Thread by @zbirisingh

@michael_nielsen @patrickc Thanks @michael_nielsen and @patrickc for an insightful, well written piece.
I’ve been thinking about rate of change that science/technological acceleration has brought about to societies last 300 yrs, especially in post WW2 order where globalism has been the dominant agenda. 1/

@michael_nielsen @patrickc So it's fun read as is this comment thread within.

However, I think you are reaching a bit past your (Nobel Prize centric) research in your assertion that science and by relation technology, on a per-dollar or per-person basis is far less efficient, or has slowed enormously. 2/

@michael_nielsen @patrickc 3/ I found it hard to agree with.

Rather than slowing down, more than ever our societies are accelerating via global adoption of technology and scientific breakthroughs. @MaxCRoser has done quite well known work here on their relative 'diffusion':

ourworldindata.org/technological-…

@michael_nielsen @patrickc @MaxCRoser 4/ So, some specific thoughts/observations, first around the Nobel Prize framework.
To me, what partially explains the ‘quality’ drop off since the 1980s that you illustrate really well from within the ‘Nobel Prize’ lens, are how the Committees themselves have been lagging...

@michael_nielsen @patrickc @MaxCRoser 5/...in pace w/ process and demographics relative to where global advancements in science & technology seem to be headed. Our present day economic metrics like GDP, growth, productivity, unemployment rates are terrible proxies in measuring our exploding global digital economies.

@michael_nielsen @patrickc @MaxCRoser 6/ Similarly ineffective have been our various global patent offices, suffering from a lack of bureaucratic reform and preparedness over last 40 years to tackle inventions specifically around software (more on this bit later)

@michael_nielsen @patrickc @MaxCRoser 6/ I contend that the Nobel Prize Committees, coming from a century of evaluating progress in the classic sciences have not kept up with the ridiculous transformations in science and technology due to converging, multi-discipline contributions of...

@michael_nielsen @patrickc @MaxCRoser 8/ ..mathematics, cheap ubiquitous computing, bio-tech., robotics, ML/AI, cognitive sciences, modern materials, environmental sciences, etc.

Historically, the Nobel Committees have moved cautiously to recognize complex advances beyond the study of atoms and the cells.

@michael_nielsen @patrickc @MaxCRoser 9/ What is way overdue I think, is a unified guidance from them + demonstrated commitment to widen the scope (yes pun intended), and now consistently include a deeper examination of bits, specifically DNA, and the synapse.

@michael_nielsen @patrickc @MaxCRoser 10/ So computing/software, nanotechnology, bio-tech and cognitive sciences. These are the building blocks of the future.

@michael_nielsen @patrickc @MaxCRoser 11/ You touch very briefly on the ideas of scientific ‘reductionism’ and ‘emergence’. In those terms, it’s safe to say that the majority of ‘reductionist’ led discoveries and their closest linked ‘inventions’ (vs ‘innovations’) have occurred over this past trailing century.

@michael_nielsen @patrickc @MaxCRoser 12/ As @chr1sa points out earlier here, in trying to explain the ‘theory of everything” we have simply exhausted our abilities for now, to create better instruments of scientific observation.

https://twitter.com/chr1sa/status/1063455178756513792

@michael_nielsen @patrickc @MaxCRoser @chr1sa 13/ The low hanging fruit explanation widely cited here, is intrinsically acknowledged amongst particle physicists. Classical physics has pretty much reached its natural ‘reductionist’ limit.

@michael_nielsen @patrickc @MaxCRoser @chr1sa 14/ What has remained for Nobel Prize science purists is now mostly on the expanding ‘emergence’ horizon of nano chemistry, condensed matter physics (nanotechnology), engineering DNA, and cognitive medicine. There is some recent progress.

Example: nobelprize.org/prizes/medicin…

@michael_nielsen @patrickc @MaxCRoser @chr1sa 15/ Example: bit.ly/2OOBxes

@michael_nielsen @patrickc @MaxCRoser @chr1sa 16/ Example nobelprize.org/prizes/chemist…

@michael_nielsen @patrickc @MaxCRoser @chr1sa 17/ So atoms, cells/DNA, bits, and the synapse. Future building blocks on a multi disciplinary, emergent design, just like nature intended.

@michael_nielsen @patrickc @MaxCRoser @chr1sa 18/ Two more thoughts on the Nobel Committees along process + demographics:

#1 they suck on every measure, even as lenient as possible, on gender equality/inclusion. Since inception, the Nobel Prizes in the sciences have been awarded to only 20 women out of 607 recipients, ~3%.

@michael_nielsen @patrickc @MaxCRoser @chr1sa 20/ More important than recognizing emergent multi disciplinary fields of science/technology, to be taken seriously at all, I think Nobel Committees need to be expanded and to include minimum 50% representation by women.

@michael_nielsen @patrickc @MaxCRoser @chr1sa 21/ Kinda hard to assert that our advancement as a society due to science/technology maybe faltering when the Nobel Prize lens has systematically left out half the population = en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_f…

@michael_nielsen @patrickc @MaxCRoser @chr1sa 22/ So yeah, the quality and impact of recent Nobel Prize discoveries have def. slowed.

@michael_nielsen @patrickc @MaxCRoser @chr1sa 23/ The final observation I have on Nobel Prize dynamics is around their cloaked award process and the incentives systems that together reinforce poor behavior.

You already point out quite well how recent scientific research teams are getting much larger and...

@michael_nielsen @patrickc @MaxCRoser @chr1sa 24/...by necessity, their collaborations quite complex.

By limiting each annual award to no more than three recipients, the Committees have signalled low priority around prior work and the contributions of much larger teams.

@michael_nielsen @patrickc @MaxCRoser @chr1sa 25/ This needs to change, at the very least, accommodated on a case-by case basis. Plenty of recent examples here that have created much angst.

The other problem dynamic here is the ‘publish or perish’ phenomena within academia/scientific research that creates undercurrents...

@michael_nielsen @patrickc @MaxCRoser @chr1sa 26/ ...of intense competition & zero-sum game behaviors. I think it's awfully hard to consistently pursue the 'ultimate' status of excellence when incentives and natural behaviors diverge.

@michael_nielsen @patrickc @MaxCRoser @chr1sa 27/ The best work will always be marginalized. Although picking up in last few years, it’s not hard to see why the Nobel Sciences have been criticized as middling at best since the 1980s.

@michael_nielsen @patrickc @MaxCRoser @chr1sa 28/ Stepping back, another framework to consider = the tightly coupled, symbiotic relationship between the 'processes' of scientific/technological discovery, inventions, and innovation for driving forward the adoption of technology.

Could also partially explain your results.