In an era of unprecedented scientific advancement, enhanced funding, and widespread practice, one would anticipate a plethora of revolutionary achievements. However, a disconcerting inquiry persists within academic and governmental spheres: are genuinely revolutionary discoveries becoming increasingly elusive? An increasing amount of evidence indicates that despite substantial spending in science, we are experiencing diminishing returns on innovation. The epoch of transformative innovations that provided us with electricity, penicillin, and the internet may be transitioning into a period of gradual advancement.
This subject has led to intense debate across various scientific fields, particularly following a 2023 study by Russell Funk and his associates that garnered worldwide notice. Their research, which analysed millions of scientific papers and patents, indicated that disruptive discoveries — significantly altering a field's trajectory — have been diminishing over the previous few decades. Notwithstanding a significant surge in research production, scientific endeavours’ relative originality and influence seem to be diminishing.
Consider this perspective: genuinely groundbreaking science does not only enhance our understanding but it also transforms the foundations of our educational resources. Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity not only built upon Isaac Newton’s work but also revolutionised our understanding of the concepts of space and time. Funk's analysis indicates that groundbreaking work is becoming increasingly uncommon in all areas of scientific research.
The consequences are extensive. From the germ theory of disease to quantum mechanics, from the polio vaccine to the internet, disruptive science has historically driven progress. The future of technological advancement and economic growth may be jeopardised if we are currently transitioning to an era in which seismic shifts are less frequent.
This hypothesis aligns with additional signals. Experts have observed that the current landscape of research and development is producing a diminishing number of breakthroughs for each dollar spent. In sectors such as agriculture, medicine, and semiconductor technology, the resources necessary to sustain advancement have increased significantly. For example, adhering to Moore’s Law, which refers to the doubling of transistors on a chip, now necessitates 18 times the number of researchers compared to the 1970s. In recent years, there has been a noticeable decline in the number of new drugs approved for every billion dollars invested in research and development, a trend that has been observed since 1950.
Why is this happening?
One culprit is the increasing bureaucratisation of science. Currently, scientists allocate less than 20% of their time to research with the remaining time being devoted to administrative responsibilities, granting applications, and instructing. Contrast this with the freewheeling era in which James Watson and Francis Crick were able to abandon their PhD projects for months in pursuit of their DNA discovery — a decision that would be considered career suicide today.
The pressure to publish has also resulted in ‘salami slicing’ in which researchers disseminate their ideas thinly across multiple papers rather than generating genuinely innovative work. The number of papers per researcher nearly doubled from 1996 to 2023 but research indicates an inverse correlation between the disruptiveness of scientists’ work and their publication rate.
The issue may be exacerbated by technology. Although Robert Boyle was able to conduct innovative experiments in his 17th-century London townhouse, contemporary science necessitates large, costly infrastructure, such as the Large Hadron Collider. The time it takes for researchers to reach the bleeding edge of their fields is increasing as science becomes more complex and specialised.
Interestingly, even triumphs such as AlphaFold — the Artificial Intelligence system that solved the protein-folding conundrum — bring attention to the underlying issue. Despite its clear scientific importance, the AlphaFold paper received a low rating on the ‘disruptiveness’ scale since it was constructed upon existing knowledge rather than replacing it. This inconsistency highlights the shortcomings of existing metrics and prompts a crucial inquiry: are we assessing scientific impact accurately?
Metrics may be a contributing factor to the issue. As science becomes more metric-driven, researchers are increasingly prioritising citations, journal prestige, and funding scores, sometimes at the expense of originality. The preoccupation with h-indices and impact factors may stifle the development of unconventional ideas with long-term potential but lack immediate appeal.
Nevertheless, there is optimism and progress. Risk-taking is being prioritised in the development of novel funding models. Researchers were able to rapidly provide critical insights during the Covid-19 pandemic due to rapid-response grants. To facilitate risky, early-stage research, Germany and the United Kingdom have established innovation agencies. In an even more radical endeavour, New Zealand has implemented grant lotteries, which involve the random allocation of funds from a pool of qualified proposals. This approach is intended to mitigate bias and introduce unpredictability into the system.
Certain scholars believe that smaller research teams are more inclined to generate groundbreaking work. This tendency may stem from their reduced coordination pressures and their greater liberty to explore unconventional avenues. Teams that exhibit diversity in terms of gender, discipline, and geography tend to foster higher levels of innovation. Recent studies indicate that promoting in-person collaboration rather than remote interactions could significantly boost creativity.
The most compelling notion is that disruptive research articles continue to exist although we fail to acknowledge them. Restricted attention spans, automated categorisation, and collective conduct in academic publishing may result in significant works being disregarded for extended periods. The reduction in disruption may pertain more to visibility than to production.
The innovation slowdown is not a cause for despair but rather a clarion call for action. A vigorous scientific endeavour must provide greater knowledge and facilitate the environment for audacious, transformational thought. This necessitates a reassessment of our methods for funding, evaluating, and rewarding research. It entails accommodating failure, spontaneity, and boldness. Crucially, it entails avoiding the allure of perceiving science as merely a numerical endeavour.
As Russell Funk notes, acknowledging the slowdown isn’t a threat to science: it’s the first step toward reviving its soul.
Biju Dharmapalan is Dean, Academic Affairs, Garden City University, Bengaluru and an adjunct faculty at the National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bengaluru