来源：《经济学人》
原文见刊日期：2023年1月7日
Though 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. For example, a paper titled “Science in the age of selfies” warned of a shifting incentive and information landscape in biology, particularly neuroscience, that has diluted the number of high-impact discoveries.
尽管现在每年发表的论文和颁发的专利数量达到数百万，但有证据表明，特定领域的创新一直在下降。例如，一篇题为《自拍时代的科学》的论文警告说，生物学(尤其是神经科学)的激励和信息格局正在发生变化，这稀释了高影响力发现的数量。
Michael Park and Russell Funk of the 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 they analyse 45m papers and 3.9m patents published and filed between 1945 and 2010.
明尼苏达大学的迈克尔·帕克和拉塞尔·芬克，以及亚利桑那大学的艾琳·利希，已经着手确定这种下降是否适用于一般的科学技术。在一项研究中，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。
The measurement they use for this work, known as the CD index, quantifies how “consolidating” or “disruptive” each paper or patent is. A paper is consolidating (a low CD score) if later work citing it also cites the papers that it, itself, cited. Discoveries and inventions of this sort—like a patent awarded in 2005 for genetically modified soyabeans—serve to propel science forward along its existing trajectory. 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 that was the study published in 1953 by James Watson and Francis Crick on the double-helical structure of DNA. High CD papers disrupt the status quo, fundamentally altering a field’s trajectory or creating a new field altogether.
他们在这项工作中使用的衡量标准，称为CD指数，量化了每篇论文或每个专利的“巩固性”或“颠覆性”程度。如果一篇论文被后来的论文引用，但后来的论文也引用了这篇论文引用的论文，那么这篇论文就是巩固性的（低CD分值）。这类发现和发明，如2005年授予的转基因大豆专利，有助于推动科学沿着现有轨道前进。相比之下，如果一篇论文被后来的论文引用，但后来的论文没有引用这篇论文引用的论文，那么这篇论文就具有颠覆性（高CD分值）。一个经典的例子是詹姆斯·沃森和弗朗西斯·克里克于1953年发表的关于DNA双螺旋结构的研究。高CD值论文打破了现状，从根本上改变了一个领域的发展轨迹，或者完全创造了一个新的领域。
Both consolidating and disruptive work are needed for scientific progress, of course, but science now seems to favour the former over the latter in a potentially unhealthy way. The three researchers found that the average CD score for papers has fallen by between 92% and 100% since 1945, and for patents between 79% and 92%. Why, then, has science become less disruptive?
当然，科学进步既需要巩固性工作，也需要颠覆性工作，但现在科学似乎以一种可能不健康的方式偏向前者而非后者。三位研究人员发现，自1945年以来，论文的平均CD评分下降了92%至100%，专利的平均CD得分下降了79%至92%。那么，为什么科学的颠覆性降低了？
The reason for the change, the researchers argue, is that scientists and inventors are producing work based on narrower foundations. They found that citing older work, citing one’s own work, and citing less diverse work all correlate with less disruption. As the amount of published science grows, the effort required to master a pool of knowledge that is both deepening and narrowing as the years roll by may inhibit the ability to form creative connections between disparate fields.
研究人员认为，这一变化的原因是科学家和发明家在更窄的基础上进行工作。他们发现，引用老论文、引用自己的论文以及引用不太多样化的论文都会减少颠覆性。随着发表的科学论文数量的增长，掌握一个随着时间的推移而不断深化和缩小的知识池所需要的努力，可能会抑制在不同领域之间形成创造性联系的能力。
Mr Park maintains there is room for optimism. Though the average disruptiveness of discoveries has declined, the number of “highly disruptive” ones has remained constant. Humanity does not appear to be reaching the end of science. Albert Michelson, winner of the 1907 Nobel prize in physics for his work on the immutability of the speed of light, which underlay Albert Einstein’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”.
帕克坚持认为有乐观的空间。尽管新发现的平均颠覆性已经下降，但“高度颠覆性”发现的数量保持不变。人类似乎还没有达到科学的终点。阿尔伯特·迈克尔逊，因其在光速不变性方面的工作而获得1907年诺贝尔物理学奖，这是阿尔伯特·爱因斯坦的狭义相对论的基础，但现在发现这个原理是错误的，就像他在1894年犯得错误一样，当时他说“很可能大部分重大的基本原理都已牢固确立”。