Just like to mention that if the non-discovery portion of an economy were to grow disproportionately faster than its complement, each discovery Would become more 'expensive'; ie it becomes relatively scarce even though its own supply may still be growing (albeit more slowly).
Both seem possible: that it's a consequence of the structure of knowledge, and that it may be due to institutional factors. I suspect some of both, which means the optimistic response is to be trying new approaches.https://twitter.com/albrgr/status/1063472753309712384 …
-
-
-
In other words, not only do we have more resources to throw into research, whether judiciously or not, our world has also become harder to improve through sci & tech directly. This might account for some of your fascinating observations!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
In my opinion, it's a more collaborative networked economy approach that is most needed in venture science. This way a critical mass can be reached to challenge outdated theories.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks for the interesting essay in the Atlantic. I have been thinking about diminishing marginal returns on research investment a lot recently - could it be that science deals with increasingly complex phenomena, and encounters some equivalent to the curse of dimensionality?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Have you read James Le Fanu's Rise and Fall of Modern Medicine? He makes a similar argument, locating the golden age of medicine in the 1950s. Le Fanu's account puts a lot of emphasis on the accidents that created our best drugs. Here's a review. https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/thefallofmedicine …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.