The results suggest that outsiders to a specific scientific field are reluctant to challenge a research star who is viewed as a leader within that field.
I don't think this is how it works at all. I think people are unable to challenge stars in their field.
When everyone is celebrating some star, good luck getting heard if you disagree with them. It is worse if, like so many people, this star will defend their territory by following the maxim "A good offense is the best defense."
My observation of behavior in online forums is that a typical pattern of behavior is that everyone seeks to either align themselves with one of the "stars" of the forum or position themselves as being "against" anything that person says. It is very much about pecking order, not truth, and if you have two or three really popular people, then you get camps that revolve around each person. All conversation tends to default into a polarizing back and forth of "I am for STAR!" and "I am against STAR!"
Since all conversation is framed as either for or against STAR, no conversation can occur that genuinely diverges from the framing given. Even if you genuinely try to diverge from this framing of for or against the idea set that this star individual represents, people will actively paint you into a corner as being in either the for or against camp. Good luck with saying "Yeah, no. That isn't what I am saying At All."
This only stops when that person exits the picture. Dying is the most final and absolute means to exit the picture.
As a specific example look at evolutionary optimization. It's existed for decades, has a bit of a non mainstream cult following, but now the leaders of the field are finding they can beat the fanciest deep reinforcement learning approaches with it.
https://blog.openai.com/evolution-strategies/
Reminds me of the old Max Planck quote: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
That would be because that quote inspired the research. However the mechanism that they discovered is actually somewhat more subtle; it is that "rockstar scientists", intentionally or not, suppress radical new ideas coming into their disciplines. Since radical innovation is by and large something that the community-as-a-whole has (in the sense that each person has a tiny probability of coming up with the radical idea so the actual idea-havers are kind of randomly selected from the community), either implicit effects of "oh things are moving so fast in that field, these people are so smart, I will never measure up" or explicit effects of people in the field saying "why the heck would you pursue that path, it's obviously bonkers and we're doing so much better with this other approach..." convince those community members to not come forward with their radical innovation, even as it's sorely needed. Rather than the opponents of the idea dying, they are interested in the cases where the supporters of an idea die, which allows these radical ideas to come out of the woodwork.
One of our group leaders in our research institute learned physics at the dawn of quantum mechanics, saw theory translate into practical applications (e.g. laser technology), and then boost and transform theory again. She is 90+ now.
It was great to hear from her how long it took for the right theories to overcome the barriers of adoption, how fashion works in science, and how many things we think as new are actually really old stuff in new clothes.
Can't believe they didn't cite/discuss the book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" (1962) written by philosopher of science, Thomas Kuhn. From the wikipedia article about the book:
"Kuhn challenged the then prevailing view of progress in "normal science". Normal scientific progress was viewed as "development-by-accumulation" of accepted facts and theories. Kuhn argued for an episodic model in which periods of such conceptual continuity in normal science were interrupted by periods of revolutionary science. "
In the paper (see Sci-Hub link comment elsewhere):
Philosophers and historians have long debated the extent to which the pragmatic success of a scientific theory determines how quickly it gains adherents, or its longevity (e.g., Kuhn [1970], Laudan [1977], and their many detractors).
The quote is mostly tongue-in-cheek, but it does occasionally come up as a real issue. I have an anecdote on it:
A former fellow grad student was expressing their dis-belief that though there was a lot of work done in the brain with electrical signals, there is effectively no work done on measuring the magnetic properties of the brain or neurons. The much older and much more esteemed PI that was also present simply shut the student down, to the point of telling them to 'shut up'. "There are no magnetic fields in the brain", I think was the quote. The student, misunderstanding the situation, pressed onward and challenged the PI on fMRI and the like. The discussion turned into a 1-sided argument where the PI basically told the student that they were an idiot and that things like fMRI were useless (actually a debatable point at the time, re: the dead salmon experiments). I'll say I never quite trusted PIs after that dressing-down, they seem to be more concerned about their mortgages than their legacies.
When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
As someone who's published in Bayesian inference, that quote has always struck a cord.
I've met countless young researchers who embraced Bayesian practices. And all the opposition seems to come from older hands. It's finally turning a corner... Because of retirement!
Well if they do not understand Bayesian inference, then they may feel that there needs to good reason to move on from frequentist models...and I'll tell you that case has not been made except for certain specialized disciplines.
Consistent with previous research, the flow of articles by collaborators into affected fields decreases precipitously after the death of a star scientist (relative to control fields). In contrast, we find that the flow of articles by non-collaborators increases by 8% on average.
I haven't read the paper, and maybe this is just completely wrong, but wouldn't we expect the number of published papers by non-collaborators to rise no matter what?
I mean, a star scientist is dead now. There are no more papers coming from that person. Of course other people's papers fill the gap. The number of journals didn't change. The number of articles in an issue of each journal didn't change. These journals need to get articles from someone.
Reminds me of a Douglas Crockford presentation (which is obviously referencing this idea) where he talks about computer science progress, and having to wait for people to die or retire before practices change: "Are they gone yet? Can we stop doing X now?"
I've seen firsthand evidence that jumping between subfields of a given discipline can have great results. A couple of the seminal papers in our field came from super senior researchers moving into simply different areas.
Cross pollination of disciplines also seems to bring out great ideas, which makes your (obviously first) proposal sound even better.
Unfortunately, I feel this is similar to that one dessert on the front page of the menu at an expensive restaurant. It looks delicious and tastes even better, but as soon as the bill comes you wondered what in the world you were thinking.
The idea that science advances only when old scientists die is used to promote the idea that science has nothing over politics. It is anti-science propaganda.
I will say this though. Young scientists are hungry and there not enough positions for them. Every department has that old rockstar or two who doesn't really push the boundaries of science anymore, but takes up available positions. When they retire or die, new people come in who are still young and full of energy.
> The idea that science advances only when old scientists die is used to promote the idea that science has nothing over politics. It is anti-science propaganda.
Sounds to me like you believe that science proceeds without politics.
> Young scientists are hungry and there not enough positions for them. Every department has that old rockstar or two who doesn't really push the boundaries of science anymore, but takes up available positions. When they retire or die, new people come in who are still young and full of energy.
This process you've described here resembles the political process we observe in government (or any human social system that involves a competitive hierarchy), with the exception that in government the problem of 'taking up available positions' is attenuated by the existence of term limits for most leadership positions.
I'll offer as an excellent case study in development and establishment of new scientific theory, the emergence of plate tectonics (or continental drift theory). Naomi Oreskes, a tireless advocate of real science, and debunker of pseudoscience and disinformation (see Merchants of Doubt) documents the four-century-long battle to establish the concept in her books PLATE TECTONICS: The Insiders’ History of the Modern Theory of the Earth and The Rejection of Continental Drift, along with several further articles on the topic.
"Every department has that old rockstar or two who doesn't really push the boundaries of science anymore, but takes up available positions. When they retire or die, new people come in who are still young and full of energy."
Which is basically the norm for a lot of industries. I'm not even sure I mind this sort of thing so long as they are still contributing and producing. I just wish there were enough space for the young folks to do their stuff too.
Given that new ideas in a field often get reviewed by incumbents in said field (due to the requirements of pre-publication peer review) this can certainly delay their uptake or even full examination.
This kind of ingrained conservatism can delay progress both of a field and those examining it. It is a catch-22 as you want qualified reviewers to examine a paper so it isn't bunkum but equally those reviewers may slow it down because it is a valid advance in contrary to their position.
Perhaps a move to post-publication peer review and greater pre-print deposition would help, but that would take a deep cultural shift.
But as always it doesn't have to be that way, it has arrived at this point due to a combination of sometimes perverse incentives and natural human tendencies.
I was thinking for a while that having a mandatory retirement age could be a good idea, but retirement is becoming obsolete for economic reasons, and scientists are now employed in so many different ways by so many different institutions that I don't think it is possible.
Alternative explanation: Star scientists are just highly productive scientists. After they die, their not-as-productive collaborators can't keep up with the amount of publication as high as before. Naturally collaborators publication percentage falls while Non-collaborators' rise.
[+] [-] Mz|9 years ago|reply
I don't think this is how it works at all. I think people are unable to challenge stars in their field.
When everyone is celebrating some star, good luck getting heard if you disagree with them. It is worse if, like so many people, this star will defend their territory by following the maxim "A good offense is the best defense."
My observation of behavior in online forums is that a typical pattern of behavior is that everyone seeks to either align themselves with one of the "stars" of the forum or position themselves as being "against" anything that person says. It is very much about pecking order, not truth, and if you have two or three really popular people, then you get camps that revolve around each person. All conversation tends to default into a polarizing back and forth of "I am for STAR!" and "I am against STAR!"
Since all conversation is framed as either for or against STAR, no conversation can occur that genuinely diverges from the framing given. Even if you genuinely try to diverge from this framing of for or against the idea set that this star individual represents, people will actively paint you into a corner as being in either the for or against camp. Good luck with saying "Yeah, no. That isn't what I am saying At All."
This only stops when that person exits the picture. Dying is the most final and absolute means to exit the picture.
[+] [-] emcq|9 years ago|reply
As a specific example look at evolutionary optimization. It's existed for decades, has a bit of a non mainstream cult following, but now the leaders of the field are finding they can beat the fanciest deep reinforcement learning approaches with it. https://blog.openai.com/evolution-strategies/
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] kepano|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drostie|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wuschel|9 years ago|reply
It was great to hear from her how long it took for the right theories to overcome the barriers of adoption, how fashion works in science, and how many things we think as new are actually really old stuff in new clothes.
[+] [-] plg|9 years ago|reply
"Kuhn challenged the then prevailing view of progress in "normal science". Normal scientific progress was viewed as "development-by-accumulation" of accepted facts and theories. Kuhn argued for an episodic model in which periods of such conceptual continuity in normal science were interrupted by periods of revolutionary science. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Re...
[+] [-] dredmorbius|9 years ago|reply
Philosophers and historians have long debated the extent to which the pragmatic success of a scientific theory determines how quickly it gains adherents, or its longevity (e.g., Kuhn [1970], Laudan [1977], and their many detractors).
[+] [-] nabla9|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Balgair|9 years ago|reply
A former fellow grad student was expressing their dis-belief that though there was a lot of work done in the brain with electrical signals, there is effectively no work done on measuring the magnetic properties of the brain or neurons. The much older and much more esteemed PI that was also present simply shut the student down, to the point of telling them to 'shut up'. "There are no magnetic fields in the brain", I think was the quote. The student, misunderstanding the situation, pressed onward and challenged the PI on fMRI and the like. The discussion turned into a 1-sided argument where the PI basically told the student that they were an idiot and that things like fMRI were useless (actually a debatable point at the time, re: the dead salmon experiments). I'll say I never quite trusted PIs after that dressing-down, they seem to be more concerned about their mortgages than their legacies.
[+] [-] curtis|9 years ago|reply
When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
[1] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke#On_Clarke.27s...
[+] [-] arcanus|9 years ago|reply
I've met countless young researchers who embraced Bayesian practices. And all the opposition seems to come from older hands. It's finally turning a corner... Because of retirement!
[+] [-] jtraffic|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SubiculumCode|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AuthenticApe|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] aisofteng|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] HillaryBriss|9 years ago|reply
Consistent with previous research, the flow of articles by collaborators into affected fields decreases precipitously after the death of a star scientist (relative to control fields). In contrast, we find that the flow of articles by non-collaborators increases by 8% on average.
I haven't read the paper, and maybe this is just completely wrong, but wouldn't we expect the number of published papers by non-collaborators to rise no matter what?
I mean, a star scientist is dead now. There are no more papers coming from that person. Of course other people's papers fill the gap. The number of journals didn't change. The number of articles in an issue of each journal didn't change. These journals need to get articles from someone.
[+] [-] Roboprog|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Analemma_|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 1propionyl|9 years ago|reply
I imagine the same principle applies to networks of people as does to networks of neurons.
[+] [-] dredmorbius|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zeristor|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dredmorbius|9 years ago|reply
Certainly amonst the unintended consequences one might care to consider.
[+] [-] dpatrick86|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] htrp|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nabla9|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Qwertious|9 years ago|reply
Just putting it out there. Killing scientists to stimulate progress is out for ethical reasons, obviously.
[+] [-] santaclaus|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Verdex_2|9 years ago|reply
Unfortunately, I feel this is similar to that one dessert on the front page of the menu at an expensive restaurant. It looks delicious and tastes even better, but as soon as the bill comes you wondered what in the world you were thinking.
[+] [-] BurningFrog|9 years ago|reply
Could be a good system, but I don't see the professors endorsing it.
[+] [-] AuthenticApe|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] SubiculumCode|9 years ago|reply
I will say this though. Young scientists are hungry and there not enough positions for them. Every department has that old rockstar or two who doesn't really push the boundaries of science anymore, but takes up available positions. When they retire or die, new people come in who are still young and full of energy.
[+] [-] jmcmichael|9 years ago|reply
Sounds to me like you believe that science proceeds without politics.
> Young scientists are hungry and there not enough positions for them. Every department has that old rockstar or two who doesn't really push the boundaries of science anymore, but takes up available positions. When they retire or die, new people come in who are still young and full of energy.
This process you've described here resembles the political process we observe in government (or any human social system that involves a competitive hierarchy), with the exception that in government the problem of 'taking up available positions' is attenuated by the existence of term limits for most leadership positions.
[+] [-] dredmorbius|9 years ago|reply
I'll offer as an excellent case study in development and establishment of new scientific theory, the emergence of plate tectonics (or continental drift theory). Naomi Oreskes, a tireless advocate of real science, and debunker of pseudoscience and disinformation (see Merchants of Doubt) documents the four-century-long battle to establish the concept in her books PLATE TECTONICS: The Insiders’ History of the Modern Theory of the Earth and The Rejection of Continental Drift, along with several further articles on the topic.
https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/naomi-oreskes/pla...
http://www.worldcat.org/title/rejection-of-continental-drift...
[+] [-] Broken_Hippo|9 years ago|reply
Which is basically the norm for a lot of industries. I'm not even sure I mind this sort of thing so long as they are still contributing and producing. I just wish there were enough space for the young folks to do their stuff too.
[+] [-] lossolo|9 years ago|reply
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/cc/56/21/cc562172e...
[+] [-] idreyn|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elliotpage|9 years ago|reply
This kind of ingrained conservatism can delay progress both of a field and those examining it. It is a catch-22 as you want qualified reviewers to examine a paper so it isn't bunkum but equally those reviewers may slow it down because it is a valid advance in contrary to their position.
Perhaps a move to post-publication peer review and greater pre-print deposition would help, but that would take a deep cultural shift.
[+] [-] Gatsky|9 years ago|reply
But as always it doesn't have to be that way, it has arrived at this point due to a combination of sometimes perverse incentives and natural human tendencies.
I was thinking for a while that having a mandatory retirement age could be a good idea, but retirement is becoming obsolete for economic reasons, and scientists are now employed in so many different ways by so many different institutions that I don't think it is possible.
[+] [-] jpttsn|9 years ago|reply
Next up: a curve showing that friends of WWI vets decrease their tuna consumption when the WWI vet dies, relative to their non-friends.
[+] [-] oblio|9 years ago|reply
It's a really tricky topic...
[+] [-] Animats|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chplushsieh|9 years ago|reply