Scientific progress does not proceed in a linear fashion. In Kuhn\u2019s view, for example, after a major revolutionary discovery\u2014one that radically reshapes the previous framework by establishing \u201ca new paradigm\u201d\u2014there usually follows a \u201cnormal\u201d period, during which advances proceed in a substantially progressive way; that is, innovations arise that fit within the paradigm introduced by the initial revolutionary discovery. Whether or not this reading is entirely correct, one cannot deny that some of the great theories that have revolutionized the hard sciences\u2014for example Newtonian physics, relativity, quantum mechanics, and the theory of evolution\u2014have marked the beginning of true epochs within their respective fields (and often beyond them as well).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The idea I would like to discuss within this framework of how scientific research advances concerns our perception of the process itself. The authors of these fundamental discoveries are rightly regarded as geniuses without whom such breakthroughs would not have been possible. Yet this idea is not entirely accurate. Consider, for example, the theory of evolution, the work of Darwin. He decided to publish it only when Wallace sent a paper to the Royal Society independently proposing the same theory \u2014 so much so that today the theory is known as the Darwin\u2013Wallace theory of evolution. In other words, had Darwin not existed, the theory of evolution would still have been discovered, but by someone else.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Something similar can be said, for instance, about Einstein. Without going so far as to claim \u2014 as some historians of physics do \u2014 that priority for the basic idea of relativity should be attributed to Poincar\u00e9, it is difficult not to think that even without Einstein the theory of relativity would have been discovered within a reasonable time, since it was already \u201cin the air.\u201d Nor should we forget that the invention of infinitesimal calculus is contested between at least two individuals, Newton and Leibniz. On the opposite, the foundation of quantum mechanics was not the work of a single individual, but the combined effort of a considerable number of people, each of whom made a significant contribution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What, then, is the conclusion of all this? That great discoveries \u2014 even revolutionary ones \u2014 come to light when their time is ripe, that is, when previously accumulated knowledge makes it possible to take the leap toward a new paradigm. Needless to say, making such a leap requires individuals of great ability, but not a single irreplaceable genius without whom the world today would be different. The reality is that researchers contribute through their work not to the existence of scientific progress itself, but to the speed at which it advances<\/strong>. Without Newton, without Einstein, and all the others, scientific progress would have been slower \u2014 but it would nevertheless have occurred, even if over a longer timescale.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is why, in our time, we are witnessing a pace of scientific progress unparalleled in the past: because the number of researchers \u2014 unlike in previous centuries, today including a very large number of women \u2014 participating in research is extraordinarily high compared to any previous era.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"