The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
A 2019 study of eminent life scientists found that publication by their collaborators declined after the scientists died, while publication by non-collaborators in the affected fields increased. That pattern suggests a prominent researcher’s departure can open space for other contributors—but it does not show that newcomers waited for the death, deliberately opposed the scientist, or triggered a scientific revolution.
What did the study find?
In “Does Science Advance One Funeral at a Time?”, economists Pierre Azoulay, Christian Fons-Rosen and Joshua S. Graff Zivin examined how the premature death of an eminent life scientist related to activity in the scientist’s fields. The paper appeared in the American Economic Review, volume 109, issue 8, in August 2019. Its abstract reports that the flow of articles by collaborators into affected fields decreased after a star scientist’s death, while the flow by non-collaborators increased markedly. The outsider contributions drew on a different scientific corpus and were disproportionately likely to be highly cited.
Who and what did the researchers examine?
The study covered 452 prominent life scientists who died while still active between 1975 and 2003, according to Undark’s 2019 account. The scientists were selected as elite biology researchers using indicators such as citations, funding, patents, awards and academy membership. The results therefore concern selected researchers and their affected life-science subfields, not science as a whole or every kind of scientific change.
How large were the reported changes?
Undark reported an average annual growth of 8.6% in papers by newcomers to the affected subfields, alongside an approximately 20% annual decline in papers by collaborators. It said newcomer publication growth took five years to make up for the collaborator deficit. These are study-specific figures for the subfields examined, not general rates that apply to all scientific fields. The journal abstract confirms the direction of the collaborator and non-collaborator changes but does not give these numerical estimates.
#1 Best Overall
Does that mean scientists were being blocked?
No. Publication patterns after a death cannot, by themselves, establish why outsiders entered a field, whether they knew the scientist had died, or whether they had previously been unable to publish their ideas. The researchers did not interview newcomers about their timing or motivations, Undark reported. The change could also involve editorial decisions shifting as the star scientist and collaborators published less.
The findings are consistent with a field becoming more open to outsiders, but they do not identify that mechanism with certainty. As co-author Pierre Azoulay put it in the Undark report, “We don’t really know whether they are coming in and turning against the superstar.” Physicist and complexity scientist Aaron Clauset offered a related possibility: “A superstar scientist doesn’t have to exert power themselves in order to be powerful.” These comments describe possible interpretations, not mechanisms established by the study.
Rank #2
- Used Book in Good Condition
Did the newcomers cause a scientific revolution?
The study does not show that they did. Undark’s account says the newcomers’ papers did not appear especially disruptive and describes the pattern as more consistent with gradual evolution than a paradigm shift. The evidence supports a change in who contributed to affected fields; it does not prove that the new work overturned established ideas or that eminent scientists generally resist innovation.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
The paper’s title echoes a saying associated with Max Planck about scientific progress. The study tests a narrower, measurable question—how publication activity in selected life-science fields changed after prominent researchers died—not every claim contained in that aphorism.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.How does a later literary study compare?
A 2025 study examined historical literary change rather than science. Oleg Sobchuk and Bret Beheim analysed 23,162 works by 6,177 authors published from 1850 to 1940, using topic modelling and a decomposition method based on the Price equation. They found cohort turnover to be a stronger force than individual authors’ changes in topic preferences, with newcomer entrances having nearly twice the effect of author exits. Their conclusion described literary change as more like “one birth at a time.”
The comparison is about a shared interest in entrances and exits, not a replication of the science study. The 2019 paper measures publication flows in life-science fields after selected scientists’ deaths; the 2025 paper measures topic change in a historical corpus of Anglophone fiction.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
