Quantifying the ease of scientific discovery
It has long been known that scientific output proceeds on an exponential increase, or more properly, a logistic growth curve. The interplay between effort and discovery is clear, and the nature of the functional form has been thought to be due to many changes in the scientific process over time. Here I show a quantitative method for examining the ease of scientific progress, another necessary component in understanding scientific discovery. Using examples from three different scientific disciplines—mammalian species, chemical elements, and minor planets—I find the ease of discovery to conform to an exponential decay. In addition, I show how the pace of scientific discovery can be best understood as the outcome of both scientific output and ease of discovery. A quantitative study of the ease of scientific discovery in the aggregate, such as done here, has the potential to provide a great deal of insight into both the nature of future discoveries and the technical processes behind discoveries in science.
KeywordsDiscovery Difficulty Ease Model Mammals Elements Minor planets
Thanks to Nicholas Christakis, Jukka-Pekka Onnela, and Steven Strogatz for reading drafts of this manuscript and providing helpful comments.
- Ekers, R. (1998). SETI and the one square kilometre radio telescope. Acta Astronautica, 42, 589–591.Google Scholar
- Gagnon, S. (2009). Who discovered the elements. Newport News: Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility.Google Scholar
- Minor Planet Center. (2009). Minor Planet Center Orbit Database. Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory.Google Scholar
- Price, D. J. de Solla. (1951). Quantitative measures of the development of science. Archives Internationales d’Histoire des Sciences, 4, 85–93.Google Scholar
- Price, D. J. de Solla. (1986). Little science, big science and beyond. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
- Reeder, D. M., Helgen K. M., & Wilson, D. E. (2007) Global trends and biases in new mammal species discoveries. Occasional Papers of the Museum of Texas Tech University, 269, 1–35.Google Scholar
- Smith, F. A., Lyons, S. K., Ernest, S. K. M., Jones, K. E., Kaufman, D. M., Dayan, et al. (2003). Body mass of late quaternary mammals. Ecology, 84, 3403.Google Scholar
- Wilson, D. E., & Reeder, D. M. (2005). Mammal species of the world. A taxonomic and geographic reference. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar