Ripe for disruption 科学颠覆性已达巅峰The changing nature of science：Ripe fo
r disruption?Papers and patents are becoming less challenging of
orthodoxy科学的变化本质：科学颠覆性已达巅峰？论文和专利的正统挑战性正削弱Ripe for disruption 科
学颠覆性已达巅峰【1】“Ideas are like rabbits,” John Steinbeck said. “You ge
t a couple and learn how to handle them, and pretty soon you have
a dozen.” Scientific and technological progress is often viewed
in this way. Current ideas build on previous ones. And ideas, alo
ng with papers and patents, have indeed proliferated in the recen
t past.“想法犹如兔子，”约翰·斯坦贝克（John Steinbeck）说。“如果你有一对，学会如何处理它们，很快你就能拥有
一打。”人们常常这样看待科学和技术进步。当前的想法建立在以前的想法之上。而想法，连同论文和专利的数量，最近确实在激增。Ripe f
or disruption 科学颠覆性已达巅峰【2】Yet despite—or perhaps because of—th
isproductivity (papers published and patents issued each year now
number in the millions), it has been documented that innovation
within specific fields has been in decline. 然而，尽管拥有——亦或是因为拥有——这种生
产效率（现在每年发表的论文和专利数量达到数百万），但是记录表明，特定领域的创新水平却一直在下降。Ripe for disrupti
on 科学颠覆性已达巅峰For example, a paper titled “Science in the age of
selfies”, published in 2016, warned of a shifting incentiveand i
nformation landscape in biology, particularly neuroscience, that
has diluted the number of high impact discoveries. 例如，2016年发表的一篇题
为《自拍时代的科学》的论文为人们敲醒警钟，生物学（尤其是神经科学）的激励和信息格局正在发生变化，降低了高影响力发现的数量。Ripe
for disruption 科学颠覆性已达巅峰【3】Michael Park and Russell Funk of t
he University of Minnesota, and Erin Leahey of the University of
Arizona, have set out to determine whether this decline holds for
science and technology in general. In a study published this wee
k in Nature they analyse 45m papers and 3.9m patents published an
d filed between 1945 and 2010.明尼苏达大学的迈克尔·帕克（Michael Park）和拉塞尔·芬克（
Russell Funk），以及亚利桑那大学的艾琳·利希（Erin Leahey），已经着手验证这种下降趋势是否在科技领域具有普遍
性。在本周《自然》杂志上发表的一项研究中，他们分析了1945年至2010年间发表和申请的4500万篇论文和390万项专利。Ripe
for disruption 科学颠覆性已达巅峰【4】The measurement they use for this
work, known as the CD index, quantifies how “consolidating” or “d
isruptive” each paper or patent is. A paper is consolidating (a l
ow CD score) if later work citing it also cites the papers that i
t, itself, cited. discoveries and inventions of this sort—like a
patent awarded in 2005 for genetically modified soyabeans—serve t
o propel science forward along its existing trajectory.他们在这项工作中使用
的测量方法被称为CD指数，量化了每篇论文或专利的“巩固性”或“颠覆性”。如果一篇论文被后期论文所引用，与此同时后期论文也引用了该论
文的引用内容，那么这篇论文就属于巩固性论文（CD值低）。这类发现和发明——比如2005年的转基因大豆授奖专利——有助于推动科学沿着
现有轨迹向前发展。Ripe for disruption 科学颠覆性已达巅峰By contrast, a paper is
disruptive (a high CD score) if it is cited by later work in the
absence of citations of its predecessors. A classic example of th
at was the study published in 1953 by James Watsonand Francis Cri
ck on the double-helical structure of DNA. High CD papers disrupt
and Francis Crick on the double-helical structure of the status
quo, fundamentally altering a field’s trajectory or creating a ne
w field altogether.相比之下，如果一篇论文没有引用前人的论文，但是却被后来的论文引用，那么这一篇论文是颠覆性的（
CD值高）。一个经典的例子是詹姆斯·沃森（James Watson）和弗朗西斯·克里克（Francis Crick）在1953年发
表的关于DNA双螺旋结构的研究。高CD值的论文打破现状，从根本上改变一个领域的发展轨迹，或者完全创造一个新的领域。Ripe for
disruption 科学颠覆性已达巅峰【5】Both consolidating and disruptive work
are needed for scientific progress, of course, but science now s
eems to favour the former over the latter in a potentially unheal
thy way. Mr Park and Drs Leahey and Funk found that the average C
D score for papers has fallen by between 92% and 100% since 1945
(see chart), and for patents between 79% and 92%. These declines
are not mere artefacts of changing publication, citation or autho
rship practices; the researchers controlled for that. Why, then,
has science become less disruptive?当然，巩固性成果和颠覆性成果都是科学进步的需求，但现在科学似
乎出现了一种不健康的倾向，偏向前者而非后者。帕克先生、利希博士和芬克博士发现，自1945年以来，论文的平均CD值下降了92%到10
0%（见图表），专利的平均CD值下降了79%到92%。这些下降不仅仅局限于人为因素：出版、引用或作者惯例变化，研究人员控制了这些变
量。那么，为什么科学变得不再具有颠覆性了呢?Ripe for disruption 科学颠覆性已达巅峰【6】One hypo
thesis is the low hanging fruit theory—that all the easy findings
have been plucked from the branches of the tree of knowledge. If
true, this would predict different fields would have different r
ates of decline in disruption, given that they are at different s
tages of maturity. But that is not the case.The decline the resea
rchers found was comparable in all big fields of science and tech
nology.一种猜测是“唾手可得的成果”理论，即所有简单的发现都是从知识树的枝丫上摘得的。如果这是真的，考虑到不同领域处于不同的
成熟阶段，那么应该猜测不同领域的颠覆性下降速度也会有所不同。但事实并非如此。研究人员发现，所有科技的重要相关领域降幅都旗鼓相当。R
ipe for disruption 科学颠覆性已达巅峰【7】Another idea is that the declin
e in disruptiveness stems from one in the quality of published wo
rk. To test this, the researchers looked at two specific categori
es: papers in premier publications and Nobel prizewinning discove
ries. “If there were a pocket of science where the quality might
have declined less, or hasn’t declined,” said Mr Park, “it would
be in those places.” But the downward trend persisted there, too.
另一种观点认为，颠覆性成果的下降源于公开作品质量的下降。为了验证这一点，研究人员研究了两个特定的类别：主要出版物上的论文和获得诺贝
尔奖的发现。帕克先生表示：“如果一个科学领域，其质量下降得少一些，或者没有下降，那么这些领域应该有所体现。”但这些领域下降趋势却是
依旧存在。Ripe for disruption 科学颠覆性已达巅峰【8】A more likely reason for
the change, the researchers argue, is that scientists and invento
rs are producing work based on narrower foundations. They found t
hat citing older work, citing one’s own work, and citing less div
erse work all correlate with less disruption.研究人员认为，这种变化的更靠谱原因是，科
学家和发明家的工作领域前鉴基础薄弱。他们发现，引用以前的成果，引用自己的成果，以及引用多样性略弱的成果，都与颠覆性下降有所关联。R
ipe for disruption 科学颠覆性已达巅峰 As the amount of published scienc
e grows, the effort required to master a pool of knowledge that i
s both deepening and narrowing as the years roll by may inhibit t
he ability to formcreative connections between disparate fields.
Here is an argument for the rebirth of the renaissance human.随着发表
的科学论文数量增长，掌握一个随着时间的推移而不断深化和缩小的知识库需要的努力，可能会抑制在不同领域之间形成创造性联系的能力。文艺复
兴时期人类的重生便是一个论据。Ripe for disruption 科学颠覆性已达巅峰【9】Mr Park maintai
ns there is room for optimism. Though the average disruptiveness
of discoveries has declined, the number of “highly disruptive” on
es has remained constant. Humanity does not appear to be reaching
the end of science.帕克先生认为应该继续保持乐观。尽管发现的平均颠覆性已经下降，但具有“高度颠覆性”发现的数量
保持不变。人类似乎还没有到达科学的终点。Ripe for disruption 科学颠覆性已达巅峰 Albert Miche
lson, winner of the 1907 Nobel prize in physics for his work on t
he immutability of the speed of light, which underlay Albert Eins
tein’s special theory of relativity, is as wrong now as he was in 1894, when he said that it was “probable that most of the grand underlying principles have been firmly established”.阿尔伯特迈克尔逊（Albert Michelson）凭借光速不变性的研究获得1907年诺贝尔物理学奖，该理论奠定了阿尔伯特爱因斯坦Albert Einstein）的狭义相对论基础。他现在的错误和1894年一样，当时他曾表示，“可能大多数伟大的基本原理都已牢固确立完毕”。想要获取视频文章PPT、PDF、Word版本的朋友 可以私信up主感谢观看记得按时打卡Ripe for disruption 科学颠覆性已达巅峰 |
|
