Abstract Scientific discoveries have revolutionised our lives, but how new discoveries emerge is one of the big questions of science that has not yet been explained. Answering it is key because we can vastly accelerate how we trigger new breakthroughs. To date, there exists no established theory or general empirical analysis of how major discoveries across science arise. This is the first study to assess science’s major discoveries that cover all nobel-prize and major non-nobel-prize discoveries throughout history. These over 750 discoveries are linked here to the methods and tools used to make them and the traits of the discoverers. This enables establishing which factors are more important to catalyse new breakthroughs. Contrary to common belief, we find a surprising pattern: science’s major discoveries are driven by a new method or tool that enables us to study the world through new lenses and discover what we often did not even know existed—from atoms and galaxies to microorganisms. We find that after designing powerful tools—from X-ray methods and the electron microscope to spectrometers and chromatography—we have sparked dozens of major breakthroughs that were impossible without them. What unites the diverse discoveries that each of these tools made possible is not a shared theory, research teams, or more funding, but using the shared powerful tool, each uncovering groundbreaking findings across different fields. We also uncover that most discoveries since 1975 are triggered within 4 years of creating the needed tool, and many are triggered simultaneously. Building on the evidence of science’s major discoveries, we develop a general new methods-driven discovery theory . The theory explains how new methods and instruments are the common mechanism driving new discoveries by allowing us to observe, measure and understand the world in ways that are not possible without them. Establishing this mechanism of scientific progress provides a powerful new framework to explain and speed up discoveries. We can apply this principle widely across science, from physics to biology, and it can provide a foundation for the science of science—and a new way to predict discovery itself.
Alexander Krauss (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: