The Nature of Scientific Breakthroughs

We have probably all come across a moment in the history of science that is called a scientific breakthrough. General relativity transformed our understanding of gravity and spacetime. In 1928, the Scottish physician Alexander Fleming famously concentrated the antibiotic known as Penicillin. Dolly the sheep was introduced to the world in 1996, the first mammal to be cloned from adult somatic cells. There are plenty of instances in 20th century scientific history referred to as breakthroughs, but what exactly is meant by this phrase?

It is difficult to pinpoint the specific features required to deserve the term. Penicillin was only put into mass production from the 1940’s onwards by groups in Oxford and the USA. Before Dolly, animals such as tadpoles, mice and even sheep had been cloned, but using embryonic cells, not adult ones. Nevertheless, Dolly is certainly the most wellknown case of animal cloning. Einstein single-handedly developed the theory of general relativity over a period of 10 years and there have been many other scientists who have contributed since, who are not as well known. It is not clear how and when a scientific breakthrough is defined, but the term is often used.

Recent ‘breakthroughs’ are said to include the detection of gravitational waves, developments in robotics and the production of human organs from stem cells. The majority of these discoveries don’t seem to have the same stature as the aforementioned examples and it is difficult to say whether this recognition is yet to come or some, despite having made valuable contributions to science, will never be as wellknown as others. If we consider controlled nuclear fusion and quantum computers, we might think of the ideas as breakthroughs, but they have not yet come to full materialisation. Whilst basic quantum computers have been created, they are not as far advanced as the theory behind them, which brings into question the time at which such a breakthrough might be declared. Much older developments, such as the invention of the wheel and food preservation, now seem to be taken for granted, the importance of them often unacknowledged. This may suggest that the term wasn’t within scientific description at the time, or perhaps that after a long period of time what is deemed as a breakthrough is overlooked.

Considering how subjective the term is, it is usual for people to have diferent opinions: a breakthrough might be “a theory that alters our perception of the world”, or “a development that radically changes our lives”, like the lightbulb, the mobile phone or the refrigerator. Perhaps it is something that media outlets think will excite the general public, therefore they choose to popularise it. Alternatively, one might even conclude that the concept doesn’t truly exist. Fortunately, philosophers of science throughout history have endeavoured to understand scientific method. Hence, their ideas may suggest how consensus within the scientific community affects areas of research and when breakthroughs occur.

One of the most infuential writings on the topic is Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”. His idea is that scientists spend the majority of their time working within a certain paradigm - a framework of knowledge and accepted theories amongst the academic world. Normal science involves solving puzzles in this current framework. It builds on other contributors’ work and experiments are performed with an expectation in mind- a clear hypothesis. The novelty of discovery comes unanticipated- when expectations about nature or experiments are not met. This might fit with the idea that scientists often ‘stumble upon discoveries’ as opposed to intentionally fnding them.

An anomaly like this may bring the current paradigm into question and create a phase of “extraordinary science”, as Kuhn calls it. If this revolution seems correct upon further investigation, then a paradigm shift occurs, and normal science continues to solve puzzles in this new realm. Perhaps it is this ‘outside-the-box’ moment where scientific breakthroughs occur.

Karl Popper had quite diferent views, his proposed criterion being that of falsifiability. According to Popper, scientists should create testable hypotheses to explain data and then test them to see if there is any data that the theory cannot explain. If some evidence does come up that the hypothesis cannot justify, then it is incorrect. Instead of trying to support hypotheses, the idea is to see if there is any occurrence that can prove them wrong; if there is, a new hypothesis is required, which could conceivably be considered a scientific breakthrough in this framework. Another common philosophy of scientific practice is inductive reasoning. The idea is that whether premises turn out to be true or false, they collectively add to that area of research, providing some evidence towards the final conclusion. It could be that the culmination of this knowledge is what creates a breakthrough.

These philosophical ideas cover vast ideas around scientific practice, but each does have a suggestion that resembles the notion of a scientific breakthrough. The diversity across the interpretations of when ground-breaking science happens implies that the lines are always a bit blurred when it comes to what we consider a breakthrough and who is responsible for it. Despite the subjective nature of the phrase, its use indicates there has certainly been an exciting advance within science and the idea is likely to capture the imagination of many.

Alicia Fallows is studying for a MSt in Philosophy of Physics at St Edmund Hall.