科学家研究策略的传统与创新
Tradition and Innovation in Scientists' Research Strategies
摘要：
什么因素影响科学家对研究问题的选择？科学史、哲学和社会学中的定性研究表明，这种选择是由对生产力的专业需求和对风险创新的冲突驱动之间的“本质张力”形成的。我们在生物医学化学的背景下，以经验的方式研究这种张力。我们使用复杂网络来代表科学知识的发展状态，如出版物中所表达的那样。然后，我们定义了与这些网络相关的研究策略。科学家可以引入新的化学物质或化学关系-或深入研究已知的化学物质。他们可以巩固现有的知识集群，或连接遥远的知识集群。综合分析这些选择，我们发现，即使化学知识急剧增长，策略的分布仍然非常稳定。高风险的战略，探索新的化学关系，在文献中不太普遍，反映了越来越多的关注既定的知识，牺牲新的机会。遵循风险策略的研究更有可能被忽视，但也更有可能实现高影响和认可。虽然风险策略的结果比保守策略的结果有更高的预期回报，但额外的回报不足以补偿额外的风险。通过研究137个不同的生物医学和化学奖项的获奖者，我们发现，偶尔的“赌博”的非凡影响是最合理的解释观察到的风险承担水平。我们的实证演示和“本质紧张”的解包建议政策干预，可能会促进更多的创新研究。
英文摘要：
What factors affect a scientist's choice of research problem? Qualitative research in the history, philosophy, and sociology of science suggests that this choice is shaped by an "essential tension" between the professional demand for productivity and a conflicting drive toward risky innovation. We examine this tension empirically in the context of biomedical chemistry. We use complex networks to represent the evolving state of scientific knowledge, as expressed in publications. We then define research strategies relative to these networks. Scientists can introduce novel chemicals or chemical relationships--or delve deeper into known ones. They can consolidate existing knowledge clusters, or bridge distant ones. Analyzing such choices in aggregate, we find that the distribution of strategies remains remarkably stable, even as chemical knowledge grows dramatically. High-risk strategies, which explore new chemical relationships, are less prevalent in the literature, reflecting a growing focus on established knowledge at the expense of new opportunities. Research following a risky strategy is more likely to be ignored but also more likely to achieve high impact and recognition. While the outcome of a risky strategy has a higher expected reward than the outcome of a conservative strategy, the additional reward is insufficient to compensate for the additional risk. By studying the winners of 137 different prizes in biomedicine and chemistry, we show that the occasional "gamble" for extraordinary impact is the most plausible explanation for observed levels of risk-taking. Our empirical demonstration and unpacking of the "essential tension" suggests policy interventions that may foster more innovative research.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
