In this world of economic crises and slacking demand, there is another Exponential Economy that is similarly in dire straits. The scientific knowledge of the world has been growing at an exponential rate with average compound growth of 4.8% for the last 50 years.

That’s on the supply side. So what about demand? Who needs 10 Million Scientific Articles and what do they need it for? Most importantly, is the world of scientific knowledge undergoing a prolonged deflationary cycle? Perhaps the rise of Open Access Publishing is, in fact, the transition where producers of scientific knowledge start paying consumers of that knowledge due to over-supply and very limited demand.

I’ve thought a lot about these questions but have not come to any conclusions. If scientific ideas are becoming commoditized, this may herald a complete change in the way we communicate and think about science, invention and innovation. Under this model, first to publish and quantity would trump quality and brand. Do as much science as possible as quickly as possible and tell others that you did it.

Clearly, science has not entirely reached that point, but individual disciplines like physics and mathematics have shown some signs that speed and quantity are important in establishing your scientific role. It is worth noting that areas which have been around longer have seen more profound movements in that direction. Experimental sciences have been slower to adopt this strategy, perhaps because of the inherent limit on how quickly one can complete experiments in the lab.

Some visionary thinkers in the areas of science and business have clearly thought about these issues as well. For example, Nathan Myhrvold’s company Intellectual Ventures collects patents as a way to monetize those inventions in the future. IV claims that it is impossible to tell which ideas will pan out in the end, so creating and collecting as many as possible is the best strategy. One of our own visionary investors, George Whitesides, has a policy of publishing all results; because if it wasn’t published, it wasn’t done. Its worth noting that Whitesides is the second most cited chemist in the world.

So is it really true that knowledge and invention are becoming a commodity? I think that this isn’t necessarily so simple. If this was true, pharmaceutical companies would not be reeling from empty drug pipelines despite pouring in billions of dollars into their R+D. In a recent article, Nathan Myhrvold says that the most important discoveries are made at the fringes. This is consistent with the notion that it is in those untouched areas where ideas are truly ‘new’. Following this line of thought, perhaps we should be thinking more about creating tools to improve the efficiency of identifying the most promising research at the fringes.

Barak Shahen