Dataset Information

Pandemics are catalysts of scientific novelty: Evidence from COVID-19.

ABSTRACT: Scientific novelty drives the efforts to invent new vaccines and solutions during the pandemic. First-time collaboration and international collaboration are two pivotal channels to expand teams' search activities for a broader scope of resources required to address the global challenge, which might facilitate the generation of novel ideas. Our analysis of 98,981 coronavirus papers suggests that scientific novelty measured by the BioBERT model that is pretrained on 29 million PubMed articles, and first-time collaboration increased after the outbreak of COVID-19, and international collaboration witnessed a sudden decrease. During COVID-19, papers with more first-time collaboration were found to be more novel and international collaboration did not hamper novelty as it had done in the normal periods. The findings suggest the necessity of reaching out for distant resources and the importance of maintaining a collaborative scientific community beyond nationalism during a pandemic.

SUBMITTER: Liu M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9011856 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Pandemics are catalysts of scientific novelty: Evidence from COVID-19.

Liu Meijun M Bu Yi Y Chen Chongyan C Xu Jian J Li Daifeng D Leng Yan Y Freeman Richard B RB Meyer Eric T ET Yoon Wonjin W Sung Mujeen M Jeong Minbyul M Lee Jinhyuk J Kang Jaewoo J Min Chao C Song Min M Zhai Yujia Y Ding Ying Y

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 20211225 8

Scientific novelty drives the efforts to invent new vaccines and solutions during the pandemic. First-time collaboration and international collaboration are two pivotal channels to expand teams' search activities for a broader scope of resources required to address the global challenge, which might facilitate the generation of novel ideas. Our analysis of 98,981 coronavirus papers suggests that scientific novelty measured by the BioBERT model that is pretrained on 29 million PubMed articles, and ...[more]

PMID: 35441082

Similar Datasets

Project description:Practical experiments drive important scientific discoveries in biology, but theory-based research studies also contribute novel-sometimes paradigm-changing-findings. Here, we appraise the roles of theory-based approaches focusing on the experiment-dominated wet-biology research areas of microbial growth and survival, cell physiology, host-pathogen interactions, and competitive or symbiotic interactions. Additional examples relate to analyses of genome-sequence data, climate change and planetary health, habitability, and astrobiology. We assess the importance of thought at each step of the research process; the roles of natural philosophy, and inconsistencies in logic and language, as drivers of scientific progress; the value of thought experiments; the use and limitations of artificial intelligence technologies, including their potential for interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research; and other instances when theory is the most-direct and most-scientifically robust route to scientific novelty including the development of techniques for practical experimentation or fieldwork. We highlight the intrinsic need for human engagement in scientific innovation, an issue pertinent to the ongoing controversy over papers authored using/authored by artificial intelligence (such as the large language model/chatbot ChatGPT). Other issues discussed are the way in which aspects of language can bias thinking towards the spatial rather than the temporal (and how this biased thinking can lead to skewed scientific terminology); receptivity to research that is non-mainstream; and the importance of theory-based science in education and epistemology. Whereas we briefly highlight classic works (those by Oakes Ames, Francis H.C. Crick and James D. Watson, Charles R. Darwin, Albert Einstein, James E. Lovelock, Lynn Margulis, Gilbert Ryle, Erwin R.J.A. Schrödinger, Alan M. Turing, and others), the focus is on microbiology studies that are more-recent, discussing these in the context of the scientific process and the types of scientific novelty that they represent. These include several studies carried out during the 2020 to 2022 lockdowns of the COVID-19 pandemic when access to research laboratories was disallowed (or limited). We interviewed the authors of some of the featured microbiology-related papers and-although we ourselves are involved in laboratory experiments and practical fieldwork-also drew from our own research experiences showing that such studies can not only produce new scientific findings but can also transcend barriers between disciplines, act counter to scientific reductionism, integrate biological data across different timescales and levels of complexity, and circumvent constraints imposed by practical techniques. In relation to urgent research needs, we believe that climate change and other global challenges may require approaches beyond the experiment.

Project description:BackgroundIn an unparalleled global response, during the COVID-19 pandemic, 90 countries asked 3.9 billion people to stay home. Yet other countries avoided lockdowns and focused on other strategies, like contact tracing. How effective and cost-effective are these strategies? We aimed to provide a comprehensive summary of the evidence on past pandemic controls, with a focus on cost-effectiveness.MethodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, MEDLINE (1946 to April week 2, 2020) and EMBASE (1974 to April 17, 2020) were searched using a range of terms related to pandemic control. Articles reporting on the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of at least one intervention were included.ResultsWe found 1653 papers; 62 were included. The effectiveness of hand-washing and face masks was supported by randomized trials. These measures were highly cost-effective. For other interventions, only observational and modelling studies were found. They suggested that (1) the most cost-effective interventions are swift contact tracing and case isolation, surveillance networks, protective equipment for healthcare workers, and early vaccination (when available); (2) home quarantines and stockpiling antivirals are less cost-effective; (3) social distancing measures like workplace and school closures are effective but costly, making them the least cost-effective options; (4) combinations are more cost-effective than single interventions; and (5) interventions are more cost-effective when adopted early. For 2009 H1N1 influenza, contact tracing was estimated to be 4363 times more cost-effective than school closure ($2260 vs. $9,860,000 per death prevented).Conclusions and contributionsFor COVID-19, a cautious interpretation suggests that (1) workplace and school closures are effective but costly, especially when adopted late, and (2) scaling up as early as possible a combination of interventions that includes hand-washing, face masks, ample protective equipment for healthcare workers, and swift contact tracing and case isolation is likely to be the most cost-effective strategy.

Dataset Information

Pandemics are catalysts of scientific novelty: Evidence from COVID-19.

Publications

Pandemics are catalysts of scientific novelty: Evidence from COVID-19.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets