HackerPapers

arXiv:2106.11184cs.SI

The decline of disruptive science and technology

Michael Park, Erin Leahey, Russell Funk

Early discovery. Linked by one identifiable commenter. This paper is outside the main ranking; a mention is not an endorsement.

Abstract

Theories of scientific and technological change view discovery and invention as endogenous processes, wherein prior accumulated knowledge enables future progress by allowing researchers to, in Newton's words, "stand on the shoulders of giants". Recent decades have witnessed exponential growth in the volume of new scientific and technological knowledge, thereby creating conditions that should be ripe for major advances. Yet contrary to this view, studies suggest that progress is slowing in several major fields of science and technology. Here, we analyze these claims at scale across 6 decades, using data on 45 million papers and 3.5 million patents from 6 large-scale datasets. We find that papers and patents are increasingly less likely to break with the past in ways that push science and technology in new directions, a pattern that holds universally across fields. Subsequently, we link this decline in disruptiveness to a narrowing in the use of prior knowledge, allowing us to reconcile the patterns we observe with the "shoulders of giants" view. We find that the observed declines are unlikely to be driven by changes in the quality of published science, citation practices, or field-specific factors. Overall, our results suggest that slowing rates of disruption may reflect a fundamental shift in the nature of science and technology.

arXiv comments
Journal reference
DOI
Subjects
cs.SISocial and Information Networks econ.GNGeneral Economics

On Hacker News

Linked by 1 identifiable commenter in 1 comment across 1 thread, from Jan 2023 to Jan 2023. Found in 1 HN submission from Oct 2021 to Oct 2021. Open submission discussions.

Comments linking this paper, per year.

Discussed in comments1 thread

Submitted to Hacker News

Connected through shared HN threads, not inferred similarity or a recommendation.