Scientific Progress is Slowing Down. But Why?

Summary

This video script explores the apparent decline in scientific progress despite an increase in scientific output. It discusses the potential reasons behind this phenomenon, including the possibility that there's nothing left to discover or that the current scientific system prioritizes productivity over innovation. The script also critiques the notion that research is as innovative as it used to be, suggesting that breakthroughs are becoming rarer.

Takeaways

• 🚗 We live in an era where technological advancements like better cars, faster phones, and virtual reality are perceived as constant progress.
• 🤔 There's skepticism about how innovative some modern technologies truly are, questioning if a foldable phone or increased pixels in VR headsets represent real breakthroughs.
• 🌕 The script ponders whether moon missions with robots are more about engineering feats than scientific revelations, hinting at a possible plateau in scientific discovery.
• 🔍 The speaker suggests that science might be in trouble, contradicting a press release claiming that research hasn't lost its innovative drive.
• 📈 Despite the increase in the number of scientists and scientific output, there's a noted decline in research productivity since the 1960s and 70s.
• 🏆 Researchers have observed that Nobel Prizes are increasingly awarded for older work, indicating a slowdown in recent groundbreaking discoveries.
• 📚 A study published in Nature supports the idea that disruptive ideas in science are on the decline, with fewer papers and patents making a significant impact.
• 🔄 A new paper challenges previous findings, arguing that an earlier study was flawed due to the exclusion of certain patent citations, but even after correction, the trend of declining disruptiveness remains.
• 💡 Three hypotheses are presented to explain the decline in scientific progress: denial of a problem, the end of discoverable knowledge, and the current scientific reward system favoring quantity over quality.
• 🌐 The speaker humorously takes responsibility for the lack of progress in science, mentioning their ongoing quest to achieve cold fusion.
• 📚 The video concludes with a promotion for Brilliant.org, emphasizing its interactive courses for learning various scientific topics and offering a discount for viewers.

Q & A

What is the main concern raised in the script about the current state of scientific progress?

The script raises concerns about a decline in scientific progress, suggesting that despite an increase in the number of scientists and scientific publications, there is a decrease in research productivity and disruptive ideas.

What evidence is presented to support the claim that research productivity has declined?

Researchers from ETH Zurich analyzed the number of top researchers and their active research years to measure research productivity, finding a steep decline since the 1960s and 70s. Another study published in Nature examined 45 million papers and 3.9 million patents, concluding that both papers and patents have become less disruptive over time.

How does the number of scientists worldwide relate to the increase in scientific papers and patents?

The number of scientists has increased significantly, leading to a rise in the number of scientific articles to over 5 million per year and patents to about 3.5 million per year. However, this increase in quantity does not necessarily correlate with an increase in quality or disruptiveness.

What is the 'Toilet Paper Treadmill' mentioned in the script, and how does it relate to scientific research?

The 'Toilet Paper Treadmill' is a metaphor used in the script to describe the current state of scientific research where scientists are making fewer breakthrough discoveries and instead are focused on refining existing knowledge, akin to the endless and somewhat futile task of walking on a treadmill.

What反驳了Nature论文中关于科学创新下降的结论?

A new paper by Macher et al. argued that the analysis in the Nature paper was flawed because it excluded citations to patents published before 1976, which made the research from the 1970s and 1980s appear more groundbreaking than it was in reality.

What was the main argument of the new paper that claimed research is doing just fine?

The new paper argued that the previous analysis overestimated the groundbreaking nature of the 1970s and 1980s by excluding earlier patent citations, which made later years seem less innovative in comparison. However, even after correcting this, the decline in disruptiveness was still present, though not as severe.

What are the three major hypotheses proposed to explain the decline in scientific progress according to the script?

The three hypotheses are: 1) No problem exists and everything is fine, 2) There is nothing left to discover, indicating the end of science, and 3) The current organization of scientific research impedes progress by rewarding productivity over usefulness.

How does the script suggest that the increase in the number of scientists affects the perception of scientific progress?

The script suggests that the increase in the number of scientists leads to more papers and patents, which might create an illusion of progress. However, this increase in quantity does not necessarily reflect an increase in the quality or impact of scientific work.

What is the significance of the 'groundbreakingness' of patents in the 1970s and 1980s as discussed in the script?

The 'groundbreakingness' of patents in the 1970s and 1980s was overestimated due to the exclusion of earlier patent citations in the analysis, which skewed the perception of innovation in later years. Correcting this gave a more accurate but still declining trend in the disruptiveness of patents.

What is the role of the World Bank data in the discussion about the number of people in research and development?

The World Bank data is used to show that the fraction of people in research and development has been increasing globally, from about 1 in 1000 to 1.5 in 1000 in the past 20 years, and even higher in developed countries like Germany, where it's more than 5 in 1000.

What is the script's stance on the effectiveness of current scientific research methods?

The script suggests that the current methods of scientific research may be impeding progress by focusing on productivity over usefulness, leading to fewer breakthrough discoveries and more refinement of existing knowledge.