Thread by @seanmcarroll

A new study in @nature shows that small scientific teams are more likely to be truly disruptive than large collaborations. It's great work, but has engendered a "shift funding to smaller science" narrative that I think is a bit off the mark.
nature.com/articles/s4158…

For one thing, I would bet that papers with fewer authors are also more likely to be ignored and get zero citations than those from big collaborations. There's just more variance in the world of papers with one or two authors.

More importantly, this paragraph in @edyong209's writeup of the story kind of undoes the narrative entirely. The causal factor doesn't seem to be size of the collaboration, it's receiving funding from top agencies! theatlantic.com/science/archiv…

That might seem counterintuitive - shouldn't agencies be funding the best science? - but actually makes sense. The issue is "disruptive," not "best." Disruptive science is likely to seem speculative or wrongheaded at first, and agencies don't like to go for that.

The authors say "science policies should aim to support a diversity of team sizes." Sure, but funding some long-shot ideas is more important than worrying about team size. We need a diversity of funders and approaches, and a willingness to let people chase occasional longshots.