{"id":189200,"date":"2023-03-08T07:58:00","date_gmt":"2023-03-08T07:58:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/c2w-memo.net\/are-the-great-breakthroughs-over\/"},"modified":"2023-03-08T07:58:00","modified_gmt":"2023-03-08T07:58:00","slug":"are-the-great-breakthroughs-over","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/c2w-memo.net\/en\/are-the-great-breakthroughs-over\/","title":{"rendered":"Are the great breakthroughs over?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
A recent paper in Nature claims that science is barely producing anything new anymore. But that conclusion is certainly not shared by everyone.<\/strong><\/div>\r\n

‘When I saw some of the reactions on Twitter, I thought: did they actually read the article properly?’ says Bert Weckhuysen. The Utrecht professor of inorganic chemistry and catalysis is referring to a recent publication in Nature<\/em>, which suggests that science is finding it increasingly difficult to come up with anything genuinely new. An extensive analysis of 24,659,076 articles archived by Web of Science and 3,912,353 patents purportedly shows that between 1945 and 2010 the number of ‘disruptive’ publications remained roughly constant, whilst total scientific output multiplied manifold.<\/p>\n

According to authors Michael Park, Erin Leahey and Russell Funk, affiliated with the universities of Arizona and Minnesota, a publication is disruptive if it invalidates earlier work. They measure this by the extent to which predecessors continue to be cited afterwards. As an example, they cite the way in which Watson, Crick and Franklin dismantled Pauling’s idea that DNA forms a triple helix. They quantify this with a CD index ranging from +1 for total disruption to -1 for ‘consolidating’ work that merely reinforces existing ideas. For the physical sciences<\/em>, including chemistry, this index fell during the described period from an average of 0.35 to 0. Other branches of science show essentially the same picture.<\/p>\n

Doubts<\/h3>\n

How much that actually tells us is open to question. Weckhuysen believes something is genuinely going on. ‘Apparently the system is doing something to us.’ But this has been the case since at least 1945. ‘It’s a little too convenient to use this article to vindicate your views on how we do science today<\/em>.’ Weckhuysen also fails to see why non-disruptive science should be considered unimportant. Ben Feringa, professor of organic chemistry in Groningen, concurs. He points out that breakthroughs are often only recognised as such much later, and he therefore has serious reservations about the idea of citations as a benchmark. ‘There are Nobel Prizes that were awarded for subjects that weren’t even cited in the first few years.’ As an example, he cites the 2021 prize awarded to Benjamin List and David MacMillan. ‘There were already publications on organocatalysis in the 1960s and 70s. Someone like Hans Wijnberg [Feringa’s mentor, ed.] was ahead of his time in that respect, but his work had essentially been forgotten when the field suddenly began to develop twenty years ago.’ According to Feringa, it is simply the case that genuine breakthroughs, those that transcend their own discipline, have always been exceedingly rare. ‘A publication like that of Watson and Crick comes along perhaps once every thirty years.’<\/p>\n

\n

‘There are Nobel Prizes that were awarded for subjects that weren’t even cited in the first few years’<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Hermen Overkleeft, professor of bio-organic synthesis in Leiden, doesn’t see things changing much any time soon. A logical consequence of the way science develops, he thinks. ‘It keeps getting more detailed. We already know the genetic code, most elementary particles, the most elegant routes for natural product synthesis. What is being discovered now is just as disruptive, but within a far narrower subfield. Think of synthetic routes for less widespread types of molecules. As a journalist or policymaker, you want to see breakthroughs that transform an entire field and move society meaningfully forward. That is becoming increasingly difficult, I think.’ When something is still presented as disruptive, Overkleeft believes this is sometimes relative. ‘Take AlphaFold, the AI that predicts 3D protein structures. It was fed by thousands of scientists who spent decades filling a database of structures. And even AlphaFold only works within subfields. For instance, you still can’t reliably use it to predict interactions with other proteins or ligands.’<\/p>\n

Less playing it safe<\/h3>\n

The Nature<\/em> piece suggests there would be more disruptive publications if researchers had time to keep abreast of their specialist literature. Weckhuysen can see the logic in that. ‘It’s devilishly difficult when you can barely keep track of your own specialism. Give people a degree of breathing space so they don’t have to score points every single day and write funding proposals, and you can make real progress.’ Sabbaticals are therefore a sound idea. ‘The only way to pause for a while in this rat race and look forwards, backwards and sideways.’ And the field could afford to be somewhat less risk-averse. ‘Being disruptive means that young scientists must be allowed to make mistakes without being immediately held to account for them. In that respect, there ought to be more curiosity-driven research, without referees immediately delivering damning commentary.’<\/p>\n

According to Weckhuysen, the real danger is that policymakers draw precisely the opposite conclusion and seek to steer science even more deliberately \u2014 whilst the emphasis on programmatic research is already considerable. ‘I’m glad we still have the European Research Council, which focuses solely on quality and original ideas,’ says Feringa. ‘If you already know the outcome of a research project beforehand, you have to ask yourself whether it should be conducted at a university at all.’ Overkleeft, too, expresses concern. ‘Before long, they’ll be saying we’ve already had all the breakthroughs there are to be had, and that money is better spent on valorisation. It is vital for scientists to explain that you can also achieve important breakthroughs within a very narrow niche that may prove enormously valuable to society further down the line.’<\/p>\n

<\/p><\/div>\r\n\r\n \n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A recent paper in Nature claims that science is barely producing anything new anymore. But that conclusion is certainly not shared by everyone.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":221,"featured_media":185902,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"episode_type":"","audio_file":"","podmotor_file_id":"","podmotor_episode_id":"","cover_image":"","cover_image_id":"","duration":"","filesize":"","filesize_raw":"","date_recorded":"","explicit":"","block":"","itunes_episode_number":"","itunes_title":"","itunes_season_number":"","itunes_episode_type":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[450],"tags":[464,505,463],"class_list":["post-189200","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-deep-dive","tag-analysis","tag-science-policy-communication"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/c2w-memo.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/189200","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/c2w-memo.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/c2w-memo.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/c2w-memo.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/221"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/c2w-memo.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=189200"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/c2w-memo.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/189200\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/c2w-memo.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/185902"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/c2w-memo.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=189200"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/c2w-memo.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=189200"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/c2w-memo.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=189200"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}