Science has become less disruptive — and we do know why.
A few days ago, the prestigious journal Nature published an interesting article that offered a lapidary conclusion: over the last decades, science has become less and less capable of unveiling new frontiers and making current knowledge obsolete. In other words, science has become less disruptive.
“Does it matter?” the reader might ask. Well, it matters. It is commonly assumed that the power of science to solve our problems requires the expansion of the frontiers of knowledge. This idea has been historically known as the “linear model,” and it was popularized by Vannevar Bush in his influential report “Science, the Endless Frontier.” If we follow this model, a less disruptive science would be less useful in solving our current challenges. Therefore, we might be in trouble: humanity faces multiple challenges, some of them of enormous magnitude and complexity, and consequently, we need disruptive — rather than conservative — science.
The notion that science has lost its ability to create solutions has been discussed for some time. Some authors (such as Tyler Cowen) have adhered to what we might call a “scarcity theory”: humanity has already harvested all the “low-hanging fruits” of knowledge, and future innovations, therefore, might be out of reach. But other theories have been proposed. In recent years, one dangerous explanation has gained attraction: the problem is not that science is less disruptive, but that researchers have simply “lost focus”: they should privilege “focused” research — for example, “mission-oriented research,” rather than pursuing science motivated by their curiosity. This idea is partly based on the belief that the relationship between science and technological progress is the opposite of what the linear model proposes. In this view, technology breeds science; thus, this notion has been called the “anti-linear model.”
In this respect, it is worth noting that the authors found that the drop in disruptiveness correlates with a “linguistic change” from a vocabulary that emphasized novelty and discovery (which we could relate to curiosity) towards one that, instead, emphasizes application and utility (traits that we could associate to orientation).
This finding is telling. One of the main problems science faces today is the persistent demand for usefulness, pertinence, and utility imposed on researchers to the detriment of curiosity. Today, “science for its own sake” seems almost foolhardy, immoral, and a waste of taxpayers money. Instead, according to some opinions, research must be directed by the goals or needs of the industry, or by challenges and missions chosen by policy-makers. For instance, Daniel Sarewitz wrote a few years ago, in a somewhat controversial essay:
[…] Scientific knowledge advances most rapidly, and is of most value to society, not when its course is determined by the “free play of free intellects” but when it is steered to solve problems — especially those related to technological innovation.
But Sarewitz’s view of science is completely detached from reality. Since economists became interested in the function of knowledge on economic growth in the second half of the 20th century, the role of economists and international economic organizations in dictating science policies has grown dramatically (I documented the Chilean case in a book published some years ago). Scientists are strongly exhorted today to justify their research proposals in terms of utility, relevance, and pertinence (and, more recently, in terms of their contribution to missions, moonshots, and the like), and they certainly lack the freedom to “work[ing] on subjects of their own choice, in the manner dictated by their curiosity for exploration of the unknown,” as Bush proposed in his report. Simply put, curiosity alone is not enough — and perhaps it never was.
The “anti-linear” model is usually justified by misleading historical accounts. For instance, some authors still argue that “science owes more to the steam engine than the steam engine owes to science,” (or similar variations of this phrase) despite the growing research documenting the complex and varied ways scientific and technical knowledge was disseminated in Britain in James Watt’s time. Even Watt himself must be viewed today as a rather peculiar, persevering natural philosopher, deeply interested in the chemistry of heat and water composition (for an excellent account, see the recent book from David Philip Miller).
Nonetheless, the anti-linear model fits many political discourses. Politicians seeking to be viewed as committed to solving challenges usually rely on this model, particularly in its modern expression, the now popular “mission-oriented research.” Also, politicians seeking to reduce the role of the State might follow this model since the “technology breeds science” mantra facilitates reducing public investments in R&D. One author even famously claimed that no public funding for R&D was necessary.
Of course, the relationships between science, curiosity, “pulls,” industries and “missions” are complex and do not follow simple models. Still, several authors have argued that the ability of science to offer solutions to practical problems necessarily requires a diverse, disruptive science that opens new frontiers and directions; i.e., we need more basic and curiosity-driven research. In this case, curiosity for the unknown would be an essential ingredient of a “useful science.” The results of the study published in Nature, referring to the linguistic change observed from 1950 to date, support this idea and call us not to neglect basic, curiosity-driven research.
Even more importantly, the reduced disruptive power of science observed from the 50s is not due to a matter of quality, let alone quantity, according to the study. In effect, the authors call on freeing researchers from productivity demands, such as those funding agencies usually request. The authors even suggest giving researchers more time to read, as the study indicates that they focus on increasingly narrower knowledge areas. What a suggestion! It is hard to imagine funding agencies today promoting policies to give scientists more time to read. But maybe it’s time to explore disruptive ideas.
For now, the study published in Nature helps us to clarify at least one element of the discussion. Yes, the disruptive nature that we often attribute to science has been lacking for a long time. It is time to accept that we are indeed experiencing stagnation in terms of science and innovation — disruptive innovation, the one that changes entire technologies and substantially modifies economies, the one that creates new solutions with a global impact — and that, if we want future generations to have a better life in a few more decades, we need better science policies.
