Study finds research papers and patents becoming less disruptive

A new analysis of millions of research papers and patents suggests that science and technology are becoming less disruptive over time. The study, published in the journal Nature, examined 45 million papers and 3.9 million patents spanning from 1945 to 2010.

Researchers at the University of Minnesota and colleagues developed a metric called the CD index to measure disruptiveness. A paper or patent that introduces a novel idea that makes previous work obsolete scores high on this scale. One that builds on or consolidates existing knowledge scores low.

Steady decline across all fields

The analysis found a clear downward trend. In 1945, roughly 30 percent of papers were considered disruptive. By 2010, that number had fallen to around 15 percent. The pattern was similar for patents.

This decline was not limited to a few disciplines. It appeared consistently across all major fields of science and technology, including medicine, physics, chemistry, and engineering. The drop was also visible in both papers and patents, suggesting a broad shift in how research is conducted.

Why breakthroughs are becoming rarer

The authors point to several possible causes. One is the sheer volume of existing knowledge. Scientists today must master a vast amount of prior work, which may push them toward incremental advances rather than radical departures.

Another factor is the increasing pressure to publish. Researchers may feel compelled to produce steady output, favouring safe, incremental studies over risky, groundbreaking ones. The rise of citation-based metrics could also encourage building on popular ideas rather than challenging them.

The study does not claim that no disruptive work is being done. Rather, it suggests that the proportion of such work has shrunk over time.

What this means for science and innovation

If the trend continues, the pace of scientific and technological breakthroughs could slow further. This has implications for everything from medical research to engineering to economic growth. Disruptive discoveries often lead to entirely new industries, while incremental advances typically refine existing ones.

Some experts have argued that funding agencies and academic institutions should consciously reward risk-taking and unconventional ideas. Others suggest that interdisciplinary collaboration could help break out of established patterns.

The Nature study adds quantitative weight to a concern many in the scientific community have voiced for years: that the system may be optimising for quantity over quality, for safety over innovation.

What comes next will depend on how the research ecosystem responds. If policymakers, universities, and funding bodies take this evidence seriously, there may be efforts to restructure incentives. If not, the slow drift toward less disruptive science could become the new normal.