To avoid this problem, we surveyed scientists at leading institutions, asking them to do pairwise comparisons ranking Nobel prizewinning discoveries in their disciplines. Eg: discovery of neutron vs cosmic background radiation? Etc.
-
Show this thread
-
We gathered 4,483 such comparisons. From this portfolio of questions we can back out progress in science (according to this metric) over the decades.
1 reply 2 retweets 18 likesShow this thread -
Here's the results for physics, showing a decline:pic.twitter.com/QgqebTkvwv
7 replies 7 retweets 25 likesShow this thread -
Here's the results for chemistry, and for physiology or medicine, showing, perhaps, a slight improvement:pic.twitter.com/9SJKd4j4xt
1 reply 5 retweets 22 likesShow this thread -
What's being plotted: the probability a discovery made in that decade is ranked above discoveries made in other decades.
2 replies 4 retweets 16 likesShow this thread -
The kicker is: the amount we're investing in science has gone up enormously (think 10-100x) over the same time period, whether you look at $, number of scientists, or number of publicationspic.twitter.com/9gBu2FREw0
12 replies 17 retweets 69 likesShow this thread -
We're in an age of diminishing returns to scientific efforthttps://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/11/diminishing-returns-science/575665/ …
5 replies 16 retweets 45 likesShow this thread -
Lots of disclaimers: this is just one metric, there's plenty of shortcomings of the metric. We're very aware of that and discuss this in the essay.https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/11/diminishing-returns-science/575665/ …
4 replies 4 retweets 18 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @michael_nielsen
I appreciate the explicit acknowledgements of limitations of the article's metric. But shouldn't that give you pause in using such a strong title? Such a complex question such as this simply cannot be boiled down into looking at such a simple metric with so many possible biases.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @frankli714
There are many measures considered (age, team size, the survey results, and, ancillary, productivity growth). And, of course, they're all being compared to input measures ($, number of scientists, number of papers). No matter which pair you consider, you see dim. rets.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
As is common in this kind of writing, we weren't directly consulted on the title or subtitle. But I think the title is reasonable. We're not _certain_. But we think the evidence is strong enough it should be seriously considered.
-
-
Replying to @michael_nielsen
Ah I see! Just concerned that people see titles like these (without reading the article) and use it as an argument against science, especially in a time/political environment where science is often being assaulted as useless (e.g., climate change research).
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @frankli714 @michael_nielsen
I think it's perfectly fair and important to assess the ROI on scientific investments though, so I approve of the article itself (quite an interesting read)!
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.