Article Preview
TopIntroduction
Kuhn’s (1972) and Popper’s (1963) arguments are useful in their illustration of problems with the progression of science. According to Popper (1963, p. 6), Einstein’s theory that light is influenced by gravitational forces is falsifiable, in contrast to examples of other postulated theory that are “compatible with the most divergent human behaviour, so that it was practically impossible to describe any human behaviour that might not be claimed to be a verification of these theories”. Whereas Popper’s (1963) criterion of falsification promises a useful basis for scientific advancement, Kuhn’s (1972) theory predicts that the paradigms created by scientific shared values and norms fundamentally hold back scientific discovery, as such criteria are subordinate to the paradigms of researchers. According to Kuhn’s (1972) theory, scientific advancement may be fundamentally constrained by the ‘social science’ aspects of human research endeavour.
Certain evidence can be taken to support Kuhn’s theory. Certain of the highest cited papers in history, as well as certain of its most influential books were first rejected by journal reviewers and editors. This includes work eventually awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology and Medicine (Campanario, 2009). It is not only social forces that seem to constrain scientific advancement, however.
Certain theoretical frameworks suggest that innovation, or returns to investments in research, are declining over time. An example is Kortum’s (1997) theory, from the field of economics, which explains that patents per researcher decrease because technological breakthroughs become harder to achieve over time. In contrast Romer’s (1990) endogenous growth theory provides a rationale for positive externalities and spillover effects that result in a production function that does not exhibit decreasing returns to scale. The implication of Romer’s theory is that there should be increasing returns to scale in research. Nevertheless, evidence of a decline in technological progress persists (Cowen, 2011; Gordon, 2016), lending support to Kortum’s theory, instead.
The consequences of declining returns to investment in research have serious implications for our ability to deal with societal dangers that require timeous research solutions. Key to Romer’s (1990) theory is the notion that ideas are non-rivalrous. In other words, ideation, or the creation of ideas cause technological progress as they can be used by others. However, also within the endogenous growth framework, Segerstrom (1997) uses the example of microprocessor industry, where challenges increase exponentially with complexity to offer a model that demonstrates how R&D becomes progressively more difficult over time, as endogenous growth can occur without scale effects.
If the attainment of research breakthroughs is becoming progressively more difficult over time, a declining technological rate of progress does not bode well for our rate of global R&D learning. When compared with microbial learning, or the exponential rate at which microorganisms learn, an extrapolation of the rate of R&D learning against that of microorganisms offers cautionary insights. Indeed, certain societal consequences may result from declining technological rates of human research progress, and the lack of a theoretical rationale to explain how scale effects in R&D can be effectively enabled.