Rate of disruptive tech and science discoveries has slowed over the decades, claims study
- Reference: 1672911006
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2023/01/05/disruption_what_disruption/
- Source link:
A study led by Carlson School of Management associate professor Russell Funk, shows that patents and papers are less likely to take humanity’s body of knowledge in new directions than they were decades ago.
Statistical analysis of 45 million papers and 3.9 million patents from across 6 decades [1]published in Nature yesterday shows that for scientific papers, the decrease between 1945 and 2010 ranges from 91.9 per cent to 100 percent. For patents, the decrease between 1980 and 2010 ranges from 78.7 percent to 91.5 percent. Technology is not immune to the trend; in fact, it is among the group with the steepest decline in innovation.
[2]
The result is in stark contrast to tech industry claims. For example, [3]KPMG asks : "As the evolution of disruptive technologies moves firmly into the mainstream do you have a perspectoive [sic] on how they might drive transformation in your business?"
[4]
[5]
Meanwhile, [6]McKinsey has said , "Two decades of digital disruption – it is just getting started."
However, that's not what the evidence shows, the researchers found.
[7]
"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. This pattern holds universally across fields and is robust across multiple different citation- and text-based metrics.
"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," the paper said.
[8]Perseverance rover drops off first sample tube on surface of Mars
[9]Brit MPs pour cold water on hydrogen as mass replacement for fossil fuels
[10]America's nuclear fusion 'breakthrough' is super-hot ... yet far from practical
[11]TSMC ramps up 3nm chip baking at Taiwan plants
The researchers call on policy-makers to reimagine how science is conducted with a move away from the "publish or perish" research culture, in which their success is based on the number of papers they publish or patents they develop. Agencies could implement funding changes to better support scholars' long-term careers.
Doctoral student Michael Park, who contributed to the paper, said: "A lot of innovation comes from trying new things or taking ideas from different fields and seeing what happens. But if you are worried about publishing paper after paper as quickly as you can, that leaves a lot less time to read deeply and to think about some of the big problems that might lead to these disruptive breakthroughs."
Understanding the decline in disruptive science and technology more fully permits a much-needed rethinking of strategies for organizing the production of science and technology in the future, the authors argue. ®
Get our [12]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05543-x
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2Y7atzacykDgCNYUUGwH5RgAAAFA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://home.kpmg/uk/en/home/misc/board-leadership-centre/emerging-and-disruptive-technology.html
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Y7atzacykDgCNYUUGwH5RgAAAFA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Y7atzacykDgCNYUUGwH5RgAAAFA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/two-decades-digital-disruption-just-getting-started-gopalakrishnan/
[7] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Y7atzacykDgCNYUUGwH5RgAAAFA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2022/12/22/perseverance_sample_tube_drop_nasa/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2022/12/20/uk_hydrogen_report/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2022/12/14/nuclear_fusion_doe/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2022/12/29/tsmc_3nm_production_taiwan/
[12] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Way finder
Disruptive means something finding a loophole in the regulations and generating abnormal profits until the government realises something is wrong and tries to regulate it.
The key thing is to generate so much profit while you can, so that then you have enough money to stuff brown envelopes and ensure any regulation government does will be effectively a ladder pull, so that your business doesn't get killed, but others won't be able to start or won't be able to make as much profit as you could.
Re: Way finder
Not that there's any point, but disruptive generally means the opposite of that.
To pick a random example, think terrestrial TV being crap and only having to compete with each other and then Sky comes along and starts offering more. It makes everybody better off because now even non-sky customers benefit from the increased competition the likes of ITV are under. ITV et al have to produce better programming because otherwise people will subscribe to Sky. Because Sky have disrupted the market.
Wealth isn't how much money you have or your income, it's your consumption power. If the quality of ( in this case ) TV increases then you are ever so slightly richer. All thanks to the market being disrupted.
Although let's stick with the status quo. Destroy the textile machinery. There must be no change.
Fine you don't like Uber, but that doesn't mean that all disruption is bad. The brown envelopes and ladder pulling comments are just nonsense.
Large companies and the like like a moat - they like not competing. They like regulations because regulations are expensive and startups don't have as much capacity to abide by onerous regulations. Regulations designed to prevent disruption are for the most part bad.
Also the funding for research is very heavily based on quick results that can be commercially exploited in 2-3 years time. Academics have very little hope of getting real blue-sky funding for novel or unknown prospect ides.
Another factor that is often missed is the return rate on grant applications is depressingly low, many academics spend most of their time applying for funds, many of which are small (as in £50k-ish) and some cases you only see 5-10% return rate so a week or so applying for each is not actually paying their salary + overheads.
Garbage in
Garbage out
“I Like Money” - Frito
Who needs disruptive tech and science, ...
... when there's plenty of deceptive tech and science to go around?