« Prediction markets at Google | Main | Markets in everything?, self-constraint edition »
UK science is becoming "normal"
People sometime say that UK science is thriving, at other times that it has declined. But both assertions are true, because the UK is thriving with respect to the volume of 'normal' science production but at the same time declining in the highest level of 'revolutionary' science.
Here is much more, from loyal MR commentator Bruce Charlton. Note that the data set includes economists. I have noticed this pattern in UK economics; it no longer feels like UK and US economics are fundamentally different, unlike for instance in the 1980s.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on January 7, 2008 at 12:48 PM in Science | Permalink
Comments
curse university rankings.
Posted by: sa at Jan 7, 2008 2:11:01 PM
Can an increasing number of publications be always regarded as a indicator of thriving "normal science"? What about the relative levels of the "entry barrier"? What if it has become easier to get published, even for lower quality work? There is no adjustment for that factor.
Posted by: anon at Jan 7, 2008 4:06:47 PM
Yay for Mediocristan!
Posted by: jag at Jan 7, 2008 8:53:37 PM
Have the British been the world leaders in "revolutionary" science and related ideas? Newton, Darwin, Maxwell, Boole, Turing, Babbage, Watt, Bacon (both), Harvey, Galton, Fisher, Hamilton (both), Smith (several) ... It's an impressive list! Can any other country compare for the really big breakthrough ideas?
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Jan 7, 2008 9:51:12 PM
By the way, can anywhere compete with Trinity College of Cambridge for alumni:
Isaac Newton, James Clerk Maxwell, Francis Bacon, Niels Bohr, John Dryden, Thomas Babington Macaulay, Francis Galton, Vladimir Nabokov, Bertrand Russell, Ernest Rutherford, William Makepeace Thackeray, Arthur Balfour, G. H. Hardy, A. A. Milne, Jawaharlal Nehru, John Maynard Smith, Lytton Strachey, and Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Jan 7, 2008 9:53:24 PM
Given the list Steve poste dabove perhaps the real issue is changes to global education patterns.
After all, not all those people are British. Rutherford was a New Zealander for one thing, and Nehru wasn't exactly British either.
Perhaps the key is that as the Empire shrank, and as US universities gained a reputation as the world's greatest institutions, the proportion of revolutionary thinkers in UK universities would naturally fall.
Posted by: James at Jan 7, 2008 11:45:49 PM
I'm an author of the paper.
'anon' asks about controlling for ease of publication - that control comes from the use of UK versus US comparisons, and market share measures.
Steve Sailer mentions the UK's (and Cambridge's) fantastic record for revolutionary science - indeed. But Oxford Univesrity has not won a Nobel prize since 1973; and Cambridge has won only two in the past twenty years.
But in the USA for 1987-2004 MIT won 11 prizes, Stanford won 9, Columbia and Chicago 7, Princeton 6, Harvard 5… In the US public universities Berkeley got 4; UCSF, Irvine and Santa Barbara 3 each; Colorado 4 and Washington (Seattle) 3. All these US institutions (and some others) probably currently outperform both Oxford and Cambridge in revolutionary science.
When I looked for a match with Oxford among US universities - matching for citations per year and number of ISI Highly Cited academics - the closest match is University of Minnesota. U of Minn is probably just in the third tier of US universities (they have won a single Nobel prize - in economics last year) - yet in terms of (mostly scientific) research it currently equals Oxford.
That is a measure of the UK's decline in revolutionary science.
Yet until about the last 20-30 years the UK was wininng as many Nobels-per capita as the USA (or more) and was also a magnet for foreign born first-rate scientists. Not any more. Now the UK is losing Highly Cited and future Nobel prizewinning scientists to the USA.
The interesting thing is that overall UK science production seems to be thriving. That is why we suggested down-shifting as an explanation: the first rate UK scientists who would have been trying to do first rate work 40 years ago are now either emigrating to the USA or else are downshifting to secnd rate work - and (becuase these are the best and brightest scientists) punping out very good second rate work in enormous volume.
So we see the pattern - increasing total volume of UK scientific research fuelled by the transfer of effort away from revolutionary science.
Posted by: Bruce G Charlton at Jan 8, 2008 5:56:44 AM
Thanks.
Cambridge was always _the_ place for genius scientists, even when it wasn't any good as an educational institution, as in Newton's time. Oxford was for future Viceroys of India and other pillars of the Establishment.
I wonder if Cambridge's historical superiority in science has to do with it drawing more from eastern England, which has tended to be the brainiest part of the country, while Oxford is farther west. Indeed, the intellectually-oriented New England Puritans who founded most of the leading educational institutions in America tended to come from the area around Cambridge. David Hackett Fisher in "Albion's Seed" argues that the Puritans tended to come from regions settled by Vikings about a millennium ago.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Jan 8, 2008 6:20:47 AM
Steve Sailer speculates on Oxford Cambridge differences. I'm not sure where lie the ultimate roots of the comparative advantage difference, and both Oxford and Cambridge are about the same distance from London. According to a paper I read by Richard Lynn, the highest UK IQ is in London, and IQ falls off according to distance from London (probably due to many centuries of selective migration to the capital). On that basis I wouldn't expect a difference in the IQ of local populations.
But until around the mid 19th century Cambridge offered only mathematics degrees as a classified 'honours' degree (the whole class were ranked in order, and the top ranked student was called the 'Senior Wrangler'. By contrast, the only serious degree at Oxford was the four year classics degree divided into 'Mods' and 'Greats' (most English degrees are only 3 years).
So budding scientists were directed to Cambridge, and future administrators to Oxford. And at Cambridge, Trinity College was like a university within the University, with its own laboratories etc.
In recent years Oxford has switched heavily towards science, especially medical sciences, and in volume terms now produces pretty much the same as Cambridge - see my analysis at: http://www.hedweb.com/bgcharlton/oxmagarts.html
Posted by: Bruce G Charlton at Jan 8, 2008 3:06:15 PM
Cambridge outperforms Oxford in revolutionary science simply because its is a more isolated and boring place, socially and physically. It is also more isolated from London and other large towns due to poor travel links. So the difference in performance is mainly due to a small pool effect – nothing to do but develop revolutionary science!
In support of this its worth noting that socially better connected Oxford outscores Cambridge 26 – 14 in terms of Prime Ministers.
I'd also point out that U Min (tier 1 1/2 not three IMHO) really has 2 nobles as Ed Prescot went to Arizona just a few month before getting his gong. So perhaps beats Oxbridge!
Posted by: Giles at Jan 9, 2008 12:02:22 PM
