Is Disruptive Science in Decline?

I have always loved the idea of disruptive science—breakthroughs in our understanding that fundamentally alter how we perceive the world, transforming our established disciplines. However, it can be hard to define. Perhaps the best description is that, unlike standard, everyday incremental advances, disruptive science challenges existing paradigms, often introducing new ways of thinking, experimenting, or applying knowledge [1]. These breakthroughs may initially face scepticism or resistance, as they tend to challenge long-held beliefs or traditional methodologies [2].

Historical examples of disruptive science might include Copernicus's heliocentric model, which overturned centuries of geocentric thinking, and Einstein's theory of relativity, which redefined classical physics. In modern times, technologies like CRISPR gene editing [3] and quantum computing [4] represent disruptive scientific innovations with the potential to reshape entire industries. As a kid, James Burke's television series "Connections" helped me understand how disruptive science often emerges at the intersection of disciplines or from persistent questioning of accepted norms [5]. It thrives in environments that support creativity, tolerate uncertainty, and encourage exploration beyond conventional boundaries. Importantly, it doesn't just advance knowledge, it often redefines the goals and methods of research itself.

I have always felt that to truly engage with science, it is the scientist's responsibility to embrace a host of other disciplines, particularly the arts, to be ready to make these 'connections.' It is also incumbent on us to appreciate that disruptive discoveries often take time to gain traction; their long-term impact can be profound, opening up new fields of study, influencing policy, and reshaping society. Sadly, despite a lifetime spent in her service, I have yet to experience that "Eureka!" moment. Nevertheless, in a rapidly evolving world, I am satisfied that being able to support disruptive science is essential for driving innovation, addressing complex global challenges, and inspiring the next generation of thinkers and explorers [6]. However, recent analyses suggest a concerning trend: while the volume of scientific output has surged, the frequency of truly disruptive discoveries appears to be diminishing [7].

The Evidence: Declining Disruption Amidst Rising Output

In a comprehensive study published in Nature, researchers Michael Park, Erin Leahey, and Russell J. Funk analysed millions of scientific papers and patents spanning several decades [7]. Their findings indicate that, although the total number of publications has increased exponentially, the proportion of works that significantly disrupt existing paradigms has decreased. This suggests that contemporary research is more inclined toward incremental advancements rather than revolutionary breakthroughs.

Similarly, in the realm of technology, sustaining the pace of innovation has become increasingly resource-intensive. A study by economists highlighted that maintaining Moore's Law—the principle that the number of transistors on a microchip doubles approximately every two years—now requires 18 times more researchers than it did in the 1970s [8]. This indicates a significant decline in research productivity, where more effort yields proportionally fewer ground-breaking results.

It might be argued that the sheer volume of work being reported is not only diluting the seminal advances but also serving as a barrier to 'making connections' by making it almost impossible for one brain to hold and process the amount of information needed to achieve Eureka! Similarly, the speed at which work is being produced is giving little or no time for deeper reflection.

Why Is Disruptive Science Waning?

Some might argue that early scientific endeavours often tackled more accessible problems, leading to rapid and significant discoveries. As these foundational issues have been addressed, remaining challenges are inherently more complex, requiring sophisticated tools, interdisciplinary approaches, and extended timeframes. However, this appears to ignore Burke's defining point, captured by physicist Freeman Dyson, who observes in his book 'Imagined Worlds' how scientific theories and engineering practice are deeply intertwined [9]. He emphasizes that major scientific revolutions, such as the development of quantum mechanics or space exploration, have often relied on parallel advancements in experimental tools and engineering technologies. He argues that the capacity to measure, observe, and manipulate the physical world with precision is often a prerequisite for new scientific understanding. This is echoed by Perrow, who discusses how technological systems both enable and constrain scientific progress [10]. He outlines how complex engineering systems, such as those in nuclear power or aerospace, not only benefit from scientific knowledge but also provide platforms that drive new discovery. There is no doubt that we have seen an explosion in the field of machine learning and artificial intelligence, and I suspect this will create a fundamental shift in human progress [11].

Modern research is frequently influenced by funding agencies and institutional priorities that favour predictable, short-term outcomes over high-risk, high-reward projects. This risk-averse culture can discourage innovative thinking and prioritize quantity over quality in publications. In his seminal work, Alvin Weinberg discusses how fundamental scientific advances frequently arise from basic research, what he terms ‘Big Science,’ often pursued in universities and national laboratories. He emphasizes that many ground-breaking discoveries (e.g., quantum mechanics, nuclear physics, molecular biology) originated from curiosity-driven research, not from targeted industrial R&D [12]. The historic report by Vannevar Bush laid the foundation for modern science policy in the United States. He argued that government investment in basic research, untethered to immediate practical outcomes, is essential for long-term innovation and national progress [13]. This document led to the creation of the National Science Foundation (NSF) and remains the cornerstone of arguments supporting grant-funded academic research. More recently, research provided empirical and conceptual evidence that publicly funded, curiosity-driven research produces wide-ranging societal and technological benefits—often years or decades later [14].

All this raises concerns over the destruction that the Trump administration has brought to the funding and conduct of research in the USA [15]. It is clear we will be feeling the consequences of these latter-day Luddites for decades to come.

Irrespective of Trump, in recent years there has been a clear trend for academic grants—particularly large, government-funded ones—to increasingly align with the ethos of "Big Science." This refers to large-scale, collaborative research projects that require substantial infrastructure, interdisciplinary teams, and often long timelines. While such investments can yield transformative discoveries (e.g., the Human Genome Project, CERN's Large Hadron Collider, or space telescopes like JWST), this trend has both advantages and drawbacks [16][17]. While collaboration can enhance research quality, large teams may inadvertently suppress radical ideas due to the need for consensus. Smaller, more agile groups might be better positioned to pursue unconventional hypotheses that challenge established norms. This tension is often discussed in science policy literature. For instance, Martin and Tang highlight how publicly funded research systems are drifting toward accountability and demonstrable outcomes, sometimes at the expense of the unpredictable, long-horizon impact of basic research [14].

The consequence of increasing demands for output and metrics to measure the 'benefits' of research has driven the industry of academic publishing [18]. The "publish or perish" mentality prevalent in academia emphasizes frequent publication, often at the expense of pursuing ambitious projects that require longer development times. In addition, peer review processes may favour established methodologies, making it harder for novel approaches to gain acceptance. The literature documents numerous cases where Nobel Prize-winning research was initially rejected or resisted by peer-reviewed journals, highlighting the inertia and conservatism of the peer review system, especially when faced with work that challenges prevailing paradigms [2][19]. Similarly, the NIH peer review process appears to inherently favour safe, incremental science, and this serves to often disadvantage high-risk, high-reward proposals—particularly those that deviate from established methods or come from less well-known investigators [20].

It seems that we are our own worst enemy. Is anyone else amazed at how some of our greatest authors predicted our current predicament? In Mary Shelley's seminal Gothic novel, Victor Frankenstein's ambition to conquer nature through science ultimately leads to ruin, not only for himself but for those around him. The creature he creates is not inherently evil but becomes destructive due to rejection and isolation. Shelley's novel is often interpreted as a warning about human hubris and the misuse of knowledge. In 'Brave New World,' Huxley portrays a highly engineered society that sacrifices individuality, emotion, and critical thought for the sake of stability and pleasure. In doing so, humanity limits its own potential, choosing comfort over truth and control over freedom. The novel critiques how mankind can become complicit in its own stagnation through technological and political complacency. And then, Orwell's depiction of a totalitarian state in '1984' illustrates how power structures manipulate truth and suppress innovation, preventing human progress. It is a stark portrayal of how fear, authoritarianism, and conformity can hold back the collective evolution of society.

Consequences

The decline in disruptive science has far-reaching implications. In the pharmaceutical industry, for instance, the number of new drugs approved per billion dollars of R&D spending has halved approximately every nine years since 1950. This trend, often referred to as "Eroom's Law" (the reverse of Moore's Law), underscores the increasing difficulty and cost of achieving significant medical breakthroughs [21]. And yet, recent data indicates a notable decline in investment within the pharmaceutical industry, driven by a combination of economic pressures, regulatory changes, and strategic shifts by major companies. In 2023, the pharmaceutical and biotech sectors faced a challenging investment landscape. Early-stage biotech firms struggled to secure funding, leading to a significant decrease in initial public offerings and a cautious approach from investors [22]. This hesitancy was influenced by global economic instability, including geopolitical tensions and the residual effects of the pandemic. Companies found it increasingly difficult to justify business cases amid high interest rates and uncertain growth forecasts [23]. Diminishing returns and diminishing investment can only lead to stagnation in critical areas that will extend from healthcare advancements to technological innovation, potentially slowing economic growth and societal progress.

Revitalizing Disruptive Research

One clear message to emerge from our scientific endeavours is that 'Big Science' plays an essential role in tackling grand challenges. Allocating resources specifically for high-risk, high-reward research can encourage scientists to pursue bold ideas. But a healthy research ecosystem requires balance. Sustained support for small-scale, investigator-led, exploratory research is vital to ensure the long-term vitality and creativity of the scientific enterprise. All this is happening at a time when the US is reportedly throwing away its position as a global leader in medical science research, according to the Nature Index Annual Tables. The US led in high-quality health sciences publications, with Harvard University topping the list of academic institutions in this field. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) also featured prominently, ranking second among healthcare institutions [24].

Perhaps it is time for other countries to step up. China continues to make significant strides in medical research. Institutions such as Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Fudan University, and Peking University were among the top 50 globally in health sciences research output [25]. Other countries with leading institutions in medical science research include Canada, the United Kingdom, and Sweden. It is certainly essential (from Burke's point of view) to foster collaborations across diverse fields, which can lead to novel perspectives and methodologies, increasing the likelihood of ground-breaking discoveries. Institutions should promote cross-disciplinary research centres and initiatives. Engaging experts from diverse disciplines fosters innovation by combining varied perspectives, methodologies, and knowledge bases. This convergence often leads to novel solutions that might not emerge within a single field. For instance, the integration of biology, computer science, and statistics in bioinformatics has revolutionized genomics by enabling rapid analysis of vast genetic datasets [25]. Furthermore, multidisciplinary research tends to produce findings with broader scientific impact. Studies have shown that such research is more likely to be cited across various fields and contribute to practical applications, including technological innovations [26].

Collaborations across countries bring together diverse expertise, resources, and cultural perspectives, enriching the research process. International partnerships can accelerate scientific discovery by pooling knowledge and facilitating access to unique datasets and research environments. For example, the Human Frontier Science Program has supported over 7,000 researchers from more than 70 countries, leading to significant advancements in life sciences [27]. We saw similar in our own modest pan-European studies MID-Frail (www.midfrail-study.org) and Frailomic (www.frailomic.org). Moreover, international collaborations often result in higher-impact research. A study analysing millions of scientific papers found that teams with diverse institutional backgrounds were more likely to produce highly cited work, indicating that diversity in collaboration enhances scientific innovation [28].

Equally, shifting the focus from publication quantity to research impact can motivate scientists to undertake more ambitious projects. Recognising and rewarding long-term contributions and innovative thinking are essential. Providing support for independent researchers and small teams can facilitate agile exploration of unconventional ideas, potentially leading to significant breakthroughs.

Conclusion

While the volume of scientific research continues to grow, the frequency of disruptive discoveries may be declining. Addressing this trend requires a multifaceted approach, including reforming funding structures, encouraging interdisciplinary collaboration, and re-evaluating academic incentives. By creating an environment that nurtures innovation and tolerates risk, the scientific community can rekindle the spirit of discovery that has historically driven progress. We have to be wary. As the famous saying from 1929 following the Wall Street crash goes, 'When America sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold.'

References

1. Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1996.
2. Campanario JM. Rejecting and resisting Nobel class discoveries: accounts by Nobel Laureates. Scientometrics. 2009;81(2):549-565.
3. Doudna JA, Charpentier E. The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9. Science. 2014;346(6213):1258096.
4. Arute F, et al. Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor. Nature. 2019;574:505-510.
5. Burke J. Connections. London: Macmillan; 1978.
6. Mazzucato M. The Entrepreneurial State. London: Anthem Press; 2013.
7. Park M, Leahey E, Funk RJ. Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time. Nature. 2023;613(7942):138-144.
8. Bloom N, Jones CI, Van Reenen J, Webb M. Are ideas getting harder to find? Am Econ Rev. 2020;110(4):1104-1144.
9. Dyson FJ. Imagined Worlds. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press; 1997.
10. Perrow C. Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2011.
11. Jumper J, et al. Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold. Nature. 2021;596:583-589.
12. Weinberg AM. Reflections on Big Science. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press; 1967.
13. Bush V. Science, The Endless Frontier. Washington DC: United States Government Printing Office; 1945.
14. Martin BR, Tang P. The benefits from publicly funded research. Sci Public Policy. 2007;34(10):701-710.
15. Hardman TC. Bonfire of the insanities: US federal funding cuts. LinkedIn; 2025.
16. Galison P, Hevly B, editors. Big Science: The Growth of Large-Scale Research. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 1992.
17. Hardman TC (2025). Big science verses smart questions.
18. Hardman TC. (2024) Are science publishers monster predators?.
19. Campanario JM. Consolation for the scientist: sometimes it is hard to publish papers that are later highly cited. Soc Stud Sci. 1993;23(2):342-362.
20. Fang FC, Casadevall A. NIH peer review reform—Change we need, or lipstick on a pig? Infect Immun. 2009;77(3):929-932.
21. Scannell JW, Blanckley A, Boldon H, Warrington B. Diagnosing the decline in pharmaceutical R&D efficiency. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2012;11(3):191-200.
22. Pisano GP. Science Business: The Promise, the Reality, and the Future of Biotech. Boston: Harvard Business School Press; 2006.
23. Mireku A. Difficult biotech investment ecosystem forces focus on value. Pharmaceutical Technology. 2023.
24. New Nature Index data shows China on top for natural sciences as US leads on health sciences research. STM Publishing. 2023.
25. Hood L, Rowen L. The Human Genome Project: big science transforms biology and medicine. Genome Med. 2013;5(9):79.
26. Rossi F. The value of multidisciplinarity in university research collaborations. IRC Insight Paper. 2023.
27. Human Frontier Science Program. About HFSP.
28. Dong Y, et al. Collaboration diversity and scientific impact. arXiv. 2018.