Revolutionary Science

Abstract

On rare occasions in the history of science, remarkable discoveries transform human society and forever alter mankind’s view of the world. Examples of such discoveries include the heliocentric theory, Newtonian physics, the germ theory of disease, quantum theory, plate tectonics and the discovery that DNA carries genetic information. The science philosopher Thomas Kuhn famously described science as long periods of normality punctuated by times of crisis, when anomalous observations culminate in revolutionary changes that replace one paradigm with another. This essay examines several transformative discoveries in the light of Kuhn’s formulation. We find that each scientific revolution is unique, with disparate origins that may include puzzle solving, serendipity, inspiration, or a convergence of disparate observations. The causes of revolutionary science are varied and lack an obvious common structure. Moreover, it can be difficult to draw a clear distinction between so-called normal and revolutionary science. Revolutionary discoveries often emerge from basic science and are critically dependent on nonrevolutionary research. Revolutionary discoveries may be conceptual or technological in nature, lead to the creation of new fields, and have a lasting impact on many fields in addition to the field from which they emerge. In contrast to political revolutions, scientific revolutions do not necessarily require the destruction of the previous order. For humanity to continue to benefit from revolutionary discoveries, a broad palette of scientific inquiry with a particular emphasis on basic science should be supported.

Research Funding: the Case for a Modified Lottery

“…And of course, the kind of work that we would most like to see take place, which is groundbreaking and innovative, lies at the other extreme” ( 18 ). The NIH recognizes this problem and has created the Transformative Research Award Program, but of course, this does not solve the problem that transformative breakthroughs are often only evident as such after the fact ( 19 ).…”

“…Applied to science, this suggests that it may be futile for reviewers to attempt to predict which grant applications will produce unanticipated transformational discoveries. In this regard, our recent review of revolutionary science suggests that historical scientific revolutions lack a common structure, with transformative discoveries emerging from puzzle solving, serendipity, inspiration, or a convergence of disparate observations ( 19 ). Consequently, a random strategy that distributes funding as broadly as possible may maximize the likelihood that such discoveries will occur.…”

Graduate Biomedical Science Education Needs a New Philosophy

“…It is thereby critical to create an awareness of the epistemic limits of science ( 75 , 76 ) and address error sources such as logical fallacies or sloppiness in experimental design ( 12 , 13 , 77 , 78 ), just as much as cases of misconduct ( 79 ). On the other hand, there must be sufficient room for learning from the fun side of scientific blunders, serendipitous discoveries ( 45 , 80 ), and success stories. To facilitate authentic experiences ( 69 ), learners could use self-chosen projects of their interest or aspects of their thesis work to apply central scientific concepts such as deductive and inductive reasoning.…”

national initiative in data science for health: an evaluation of the UK Farr Institute

“…The Farr Institute was a national experiment in how to build the foundations for a new research field of data science for health at scale. In the absence of a well-established framework for evaluating national research institutes, we based our evaluation on the domains of a new field of science, following previous literature [15] and the initial strategy [16] of a research institute in a different field of science, but also launching in 2013 (the Francis Crick Institute).…”