Science Advances One Funeral at a Time
A classic observation by Max Planck has become more than just a quip—new empirical research reveals that when scientific leaders pass away, their absence often opens the door for innovative, outsider ideas to flourish.
TAKEAWAY: When a towering scientist passes, it might just spark the next big breakthrough—because sometimes, progress waits for permission to speak.
In 2017, Bloomberg published a piece reflecting on Max Planck’s oft-cited adage: “Science advances one funeral at a time.” The article coincided with the Nobel Prize in Physics going to scientists who had long struggled to convince peers of their radical findings—another reminder that disruptive ideas in science often wait until established gatekeepers are no longer in the way.
But since then, researchers have moved beyond anecdotes. In 2019, a landmark study by Pierre Azoulay, Christian Fons-Rosen, and Joshua S. Graff Zivin, published in the American Economic Review, offered rigorous, quantitative evidence that Planck was right—at scale.
Their study examined the premature deaths of 452 elite life scientists between 1975 and 2003. These researchers were central figures in their respective subfields, often serving as powerful influencers in publishing and funding decisions. What happened to their fields after they passed?
The results were striking:
- Collaborator output declined dramatically—no surprise there.
- But non-collaborators surged into the field, publishing at rates 8–9% higher than expected.
- Crucially, the newcomers’ work was not only prolific—it was innovative and highly cited, often reshaping the trajectory of the field.
This shift supports the idea that while prominent scientists help build entire domains, they can also inadvertently inhibit the entry of outsiders or marginalize non-conforming ideas. Their exit, while tragic, may catalyze a field’s reinvention.
Interestingly, the study found this effect was strongest in fields with declining momentum, suggesting that fresh perspectives are particularly impactful when orthodoxy has calcified.
These findings invite important questions for academic and institutional design:
Can we promote intellectual renewal before we lose scientific leaders? Could policies like term limits for journal editors, rotating grant review panels, or greater diversity in leadership structures encourage more open, dynamic knowledge ecosystems?
While no one roots for a funeral, this research gives modern weight to Planck’s insight: sometimes, the future of science depends on making space for new voices.
#AcademicPublishing | #ScientificInnovation | #ResearchImpact | #MaxPlanck
