than tenfold increase even after you adjust for inflation.
But outside of a few specific areas, like AI and biotechnology, does it really feel like we’re in a golden age of science?Writer Kelsey Piper thinks that we’re not. As shepointed out, the early 20th century saw discovery after discovery that radically changed our comprehension of the world we lived in and upended industry: nitrogen fixation (which made it possible to feed billions), the structure of the atom and DNA, rocketry, plate tectonics, radio, computing, antibiotics, general relativity, nuclear chain reactions, quantum mechanics…There might be more science now, but it feels like the current trends can’t compare to the20th centuryin terms of discoveries that change the world.
But outside of a few specific areas, like AI and biotechnology, does it really feel like we’re in a golden age of science?
Writer Kelsey Piper thinks that we’re not. As shepointed out, the early 20th century saw discovery after discovery that radically changed our comprehension of the world we lived in and upended industry: nitrogen fixation (which made it possible to feed billions), the structure of the atom and DNA, rocketry, plate tectonics, radio, computing, antibiotics, general relativity, nuclear chain reactions, quantum mechanics…
There might be more science now, but it feels like the current trends can’t compare to the20th centuryin terms of discoveries that change the world.
Onestudythat looked at patents and papers to measure how much future research was built on a given publication, or how much a given piece of work served to “push science and technology in new directions” supports the idea that there are fewer radical innovations than there used to be.As researchers from the University of Minnesota and the University of Arizona noted, previous data also indicates there’s “declining research productivity in semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, and other fields. Papers, patents, and even grant applications have become less novel relative to prior work and less likely to connect disparate areas of knowledge, both of which are precursors of innovation. The gap between the year of discovery and the awarding of a Nobel Prize has also increased, suggesting that today’s contributions do not measure up to the past.”
Onestudythat looked at patents and papers to measure how much future research was built on a given publication, or how much a given piece of work served to “push science and technology in new directions” supports the idea that there are fewer radical innovations than there used to be.
As researchers from the University of Minnesota and the University of Arizona noted, previous data also indicates there’s “declining research productivity in semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, and other fields. Papers, patents, and even grant applications have become less novel relative to prior work and less likely to connect disparate areas of knowledge, both of which are precursors of innovation. The gap between the year of discovery and the awarding of a Nobel Prize has also increased, suggesting that today’s contributions do not measure up to the past.”
The authors of the study analyzed 25 million papers (1945–2010) and 3.9 million patents (1976–2010) according to a new metric, the so-called “CD index,” which determines whether papers are mostly “consolidating” (or building on) knowledge in the field, or whether they’re “disrupting” the field and pointing toward new, fresh avenues of research.
The idea is that if a paper builds on previous work, citations of that paper will generally also cite previous work, but if a paper blazes a new research direction, then citations of that paper are less likely to cite previous work. The lower the CD score, the less disruptive the research.
The researchers suspected that “disrupting” papers, ones that change the field and point in new research directions, are on the decline. And that was exactly what they found.In the “social sciences,” “the average CD5 dropped from 0.52 in 1945 to 0.04 in 2010.“In “physical sciences,” “the average CD5 decreased from 0.36 in 1945 to 0 in 2010.“For “drugs and medical” patents, “the average CD5 decreased from 0.38 in 1980 to 0.03 in 2010.“And for “computer and communications” patents, “the average CD5 decreased from 0.30 in 1980 to 0.06 in 2010.”
The researchers suspected that “disrupting” papers, ones that change the field and point in new research directions, are on the decline. And that was exactly what they found.
In the “social sciences,” “the average CD5 dropped from 0.52 in 1945 to 0.04 in 2010.”
In “physical sciences,” “the average CD5 decreased from 0.36 in 1945 to 0 in 2010.”
For “drugs and medical” patents, “the average CD5 decreased from 0.38 in 1980 to 0.03 in 2010.”
And for “computer and communications” patents, “the average CD5 decreased from 0.30 in 1980 to 0.06 in 2010.”
So why aren’t scientists discovering new things? Have we already discovered all the transformative and crucial things?Not necessarily. Piper, for example, believes that it’s possible the slowdown is not an inevitable natural law, but a result of policy choices.“The way we hand out scientific grants is flawed,” she explained. “Despite the record level of funding, we know that visionaries with transformative ideas — like Katalin Karikó, who did crucial early work to invent mRNA vaccines — struggled for years to get grant money. And getting money requires jumping through a growing number of hoops — many leading scientists now spend 50 percent of their time writing grant proposals so they can spend the other 50 percent … doing science.”
So why aren’t scientists discovering new things? Have we already discovered all the transformative and crucial things?
Not necessarily. Piper, for example, believes that it’s possible the slowdown is not an inevitable natural law, but a result of policy choices.
“The way we hand out scientific grants is flawed,” she explained. “Despite the record level of funding, we know that visionaries with transformative ideas — like Katalin Karikó, who did crucial early work to invent mRNA vaccines — struggled for years to get grant money. And getting money requires jumping through a growing number of hoops — many leading scientists now spend 50 percent of their time writing grant proposals so they can spend the other 50 percent … doing science.”
Nowadays, scientists have to publish to keep their jobs. “Saying that the science slowdown is inevitable because our predecessors already grabbed all the good ideas might blind us to the possibility that science is slowing down because we’re actively mismanaging it, directing researchers away from the best uses of their time and the most crucial research and toward small incremental papers that keep funders — and tenure review committees — happy,” Piper added.
If you want to see more, check out Bored Panda’searlier articleon ‘Science is Fun.’
Continue reading with Bored Panda PremiumUnlimited contentAd-free browsingDark modeSubscribe nowAlready a subscriber?Sign In
Continue reading with Bored Panda Premium
Unlimited contentAd-free browsingDark mode
Unlimited content
Ad-free browsing
Dark mode
Subscribe nowAlready a subscriber?Sign In
See Also on Bored Panda
Modal closeAdd New ImageModal closeAdd Your Photo To This ListPlease use high-res photos without watermarksOoops! Your image is too large, maximum file size is 8 MB.Not your original work?Add sourcePublish
Modal close
Add New ImageModal closeAdd Your Photo To This ListPlease use high-res photos without watermarksOoops! Your image is too large, maximum file size is 8 MB.Not your original work?Add sourcePublish
Modal closeAdd Your Photo To This ListPlease use high-res photos without watermarksOoops! Your image is too large, maximum file size is 8 MB.Not your original work?Add sourcePublish
Add Your Photo To This ListPlease use high-res photos without watermarksOoops! Your image is too large, maximum file size is 8 MB.
Add Your Photo To This List
Please use high-res photos without watermarks
Ooops! Your image is too large, maximum file size is 8 MB.
Not your original work?Add source
Modal closeModal closeOoops! Your image is too large, maximum file size is 8 MB.UploadUploadError occurred when generating embed. Please check link and try again.TwitterRender conversationUse html versionGenerate not embedded versionAdd watermarkInstagramShow Image OnlyHide CaptionCropAdd watermarkFacebookShow Image OnlyAdd watermarkChangeSourceTitleUpdateAdd Image
Modal closeOoops! Your image is too large, maximum file size is 8 MB.UploadUploadError occurred when generating embed. Please check link and try again.TwitterRender conversationUse html versionGenerate not embedded versionAdd watermarkInstagramShow Image OnlyHide CaptionCropAdd watermarkFacebookShow Image OnlyAdd watermarkChangeSourceTitleUpdateAdd Image
Upload
UploadError occurred when generating embed. Please check link and try again.TwitterRender conversationUse html versionGenerate not embedded versionAdd watermarkInstagramShow Image OnlyHide CaptionCropAdd watermarkFacebookShow Image OnlyAdd watermark
Error occurred when generating embed. Please check link and try again.
TwitterRender conversationUse html versionGenerate not embedded versionAdd watermark
InstagramShow Image OnlyHide CaptionCropAdd watermark
FacebookShow Image OnlyAdd watermark
ChangeSourceTitle
Evelina Šiukšterytė
Ilona Baliūnaitė
Greta Jaruševičiūtė
Funny
