“academics are now, even at the start of research projects, asked to describe the ways in which their research will be impactful. This is not aligned with the notion of serendipity in science or the fact that many innovations leading to products used today were conceived without foreseen applications (Gillies, 2015). This misalignment indicates that academic research is to a large extent no longer governed by academics and that the idea of science that is dominant today overemphasises application and impact because of its focus on users and on lay university governors (often from or linked to the business sector). These conditions…are not conducive to scientific breakthroughs (Rzhetsky et al., 2015), and scientific progress and technological advancements seemed to be diminishing or stalled (e.g., Modis, 2022…”
The excerpt provided above is sourced from an article released just two days ago in the Higher Education journal, edited by Springer. Within the text, the author asserts, with an unusual scientific certainty, that the impact of research projects is detrimentally affecting serendipity. However, it’s crucial to note that this perspective leans towards pessimism and is not universally embraced, by other authors such as Samantha Copeland or Alistair McCulloch.
It would be different if the author of the aforementioned article had articulated that the likelihood of serendipity unfolding in scientific endeavors varies among researchers, not occurring uniformly or entirely by chance. This notion aligns with findings presented in a paper authored by Heinström & Sormunen from Norway and Finland. “Serendipity-prone people tend to have a more invitational and elastic attention span”.
Considerably more subject to debate is the extent to which the aforementioned author linked this argument to an alleged stalling of scientific progress, drawing on articles like the one authored by Theodore Modis, published in March of this year. in the journal Technological Forecasting and Social Change https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0040162521008921#sec0008
PS – In terms of contributing to the promotion of serendipity in academia, I remember a previous post from November 19, 2021, about chaos, an article from May of this year about anarchy, and last but not least a June 8 post entitled “Interactions as a paramount existential principle and the scientists who do not exist”
Pacheco-Torgal 