Get the latest market trends in your inbox

Stay on top of the latest market trends and economic insights with the Axios Markets newsletter. Sign up for free.

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday

Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Denver news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Denver

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Des Moines news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Des Moines

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Minneapolis-St. Paul news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Minneapolis-St. Paul

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Tampa-St. Petersburg news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Tampa-St. Petersburg

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Illustration: Caresse Haaser, Rebecca Zisser/Axios

Science is increasingly specialized, big and so information-saturated that experts can struggle to keep up in their own fields, fueling debate about whether the massive investments are being matched with novel findings and solutions.

What's new: Generating disruptive ideas, according to research published this week, can be encouraged in two seemingly contrasting ways — by forming small teams and leveraging crowds of workers. Each addresses a common enemy of innovation: how we interfere with each other's thinking and creativity.

Big idea 1: Small teams of scientists are more likely than large ones to produce disruptive ideas, according to a new analysis of more than 65 million scientific papers, patents and computer code published between 1954 and 2014.

  • A study was deemed more disruptive if those that come along later and cite it don't include the research the original study drew on — a sign that the work was original and took the field in a new direction.
  • "In every time period and every field, we find that large teams have an aversion to risk. They basically pick up and build on yesterday’s hits," says study co-author James Evans, a sociologist at the University of Chicago, who argues a venture capital-minded approach to science that supports small teams may be needed.
  • Against a backdrop of "big science," it's "a cautionary tale" that we may be losing some of what small teams contribute, says Jeff Nickerson of Stevens Institute of Technology, who wasn't involved in the study.
  • Evans and his two collaborators found that small teams, possibly because they are freed of multiple competing ideas and views, are more likely to build on older ideas or, if there are less than about 10 people, those from different areas of science.

Big idea 2: It's difficult for humans to produce analogies that drive some of the disruption Evans observes in small teams, in part because we fixate on the surface-level details of a problem, says Niki Kittur, a computer scientist at Carnegie Mellon University. He wants to create tools to vastly increase the number of diverse ideas people encounter, especially as they become awash in specialized information.

  • "Scaling up serendipity:" In a recent paper, Kittur and his colleagues outlined a process for taking the ability of finding analogies out of one individual's mind and distributing it among many people — and machines.
  • The steps: Groups of humans strip a problem down to the function or purpose of what they seek to design. An AI could then comb papers, patents, videos, legal briefings, the internet in order to find a common purpose in research in disparate and distant fields, an insurmountable task for any human. Experts are called back in to select and apply those analogies to try to solve the original problem.
  • Nickerson, who studies how groups of people approach and solve problems, adds that AI could make us more productive — "a big maybe" — but not if it misses the connections between fields and over time that Evans says is behind the disruption seen in small teams.

The bottom line: "We’ve eaten up low hanging fruits," Evans says. "But there are a host of possible fields, methods and problems that may have been less valuable when we constructed the fields we inherit now. We basically haven’t even begun to climb those trees."

Go deeper

Cold December as safety nets expire

Illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios

Safety nets are likely to be yanked from underneath millions of vulnerable Americans in December, as the coronavirus surges.

Why it matters: Those most at risk are depending on one or more relief programs that are set to expire, right as the economic recovery becomes more fragile than it's been in months.

15 hours ago - Health

Food banks feel the strain without holiday volunteers

People wait in line at Food Bank Community Kitchen on Nov. 25 in New York City. Photo: Michael Loccisano/Getty Images for Food Bank For New York City

America's food banks are sounding the alarm during this unprecedented holiday season.

The big picture: Soup kitchens and charities, usually brimming with holiday volunteers, are getting far less help.

17 hours ago - Health

AstraZeneca CEO: "We need to do an additional study" on COVID vaccine

Photo: Pavlo Gonchar/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

AstraZeneca CEO Pascal Soriot said on Thursday the company is likely to start a new global trial to measure how effective its coronavirus vaccine is, Bloomberg reports.

Why it matters: Following Phase 3 trials, Oxford and AstraZeneca said their vaccine was 90% effective in people who got a half dose followed by a full dose, and 62% effective in people who got two full doses.