Hubbry Logo
ScientistScientistMain
Open search
Scientist
Community hub
Scientist
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Scientist
Scientist
Scientist
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Scientist
Pierre Curie and Marie Curie demonstrating an apparatus that detects radioactivity. They received the 1903 Nobel Prize in Physics for their scientific research; Marie also received the 1911 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.
Occupation
NamesScientist
Occupation type
Profession
Activity sectors
Laboratory, research university, field research
Description
CompetenciesScientific research
Education required
Science
Fields of
employment
Academia, industry, government, nonprofit
Related jobs
Engineers
Part of a series on
Science
A stylised Bohr model of a lithium atom
General
Branches
In society

A scientist is a person who conducts scientific research to advance knowledge in an area of interest.[1][2]

In classical antiquity, there was no real ancient analog of a modern scientist. Instead, philosophers engaged in the philosophical study of nature called natural philosophy.[3] Though Thales (c. 624–545 BC) was arguably the first scientist for describing how cosmic events may be seen as natural, not necessarily caused by gods,[4][5][6][7][8][9] it was not until the 19th century that the term scientist came into regular use: it was coined by the theologian, philosopher, and historian of science William Whewell in 1833 to describe Mary Somerville.[10][11]

History

[edit]
"No one in the history of civilization has shaped our understanding of science and natural philosophy more than the great Greek philosopher and scientist Aristotle (384–322 BC), who exerted a profound and pervasive influence for more than two thousand years" —Gary B. Ferngren[12]
Georgius Agricola gave chemistry its modern name. Generally referred to as the father of mineralogy and the founder of geology as a scientific discipline.[13][14]
Johannes Kepler, one of the founders and fathers of modern astronomy, the scientific method, natural and modern science.[15]
Alessandro Volta, the inventor of the electrical battery and discoverer of methane, is widely regarded as one of the greatest scientists in history.
Francesco Redi, referred to as the "father of modern parasitology", is the founder of experimental biology.
Isaac Newton, who is regarded as "the towering figure of the Scientific Revolution",[16] and who achieved the first great unification in physics, created classical mechanics, calculus and refined the scientific method.
Mary Somerville, for whom the word "scientist" was coined.
Physicist Albert Einstein developed the general theory of relativity and made many substantial contributions to physics.
Physicist Enrico Fermi is credited with the creation of the world's first atomic bomb and nuclear reactor.
Atomic physicist Niels Bohr made fundamental contributions to understanding atomic structure and quantum theory.
Marine Biologist Rachel Carson launched the 20th century environmental movement.

The roles of "scientists", and their predecessors before the emergence of modern scientific disciplines, have evolved considerably over time. Scientists of different eras (and before them, natural philosophers, mathematicians, natural historians, natural theologians, engineers, and others who contributed to the development of science) have had widely different places in society, and the social norms, ethical values, and epistemic virtues associated with scientists—and expected of them—have changed over time as well. Accordingly, many different historical figures can be identified as early scientists, depending on which characteristics of modern science are taken to be essential.

Some historians point to the Scientific Revolution that began in 16th century as the period when science in a recognizably modern form developed. It was not until the 19th century that sufficient socioeconomic changes had occurred for scientists to emerge as a major profession.[17]

Classical antiquity

[edit]

Knowledge about nature in classical antiquity was pursued by many kinds of scholars. Greek contributions to science—including works of geometry and mathematical astronomy, early accounts of biological processes and catalogs of plants and animals, and theories of knowledge and learning—were produced by philosophers and physicians, as well as practitioners of various trades. These roles, and their associations with scientific knowledge, spread with the Roman Empire and, with the spread of Christianity, became closely linked to religious institutions in most European countries. Astrology and astronomy became an important area of knowledge, and the role of astronomer/astrologer developed with the support of political and religious patronage. By the time of the medieval university system, knowledge was divided into the trivium—philosophy, including natural philosophy—and the quadrivium—mathematics, including astronomy. Hence, the medieval analogs of scientists were often either philosophers or mathematicians. Knowledge of plants and animals was broadly the province of physicians.

Middle Ages

[edit]

Science in medieval Islam generated some new modes of developing natural knowledge, although still within the bounds of existing social roles such as philosopher and mathematician. Many proto-scientists from the Islamic Golden Age are considered polymaths, in part because of the lack of anything corresponding to modern scientific disciplines. Many of these early polymaths were also religious priests and theologians: for example, Alhazen and al-Biruni were mutakallimiin; the physician Avicenna was a hafiz; the physician Ibn al-Nafis was a hafiz, muhaddith and ulema; the botanist Otto Brunfels was a theologian and historian of Protestantism; the astronomer and physician Nicolaus Copernicus was a priest. During the Italian Renaissance scientists like Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Galileo Galilei and Gerolamo Cardano have been considered the most recognizable polymaths.

Renaissance

[edit]

During the Renaissance, Italians made substantial contributions in science. Leonardo da Vinci made significant discoveries in paleontology and anatomy. The Father of modern Science,[18][19] Galileo Galilei, made key improvements on the thermometer and telescope which allowed him to observe and clearly describe the Solar System. Descartes was not only a pioneer of analytic geometry but formulated a theory of mechanics[20] and advanced ideas about the origins of animal movement and perception. Vision interested the physicists Young and Helmholtz, who also studied optics, hearing and music. Newton extended Descartes's mathematics by inventing calculus (at the same time as Leibniz). He provided a comprehensive formulation of classical mechanics and investigated light and optics. Fourier founded a new branch of mathematics — infinite, periodic series — studied heat flow and infrared radiation, and discovered the greenhouse effect. Girolamo Cardano, Blaise Pascal Pierre de Fermat, Von Neumann, Turing, Khinchin, Markov and Wiener, all mathematicians, made major contributions to science and probability theory, including the ideas behind computers, and some of the foundations of statistical mechanics and quantum mechanics. Many mathematically inclined scientists, including Galileo, were also musicians.

There are many compelling stories in medicine and biology, such as the development of ideas about the circulation of blood from Galen to Harvey. Some scholars and historians attributes Christianity to having contributed to the rise of the Scientific Revolution.[21][22][23][24][25]

Age of Enlightenment

[edit]

During the age of Enlightenment, Luigi Galvani, the pioneer of bioelectromagnetics, discovered animal electricity. He discovered that a charge applied to the spinal cord of a frog could generate muscular spasms throughout its body. Charges could make frog legs jump even if the legs were no longer attached to a frog. While cutting a frog leg, Galvani's steel scalpel touched a brass hook that was holding the leg in place. The leg twitched. Further experiments confirmed this effect, and Galvani was convinced that he was seeing the effects of what he called animal electricity, the life force within the muscles of the frog. At the University of Pavia, Galvani's colleague Alessandro Volta was able to reproduce the results, but was sceptical of Galvani's explanation.[26]

Lazzaro Spallanzani is one of the most influential figures in experimental physiology and the natural sciences. His investigations have exerted a lasting influence on the medical sciences. He made important contributions to the experimental study of bodily functions and animal reproduction.[27]

Francesco Redi discovered that microorganisms can cause disease.

19th century

[edit]

Until the late 19th or early 20th century, scientists were still referred to as "natural philosophers" or "men of science".[28][29][30][31]

English philosopher and historian of science William Whewell coined the term scientist in 1833, and it first appeared in print in Whewell's anonymous 1834 review of Mary Somerville's On the Connexion of the Physical Sciences published in the Quarterly Review.[32] Whewell wrote of "an increasing proclivity of separation and dismemberment" in the sciences; while highly specific terms proliferated—chemist, mathematician, naturalist—the broad term "philosopher" was no longer satisfactory to group together those who pursued science, without the caveats of "natural" or "experimental" philosopher. Whewell compared these increasing divisions with Somerville's aim of "[rendering] a most important service to science" "by showing how detached branches have, in the history of science, united by the discovery of general principles."[33] Whewell reported in his review that members of the British Association for the Advancement of Science had been complaining at recent meetings about the lack of a good term for "students of the knowledge of the material world collectively." Alluding to himself, he noted that "some ingenious gentleman proposed that, by analogy with artist, they might form [the word] scientist, and added that there could be no scruple in making free with this term since we already have such words as economist, and atheist—but this was not generally palatable".[34]

Whewell proposed the word again more seriously (and not anonymously) in his 1840[35] The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences:

The terminations ize (rather than ise), ism, and ist, are applied to words of all origins: thus we have to pulverize, to colonize, Witticism, Heathenism, Journalist, Tobacconist. Hence we may make such words when they are wanted. As we cannot use physician for a cultivator of physics, I have called him a Physicist. We need very much a name to describe a cultivator of science in general. I should incline to call him a Scientist. Thus we might say, that as an Artist is a Musician, Painter, or Poet, a Scientist is a Mathematician, Physicist, or Naturalist.

He also proposed the term physicist at the same time, as a counterpart to the French word physicien. Neither term gained wide acceptance until decades later; scientist became a common term in the late 19th century in the United States and around the turn of the 20th century in Great Britain.[32][36][37] By the twentieth century, the modern notion of science as a special brand of information about the world, practiced by a distinct group and pursued through a unique method, was essentially in place.

20th century

[edit]

Marie Curie became the first woman to win the Nobel Prize and the first person to win it twice. Her efforts led to the development of nuclear energy and Radiotherapy for the treatment of cancer. In 1922, she was appointed a member of the International Commission on Intellectual Co-operation by the Council of the League of Nations. She campaigned for scientist's right to patent their discoveries and inventions. She also campaigned for free access to international scientific literature and for internationally recognized scientific symbols.

Profession

[edit]

As a profession, the scientist of today is widely recognized[citation needed]. However, there is no formal process to determine who is a scientist and who is not a scientist. Anyone can be a scientist in some sense. Some professions have legal requirements for their practice (e.g. licensure) and some scientists are independent scientists meaning that they practice science on their own, but to practice science there are no known licensure requirements.[38]

Education

[edit]

In modern times, many professional scientists are trained in an academic setting (e.g., universities and research institutes), mostly at the level of graduate schools. Upon completion, they would normally attain an academic degree, with the highest degree being a doctorate such as a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD).[39] Although graduate education for scientists varies among institutions and countries, some common training requirements include specializing in an area of interest,[40] publishing research findings in peer-reviewed scientific journals[41] and presenting them at scientific conferences,[42] giving lectures or teaching,[42] and defending a thesis (or dissertation) during an oral examination.[39] To aid them in this endeavor, graduate students often work under the guidance of a mentor, usually a senior scientist, which may continue after the completion of their doctorates whereby they work as postdoctoral researchers.[43]

Career

[edit]

After the completion of their training, many scientists pursue careers in a variety of work settings and conditions.[44] In 2017, the British scientific journal Nature published the results of a large-scale survey of more than 5,700 doctoral students worldwide, asking them which sectors of the economy they would like to work in. A little over half of the respondents wanted to pursue a career in academia, with smaller proportions hoping to work in industry, government, and nonprofit environments.[45][46]

Other motivations are recognition by their peers and prestige. The Nobel Prize, a widely regarded prestigious award,[47] is awarded annually to those who have achieved scientific advances in the fields of medicine, physics, and chemistry.

Some scientists have a desire to apply scientific knowledge for the benefit of people's health, the nations, the world, nature, or industries (academic scientist and industrial scientist). Scientists tend to be less motivated by direct financial reward for their work than other careers. As a result, scientific researchers often accept lower average salaries when compared with many other professions which require a similar amount of training and qualification.[citation needed]

Research interests

[edit]

Scientists include experimentalists who mainly perform experiments to test hypotheses, and theoreticians who mainly develop models to explain existing data and predict new results. There is a continuum between the two activities and the division between them is not clear-cut, with many scientists performing both tasks.

Those considering science as a career often look to the frontiers. These include cosmology and biology, especially molecular biology and the human genome project. Other areas of active research include the exploration of matter at the scale of elementary particles as described by high-energy physics, and materials science, which seeks to discover and design new materials. Others choose to study brain function and neurotransmitters, which is considered by many to be the "final frontier".[48][49][50] There are many important discoveries to make regarding the nature of the mind and human thought, much of which still remains unknown.

By specialization

[edit]

Natural science

[edit]
Physical science
[edit]
Life science
[edit]
Main article: List of life sciences

Social science

[edit]

Formal science

[edit]

Applied

[edit]

Interdisciplinary

[edit]

By employer

[edit]

Demography

[edit]

By country

[edit]

The number of scientists is vastly different from country to country. For instance, there are only four full-time scientists per 10,000 workers in India, while this number is 79 for the United Kingdom, and 85 for the United States.[51]

Scientists per 10,000 workers for selected countries[51]

United States

[edit]

According to the National Science Foundation, 4.7 million people with science degrees worked in the United States in 2015, across all disciplines and employment sectors. The figure included twice as many men as women. Of that total, 17% worked in academia, that is, at universities and undergraduate institutions, and men held 53% of those positions. 5% of scientists worked for the federal government, and about 3.5% were self-employed. Of the latter two groups, two-thirds were men. 59% of scientists in the United States were employed in industry or business, and another 6% worked in non-profit positions.[52]

By gender

[edit]
See also: Women in science

Scientist and engineering statistics are usually intertwined, but they indicate that women enter the field far less than men, though this gap is narrowing. The number of science and engineering doctorates awarded to women rose from a mere 7 percent in 1970 to 34 percent in 1985 and in engineering alone the numbers of bachelor's degrees awarded to women rose from only 385 in 1975 to more than 11000 in 1985.[53] [clarification needed]

See also

[edit]
Related lists

References

[edit]

External articles

[edit]
Further reading
Websites
Audio-Visual
  • "The Scientist", BBC Radio 4 discussion with John Gribbin, Patricia Fara and Hugh Pennington (In Our Time, Oct. 24, 2002)
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Scientist

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia

A scientist is an individual who engages in systematic to acquire knowledge about the natural world through empirical methods, including observation, experimentation, and analysis. The term "scientist" was coined in 1834 by philosopher to designate practitioners of the emerging professionalized pursuit of , replacing earlier phrases like "man of science" and initially applied in reviews of works by figures such as . Scientists employ the , a process marked by curiosity-driven , formulation of testable hypotheses, controlled experimentation to gather reproducible , and iterative refinement or falsification of theories based on . Key traits include toward unverified claims, objectivity in interpreting results, and reliance on to mitigate individual biases, enabling conclusions that are reliable yet provisional and subject to revision with new empirical findings. The endeavors of scientists have yielded transformative achievements, from elucidating fundamental laws governing motion and electromagnetism to developing vaccines and digital technologies that underpin modern society, while also driving economic growth and addressing challenges like disease and energy production. However, scientific practice has faced controversies, including ethical dilemmas in areas like human experimentation, the potential misuse of discoveries for destructive purposes such as nuclear weapons, and instances where institutional pressures compromise rigor, underscoring the tension between pursuit of truth and societal application.

Definition and Terminology

Etymology and Historical Usage

The English word scientist derives from the Latin scientia, denoting "knowledge," combined with the suffix -ist, indicating a person engaged in or devoted to a particular activity. This formation parallels terms like artist, emphasizing systematic pursuit of knowledge through empirical methods. The term was coined by Cambridge philosopher and historian of William in 1833, during the third annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of , in response to poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge's query for a general descriptor equivalent to "man of science" that avoided gender specificity. Whewell proposed "scientist" as a neutral analogue to "artist," applicable to cultivators of regardless of specific discipline. Its first printed appearance occurred in 1834 within Whewell's anonymous review in the Quarterly Review of Mary Somerville's On the Connexion of the Physical Sciences, where he applied "scientist" to describe Somerville herself, supplanting gendered phrases like "man of science." Initially introduced with a jocular tone, the neologism encountered resistance, as many preferred traditional titles reflecting the philosophical underpinnings of inquiry. Prior to Whewell's coinage, individuals pursuing systematic knowledge of the natural world were termed natural philosophers, a designation tracing to physiologoi and emphasizing speculative reasoning alongside observation, or specific occupational labels such as astronomer, naturalist, or chemist. These terms underscored the unity of knowledge under , with "science" itself evolving from broader medieval connotations of structured learning to denote empirical disciplines by the . Adoption of "scientist" accelerated in the mid-19th century amid science's institutionalization, with Whewell himself reinforcing it in his 1840 Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, where he also introduced "" for specialists in physical studies. By the late , the term had supplanted earlier usages in English-speaking contexts, reflecting the diversification and professional demarcation of scientific labor from . Usage spread internationally, though equivalents in other languages, such as French savant or German Naturforscher, persisted longer in some traditions.

Modern Criteria and Distinctions

In contemporary usage, a scientist is defined as an individual who systematically gathers and uses and , formulates hypotheses, and tests them through empirical methods to acquire, validate, and disseminate about natural phenomena. This aligns with practices emphasizing , experimentation, , and iterative revision to uncover underlying principles, distinguishing the role from speculative or anecdotal . Core criteria include adherence to —where hypotheses must be testable and potentially disprovable—and reliance on reproducible over or , as these enable cumulative progress in understanding causal mechanisms. Professional recognition often hinges on demonstrated output, such as peer-reviewed publications in specialized journals, rather than solely on credentials, though formal is prevalent. Many scientists hold advanced degrees; for instance, medical scientists typically require a Ph.D. or equivalent, with entry-level positions sometimes accessible via a master's and relevant experience. However, no universal licensure exists across fields, and self-taught contributors with verifiable contributions—evidenced by replication of results—have historically qualified, underscoring that methodological rigor trumps institutional affiliation. In practice, credibility derives from transparency in , ethical conduct in experimentation, and scrutiny by domain experts, mitigating biases inherent in siloed academic environments. Distinctions from adjacent roles clarify boundaries: prioritize fundamental discovery, generating new theories from controlled tests, whereas apply established principles to practical systems via iterative prototyping and optimization. For example, a might derive quantum models through hypothesis testing, while an integrates those models into fabrication. Technicians, in contrast, execute protocols, calibrate instruments, and troubleshoot implementations under scientific or oversight, focusing on operational fidelity rather than . These separations reflect causal priorities—scientists probe "why" through abstraction, address "how" via constraints, and technicians ensure "what works" in deployment—though overlaps occur in applied settings like industry R&D labs.

Historical Development

Ancient and Classical Foundations

Systematic inquiries into natural phenomena originated in ancient around 2000 BCE, where Babylonian astronomers recorded celestial observations using a to predict eclipses and lunar cycles for calendrical purposes. These efforts combined empirical with mathematical modeling, though often intertwined with astrological . Similarly, ancient applied and arithmetic practically for land after floods and construction, developing fractions and volume calculations evident in documents like the Rhind Papyrus from circa 1650 BCE. Such applications demonstrated early recognition of predictable , laying groundwork for quantitative analysis without invoking supernatural explanations exclusively. The transition to explicit natural philosophy occurred among Ionian Greeks in the 6th century BCE, with Thales of Miletus (c. 624–546 BCE) credited as the inaugural figure seeking rational principles underlying the , proposing as the fundamental substance from which all matter derives through observation of moisture's role in nourishment and change. Thales also reportedly predicted a on May 28, 585 BCE, applying geometric reasoning to astronomical data inherited from Babylonians. His successors, including and , extended this by hypothesizing (indefinite substance) and mathematical harmonies in nature, respectively, prioritizing observable evidence over mythological narratives. In , (384–322 BCE) advanced empirical methodology through systematic classification of biological specimens, dissecting over 500 species to identify causal patterns in and , as detailed in works like Historia Animalium. He formalized deductive logic via syllogisms, enabling hypothesis testing grounded in first observations, though his teleological views posited purpose in nature. This blend of induction and deduction influenced subsequent inquiry, emphasizing comprehensive data gathering before theorizing. Hippocrates of (c. 460–370 BCE) pioneered empirical by attributing diseases to environmental factors, diet, and imbalances in bodily humors rather than divine intervention, advocating based on patient observation and charts in the . His school on emphasized clinical experience and ethical detachment, separating healing from and establishing case histories as a tool for . Hellenistic scholars refined these foundations: Euclid (fl. 300 BCE) axiomatized in Elements, proving theorems from postulates to yield rigorous deductions applicable to and . (c. 287–212 BCE) quantified levers, (), and approximated pi via polygonal methods, integrating mathematics with mechanical experimentation. (c. 100–170 CE) synthesized Babylonian and Greek data into the geocentric model in , using epicycles for precise planetary predictions verified against observations. These achievements underscored the scientist's emerging role as a methodical investigator of causal mechanisms.

Medieval and Early Modern Transitions

During the medieval period in , spanning roughly from the 5th to the 15th century, systematic inquiry into natural phenomena was largely subsumed under scholastic , emphasizing logical deduction from authoritative texts like those of , whose works were recovered via translations in the . Universities, such as (founded 1088) and (c. 1096), institutionalized this approach through curricula focused on the —arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music—fostering debate but prioritizing reconciliation with over novel empirical tests. Practical advances, including the heavy plow (c. ) for deeper soil tilling and the mechanical clock (c. 1270s) for precise timekeeping, emerged from artisanal workshops rather than academic theory, reflecting incremental technological adaptation amid feudal constraints. Scholars like (c. 1175–1253), , and his pupil (c. 1214–1292) marked early shifts toward ; Grosseteste advocated mathematical demonstration verified by sensory experience in and cosmology, while Bacon, in his (1267), explicitly promoted experimentation (experientia) and induction as superior to untested authority, applying them to phenomena like composition (described c. 1242) and lens . These ideas, rooted in Franciscan emphasis on understanding God's creation through observation, challenged pure but remained marginal amid dominant textual exegesis. Concurrently, the (8th–13th centuries) preserved and extended Greek, Indian, and Persian knowledge through institutions like the in (established c. 825 under Caliph ), yielding advances such as Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi's systematization of algebra (, c. 820) and Ibn al-Haytham's (965–1040) experimental refutations of Ptolemaic in Kitab al-Manazir (c. 1015–1021), where he isolated variables in controlled trials to study light refraction and the . Ibn Sina (, 980–1037) compiled empirical medical observations in (1025), influencing European pharmacology for centuries. These contributions, transmitted via Latin translations in Toledo and (12th century), enriched European curricula, enabling critiques of inconsistencies in ancient authorities. The transition to early modern practices accelerated in the late 14th–15th centuries through Renaissance humanism's revival of primary classical sources, bypassing medieval commentaries, and the printing press (c. 1440 by Johannes Gutenberg), which multiplied access to texts like Euclid's Elements and spurred verification via direct reading. Eyeglasses (invented c. 1286 in Italy) enhanced observational precision, while navigational tools like the astrolabe (refined from Islamic models) supported maritime exploration, linking theory to utility. By the 16th century, this convergence—empirical precedents from Bacon and Islamic optics, institutional stability from universities, and technological enablers—eroded reliance on unverified deduction, setting the stage for heliocentric challenges by Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543) and mechanistic philosophies that prioritized quantifiable causation over qualitative essences. ![Georgius_Agricola.jpg][float-right] Georgius Agricola (1494–1555), a pioneer in systematic , exemplified early modern transitions by integrating field observation with classical texts in (1556), documenting techniques through empirical surveys rather than speculative . This approach, building on medieval precedents, foreshadowed as a descriptive grounded in direct evidence.

Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment

The of the 16th and 17th centuries transformed natural inquiry from reliance on ancient authorities to empirical observation and mathematical reasoning, elevating individuals who systematically investigated nature as precursors to modern scientists. advanced in published in 1543, proposing the Sun at the center of the solar system based on astronomical data. refined this model with his three laws of planetary motion, derived from Tycho Brahe's observations and published between 1609 and 1619, emphasizing elliptical orbits and quantitative relationships. enhanced the around 1609, discovering Jupiter's four largest moons and Venus's phases, which provided empirical support for and challenged . These figures, often termed "natural philosophers," operated largely independently or under patronage, prioritizing experimentation over deduction from unverified axioms. advocated inductive methodology in (1620), stressing systematic data collection to uncover causal laws, while René Descartes emphasized mechanistic explanations and doubt in (1637). Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687) integrated these approaches, formulating three laws of motion and the law of universal gravitation, grounded in mathematical proofs and experimental validation, thus unifying celestial and terrestrial mechanics. Newton's work exemplified the shift toward falsifiable hypotheses tested via precise measurement, distinguishing scientific practice from speculative philosophy. During the Enlightenment of the 18th century, scientific inquiry further professionalized through institutional frameworks, as academies supplanted universities as primary research hubs. The Royal Society of London, chartered in 1660, promoted experimental philosophy via meetings and publications like Philosophical Transactions (first issued 1665), fostering collaborative verification. The Académie Royale des Sciences, established in 1666, similarly emphasized empirical standards and state-supported investigations. revolutionized chemistry in the 1770s by quantifying combustion experiments, disproving , and naming oxygen, establishing as a foundational . Enlightenment thinkers integrated with broader , viewing it as a tool for societal progress, though practitioners remained gentlemen scholars or salaried academicians rather than full-time professionals. This era saw the emergence of specialized disciplines, with figures like developing for biology in Systema Naturae (1735), enabling systematic classification based on observable traits. Conflicts, such as Galileo's 1633 condemnation by the for , highlighted tensions with religious orthodoxy, yet empirical successes propelled the scientist's role toward autonomy and credibility. By century's end, was recognized for utilitarian applications, setting precedents for later .

Industrialization and 19th-Century Expansion

The Industrial Revolution, spanning from the late 18th century into the 19th, accelerated the integration of scientific inquiry with technological application, fostering expanded research in physics, chemistry, and engineering to address practical challenges in manufacturing, energy, and materials. This era marked a shift where scientific knowledge increasingly informed industrial processes, such as improvements in steam engines through thermodynamic principles developed by Sadi Carnot in 1824 and later refined by James Prescott Joule in the 1840s via experiments on heat and work equivalence. However, empirical analysis of British inventors reveals that formally trained scientists or engineers constituted a minority among key innovators until the late 19th century, with practical craftsmen and entrepreneurs dominating early breakthroughs like James Watt's steam engine enhancements in 1769–1781. The period saw the professionalization of science, exemplified by William Whewell's 1833 coinage of the term "scientist" to denote practitioners of systematic , reflecting a growing distinction from amateur naturalists. Scientific institutions proliferated, with organizations like the Royal Institution in Britain, founded in 1799, becoming hubs for experimental lectures and discoveries in by , whose 1831 induction experiments laid groundwork for electric generators and motors essential to industrial power systems. Membership in learned societies expanded, and the number of dedicated science periodicals surged from approximately 100 worldwide in 1800 to around 10,000 by 1900, facilitating dissemination of findings across and . Disciplinary expansions were pronounced in chemistry and physics, driven by industrial demands; emerged as a leader in industrial chemistry by the –, with advancements like the Haber-Bosch process precursors in dye and fertilizer production stemming from . In , Charles Darwin's 1859 publication of synthesized geological and anatomical evidence into evolutionary theory, influencing agricultural and medical applications amid expanding global trade and resource extraction. Universities and polytechnics, such as those established in under Wilhelm von Humboldt's model from the early 1800s, emphasized laboratories, training a new cadre of specialized investigators whose work directly supported , , and —fields that underpinned railway expansion (reaching over 200,000 miles of track globally by 1900) and chemical manufacturing scales. This interplay, while yielding verifiable technological gains, also highlighted tensions between pure inquiry and profit-driven application, with state and corporate funding increasingly shaping priorities by century's end.

20th-Century Professionalization

The early 20th century saw the consolidation of the PhD as the primary credential for aspiring scientists in the United States, building on late-19th-century foundations in research universities. From 1920 to the early 1960s, physical sciences led in PhD production, reflecting the era's emphasis on foundational disciplines like physics and chemistry. Between 1920 and 1999, U.S. institutions awarded over 1.35 million doctorates, with 62 percent in science and engineering fields, marking a shift toward specialized training for professional research careers. This growth paralleled the expansion of dedicated research laboratories in industry, such as those at General Electric and Kodak, where applied R&D concentrated in the Middle Atlantic region and focused on technical problem-solving. World War II accelerated professionalization through unprecedented government mobilization of scientific talent. The U.S. Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD), established in 1941, coordinated thousands of researchers on projects like development and the , which employed over 130,000 personnel by 1945, including leading physicists. This wartime model demonstrated the efficacy of large-scale, interdisciplinary teams funded by federal contracts, transitioning science from individual or small-group endeavors to institutionalized, team-based professions. Postwar influxes of European émigré scientists, fleeing , further bolstered U.S. capacity, with figures like contributing to nuclear research hubs. The 1945 report Science, the Endless Frontier by advocated sustained federal investment in to maintain military and economic advantages, influencing the creation of the (NSF) in 1950. NSF , initially modest at $3.5 million in 1952, grew to support university-based research, enabling a boom: annual U.S. STEM PhD production exceeded 14,000 by 1970. imperatives, including the following Sputnik in 1957, amplified this through agencies like and expanded (NIH) grants, shifting and biomedical fields toward quantitative, federally backed alism. By the late 20th century, science had evolved into a salaried with standardized training, peer-reviewed publication norms, and reliance on public-private , employing millions globally in academia, industry, and government labs.

21st-Century Evolutions and Challenges

The integration of and computational methods has transformed scientific inquiry since the early 2000s, enabling the analysis of vast datasets and accelerating discoveries in fields like and physics. For instance, techniques have facilitated , as exemplified by AlphaFold's resolution of longstanding challenges in 2020-2021, marking a shift toward data-driven paradigms that complement traditional experimentation. This evolution has blurred disciplinary boundaries, fostering interdisciplinary collaborations where scientists increasingly rely on algorithms for generation and , with computational power costs declining rapidly through innovations in and specialized chips. Parallel to these advances, the movement has gained momentum to promote transparency and accessibility, originating with initiatives like the 1991 launch of for preprint sharing and the 2002 Budapest Open Access Initiative, which advocated free online distribution of peer-reviewed literature. By the 2010s, this expanded to include and methods, aiming to enhance and societal impact through platforms that mandate sharing of raw data and code, as seen in policies from funders like the . However, adoption remains uneven, with benefits including reduced duplication of effort but challenges in standardizing practices across disciplines. Despite these evolutions, scientists face a reproducibility crisis, where a 2016 Nature survey of 1,576 researchers found over 70% failed to replicate others' experiments and more than 50% struggled with their own, attributed to issues like selective reporting, p-hacking, and insufficient methodological detail. This has been compounded by "" pressures, exacerbating carelessness or fraud in pursuit of high-impact publications, with replication rates in large projects as low as 46% in preclinical studies. Funding constraints further intensify , as grant success rates hover around 10-20% in major agencies like the NIH, prioritizing novel over confirmatory work. Public trust in science has eroded amid politicization and perceived biases, with Pew Research Center data showing U.S. confidence in scientists dropping from 87% in 2019 to 73% in 2023, largely due to controversies over origins, policy advice, and institutional handling of dissenting views, including suppression of lab-leak hypotheses initially deemed fringe. This decline correlates with partisan divides, where Republican trust fell sharply post-pandemic, fueled by events like retracted studies and overstatements of consensus on issues such as models. Systemic left-leaning biases in academia, evidenced by surveys showing disproportionate progressive affiliations among faculty (e.g., ratios exceeding 10:1 in social sciences), have contributed to selective emphasis on certain narratives, undermining perceived neutrality and prompting calls for viewpoint diversity to restore credibility.

Scientific Method and Practices

Core Principles of Empirical Inquiry

Empirical inquiry in science prioritizes knowledge acquisition through direct of phenomena and rigorous testing against reality, distinguishing it from speculative or authority-based deduction. This approach, rooted in the empiricist tradition, insists that propositions about the natural world must be grounded in verifiable sensory data rather than innate ideas or untested assumptions. , in his 1620 , formalized inductive methods by urging systematic collection of factual instances to build generalizations, rejecting the "idols" of the mind—cognitive biases that distort perception—as barriers to clear understanding. Such principles counterbalance pure , as seen in Descartes' emphasis on deduction, by demanding confrontation with to refine or refute ideas. Central to empirical inquiry is falsifiability, the criterion that scientific hypotheses must generate testable predictions capable of being disproven by or experiment; theories immune to such refutation, like those relying on ad hoc adjustments, fail as scientific. articulated this in his 1934 Logik der Forschung (English: , 1959), arguing it demarcates from by prioritizing bold conjectures subject to severe empirical trials over mere confirmation. Complementing this is reproducibility, requiring independent researchers to replicate results using identical protocols under comparable conditions to confirm validity and rule out anomalies or errors. Failure in replication, as documented in fields like where only 36% of studies reproduced significant effects in a 2015 multi-lab effort, underscores its role in weeding out non-robust findings. Objectivity demands minimizing subjective influences through standardized procedures, such as randomized controls and blinded assessments, to ensure outcomes reflect phenomena rather than investigator preconceptions. Empirical studies incorporating these yield more reliable causal inferences, as biases like confirmation seeking—where favoring a is preferentially noted—can inflate false positives if unchecked. Transparency in , , and further bolsters these principles, enabling scrutiny and iterative improvement; withholding details undermines collective verification, as evidenced by retractions linked to opaque practices in high-profile cases. Together, these tenets foster causal realism, wherein explanations prioritize mechanisms verifiable by evidence, advancing predictive power across disciplines from physics to .

Experimentation, Falsification, and Hypothesis Testing

Scientists advance knowledge by formulating —testable explanations derived from observations and prior theories—and subjecting them to rigorous empirical scrutiny through experimentation. A typically includes a predicted relationship between variables, such as an independent variable manipulated by the experimenter and a dependent variable measured for outcomes. Testing involves statistical methods to evaluate whether observed data support rejecting a (no effect) in favor of an alternative, with significance levels like p < 0.05 indicating low probability of results occurring by chance alone. This process demands precise experimental design, including control groups to isolate causal effects, to minimize , and sufficient sample sizes to ensure statistical power. Experimentation requires isolating variables to establish , often through controlled conditions that replicate natural phenomena or simulate interventions. For instance, in Redi's 1668 experiment, he placed meat in jars: open jars developed maggots from fly eggs, while gauze-covered jars prevented fly access and maggot formation, falsifying the prevailing theory of by demonstrating that life arises from preexisting life rather than non-living ./03%3A_The_Cell/3.01%3A_Spontaneous_Generation) Controls, such as untreated groups, are essential to rule out factors, while replication by independent researchers verifies findings and guards against errors or anomalies. Modern experiments often incorporate blinding and double-blinding to reduce , alongside quantitative measurements for objective analysis. Central to scientific progress is falsification, the principle articulated by Karl Popper that theories must be empirically refutable to qualify as scientific; a hypothesis gains strength not through indefinite confirmation but by surviving attempts to disprove it. Popper argued in The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1934) that universal statements, like scientific laws, are deductively falsifiable by a single counterexample, shifting focus from induction's logical flaws to bold, risky predictions testable via modus tollens reasoning: if theory T implies observation O, and O is not observed, then T is false. This demarcates science from pseudoscience, which evades refutation through ad hoc adjustments. In practice, falsification drives iterative refinement; failed predictions prompt theory revision or abandonment, as seen in the eventual rejection of after Lavoisier's oxygen experiments in the contradicted models. Contemporary critiques note that auxiliary assumptions can complicate strict falsification, yet emphasizing direct tests of strong hypotheses accelerates reliable knowledge accumulation over mere corroboration in high-volume research. Replication crises in fields like underscore the need for pre-registered hypotheses and adversarial testing to prioritize falsifiable claims, ensuring causal claims withstand scrutiny.

Peer Review, Replication, and Publication Norms

serves as the primary mechanism for evaluating the validity, originality, and methodological rigor of scientific manuscripts prior to publication in academic journals. In this process, editors select independent experts in the relevant field—typically two to four reviewers—who assess the work anonymously or openly, depending on the journal's policy, and provide recommendations on acceptance, revision, or rejection. The goal is to ensure that published research meets standards of scientific quality, though critics note that reviewers often focus more on novelty and perceived impact than on replicability or long-term verifiability. Replication, the independent repetition of experiments under similar conditions to confirm results, is essential for establishing the reliability of scientific claims, distinguishing robust findings from artifacts of chance or error. However, widespread failure to replicate has characterized a "" across fields, driven by low statistical power in original studies, selective reporting, and insufficient incentives for replication efforts. In , the Collaboration's 2015 attempt to replicate 100 experiments from top journals yielded statistically significant effects in only 36% of cases, compared to 97% in the originals, with effect sizes averaging less than half as large. In cancer biology, researchers in 2012 successfully replicated just 6 of 53 landmark preclinical studies (11%), attributing failures to differences in reagents, protocols, or undisclosed variability. Publication norms exacerbate these issues through systemic biases favoring positive, statistically significant results (typically p < 0.05), leading to publication bias where null or negative findings are underrepresented in the literature. P-hacking—practices like selectively stopping data collection after significance or testing multiple analyses without correction—inflates false positives, as researchers adjust methods post-hoc to achieve desired thresholds. John Ioannidis's 2005 analysis mathematically demonstrated that, under realistic conditions of low prior probability, small effect sizes, and bias toward positive results, most published research findings are false, a proposition supported by empirical trends in fields like biomedicine where replication rates hover below 50%. These norms stem from "publish or perish" pressures, where career advancement hinges on high-impact publications, discouraging replication studies that rarely garner prestige or funding. Efforts to reform include preregistration of studies to prevent selective reporting, mandates for , and journals prioritizing replication attempts, yet adherence remains inconsistent, and persists due to entrenched incentives. For instance, meta-analyses correcting for bias still reveal elevated false discovery rates, underscoring that alone cannot safeguard against flawed norms without broader cultural shifts toward valuing negative and confirmatory work.

Professional Aspects

Education and Training Requirements

A in a scientific discipline, such as , chemistry, , , or earth sciences, serves as the foundational requirement for entry into scientific careers, typically requiring four years of study including core coursework in quantitative methods, skills, and discipline-specific principles. Undergraduate programs emphasize hands-on experiences, such as internships or capstone projects, which are essential for developing empirical inquiry skills and preparing students for graduate-level work. For independent research roles in academia, laboratories, or industry R&D, a Ph.D. in a relevant natural or physical science is standard, involving 4-7 years of advanced training that includes initial , comprehensive examinations, and 2-4 years of original dissertation under faculty supervision. Ph.D. programs prioritize mastery of the through hypothesis-driven experiments, , and peer feedback, with life sciences often extending longer due to iterative biological validations compared to physical sciences. A , usually 1-2 years, may suffice for technical or applied positions but is frequently a stepping stone to the Ph.D. or omitted in direct-entry doctoral tracks. Postdoctoral fellowships, lasting 1-5 years, provide specialized training in cutting-edge techniques and independent , bridging the Ph.D. to roles; these positions are nearly universal in competitive fields like biomedical research, where they refine grant-writing and publication skills amid resource constraints. Continuous , including workshops on , , and interdisciplinary tools, supplements formal education to address evolving methodologies, though formal certification is rare outside regulated subfields like . Variations exist by discipline: computational sciences may prioritize programming proficiency over extensive lab time, while experimental fields demand rigorous safety and instrumentation training from undergraduate onward.

Career Trajectories and Roles

The career trajectory of scientists generally commences with in a relevant scientific , followed by graduate training. A doctoral degree (PhD) is the standard entry point for independent roles, with approximately 57,000 science, engineering, and health doctorates awarded by U.S. universities in 2023, representing a stable annual output since the early . Postdoctoral fellowships, lasting 1–5 years, serve as a common bridge, particularly in fields like life sciences where about 59% of new PhDs enter such positions to build expertise and publication records before . Academic paths emphasize tenure-track progression: after postdoc, securing an position involves intense competition, with only 10–15% of PhDs ultimately attaining tenure-track roles across fields. Successful academics advance to (post-tenure, typically after 5–7 years) and full professor, often serving as principal investigators (PIs) who lead labs, secure grants, and mentor students. However, the supply of PhDs exceeds academic openings, leading to structural oversupply; steady-state models estimate that just 12.8% of U.S. PhDs can expect academic research positions long-term. In industry, trajectories focus on applied research and product development, starting as research scientists or associates in roles involving experimentation, data analysis, and team collaboration. Advancement proceeds to senior scientist, principal scientist, and director levels, with emphasis on innovation contributing to commercial outcomes; many plateau at principal or director stages, with fewer than 10% reaching vice president or executive positions. Private sector employment now accounts for 42% of U.S.-trained science PhDs, approaching parity with the 43% in academia, driven by demand in pharmaceuticals, technology, and manufacturing. Government and nonprofit roles, comprising about 10–15% of placements, include staff scientists at agencies like the or national labs (e.g., Los Alamos, Argonne), where duties mirror academic research but prioritize policy-relevant or mission-driven projects such as defense or . These positions often require security clearances or specialized expertise and offer stable funding less tied to individual grants. Across sectors, success correlates with early publications, collaborations, and field-specific skills, though interdisciplinary mobility has increased, with 20–30% of PhDs shifting sectors within a decade of graduation.

Specializations by Discipline

The (NSF) classifies and fields into major categories including life sciences, physical sciences, geosciences, and computer sciences, and , reflecting the primary disciplines in which scientists specialize. These disciplines enable focused empirical investigation into specific phenomena, with specializations emerging from advances in , , and interdisciplinary applications as of 2023 data. Life sciences encompass the study of living organisms and their processes, divided by NSF into agricultural sciences, biological sciences, and . Biological sciences specializations include molecular and cellular biology, which examines genetic mechanisms and cellular functions; and , focusing on organism-environment interactions and adaptation; and integrative organismal systems, integrating across scales from cells to ecosystems. The NSF's Directorate for Biological Sciences supports these through divisions like Molecular and Cellular Biosciences and Environmental Biology, funding over 4,000 grants annually as of 2023. Biomedical specializations, such as and , apply biological principles to , with NSF reporting 36% of global publications in health-related fields including these areas in 2019. Physical sciences address non-living matter, energy, and fundamental forces, with NSF designating physics, chemistry, and astronomy as core areas. Chemistry branches into organic (carbon-based compounds and synthesis), inorganic (non-carbon elements and ), physical ( and quantum interactions), analytical (measurement techniques like ), and biochemistry (molecular life processes), as defined by the . Physics specializations derive from NSF-funded research in areas like (subatomic particles via accelerators) and (properties under extreme conditions), contributing to advancements such as semiconductors, with U.S. physical sciences comprising 10% of S&E doctorates in 2022. Astronomy focuses on celestial bodies, specializing in cosmology (universe origins) and (exoplanets and solar systems). Geosciences investigate Earth's systems, including atmospheric, ocean, and sciences per NSF classifications. Specializations encompass (long-term weather patterns), (earthquake dynamics), and (marine circulation and chemistry), with NSF noting geosciences' role in prediction, as evidenced by over 1,000 annual awards supporting models of tectonic plate movements. Mathematics and computer sciences, formal disciplines underpinning empirical sciences, specialize in theoretical mathematics (e.g., and ), applied mathematics (modeling differential equations for simulations), and (algorithms, , and ). NSF data indicate computer sciences grew 15% in U.S. doctorates from 2018 to 2022, driven by AI applications. Engineering, an applied discipline, adapts scientific principles to design, with NSF subfields like (process optimization) and bioengineering (tissue interfaces), representing 20% of S&E research expenditures in 2022. These specializations often intersect, such as in or , fostering hybrid expertise.

Institutions and Support Systems

Research Organizations and Universities

Universities function as central institutions for the , , and advancement of scientists, combining pedagogical responsibilities with to drive empirical inquiry and . In the United States, academic institutions perform roughly 50% of all , emphasizing foundational knowledge generation over immediate applications. This dual role enables universities to cultivate talent by integrating student involvement in projects, providing access to laboratories, archives, and specialized equipment that support testing and . Leading examples include , which topped institutional outputs in high-impact journals like Nature and Science with a fractional count of 70.67 articles in 2018, followed by institutions such as Stanford and the University of California system. University-affiliated scientists have historically dominated recognition for major discoveries, with affiliations at the time of award comprising a substantial share of Nobel Prizes in physics, chemistry, and since 1901. For instance, the system achieved a record five Nobel laureates in 2025 across , physics, and chemistry, bringing its cumulative total to 75 prizes since 1934. Similarly, the counts 101 Nobel-affiliated scholars, reflecting sustained institutional support for rigorous, peer-evaluated work. These achievements stem from structures allowing , merit-based hiring, and competition for grants, though assessments reveal potential distortions from uneven ideological distributions in faculty demographics, which may skew topic selection away from certain causal inquiries. Complementing universities, specialized research organizations focus on targeted, often large-scale investigations, including government national laboratories and independent institutes. The U.S. Department of Energy manages 17 national laboratories, established post-World War II to address energy, climate, and security challenges through multidisciplinary teams and user facilities for experiments unattainable in academic settings. Internationally, the leads global research output among non-university entities, followed by France's Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) and Germany's , which prioritize empirical validation in fields like physics and . The (NIH), the world's largest biomedical research funder, operates institutes dedicated to disease mechanisms and interventions, producing outputs that inform university curricula and collaborations. These organizations often partner with universities for interdisciplinary projects, sharing resources like supercomputing facilities or particle accelerators, as seen in initiatives involving DOE labs and academic consortia for modeling. Such networks enhance replication and falsification efforts but face challenges from incentives that may prioritize incremental over disruptive findings, with institutes sometimes exhibiting mission-driven biases toward policy-aligned outcomes.

Funding Mechanisms and Incentives

Scientific research funding primarily flows through competitive grant mechanisms administered by government agencies, private foundations, and industry partners. In the , the (NSF) supports fundamental research across disciplines via proposals subjected to merit review, with awards typically ranging from $100,000 to several million dollars per project, emphasizing intellectual merit and broader impacts. Similarly, the (NIH) funds the majority of biomedical research as the world's largest public biomedical funder, disbursing over $40 billion annually through investigator-initiated grants like R01 awards, which require detailed proposals outlining hypotheses, methods, and expected outcomes. Globally, (R&D) expenditures reached approximately $3.1 trillion in 2022, with the accounting for 30% and 27%, predominantly from public and business sources. Private sector involvement includes industry-sponsored research, often directed toward applied outcomes, and philanthropic grants from entities like the or the Gates Foundation, which prioritize specific health or technological goals. allocation relies on panels evaluating proposals for feasibility, , and potential impact, though success rates hover around 20-25% for major agencies, fostering intense . These mechanisms incentivize to align projects with funder priorities, such as NSF's emphasis on transformative ideas via EAGER grants for high-risk, early-stage work. Career incentives are heavily tied to grant acquisition and publication output, encapsulated in the "" paradigm, where tenure, promotions, and further funding depend on metrics like citation counts and journal impact factors rather than long-term replication or societal utility. This system, rooted in post-World War II expansion of academic research, pressures researchers to prioritize quantity—evidenced by a tripling of global publications since 2000 amid stagnant or declining per-paper quality assessments—over rigorous validation, contributing to issues like p-hacking and selective reporting. Distortions arise from ideological and political influences in decisions, with of systemic left-leaning biases among grant reviewers and , who donate disproportionately to Democrats (over 90% in some analyses), potentially skewing allocations toward ideologically aligned topics like certain social s or climate research. Politicization, including DEI mandates in grant criteria, has been criticized for subordinating scientific merit to equity goals, as seen in NSF and NIH policies under recent administrations that integrate diversity statements, risking the suppression of dissenting or inquiries. Such biases compound a shift away from , with U.S. allocations increasingly favoring applied, short-term projects amid pressures, as federal R&D obligations grew modestly to $108.8 billion in 2023 but with slower grant approval rates.

Collaborative Networks and Interdisciplinary Work

Scientific collaboration typically occurs through networks formed by co-authorship on publications, participation in conferences, joint efforts, and shared infrastructures. Analyses of co-authorship data reveal that the average number of authors per scientific paper has risen substantially over the 20th and 21st centuries, from fewer than two in many fields around 1900 to often exceeding five or more by 2020, reflecting a shift from solitary work to team-based production driven by the complexity of experiments and data handling. This trend is evident across disciplines, with international co-authorships increasing due to factors like global communication tools and incentives, as tracked by bibliometric studies showing higher citation impacts for collaborative papers. Such networks often exhibit small-world properties, where researchers connect through short paths of mutual acquaintances, facilitating knowledge dissemination but also concentrating influence among highly connected "hubs" like prominent institutions. Interdisciplinary work integrates methods and expertise from multiple fields to address problems intractable within single disciplines, such as climate modeling combining physics, biology, and . Historical examples include the (1942–1946), which assembled physicists, chemists, engineers, and military personnel in a secretive, government-led effort involving over 130,000 participants across sites like Los Alamos, yielding the atomic bomb through unprecedented resource allocation and cross-disciplinary coordination. Similarly, the (1990–2003) united geneticists, bioinformaticians, and computational experts from 20 universities and laboratories worldwide, sequencing the via shared data protocols and public-private partnerships, which accelerated despite initial debates over data-sharing norms. These efforts demonstrate benefits like accelerated innovation and holistic problem-solving, though challenges persist, including methodological clashes, communication barriers across jargon-heavy fields, and difficulties in peer evaluation of hybrid outputs. In contemporary , collaborative networks leverage digital platforms for real-time data sharing, as seen in large-scale experiments at involving thousands of researchers from diverse nations and disciplines, producing results through consensus-driven protocols. Interdisciplinary approaches yield higher societal impact by tackling multifaceted issues like pandemics or , yet empirical studies indicate potential drawbacks, such as diluted focus or slower publication rates due to alignment costs among varying paradigms. Overall, these networks enhance empirical rigor by distributing falsification tests across expertise but require institutional supports like joint funding to mitigate silos.

Societal Roles and Impacts

Contributions to Knowledge and Innovation

Scientists have advanced human knowledge through systematic investigation, yielding foundational theories and empirical findings that underpin modern understanding of the natural world. For instance, Isaac Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica published in 1687 articulated the laws of motion and universal gravitation, establishing classical mechanics as a cornerstone of physics and enabling predictive models for celestial and terrestrial phenomena. Similarly, Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, introduced in 1905 and 1915, revolutionized concepts of space, time, and gravity, facilitating developments in nuclear energy and global positioning systems. These contributions exemplify how basic research generates paradigms that persist and evolve, often independently of immediate practical aims. In biology and medicine, scientists' discoveries have transformed health outcomes by elucidating causal mechanisms of disease and life processes. Louis Pasteur's germ theory in the 1860s demonstrated that microorganisms cause infection, leading to sterilization techniques and vaccines that eradicated by 1980 through Edward Jenner's earlier cowpox-based inoculation refined into modern vaccinology. Alexander Fleming's 1928 identification of penicillin as an initiated the era of antimicrobial therapy, reducing mortality from bacterial infections and contributing to a doubling of global from about 32 years in 1900 to over 70 by 2020, largely via medical innovations rooted in scientific research. The 1953 elucidation of DNA's double-helix structure by and provided the molecular basis for , spawning biotechnology fields including gene editing tools like CRISPR-Cas9 developed in 2012, which enable precise genomic modifications for treating genetic disorders. Technological innovations frequently emerge from scientific insights, bridging theory to application and driving economic productivity. The , invented in 1947 by , Walter Brattain, and at based on principles, miniaturized electronics and powered the computing revolution, with advancements correlating to in computational power per observed since 1965. has indirectly fueled such progress; for example, federally funded studies in the mid-20th century contributed to over 75% of U.S. through knowledge spillovers into industry. More recently, mRNA technology, advanced through decades of research, underpinned vaccines deployed in 2020, demonstrating how sustained investment in scientific inquiry yields rapid responses to global challenges. These examples illustrate the causal chain from empirical discovery to scalable innovation, though outcomes often arise serendipitously from curiosity-driven work rather than directed goals.

Technological and Economic Advancements

Scientific research has historically catalyzed technological innovations that propel economic expansion, with basic discoveries enabling applied technologies across industries. For example, advancements in and laboratory techniques facilitated the in the late , underpinning modern sanitation, antibiotics, and systems that extended lifespans and boosted workforce productivity. Similarly, foundational physics principles, such as those elucidated by , laid the groundwork for the Industrial Revolution's mechanical innovations, shifting economies from agrarian to manufacturing bases and multiplying output per worker. Empirical analyses attribute substantial portions of gross domestic product (GDP) growth to science-driven technologies. Up to 85% of U.S. GDP growth over the past half-century stems from advancements in science and technology, reflecting spillovers from research into sectors like electronics, biotechnology, and information systems. At least half of America's economic growth arises from scientific and technological innovation, with federally funded research yielding returns on investment (ROI) estimated at 150% to 300% through job creation, new industries, and productivity gains. Nondefense government research and development (R&D) spending correlates with sustained long-term productivity increases, as basic research addresses fundamental challenges that applied efforts build upon. Key mechanisms include the translation of scientific insights into marketable technologies, such as semiconductors from or from , fostering trillion-dollar industries. Public R&D investments, comprising about 40% of U.S. funding in 2022, generate economic multipliers where each dollar spent returns $2.30 or more in rural economies alone via NIH grants, supporting clusters of high-tech firms and skilled . These effects compound over decades, as paradigm-shifting discoveries enable cascades of "micro inventions" that sustain growth rates, as evidenced by economic models linking scientific progress to historical accelerations in . However, realizing these benefits requires patience, as ROI materializes over extended horizons, contrasting with shorter-term business imperatives.

Influence on Policy and Public Discourse

Scientists exert influence on policy through formal advisory mechanisms, such as government-appointed chief advisors and committees that provide evidence-based recommendations on issues ranging from to environmental . In the United States, the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) delivers independent scientific and technical analyses to inform executive decisions, while federal advisory committees offer specialized input to agencies on topics like drug approvals and climate strategies. Similarly, the European Commission's Group of Chief Scientific Advisors supplies timely, independent guidance to commissioners on cross-cutting challenges, emphasizing rigorous peer-reviewed data over consensus driven by non-scientific factors. These roles aim to integrate empirical findings into governance, yet their effectiveness depends on the advisors' ability to separate methodological rigor from ideological predispositions prevalent in academic institutions. In public health crises, scientific input has directly shaped containment measures; during the COVID-19 pandemic, advisors influenced decisions on lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and masking protocols across governments, drawing on epidemiological models and clinical trials. However, retrospective analyses have highlighted how initial modeling assumptions overestimated certain outcomes, leading to policies with substantial economic and social costs disproportionate to verified benefits in some contexts. Environmental policy provides another domain, where marine biologist Rachel Carson's 1962 book Silent Spring mobilized public opposition to pesticide overuse, contributing to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 1972 ban on DDT and the broader framework of the Clean Air and Water Acts. Such cases demonstrate causal pathways from scientific dissemination to legislative action, though amplified media narratives sometimes outpace the underlying data's evidential strength. Scientists also shape public via media engagement, op-eds, and , fostering informed on contentious issues like genetic modification and energy transitions. A 2024 Pew Research survey found 51% of U.S. adults believe should actively participate in debates on scientific topics, reflecting broad expectations for expertise in civic conversations. Yet, this influence risks distortion when institutional biases—such as funding dependencies or political alignments in academia—prioritize alarmist interpretations over balanced probabilistic assessments, as seen in environmental advocacy where dissenting empirical critiques receive marginal attention. For instance, behavior science has informed anti-obesity initiatives and strategies, but selective emphasis on correlative data over causal mechanisms can embed flawed assumptions into regulatory frameworks. Effective requires to prioritize transparent replication and , countering tendencies toward that undermine realism.

Criticisms and Challenges

Replication Crisis and Methodological Flaws

The refers to the widespread observation that many published scientific findings fail to reproduce when independently tested under similar conditions, undermining confidence in empirical claims across disciplines. This issue emerged prominently in the , with large-scale replication efforts revealing low success rates; for instance, the Collaboration's 2015 project attempted to replicate 100 experiments from top psychological journals and found that only 36% produced statistically significant results matching the original direction, with replicated s averaging half the original magnitude. Similar challenges appeared in other fields, such as preclinical cancer , where a 2021 replicated 50 high-impact studies and achieved successful replication in approximately 46% of cases using predefined criteria like consistency. These failures are not uniform—fields like physics and large-scale clinical trials show higher reproducibility due to standardized methods and larger datasets—but soft s with flexible designs exhibit pronounced vulnerabilities. Methodological flaws contribute substantially to non-replicability by inflating false positives. P-hacking, the practice of selectively analyzing data or choosing analyses until a statistically significant result (typically p < 0.05) emerges, distorts findings by capitalizing on chance variability without adjusting for multiple tests. exacerbates this by favoring novel, positive results for journal acceptance, leaving null or contradictory outcomes unpublished; simulations show that even modest p-hacking combined with this bias can yield literatures dominated by false discoveries, especially in underpowered studies with small samples. —hypothesizing after results are known, then retroactively framing exploratory analyses as confirmatory—further erodes transparency, as it presents post-hoc interpretations as pre-registered predictions, misleading readers about evidential strength. Low statistical power, often below 50% in psychological studies, compounds these issues by making genuine effects hard to detect reliably while amplifying noise-driven false positives. Underlying these flaws are systemic incentives in academia that prioritize quantity and novelty over robustness. The "" culture rewards high-impact publications in prestigious journals, which disproportionately value surprising, significant results, discouraging replication attempts that rarely yield career advancement. Tenure and decisions hinge on citation counts and novel claims rather than methodological rigor, fostering questionable practices like optional stopping or selective reporting; surveys indicate over 50% of psychologists admit to such behaviors. This misalignment stems from evaluation metrics that undervalue negative or incremental findings, leading to a proliferation of fragile results ill-suited for or real-world application. While preregistration and initiatives have mitigated some abuses—boosting replication rates in adopting labs—the crisis persists due to entrenched reward structures resistant to reform.

Politicization, Ideological Biases, and Funding Distortions

The in the United States displays marked ideological asymmetry, with a 2009 survey revealing that 55% of scientists identified as Democrats, 32% as independents, and just 6% as Republicans. This pattern extends to political donations, where analysis of federal contributions from 2016 to 2020 showed scientists donating disproportionately to Democrats, reflecting broader polarization in academia that limits viewpoint diversity. Such homogeneity raises concerns about conformity pressures, as conservative-leaning researchers report to avoid backlash, potentially skewing hypothesis selection and toward left-leaning priors in fields like and . This ideological skew correlates with polarized public trust, where Democrats express higher confidence in (64% in 2021) compared to Republicans (34%), a gap widened by politicized issues like climate policy and pandemic responses. indicates that cognitive and methodological biases, amplified by shared worldviews, lead researchers to undervalue contradictory data; for example, a 2023 study characterized these as systematic deviations favoring preferred conclusions over falsification. In social sciences, surveys of research practices reveal that political beliefs subtly influence findings, with left-leaning scholars more likely to pursue studies aligning with progressive narratives on inequality or identity, while dissenting work faces higher rejection rates. Government funding intensifies these distortions, as agencies like the and allocate billions annually—$8.8 billion for NSF in fiscal year 2023—often prioritizing applied research supportive of administrative priorities over basic inquiry. A framework documented how federal grants can incentivize alignment with goals, effectively purchasing supportive outcomes rather than impartial , with path dependency locking in preferences for certain paradigms. Surveys indicate that 34% of federally funded scientists have admitted to questionable practices, such as selective reporting, to match funder expectations, eroding methodological integrity. Politicization further manifests in resource allocation biases, where grant evaluations exhibit favoritism toward structurally conforming teams, disadvantaging innovative or contrarian proposals; a 2016 analysis found success rates skewed against diverse applicant groups, implying systemic hurdles for non-mainstream perspectives. Historical precedents like Soviet Lysenkoism, where ideological enforcement suppressed genetics for decades, parallel modern instances, such as funding surges for consensus-driven climate models amid reduced support for skeptical inquiries. These dynamics, compounded by institutional left-leaning tendencies in academia—evident in hiring and publication norms—compromise science's claim to neutrality, as peer-reviewed outlets increasingly reflect donor and policy influences over empirical disconfirmation.

Ethical Lapses, Fraud, and Misconduct

Scientific encompasses fabrication or falsification of data, , selective reporting, and other violations of standards, undermining the reliability of scientific knowledge. Retractions due to such constitute the majority of all retractions, with a 2012 analysis of over 2,000 retracted biomedical and life sciences papers finding that 67.4% were attributable to , including or suspected in 43.4% of cases. Retraction rates have surged, rising from approximately 1 in 5,000 papers in 2002 to 1 in 500 by 2023, reflecting heightened detection amid persistent incentives for corner-cutting. Among top-cited researchers, 3.3% have authored retracted papers, indicating that high-impact scientists are not immune. Systemic pressures exacerbate , including "" cultures, hyper-competition for limited funding, and metrics prioritizing quantity over quality, which reward novel results over rigorous replication. A 2023 survey of NSF fellows revealed widespread perceptions that these incentives foster questionable practices, with early-career researchers particularly vulnerable due to job insecurity. Organized has emerged as a growing , involving mills producing fabricated studies for sale, often in high-volume journals, distorting in fields like . Consequences include wasted resources—estimated at billions annually in irreproducible research—public mistrust, and harm when falsified findings influence policy or , as seen in delayed corrections. Notable cases illustrate the scope:
  • In 2005, South Korean researcher claimed the first successful of human embryonic stem cells, publishing in Science, but investigations revealed fabricated patient data and coerced donations; the papers were retracted, Hwang was convicted of and , receiving a two-year suspended sentence.
  • fabricated data in over 50 papers on social priming from 2008–2011, leading to mass retractions and his dismissal from ; an inquiry attributed it to unchecked authority and lack of oversight.
  • The 2020 Surgisphere scandal involved falsified datasets in and NEJM papers promoting risks, prompting retractions after data unverifiability; lead author Sapan Desai faced lawsuits, highlighting outsourced data vulnerabilities.
CaseFieldKey MisconductOutcome
(2004–2005) biology, ethical violations in egg procurementPapers retracted; 2-year suspended sentence, lab disbanded
(2008–2011)Wholesale data invention across dozens of studies58+ retractions; 12-year research ban imposed by Dutch authorities
Surgisphere (2020)Clinical epidemiology ()Falsified hospital datasetsTwo major papers retracted; journal embargoes on future Surgisphere data
Detection relies on whistleblowers, statistical anomalies, and post-publication review, but underreporting persists due to institutional incentives to minimize scandals. Reforms like preregistration, mandates, and adversarial collaborations aim to mitigate risks, though entrenched pressures limit efficacy.

Barriers to Progress and Resource Limitations

Scientific is hindered by chronic underfunding, particularly for , which relies heavily on public grants amid intensifying competition. In the United States, federal funding for major agencies fell to a 25-year low by 2024, with proposed 2025 budgets slashing allocations further, resulting in grant delays, hiring freezes, and a 10-32% decline at select institutions compared to prior years. These constraints force researchers to prioritize short-term, incremental projects over high-risk, transformative inquiries, as grant cycles demand frequent renewals and demonstrable outputs. Globally, resource disparities exacerbate this; developing nations often lack baseline infrastructure, limiting their contributions to fields like or that require multimillion-dollar facilities. Bureaucratic overhead compounds these issues, diverting ' time from experimentation to administrative tasks. Principal investigators in U.S. universities report crushing burdens from grant submissions, compliance reporting, and institutional protocols, with processes involving excessive paperwork, approvals, and audits that can span months. This "death by bureaucracy" has been quantified as eroding , with researchers estimating 20-40% of effort lost to non-research activities, stifling in academia where such hurdles are most acute. Ethical review boards and , while necessary, often impose delays—e.g., approvals averaging 60-90 days—further slowing empirical validation. Access to physical and informational resources remains a persistent limitation. High-cost , such as synchrotrons or supercomputers, is concentrated in few centers, creating bottlenecks; for instance, for computational resources in simulations outstrips availability, with wait times extending projects by years. Paywalls on journals and hoarding by institutions restrict , impeding replication and building on prior work, as independent researchers face barriers to essential datasets. International collaboration suffers from shortfalls for cross-border exchanges and material-sharing restrictions, reducing diverse inputs critical for breakthroughs. These barriers collectively foster and talent attrition; surveys of U.S. biomedical researchers in 2025 revealed widespread "doom" over , prompting early-career scientists to exit academia for industry or abroad. In , surging grant applications signal analogous pressures, with success rates dropping below 10% in competitive programs, channeling efforts toward safer hypotheses rather than shifts. Without reforms to streamline processes and bolster sustained , empirical progress in foundational sciences risks stagnation, as causal chains from discovery to application lengthen.

Demographics and Representation

Global and National Distributions

The global distribution of scientists, proxied by (FTE) researchers in (R&D), remains concentrated among a small number of countries, though the balance has shifted toward in recent decades. High-income nations traditionally hosted the majority, but China's rapid expansion in R&D personnel—reaching approximately 1.7 million FTE researchers by 2018, or 21.1% of the world total—has made it the largest single contributor, edging out the European Union's 23.5% share (around 2 million FTE). The followed with 16.2% (about 1.4 million FTE in 2017), while , , and ranked among the next largest. This concentration reflects disparities in , , and priorities, with the top eight countries or economies accounting for over 80% of global R&D activity as of 2022, a pattern extending to personnel. Nationally, absolute numbers correlate with population size and R&D investment, but per capita densities highlight commitments in smaller, innovation-focused economies. maintains the highest researcher density at over 8,000 per million inhabitants, driven by defense-related and tech-sector R&D. like , , and exceed 5,000 per million, supported by strong public funding and university systems, while the stands at around 4,200 and at roughly 1,200, reflecting scale differences. The as a whole saw its FTE researchers grow 45% to 2.15 million between 2013 and 2023, concentrated in nations like and . Emerging economies such as and contribute growing absolute numbers but lag in density due to resource constraints.
Country/RegionResearchers per Million Inhabitants (latest available)
~8,000
~6,659
~5,500+
~5,239
~5,573
~4,200
~3,000+
World Average~1,516
Data compiled from and World Bank sources via aggregated indicators; figures vary slightly by reporting year (primarily 2018–2023) and definition of R&D researchers. These distributions underscore how national policies, such as South Korea's targeted R&D spending (over 4% of GDP), elevate densities compared to global norms.

Gender and Interest-Based Disparities

Empirical data indicate persistent gender disparities in the representation of women among , particularly in fields requiring high systemizing abilities, such as physics and , where women earn approximately 18-20% of PhDs in physics and 26.5% in as of 2023, compared to over 50% in biological sciences. These patterns hold across nations and cultures, with women comprising smaller shares in "things-oriented" STEM subfields like and versus "people-oriented" areas like or biomedical research. A meta-analysis of vocational interests reveals large, consistent sex differences, with men showing stronger preferences for working with things and systems (effect size d = 0.84) and women for people and social contexts (d = 0.68), explaining much of the occupational segregation in STEM. These interest gaps emerge early in adolescence and predict career choices more reliably than cognitive abilities, where sex differences are small or negligible after accounting for participation rates. For instance, males exhibit higher interest in investigative and realistic activities aligned with physical sciences, while females favor social and artistic domains, leading to underrepresentation in fields like engineering despite comparable math aptitude among participants. The empathizing-systemizing (E-S) theory posits that females on average excel in empathizing (understanding emotions and ) and males in systemizing (analyzing rule-based systems), a dimorphism supported by data and linked to prenatal testosterone exposure. In STEM contexts, systemizing correlates with success in abstract, mechanistic disciplines like physics, where male interests predominate, whereas empathizing aligns with biological or sciences, attracting more women. Longitudinal studies confirm these preferences are stable and not primarily attributable to , as similar patterns appear in non-Western samples and even among adolescents before extensive career exposure. While institutional biases may exacerbate gaps in some settings, interest differences account for the bulk of disparities, as evidenced by women's overrepresentation in people-oriented professions outside STEM. Critics of discrimination-centric explanations note that interventions targeting stereotypes yield minimal long-term shifts in enrollment, whereas interest-based models better predict persistence; for example, women in systemizing-heavy fields report lower intrinsic motivation and higher attrition if interests misalign. Recent analyses, including a 2023 meta-regression of adolescent interests, affirm that these sex differences have remained robust over decades, underscoring biological underpinnings over cultural artifacts alone. Such findings challenge narratives emphasizing barriers over predispositions, as fields with balanced interests, like certain health sciences, show near-parity without equivalent interventions.

Other Factors: Age, Ethnicity, and Mobility

In the , the mean age of STEM workers, encompassing scientists and engineers, rose from 39.2 years in 2000 to 41.8 years in 2019, reflecting an aging amid extended periods and in research roles. Women in STEM occupations average 45.5 years, younger than the 47.4-year average for men, partly due to higher attrition rates among mid- females. By 2011, approximately 18% of U.S. STEM workers were aged 55 or older, exceeding rates in non-STEM fields but still younger overall than the total labor force, with variations by subfield—physical sciences often skew older due to seniority-based funding and tenure systems. Racial and ethnic composition among U.S. and STEM professionals remains skewed, with and Asian individuals disproportionately represented relative to their shares in the general . constitute the largest group at around 52% of , followed by South and East Asians at 14% each, while , , and Native American are underrepresented, comprising smaller fractions despite comprising 13%, 19%, and 1% of the U.S. , respectively. In science and occupations specifically, only 25% of workers and 31% of workers with relevant degrees are employed in the field, compared to higher rates for and Asians, attributable to factors including educational pipelines and field-specific interest gaps documented in labor statistics. Geographic mobility profoundly shapes scientist demographics, as researchers frequently migrate internationally to access resources, collaborations, and funding hubs. Between 1970 and 2014, global scientific mobility intensified, with the attracting a disproportionate share of migrants—over 3.5 million scientists tracked in bibliometric data showed net inflows favoring and , often from and developing regions. This pattern elevates ethnic diversity in host countries, as foreign-born workers, who comprised a significant portion of U.S. STEM roles by 2019, are predominantly Asian (e.g., Indian and Chinese nationals), countering domestic underrepresentation in certain groups while concentrating talent in urban clusters like and . Subnational data from 2025 analyses reveal stark disparities in regional attractiveness, with elite institutions drawing migrants and perpetuating brain drain from origin countries, influencing global ethnic distributions in science. Social mobility into science careers, meanwhile, correlates with early access to quality , though empirical barriers like limit upward pathways for underrepresented ethnicities absent targeted interventions.

References

  1. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientist
  2. https://www.npr.org/2010/05/21/127037417/how-the-word-scientist-came-to-be
  3. https://paulcraddock.substack.com/p/the-word-scientist-was-coined-in
  4. https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/intro-to-biology/science-of-biology/a/the-science-of-biology
  5. https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/science-fair/steps-of-the-scientific-method
  6. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/nature-of-science/characteristics-of-science/
  7. https://study.com/learn/lesson/characteristics-scientist-overview-traits-examples.html
  8. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19850016683/downloads/19850016683.pdf
  9. https://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/slacpubs/9250/slac-pub-9284.pdf
  10. https://hms.harvard.edu/news/when-science-can-harm
  11. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4631672/
  12. https://www.etymonline.com/word/scientist
  13. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/whewell/
  14. https://thonyc.wordpress.com/2014/07/10/the-history-of-scientist/
  15. https://www.lindahall.org/about/news/scientist-of-the-day/william-whewell/
  16. https://sciencecouncil.org/about-science/our-definition-of-a-scientist/
  17. https://www.aaaspolicyfellowships.org/blog/who-do-we-want-scientists-be
  18. https://undsci.berkeley.edu/want-to-be-a-professional-scientist/
  19. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/life-physical-and-social-science/medical-scientists.htm
  20. https://www.newscientist.com/nsj/article/scientists-vs-engineers-differences-similarities-and-career-routes
  21. https://educatingengineers.com/blog/engineer-vs-technician/
  22. https://explorable.com/mesopotamian-astronomy
  23. https://www.britannica.com/science/mathematics/Ancient-mathematical-sources
  24. https://iep.utm.edu/thales/
  25. http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/thales.html
  26. https://iep.utm.edu/ancient-greek-philosophy/
  27. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/presocratics/
  28. https://old.ntinow.edu/scholarship/EQsvMs/2S9041/the-greek-philosophers-from_thales_to__aristotle.pdf
  29. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4263393/
  30. https://iv.iiarjournals.org/content/23/4/507
  31. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/atd-herkimer-westerncivilization/chapter/scientific-advancements-in-the-classical-period/
  32. https://galileoandeinstein.phys.virginia.edu/lectures/archimedes.htm
  33. https://www.thoughtco.com/ancient-greek-scientists-inventions-and-discoveries-120966
  34. https://libguides.colorado.edu/wrtg3030-HoS/before1600
  35. https://pressbooks.pub/anne1/chapter/the-medieval-university/
  36. https://www.medievalists.net/2023/06/medieval-inventions-world/
  37. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3705416/
  38. https://www.magiscenter.com/blog/roger-bacon
  39. https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/humanities_etds/125/
  40. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3621228/
  41. https://scientiamag.org/the-scientific-advancements-in-islamic-golden-age/
  42. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-history-of-science/schools-and-universities-in-medieval-latin-science/E6F48DFC483C906DB51F45E735CDA4EC
  43. https://interestingengineering.com/lists/18-inventions-of-the-middle-ages-that-changed-the-world
  44. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-worldhistory2/chapter/the-scientific-revolution/
  45. https://www.dbu.edu/mitchell/early-modern-resources/science_figures1.html
  46. https://pressbooks.pub/abriefhistory/chapter/making-connections-between-ideas-the-scientific-revolution/
  47. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/tc3-boundless-worldhistory/chapter/the-scientific-revolution/
  48. https://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/objects-and-stories/new-science-1550-1800
  49. https://webpages.cs.luc.edu/~dennis/106/106-Bkgr/16-Scientific-Rev.pdf
  50. https://fiveable.me/history-science/unit-5/scientific-academies-spread-knowledge/study-guide/y8rY3bRHv1YWLoWb
  51. https://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/history-art/the-enlightenment/content-section-3
  52. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-worldhistory/chapter/the-scientific-revolution/
  53. https://quizlet.com/study-guides/scientific-revolution-key-figures-and-discoveries-in-modern-science-d2bd59fc-93ed-440e-a100-18e2e46f506f
  54. https://merchantsandmechanics.com/2017/12/25/two-revolutions-and-an-enlightenment/
  55. https://www.britannica.com/science/history-of-science/Science-and-the-Industrial-Revolution
  56. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w20853/w20853.pdf
  57. https://pressbooks.pub/anne1/chapter/the-industrial-revolution-and-sts/
  58. https://daliennation.wordpress.com/2014/03/17/the-history-of-science-in-society-the-royal-institution-19th-century/
  59. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5095352/
  60. https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/industrial-revolution-and-technology/
  61. https://libguides.colorado.edu/wrtg3030-HoS/1800s
  62. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-0348-7703-9_5
  63. https://cen.acs.org/articles/84/i42/Report-tracks-PhD-trends-since.html
  64. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/10/13/brief-history-american-phds
  65. https://economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/usselman_paper.pdf
  66. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK45556/
  67. https://riviste.fupress.net/index.php/subs/article/download/1256/956/9894
  68. https://www.sciencecoalition.org/downloads/1392650023researchfundingtimeline.pdf
  69. https://www.nsf.gov/about/history/narrative
  70. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7923690/
  71. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4850a1.htm
  72. https://www.nature.com/articles/433688a
  73. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666675821001041
  74. https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3003230
  75. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030859612300160X
  76. https://open-access.network/en/information/open-access-primers/history-of-the-open-access-movement
  77. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6792383/
  78. https://www.nature.com/articles/533452a
  79. https://issues.org/ending-reproducibility-crisis-medical-research-brownlee-bielekova/
  80. https://retractionwatch.com/2025/06/03/guest-post-nih-funded-replication-studies-reproducibility-crisis-preclinical-research/
  81. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2023/11/14/americans-trust-in-scientists-positive-views-of-science-continue-to-decline/
  82. https://apnorc.org/projects/major-declines-in-the-publics-confidence-in-science-in-the-wake-of-the-pandemic/
  83. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2024/11/14/public-trust-in-scientists-and-views-on-their-role-in-policymaking/
  84. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/francis-bacon/
  85. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/
  86. https://iep.utm.edu/pop-sci/
  87. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK547524/
  88. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6742218/
  89. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/
  90. https://imotions.com/blog/learning/research-fundamentals/scientific-method/
  91. https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/cd-22/manual/v1chapter2.pdf
  92. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7807926/
  93. https://www.scribbr.com/statistics/hypothesis-testing/
  94. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9398444/
  95. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/
  96. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/
  97. https://elifesciences.org/articles/78830
  98. https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/publishing-your-research/peer-review/
  99. https://www.elsevier.com/reviewer/what-is-peer-review
  100. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4975196/
  101. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aac4716
  102. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2300455-investigation-fails-to-replicate-most-cancer-biology-lab-findings/
  103. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/advances-in-experimental-political-science/threats-to-the-scientific-credibility-of-experiments-publication-bias-and-phacking/506141C7B720FD2A9F7386D64283CF83
  104. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-01246-1
  105. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
  106. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1182327/
  107. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0292717
  108. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-023-00003-2
  109. https://www.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/s-stem-nsf-scholarships-science-technology-engineering-mathematics
  110. https://www.aaas.org/programs/education-and-human-resources/higher-education
  111. https://nigms.nih.gov/biobeat/2024/08/how-can-i-become-a-biomedical-scientist
  112. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/computer-and-information-research-scientists.htm
  113. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf25300/report/postgraduation-trends
  114. https://www.phdsource.com/blog/phds-by-the-numbers-important-stats-for-current-and-job-seeking-phds
  115. https://academiainsider.com/what-percentage-of-phds-stay-in-academia/
  116. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4309283/
  117. https://www.reddit.com/r/biotech/comments/1cr3bv4/typical_career_trajectory_for_phd_scientists/
  118. https://www.science.org/content/article/first-us-private-sector-employs-nearly-many-phds-schools-do
  119. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf21319
  120. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-34809-1
  121. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20221/glossary
  122. https://www.nsf.gov/bio/programs
  123. https://www.nsf.gov/bio
  124. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20206/publication-output-by-field-of-science
  125. https://www.acs.org/careers/chemical-sciences/areas.html
  126. https://www.nsf.gov/focus-areas
  127. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20213
  128. https://wonkhe.com/blogs/how-did-universities-come-to-be-involved-in-research/
  129. https://www.nature.com/nature-index/news/top-ten-institutions-published-most-scientific-research-papers-nature-science-journals-twenty-eighteen
  130. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/lists/nobel-laureates-and-research-affiliations/
  131. https://news.berkeley.edu/2025/10/17/university-of-california-sets-world-record-for-nobel-prizes-in-a-single-year/
  132. https://www.uchicago.edu/who-we-are/global-impact/accolades/nobel-laureates
  133. https://jamesgmartin.center/2020/06/why-do-american-universities-lead-the-world-in-scientific-research/
  134. https://www.energy.gov/national-laboratories
  135. https://www.nature.com/nature-index/news/top-ten-government-institutions-research-science-twenty-nineteen
  136. https://www.meetlifesciences.com/media-hub/blog/best-medical-research-organisations-in-the-world/
  137. https://nationallabs.org/
  138. https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/research-universities-and-the-future-of-america
  139. https://www.nsf.gov/funding/overview
  140. https://grants.nih.gov/node/1
  141. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20257/global-r-d-and-international-comparisons-2
  142. https://uidp.org/rd-in-review-global-investment-trends/
  143. https://www.nsf.gov/funding
  144. https://www.nsf.gov/funding/learn/research-types/transformative-research
  145. https://www.firstprinciples.org/article/is-it-time-for-publish-or-perish-to-perish
  146. https://phys.org/news/2025-04-publish-perish-culture-overhaul-academic.html
  147. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.171511
  148. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-022-01382-3
  149. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9477.12229
  150. https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-ruthless-politicization-of-science-funding
  151. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11304623/
  152. https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/u-s-science-funding-is-increasingly-biased-against-basic-science/
  153. https://direct.mit.edu/qss/article/3/2/331/110601/Research-coauthorship-1900-2020-Continuous
  154. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb202333/international-collaboration-and-citations
  155. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC387296/
  156. https://www.energy.gov/lm/manhattan-project-background-information-and-preservation-work
  157. https://socialsciences.nature.com/posts/decoding-the-manhattan-project-s-network-unveiling-science-collaboration-and-human-legacy
  158. https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/educational-resources/fact-sheets/human-genome-project
  159. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10767182/
  160. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-64351-3
  161. https://health-policy-systems.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12961-016-0104-5
  162. https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-10-greatest-scientists-of-all-time-919
  163. https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/relationship-between-science-and-technology
  164. https://www.discovermagazine.com/scientific-discoveries-that-changed-the-world-42933
  165. https://www.history.com/articles/11-innovations-that-changed-history
  166. https://ourworldindata.org/technological-change
  167. https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/impact-nih-research/revolutionizing-science/scientific-breakthroughs
  168. https://www.sebiology.org/resource/basic-research-that-had-unintended-consequences.html
  169. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2018/06/impact-of-science-and-technology-on-global-economic-growth-mokyr
  170. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/11/science-technology-research-development/
  171. https://inl.gov/education/corporate-leader-urges-investing-in-american-competitiveness-during-inl-visit/
  172. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/localizing-the-economic-impact-of-research-and-development/
  173. https://www.sciencecoalition.org/2025/04/29/sparking-american-economic-growth/
  174. https://www.dallasfed.org/research/economics/2024/0213
  175. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf24332
  176. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2025/03/nih-funding-delivers-exponential-economic-returns/
  177. https://www.science.org/content/article/economics-nobel-celebrates-researchers-who-showed-how-science-and-technology-drives
  178. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3662354/
  179. https://blog.ucs.org/jules-barbati-dajches/science-at-the-table-the-importance-of-federal-advisory-committees-in-policymaking/
  180. https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/strategy/support-policy-making/scientific-support-eu-policies/group-chief-scientific-advisors_en
  181. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK589346/
  182. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8995888/
  183. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03910-4
  184. https://mindthegraph.com/blog/science-and-public-policy/
  185. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6557026/
  186. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-antisocial-psychologist/202106/biased-science-makes-bad-policy
  187. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10013234/
  188. https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/18326/1/may-bias-in-science.pdf
  189. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8651293/
  190. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304407624002136
  191. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4359000/
  192. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5742784/
  193. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.220346
  194. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214804324001642
  195. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11903532/
  196. https://undark.org/2017/09/11/replication-crisis-funding/
  197. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/
  198. https://theconversation.com/scientists-political-donations-reflect-polarization-in-academia-with-implications-for-the-publics-trust-in-science-196691
  199. https://news.uchicago.edu/story/trust-science-becoming-more-polarized-survey-finds
  200. https://direct.mit.edu/posc/article/31/5/535/115648/Methodological-and-Cognitive-Biases-in-Science
  201. https://www.promarket.org/2023/11/15/is-social-science-research-politically-biased/
  202. https://www.cato.org/working-paper/government-buying-science-or-support-framework-analysis-federal-funding-induced
  203. https://fee.org/articles/science-has-a-major-fraud-problem-here-s-why-government-funding-is-the-likely-culprit/
  204. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0155876
  205. https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817939326_27.pdf
  206. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1212247109
  207. https://www.aapsnewsmagazine.org/aapsnewsmagazine/articles/new-page3/feb25/meetings-feb25
  208. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03704-8
  209. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-32445-3
  210. https://phys.org/news/2025-08-scientific-fraud-alarming-uncovers.html
  211. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK475947/
  212. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2626656/
  213. https://ori.hhs.gov/content/case_summary
  214. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2021/09/career-research-misconduct
  215. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8403249/
  216. https://www.asbmb.org/asbmb-today/policy/080324/federal-funding-science-agencies-25-year-low
  217. https://www.aau.edu/key-issues/federal-research-cuts-threaten-us-innovation-and-leadership
  218. https://www.biorender.com/2025-science-funding-report
  219. https://wheelerinstituteresearch.org/project/know-the-ropes-from-basic-science-to-corporate-innovation/
  220. https://hxstem.substack.com/p/funded-research-at-a-us-university
  221. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2022/12/05/unnecessary-research-bureaucracy-is-killing-academic-productivity-but-it-is-fixable/
  222. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2758356/
  223. https://www.genspark.ai/spark/the-ripple-effect-how-resource-constraints-in-natural-science-shape-technological-progress/1d8d9884-d304-4146-ad10-d17c10eedcdd
  224. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/we-must-tear-down-the-barriers-that-impede-scientific-progress/
  225. https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2024/04/breaking-knowledge-barriers-the-need-for-open-access-in-science
  226. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08989621.2020.1774373
  227. https://www.statnews.com/2025/08/26/federal-research-funding-instability-survey-hundreds-sense-of-doom/
  228. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-03119-z
  229. https://www.unesco.org/reports/science/2021/en/dataviz/researchers-million-habitants
  230. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/researchers-in-rd-per-million-people
  231. https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/researchers-in-r-d-per-million-people-wb-data.html
  232. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=R%2526D_personnel
  233. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20225/cross-national-comparisons-of-r-d-performance
  234. https://wiareport.com/2024/12/women-continue-to-earn-more-than-half-of-all-doctorates-awarded-to-u-s-citizens/
  235. https://ngcproject.org/resources/stem-statistics-higher-education
  236. https://ifstudies.org/blog/sex-differences-in-adolescents-occupational-desires-are-universal
  237. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19883140/
  238. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10690727221148717
  239. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001879115001062
  240. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1811032115
  241. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21094892/
  242. https://stemeducationjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40594-023-00443-6
  243. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5404748/
  244. https://research.chicagobooth.edu/-/media/research/cdr/docs/cheryan-paper-1
  245. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268122003201
  246. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/fact-sheet/foreign-born-stem-workers-united-states/
  247. https://www.eeoc.gov/special-topics-annual-report-women-stem
  248. https://www.prb.org/resources/u-s-stem-workforce-aging-but-younger-than-total-labor-force/
  249. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20245/representation-of-demographic-groups-in-stem
  250. https://www.careerexplorer.com/careers/scientist/demographics/
  251. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/black-scientists-disparities-representation-stem-science
  252. https://growthlab.hks.harvard.edu/publications/globalisation-scientific-mobility-1970%25E2%2580%25932014
  253. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2424521122
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.