Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A few special cases: scientific creativity and network dynamics in the field of rare diseases

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We develop a model of scientific creativity and test it in the field of rare diseases. Our model is based on the results of an in-depth case study of the Rett Syndrome. Archival analysis, bibliometric techniques and expert surveys are combined with network analysis to identify the most creative scientists. First, we compare alternative measures of generative and combinatorial creativity. Then, we generalize our results in a stochastic model of socio-semantic network evolution. The model predictions are tested with an extended set of rare diseases. We find that new scientific collaborations among experts in a field enhance combinatorial creativity. Instead, high entry rates of novices are negatively related to generative creativity. By expanding the set of useful concepts, creative scientists gain in centrality. At the same time, by increasing their centrality in the scientific community, scientists can replicate and generalize their results, thus contributing to a scientific paradigm.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. www.rettmeeting.org/.

  2. We did not provide our interviewees with a definition either of relevance or of creativity, as the aim of the inquiry was to find a definition embedded in the community.

  3. The first phase consists of identifying a set of typical characters of the disease (1a) and its association with the genetic disorder which is responsible for its onset (1b). As a second stage, precise understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying the disease is required (2), which recognizes molecules and therapeutic strategies to be tested in vitro (3), and later in laboratory animals (4). After these four steps (pre-clinical phases), it is possible to test the treatment on humans and results will show whether any treatment for the disease has been found or not.

  4. See, as an example of such a process of redefinition and specification, changes in the topics list concerning the European Working Group on Rett Syndrome First and Second Conferences, which took place respectively in 2007 and 2009: 2007 Topics—The Molecular Cause of Rett Syndrome, MeCP2 Target Genes, Respiration Control and Seizures, Neuronal Plasticity, Future Approaches; 2009 Topics—Basic Molecular Mechanism of MeCP2, Circuit Defects in Rett Syndrome, Behavioral Deficits in Mice Lacking a Functional MeCP2, Modifier Genes and Other Genes Involved in Rett Syndrome, Therapeutic Approaches, Molecular Genetics.

  5. This information is now more easily available to researchers and physicians, as a database on MECP2 mutations (RettBase) and a repository of clinical information (InterRett) are being collected.

  6. Cfr. Table 2, scientists in bold.

  7. http://www.disabled-world.com/medical/clinical-trials/rett-trial.php.

  8. Adrian Bird, who was identified as the most creative and important, has the highest IF, but other indicators do not correspondingly highlight such a prominent position in the network. This weak correspondence is lost for other authors who are ranked lower, such as Michael Greenberg or Rudolph Jaenisch. Young researchers, e.g. Monica Justice, were mentioned by peers for their creativity, but are not present in the network yet. Conversely, scientists Wade and Bienvenu have a significant position in the community, as reflected by bibliometric and network indicators, but this role is not elicited by the community when directly asked.

  9. The most cited paper of Adrian Rett on MeCP2 is never mentioned among the top readings in the RTT field.

  10. More in general A denotes all rivalrous production inputs, such as labor, and C all non-rivalrous ones, such as ideas.

  11. The number of authors and concepts per paper are positive random numbers with mean m and n respectively.

  12. The probability is p 1 = 1 − p and p 2 = 1 − q in the model of Guimerà et al. (2005). We have modified that model to accommodate teams of different sizes. As in the original model, agents who remain inactive for longer than T time steps are removed from the network. However, our results do not depend on the specific value of T which is usually set to the maximum level, since we are analyzing new fields of research in which the vast majority of authors are still active.

References

  • Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barabàsi, A. (2005). Network theory. The emergence of the creative enterprise. Science, 308, 639–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bettencourt, L., Cintrón-Arias, A., Kaiser, D. I., & Castillo-Chávez, C. (2006). The power of a good idea: Quantitative modeling of the spread of ideas from epidemiological models. Physica A, 364, 513–536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bettencourt, L. M. A., Kaiser, D. I., Kaur, J., Castillo-Chàvez, C., & Wojick, D. E. (2008). Population modeling of the emergence and development of scientific fields. Scientometrics, 75(3), 495–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Börner, K., Maru, J. T., & Goldstone, R. L. (2004). The simultaneous evolution of author and paper networks. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101, 5266–5273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brass, D. J. (1995). Creativity: It’s all in your social network. In C. M. Ford & D. A. Gioia (Eds.), Creative action in organizations (pp. 94–99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruckner, E., Ebeling, W., Jiménez Motaño, M. A., & Scharnhorst, A. (1996). Nonlinear stochastic effects of substitution: An evolutionary approach. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 6, 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110, 349–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cattani, G., & Ferriani, S. (2008). A core/periphery perspective on individual creative performance: Social networks and cinematic achievements in the Hollywood film industry. Organization Science, 19(6), 824–844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C., Chen, Y., Horowitz, M., Hou, H., Liu, Z., & Pellegrino, D. (2009). Towards an explanatory and computational theory of scientific discovery. Journal of Informetrics, 3(3), 191–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowan, R., & Jonard, N. (2003). On the workings of scientific communities. In A. Geuna, A. J. Salter, & W. E. Steinmueller (Eds.), Science and innovation: Rethinking the rationales for funding and governance (pp. 309–333). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). The domain of creativity. In M. A. Runco & R. S. Albert (Eds.), Theories of creativity (pp. 190–212). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • David, P. (2003). Cooperation, creativity and closure in scientific research networks: Modeling the dynamics of epistemic communities. In J.-P. Touffut (Ed.), Institutions, innovation and growth: Selected economic papers (pp. 170–206). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, L., Mingo, S., & Chen, D. (2007). Collaborative brokerage, generative creativity and creative success. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52, 443–475.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, L., & Waguespack, D. M. (2007). Brokerage, boundary spanning, and leadership in open innovation communities. Organization Science, 18(2), 165–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fontana, W. (2001). Novelty in evolution. Bioevolutionary concepts for NASA, BEACON.

  • Gilbert, N. (1997). A simulation of the structure of academic science. Sociological Research Online, 2(2). Accessed May 31, 2011, from www.socresonline.org.uk/2/2/3.html.

  • Girvan, M., & Newman, M. E. J. (2002). Community structure in social and biological networks. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 99, 7821–7826.

  • Goffman, W. (1966). Mathematical approach to the spread of scientific ideas. Nature, 212, 449–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, W., & Harmon, G. (1971). Mathematical approach to the prediction of scientific discovery. Nature, 229, 103–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gould, R. (1991). Multiple networks and mobilization in the Paris commune, 1871. American Sociological Review, 56, 193–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guimerà, R., Uzzi, B., Spiro, J., & Amaral, L. A. N. (2005). Team assembly mechanisms determine collaboration structure and team performance. Science, 308(29), 697–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guy, J., Gan, J., Selfridge, J., Cobb, S., & Bird, A. (2007). Reversal of neurological defects in a mouse model of Rett Syndrome. Science, 315, 1143–1147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1997). Technology brokering in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 716–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 569–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, B. F. (2008). The burden of knowledge and the ‘death of the Renaissance man’: Is innovation getting harder? Review of Economic Studies, 76(1), 283–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurzberg, T. R., & Amabile, T. M. (2000). From Guilford to creative synergy: Opening the black box of team-level creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 285–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambiotte, R., & Panzarasa, P. (2009). Communities, knowledge creation and information diffusion. Journal of Informetrics, 3, 180–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane, D., Malerba, F., Maxfield, R., & Orsenigo, L. (1996). Choice and action. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 6(1), 43–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larkin, J., McDermott, J., Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science, 208 (4450), 1335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laumann, E. O., Marsden, P. V., & Prensky, D. (1983). The boundary specification problem in network analysis. In R. S. Burt & M. J. Minor (Eds.), Applied Network Analysis: A Methodological In-troduction (pp. 18–34). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

  • Lotka, A. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16, 317–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G. (2007). The study of organizations and organizing since 1945. Organization Studies, 28, 9–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell, A., Shaw, J. C., & Simon, H. A. (1959). The process of creative thinking. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation.

  • Newman, M. E. J. (2001). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 98, 404–409.

  • Newman, M. E. J. (2004). Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(1), 5200–5205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orsenigo, L., Pammolli, F., & Riccaboni, M. (2001). Technological change and network dynamics: Lessons from the pharmaceutical industry. Research Policy, 30, 485–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen-Smith, J., Riccaboni, M., Pammolli, F., & Powell, W. W. (2002). A comparison of US and European relations in the life sciences. Management Science, 48(1), 24–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Padgett, J. F., & Powell, W. W. (2011). The emergence of organizations and markets. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press (forthcoming).

  • Perry-Smith, J. E., & Shalley, C. E. (2003). The social side of creativity: A static and dynamic social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 89–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poincaré, H. (1921). The foundations of science. New York: The Science Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 116–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rinia, E. J., van Leeuwen, Th. N., van Vuren, H. G., & van Raan, A. F. J. (1998). Comparative analysis of a set of bibliometric indicators and central peer review criteria. Research Policy, 27, 95–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, C., & Cointet, J.-P. (2010). Social and semantic coevolution in knowledge networks. Social Networks, 32, 16–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shalley, C. E., & Perry-Smith, J. E. (2008). The emergence of team creative cognition: The role of diverse outside ties, sociocognitive network centrality, and team evolution. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2, 23–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1955). On a class of skew distribution functions. Biometrika, 42(3–4), 425–440.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1962). The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106(6), 467–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonton, D. K. (1988). Scientific genius: A psychology of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonton, D. K. (2000). Creativity: Cognitive, personal, developmental, and social aspects. American Psychologist, 55(1), 151–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taramasco, C., Cointet, J.-P., & Roth, C. (2010). Academic team formation as evolving hypergraphs. Scientometrics, 85(3), 721–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uzzi, B., & Spiro, J. (2005). Collaboration and creativity: The small world problem. American Journal of Sociology, 111, 447–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valente, T. W. (1995). Network models of the diffusion of innovation. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Beemt, F. C. H. D., & van Raan, A. F. J. (1995). Evaluating research proposals. Nature, 375, 272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watts, D. J. (2002). A simple model of global cascades on random networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 99, 5766–5771.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Weitzman, M. L. (1998). Recombinant growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113(2), 331–360.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • White, H. C. (1993). Careers and creativity: Social forces in the arts. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, H. D., Lin, X., Buzydlowski, J. W., & Chen, C. (2004). User-controlled mapping of significant literatures. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101, 5297–5302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316, 1036–1039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Rita Bernardelli (ProRett Foundation) and Lucia Monaco (Telethon Foundation) for their support in organizing the Rett survey and field study. We also thank Bernard Munos, Enrico Zaninotto, two anonymous referees, participants at the Sunbelt XXX meeting in Riva del Garda and the ROCK group at the University of Trento for helpful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management and Computer Science, University of Trento, Via Inama, 5, 38100, Trento, Italy

    M. Laura Frigotto & Massimo Riccaboni

Authors
  1. M. Laura Frigotto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Massimo Riccaboni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Laura Frigotto.

Appendix: Questions put to scholars on Rett Syndrome

Appendix: Questions put to scholars on Rett Syndrome

  1. 1.

    Please write the names of the five most influential scientists (except your own) on Rett Syndrome, in order of the importance of their scientific contributions;

  2. 2.

    Please write the names of the five most creative scientists (except your own) on Rett Syndrome;

  3. 3.

    Please rank the five most important scientific publications (except yours) on Rett Syndrome (any citation style, but include at least: first author, year, title, journal/book editor);

  4. 4.

    Please list at least five key concepts which define the most important topics of research on Rett Syndrome.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Frigotto, M.L., Riccaboni, M. A few special cases: scientific creativity and network dynamics in the field of rare diseases. Scientometrics 89, 397–420 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0431-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0431-9

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classification (2000)

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation