Always，Basic theory of scientific and technological changes believes，Discovery and invention is an endogenous process，The previous accumulated knowledge makes future progress possible。In the past half a century,，New scientific and technological knowledge is exponentially increased，Create mature conditions for major progress。But，Some studies found，Innovation speed and research productivity are declining，The driving force of scientific and technological progress on economic growth has also weakened。For this，A variety of explanations of the academic community。For example，"Fruit of Low" was taken out -the innovation of capable of rapid improvement of productivity has been released;、The requirements of the education level are "rising and high" with the accumulation of knowledge "。There are also scholars adopting quantitative methods，Inquiry The reasons for the weakening of disruptive research、range and degree。Current，What level is the innovative and breakthrough of scientific research in the world，Is there a trend of slowing development? What are the factors and mechanisms that decide or affect scientific research to make breakthrough progress?。

　　Bet365 app download

The British "Nature" magazine published the Associate Professor Russell Funk (Russell Funk), an associate professor at the University of Marson Management, the University of Minnesota、Michael Park, a doctoral student, and Erin Leah, a professor at the University of Arizona Socialion School of Social College, "The disruptability of the dissertation and patent in the patent over time"。This article is called，Paper and patent breakthroughs published in the mid -20th century after the mid -20th century、The possibility of pushing science and technology in the new direction is getting smaller and smaller。

The samples of this study are divided into papers and patent groups。The thesis group includes 24659076 scientific research papers included in the scientific literature quotation database "Science Network" (published in 1945-2010); the patent group includes 3912,353 patents included in the U.S. Patent and Trademark "Visualization Patent" database (1976 - Published in 2010)。Fink and others also use other data sources to verify their core discovery，Including digital library "Journal Storage"、The Corgal Library of the American Institute of Physics、Microsoft academic map、Biomedical and Life Science Literature search engine "Public Medicine"。

First，Fink and others based on the traditional scientific and technological change theory，Differential scientific research results of "consolidation" and "subversive" nature。Consolidation results improve existing knowledge、Consolidate the status quo，For example, the Austrian American theoretical physicist、The theoretical chemist Walter Kohn and the "Cohen -Shen equations" founded by Chinese American physicist Shen Lujiu; subversive results disrupting and eliminating existing knowledge，Drived science and technology move towards a new direction，For example, American bet365 live casino games biologists、Genetics James Dewey Watson and British biologists、Biological physicist Francis Crick found out of the deoxyrum ribosacuucleic acid (DNA) dual spiral structure。

Next，Fink and others use the "Consolidation of the Subversion Index" (CD Index) to classify the sample。Their thinking is，Set a paper or a patent as P，If P is consolidation，Quoting P's subsequent research is more likely to also quote the previous research，Because of the knowledge involved; if P is disruptive，Quoting P's follow -up research is unlikely to reference the previous research，Due to the weaker correlation before and after knowledge。The range of consolidating the subversion index is -1 to 1，The higher the index, the stronger the more disruptive，The lower the index, the stronger the consolidation。Finke and others calculated each paper and the 5th year of the 5th year after each patent was published "CD5"，and the CD5 is not less than 0.25 as a sign that is highly subversive。For example，Kon-The CD5 of Shen equation is -0.22，DNA dual spiral structure CD5 is 0.62，Therefore, the latter belongs to strong disruptive research。

　　The subversion of social science and natural sciences is weakened

Calculation results display，1945，The average CD5 average of the papers of social sciences is reduced from 0.52 to 0.04，decrease of 91.9%; the average CD5 average of natural science papers is reduced from 0.36 to 0，Decrease to 100%。1980，The average CD5 average of the patent in the computer and communication field is reduced from 0.30 to 0.06，decreased by 78.7%; the average CD5 average of patents in the field of pharmaceuticals was reduced from 0.38 to 0.03，drop to 91.5%。Whether it is the paper or a patent，Its disruptability has decreased faster during the earlier stage of the study coverage; the disruptability of patents starts from 2000-2005。Overall，Since the second half of the 20th century，The disruptability of the dissertations and patents in various scientific research fields is weakened。

The weakening of subversive research is also reflected at the language level。Finke and others calculated the title and patent title and the "rune -shaped symbol ratio" of the patent and abstract (the ratio of the original word to all words)。1945，The symbol ratio of the thesis title in different fields decreased by 76.5%-88%; 1980-2010，The rune ratio of patent title in different fields decreased by 32.5%-81%。1992，The classic symbol ratio of the thesis abstract decreases by 23.1%-38.9%(data before 1992 is unavailable); 1980-2010，Patent summary class symbol ratio decreases by 21.5%-73.2%。Fink and others also found，More and more patent authors used in the title of past research title in your own title。

Apart from the diversity and novelty of words，The changes in the use of specific meaning words also reflect the weakening of scientific disruptability。Patients published in 1950 and 2010 and patents released in 1980 and 2010，You can see，expression creation、Discover、A reduction of words of new things，expression improvement、Application、Evaluate words to evaluate existing knowledge。

In order to judge the weakening of disruptive research is a relative significance or an absolute sense，Fink and others divided all samples of bet365 live casino games CD5 into 5 intervals (0 below 0、0-0.25、0.25-0.5、0.5-0.75、0.75-1)，and detailed analysis of samples with CD5 not less than 0。Results show，During this research coverage，Although the total number of thesis and patent increases，But the increase is mainly from the 0-0.25 range，CD5 papers and the number of patents higher than 0.25 have not changed significantly。This means，The absolute number of subversive research is generally unchanged。but but，The distribution of disruptive studies in different fields changes over time。For example，There are many disruptive papers in the field of life sciences, but it has reducing the trend，Undverted papers in the technical field increase; decreased subversive patent in the chemical and machinery field，A subversive patent increase in the computer field。

　　"Burders of Knowledge" affects the obtained of disruptive research results

Fink and others explored the causes of the above phenomenon from several aspects。First，Similar descriptions of the dissertation of the dissertation of each field and the weakened patent disruptability，The explanatory explanation of "low -drooping fruits is picked" -"low fruit" in all fields is in the same period、The possibility of being "picked" at a similar speed。Further calculation display，Specific factors in the field have a small impact on dissertation and patent disruptability;，The author's influence is even greater。For researchers who enter a certain field late，"Burders of Knowledge" may be heavier，Specialization of academic training is higher，So，They carry out their own research based on more limited existing knowledge，It's more difficult to get subversive results。

Next，Finke and others analyzed and found，A decline in the quality of disruptive research and the quality of science and technology、Study data features or features of consolidating the subversion index，and academic publishing、There are no obvious correlations such as changes in reference and signature methods。

Last，Fink and others use the diversity of research、Self -reference average、The three agency indicators of the average "age" were quoted，The relationship between knowledge growth and scientific research has been examined，Get three key discoveries。The first is a reduction in diversity of research，This explanation thesis and patent authors use the scope of existing knowledge to reduce。and，Study of the first 1%of the reference rate is not only cited more and more，Their semantic diversity is also decreasing。In other words，The paper and patent authors are increasingly cited the same existing research，The theme of the existing research is getting similar。Second, the average value of self -reference rises，This also explains that papers and patent authors are increasingly relying on very familiar knowledge。Third, the average "age" increased by the cited research。This indicator is usually used to measure the use of old knowledge，Its upward description Thesis and patent authors may be difficult to keep up with the speed of knowledge expansion，but rely on more old、More familiar knowledge。These three points indicate，Thesis and patent are based on more limited existing knowledge。Return model Bet365 lotto review analysis display，Revisiting the scope of the research、Self -reference increase、The increase in references to old research is negatively negatively related to scientific disruptability。

Comprehensive analysis above，Fink and others speculate，Even if "knowledge growth is a endogenous process" may be correct，It also requires scientists to expose existing knowledge; and as the total knowledge expands，This is more difficult to do，Because scientific researchers need to improve the degree of specialization to achieve career development。Based on Lichi's research "Not only is determined by productivity: visibility and specialization of specialization to academic income"，High -level scientific researchers have higher productivity，and higher productivity can increase visibility or visibility，The latter has a direct salary、A significant positive influence。

　Adjusting the scientific research incentive mechanism can accelerate disruptive research

Mikko Packalen, associate professor of economics at the University of Waterloo University in Canada, told this reporter，Scientists naturally regard science as a cumulative process，Today's scientific research activities benefited from the thought left by the predecessors、Tools and methods。Many components of the scientific research system -Journal、academic group、Academic institutions were founded in the past 400 years，Gradually enriched the historical memory of scientific achievements in the past，strengthened the accumulation of scientific discovery。mid -20th century，Quotations for academic journals are introduced，People can be faster、Clearly quantify the impact of each study on subsequent research。Now，Quotation measurement is everywhere，The cumulative level of scientific research activities is very convenient (although not perfect)。This drive makes more and more researchers engaged in accumulated consolidation research，Undverted research is not so favored because it is not easy to be quantified。

Professor Brian T. Kelly, a professor of finance at Yale University in the United States、Dimitris Papanikolaou, a professor of finance at Northwestern University of the United States, and others published in the "Metropolitan Technical Innovation" in 2021.，Analysis of 1840 American government、Non -profit institutions、Patent documents submitted by listed companies and non -listed companies。According to this research，The difference between the current era is: past，Undverted innovation is found in many different technical fields; today，A disruptive innovation is almost all from the field of computers and digital technology。That is to say，The scope of technical breakthrough narrowing。

Park Allen said，A common explanation of the weakened scientific disruptability is that most of the major scientific mysteries have been revealed，It is difficult for people to produce more disruptive innovation。This "stagnation theory" is popular，But it may be wrong。History，Many famous scientists think that human beings have cracked all important scientific puzzles，Scientific and technological progress will inevitably stagnate; however,，Every time，Scientific pessimism will soon be proven to be wrong。Science and technology development bet365 Play online games may naturally have periodicity，But considering that many investment scale in many scientific research areas today，Perhaps this cycle should be shorter，Avantageous innovation area distribution should be wider。

From Parker Allen，The changes in the scientific research incentive mechanism have led to the "decline" of disruptive innovation; consolidation research is more attractive to today's scientists than a more disruptive study of risks，This is largely due to evaluation of scientific research on the reference situation。Under such an incentive effect，The best strategy for making your research more reference to enhance the "performance" of scientific research is，Join of many research areas。This also means that the scientific community can accelerate disruptive research by adjusting the incentive mechanism。For example，Start to measure aspects other than "reference impact"，Especially the innovation of research，This can be implemented with text analysis and machine learning algorithms conveniently now。

Park Allen Special Reminder，"Subversion" should not be the only goal of scientific research。Healthy scientific system includes three types of studies: the first category is exploratory research in the strict sense，Explore a new scientific direction，Most of these studies end in failure。The second category is breakthrough、Undverted research，Very few exploratory studies have finally been found to be found out after many years of seemingly fruitful exploration。The third category is gradual、Consolidation Study，That is breakthrough、Development of subversive research，This kind of research brings rich application results in one or more scientific research fields。

Therefore，How is the core challenge faced by policy makers to promote these three types of studies at the same time。If you do not provide funds for a lot of exploratory research，It is impossible to generate progressive、Consolidation Study。Since the start of scientific research evaluation, emphasizing reference measurement，Scientific research funding institutions and college managers systematically ignored the benefits of exploratory research，This has caused the current scientific "drought"。Scientific research funders and managers cannot only pay attention to measuring the scientific output level (the number of thesis publications、Cited number of times, etc.)，It should also measure the level of science (whether a study is committed to exploring new scientific directions)。

　　Balance of "Consolidation" and "Subvert"

John Van Reenn, a professor of economics at the School of Economics, London, Britain, told this reporter，New scientific thoughts are endogenous on the basis of old ideas，This view has been popular for hundreds of years。It meets people's intuition，It is also confirmed by data。According to standard endogenous growth theory，When the number of scientific researchers is fixed，The economic growth rate is also fixed。This can be represented by a simple equation: economic growth rate = scientific research productivity × number of scientific researchers。But，Reality is not so simple: when the amount of knowledge increases，People have a longer learning time，It's hard to find new ideas、Get subversive results，You need to continue to increase the investment in scientific research to offset the decline in scientific research productivity。

bet365 best casino games Nicholas Bloom, a professor at economics at Lean and Stanford University in the United States (Nicholas Bloom)、Charles I. Jones and others published in 2020. "Is new ideas increasingly difficult to find? "Mentioned，Examine multiple industries、Products and enterprises later discovered，1971-2014 US scientific research productivity decreased by 5.3%per year; if you want to maintain the same economic growth rate，The number of effective scientific researchers (not limited to academic circles) every 13 years will be doubled。but but，Lei Nan thinks，The scientific community can still take some measures to promote disruptive research，For example，Increase resource support for innovative activities; encourage benign competition; encourage scientific researchers to flow freely between different institutions and countries; give disruptive research in scientific research funding。

Professor John P. Walsh, a professor at the School of Public Policy of Georgia Institute of Technology, told this reporter，"Standing on the shoulders of the giant" is a recognized view of scientific and technological progress for a long time。In his opinion，One of the key reasons for the weakened scientific disruptability may be，Whether in a country or in different countries，Researchers mainly engaged in consolidated research have increased。This can explain why the absolute number of strong disruptive research changes greatly，The proportion of all studies is reduced。

Walsh proposed，It is not advisable to give a high value for disruptive research。First，The weakening of scientific disruptability is really a "problem"，Unclear，This may also be a sign of the maturity of the scientific system -scientific researchers will use more energy to explore the possible impact of specific research directions，instead of exploring new directions。Next，In the study of Furnke et al.，The papers and the CD5 curve of the patent fell sharply.，gradually eased in the later period; this seems to indicate that the disruptability has stopped，New balance achieves。Determine whether this is a good thing，You need to consider the return of different types of research track，Consolidation research has also brought many very important scientific discoveries。

Walsh is not sure to vigorously promote subversive research is wise。Ensuring the balance between "consolidation" and "subversion" may be more beneficial to the development of science and technology，Extracting high value to "subversion" may allow people to deviate from scientific research and technical paths that can bring practical return。"Some media reports interpreted the discovery of Fink and others as a problem that needs to be solved by changes，I don’t look at it like this，No clear evidence indicates that the proportion of improving strong disruptive research will be better。"Walsh said，Consolidation research promotes the forward field of existing fields，Undverted research opens up new roads，constantly changing the road may interfere with people on the current road。So，Compared to constantly exploring new directions、Ignore the meaning and influence of the existing discovery，Moderate "subversion" of the scientific system may be more desirable。

　Artificial intelligence can not lead to disruptive research

Recent，Chatgpt and other powerful new generation bet365 Play online games of artificial intelligence has attracted the strong interests of the scientific community and the general public。Will artificial intelligence's flourishing and popular applications caused subversive research?

Park thinks，Thought generation determines the subversive level of a study。Artificial intelligence may help improve the efficiency of certain scientific research processes，For example, review、Data analysis、Writing，But the ideological generation will still be the mission of human beings。

Wallsh's view is，Artificial intelligence may boost consolidation research，Because many artificial intelligence algorithms are essentially based on existing models。but but，Maybe you can help people find disruptive research ideas by writing algorithms that pay attention to disruptiveness。Is it useful to do this，It needs future observation。Lei Nan talks，The potential of subversive research with artificial intelligence output is considerable，But it's too early now。Many emerging technologies are initially seen that it is revolutionary，But it may take a long time to truly have an impact。

Parker Allen called，ChatGPT and other artificial intelligence make the public fascinated because they can not only generate new texts，Similar to human works。Since existing artificial intelligence is a text based on human creation、code and other training，Their "creativity" will not deviate greatly from the facts and viewpoints of human works。Before artificial intelligence can propose and test the new assumptions，Unlikely to stimulate a lot of disruptive innovation。but but，Artificial intelligence may help subversive research from another aspect: if consolidation research can be completed or all in the future，It will force human scientists to devote energy to their more advantageous activities -a new、Breakthrough exploration。