The German physicist Max Planck said that science advances one funeral at a time. Or more just: “A new scientific truth doesn’t triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. ”
Richard Thaler of the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business, who won the Nobel Prize in economics on Oct. 9, exemplifies Planck’s monitoring. (Watch Bloomberg’s blanket policy here, here, here, here, and here.)
Early in Thaler’s livelihood, he had a hard time getting the establishment to take him seriously. Mainstream economists clung into a model where human beings were honest and farsighted. The top journals rejected papers by Thaler that pointed into the all-too-human foibles of real men and women. His thesis adviser “was unimpressed and told me to go back to running regressions,” Thaler recalled in a 2013 interview with a Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis book. It took 20 years to give way to a brand new one.
Why do scientists appear to resist new ideas? On the day Thaler obtained his Nobel, I interviewed Pierre Azoulay, co-author of a research paper known as He along with his co-authors found that at least in the case of life sciences, Planck’s epigram about funerals is accurate. Here’s the synopsis:
Consistent with previous research, the flow of articles by collaborators into influenced areas decreases precipitously after the passing of a celebrity scientist (relative to control areas). By comparison, we find that the flow of articles by non-collaborators raises by 8 percent normally. These extra contributions are disproportionately likely to be highly cited. They are also more inclined to be authored by scientists who were not previously active in the field of the deceased superstar. Overall, these results imply that outsiders are hesitant to challenge leadership in a area once the celebrity is alive and that entry may be constrained by a number of obstacles even after she’s gone. Intellectual, social, and re- source barriers all impede entry, with outsiders only entering subfields that provide a less hostile landscape for the service and acceptance of & #x 201C; #x 201D & overseas; ideas.
To put it differently, Azoulay found that the passing of a celebrity scientist is similar to the collapse of a huge tree. It lets sunshine reach the forest floor through a hole in the foliage canopy, enabling new types of vegetation to flourish.
Azoulay, a native of France, teaches entrepreneurship and innovation in Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Sloan School of Management. He said that by time he began working on his Ph.D. in the late 1990s, Thaler’s thoughts were already well into the academic mainstream. Thaler was elected president of the American Economic Association. In Azoulay’s view, Thaler’s ongoing portrayal of himself as a renegade is “a very clever marketing plan. ”
But #xA & Azoulay0;admits that in his career, Thaler did need to fight an uphill battle. “Some of his thoughts were blocked for just a bit longer than #x 201D, & a benevolent , all-knowing social planner might have enjoyed; Azoulay stated.
The economists who resisted #x Thaler &2019;s manner of believing didn’t die, but they did relinquish their grasp on the journals and professorships that are the heights of professors. A fantastic instance is a creator of the school, Eugene Fama, which is antithetical to #x & Thaler 2019 manner of believing. Fama is a colleague of Thaler in Chicago Booth and also a friendly rival; they even play tennis together.
“In the long run,” Azoulay stated, “the best ideas likely triumph. But plenty of amazing things can occur. #x & Thaler2019;s livelihood is a embodiment of the beginning and the conclusion of that procedure. ”
Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/