IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v51y2022i10s0048733322001275.html

Artificial intelligence in science: An emerging general method of invention

Author

Listed:
  • Bianchini, Stefano
  • Müller, Moritz
  • Pelletier, Pierre

Abstract

This paper offers insights into the diffusion and impact of artificial intelligence in science. More specifically, we show that neural network-based technology meets the essential properties of emerging technologies in the scientific realm. It is novel, because it shows discontinuous innovations in the originating domain and is put to new uses in many application domains; it is quick growing, its dimensions being subject to rapid change; it is coherent, because it detaches from its technological parents, and integrates and is accepted in different scientific communities; and it has a prominent impact on scientific discovery, but a high degree of uncertainty and ambiguity associated with this impact. Our findings suggest that intelligent machines diffuse in the sciences, reshape the nature of the discovery process and affect the organization of science. We propose a new conceptual framework that considers artificial intelligence as an emerging general method of invention and, on this basis, derive its policy implications.

Suggested Citation

  • Bianchini, Stefano & Müller, Moritz & Pelletier, Pierre, 2022. "Artificial intelligence in science: An emerging general method of invention," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:51:y:2022:i:10:s0048733322001275
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2022.104604
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733322001275
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2022.104604?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jason Furman & Robert Seamans, 2019. "AI and the Economy," Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 19(1), pages 161-191.
    2. Pierre Azoulay & Joshua S. Graff Zivin & Gustavo Manso, 2011. "Incentives and creativity: evidence from the academic life sciences," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 42(3), pages 527-554, September.
    3. Rotolo, Daniele & Hicks, Diana & Martin, Ben R., 2015. "What is an emerging technology?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(10), pages 1827-1843.
    4. Nicholas Bloom & Charles I. Jones & John Van Reenen & Michael Webb, 2020. "Are Ideas Getting Harder to Find?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(4), pages 1104-1144, April.
    5. Benjamin F. Jones, 2009. "The Burden of Knowledge and the "Death of the Renaissance Man": Is Innovation Getting Harder?," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 76(1), pages 283-317.
    6. Trajtenberg, Manuel, 2018. "AI as the next GPT: a Political-Economy Perspective," CEPR Discussion Papers 12721, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    7. Robert J. Gordon, 2016. "Perspectives on The Rise and Fall of American Growth," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(5), pages 72-76, May.
    8. Maria Savona, 2019. "The Value of Data:Towards a Framework to Redistribute It," SPRU Working Paper Series 2019-21, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    9. Jeffrey L. Furman & Florenta Teodoridis, 2020. "Automation, Research Technology, and Researchers’ Trajectories: Evidence from Computer Science and Electrical Engineering," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 330-354, March.
    10. Schmoch, Ulrich, 2007. "Double-boom cycles and the comeback of science-push and market-pull," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 1000-1015, September.
    11. Wolfgang Glänzel & András Schubert, 2001. "Double effort = Double impact? A critical view at international co-authorship in chemistry," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 50(2), pages 199-214, February.
    12. Vivien Marx, 2013. "The big challenges of big data," Nature, Nature, vol. 498(7453), pages 255-260, June.
    13. Wagner, Caroline S. & Whetsell, Travis A. & Mukherjee, Satyam, 2019. "International research collaboration: Novelty, conventionality, and atypicality in knowledge recombination," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1260-1270.
    14. Wang, Jian & Veugelers, Reinhilde & Stephan, Paula, 2017. "Bias against novelty in science: A cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1416-1436.
    15. Fontana, Magda & Iori, Martina & Montobbio, Fabio & Sinatra, Roberta, 2020. "New and atypical combinations: An assessment of novelty and interdisciplinarity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    16. Iain M. Cockburn & Rebecca Henderson & Scott Stern, 2018. "The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Innovation," NBER Working Papers 24449, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Joel Klinger & Juan Mateos-Garcia & Konstantinos Stathoulopoulos, 2021. "Deep learning, deep change? Mapping the evolution and geography of a general purpose technology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 5589-5621, July.
    18. Lee, You-Na & Walsh, John P. & Wang, Jian, 2015. "Creativity in scientific teams: Unpacking novelty and impact," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 684-697.
    19. Philippe Aghion & Benjamin F. Jones & Charles I. Jones, 2018. "Artificial Intelligence and Economic Growth," NBER Chapters, in: The Economics of Artificial Intelligence: An Agenda, pages 237-282, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Ajay Agrawal & John McHale & Alexander Oettl, 2018. "Finding Needles in Haystacks: Artificial Intelligence and Recombinant Growth," NBER Chapters, in: The Economics of Artificial Intelligence: An Agenda, pages 149-174, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    21. Simone Vannuccini & Ekaterina Prytkova, 2021. "Artificial Intelligence’s New Clothes? From General Purpose Technology to Large Technical System," SPRU Working Paper Series 2021-02, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    22. Daron Acemoglu & Pascual Restrepo, 2020. "Robots and Jobs: Evidence from US Labor Markets," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(6), pages 2188-2244.
    23. Iain M. Cockburn & Rebecca Henderson & Scott Stern, 2018. "The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Innovation: An Exploratory Analysis," NBER Chapters, in: The Economics of Artificial Intelligence: An Agenda, pages 115-146, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    24. Rosenberg, Nathan, 1992. "Scientific instrumentation and university research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 381-390, August.
    25. Lee Fleming, 2001. "Recombinant Uncertainty in Technological Search," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 117-132, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stefano Bianchini & Moritz Müller & Pierre Pelletier, 2022. "Artificial intelligence in science: An emerging general method of invention," Post-Print hal-03958025, HAL.
    2. Stefano Bianchini & Moritz Muller & Pierre Pelletier, 2020. "Deep Learning in Science," Papers 2009.01575, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2020.
    3. Ajay Agrawal & Joshua Gans & Avi Goldfarb, 2019. "Economic Policy for Artificial Intelligence," Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 19(1), pages 139-159.
    4. Venturini, Francesco, 2022. "Intelligent technologies and productivity spillovers: Evidence from the Fourth Industrial Revolution," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 194(C), pages 220-243.
    5. Gold, E. Richard, 2021. "The fall of the innovation empire and its possible rise through open science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(5).
    6. Dongqing Lyu & Kaile Gong & Xuanmin Ruan & Ying Cheng & Jiang Li, 2021. "Does research collaboration influence the “disruption” of articles? Evidence from neurosciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 287-303, January.
    7. Pierre Pelletier & Kevin Wirtz, 2023. "Sails and Anchors: The Complementarity of Exploratory and Exploitative Scientists in Knowledge Creation," Papers 2312.10476, arXiv.org.
    8. Andrea Borsato & André Lorentz, 2023. "Data production and the coevolving AI trajectories: an attempted evolutionary model," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 33(5), pages 1427-1472, November.
    9. Bianchini, Stefano & Müller, Moritz & Pelletier, Pierre, 2025. "Drivers and barriers of AI adoption and use in scientific research," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 220(C).
    10. Yue Wang & Ning Li & Bin Zhang & Qian Huang & Jian Wu & Yang Wang, 2023. "The effect of structural holes on producing novel and disruptive research in physics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(3), pages 1801-1823, March.
    11. Bouchra Al MAWLA & George M. El KAZZI & Hiba S. OTHMAN, 2025. "Artificial intelligence as a disruptive force in economics: transformations, challenges, and future prospects," Theoretical and Applied Economics, Asociatia Generala a Economistilor din Romania / Editura Economica, vol. 0(2(643), S), pages 87-106, Summer.
    12. Naude, Wim, 2019. "The race against the robots and the fallacy of the giant cheesecake: Immediate and imagined impacts of artificial intelligence," MERIT Working Papers 2019-005, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    13. Bernardo S Buarque & Ronald B Davies & Ryan M Hynes & Dieter F Kogler, 2020. "OK Computer: the creation and integration of AI in Europe," Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 13(1), pages 175-192.
    14. Wu, Yifan & Yuan, Yiming & Song, Xueyin, 2025. "The impact of AI adoption on R&D productivity: Evidence from Chinese pharmaceutical manufacturing industry," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    15. Yang, Alex J., 2024. "On the temporal diversity of knowledge in science," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4).
    16. Gries, Thomas & Naude, Wim, 2018. "Artificial intelligence, jobs, inequality and productivity: Does aggregate demand matter?," MERIT Working Papers 2018-047, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    17. Kwon, Seokbeom, 2022. "Interdisciplinary knowledge integration as a unique knowledge source for technology development and the role of funding allocation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    18. Banal-Estañol, Albert & Macho-Stadler, Inés & Pérez-Castrillo, David, 2019. "Evaluation in research funding agencies: Are structurally diverse teams biased against?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1823-1840.
    19. Ke, Qing, 2020. "Technological impact of biomedical research: The role of basicness and novelty," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    20. Koehler, Maximilian & Sauermann, Henry, 2024. "Algorithmic management in scientific research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(4).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:51:y:2022:i:10:s0048733322001275. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.