The 1960s marked a revolutionary era with the discovery of mRNA, introducing groundbreaking findings that spearheaded new advancements. Such discoveries are termed “disruptive” because they create entirely new pathways in scientific inquiry. Conversely, discoveries that enhance or expand upon existing knowledge are described as “consolidating.” These are equally vital, exemplified by the development of pivotal mRNA vaccines to address the COVID-19 pandemic. However, these vaccines would not have been possible without the foundational research on mRNA.

Both disruptive and consolidating discoveries are crucial. Nonetheless, a 2023 study published in Nature suggests a current imbalance in this dynamic, with a noticeable decline in the rate of groundbreaking discoveries within the scientific community. However, this imbalance is not a permanent state. The potential for future disruptive discoveries remains, offering hope for the future of scientific research.

The study involved US researchers conducting an analysis examining millions of scientific articles from 1945 to 2010 and patents from 1976 to 2010. They employed the CD index, which assigns a scale from 1 (completely disruptive) to -1 (ultimately consolidating) based on how often a scientific paper or patent is cited in conjunction with earlier works.

The implications are significant for patents. Suppose a patent, referred to as patent C, is only cited by subsequent patents and not alongside earlier patents. In that case, it is considered disruptive, marking the beginning of a new citation stream. On the other hand, if subsequent patents also cite previous patents along with patent C, it falls into the consolidating category, indicating that it is only partially novel.

The decline in disruptive research noted by the Nature study has raised concerns about the scientific community’s overall innovative capacity. However, Dr Christian Rutzer from the Center for International Economics and Business (CIEB) and Professor Rolf Weder, both at the University of Basel, met this conclusion with scepticism. Upon reviewing the data, they identified significant measurement errors in the original study.

In collaboration with Professor Jeffrey Macher from Georgetown University, who was a visiting professor at the Faculty of Business and Economics in spring 2023, they conducted their analysis on patents. Their findings, which were later published in Research Policy, highlighted a critical oversight in the Nature study. This collaborative effort underscores the inclusive nature of the scientific community, where collective knowledge and insights lead to progress.

This reevaluation sheds light on the importance of accurate measurement methods in assessing the nature of scientific progress. It also underscores the intricate balance needed between disruptive and consolidating research to foster true innovation. As members of the scientific community, your role in maintaining this balance is crucial and empowering.

More information: Jeffrey T. Macher et al, Is there a secular decline in disruptive patents? Correcting for measurement bias, Research Policy. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2024.104992

Journal information: Research Policy Provided by University of Basel