IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2609.28504.html

AI in Science: Early Insights

Author

Listed:
  • Mihai Codreanu
  • Alex Imas
  • Juan Mateos-Garcia
  • Joseph Emmens
  • Evalyne Muiruri
  • Arthur Turrell
  • Julian Jacobs
  • Atoosa Kasirzadeh
  • Ana Trisovic
  • Yiyuan Chen
  • Tanya Rodchenko
  • Catherine Pollard
  • Scott Strand
  • Daniel Rock
  • Zanna Iscenko
  • Fabien Curto Millet
  • Neil Thompson
  • James Manyika

Abstract

Scientific progress is a key driver of economic growth and prosperity. There is great excitement - but also concerns - about the impacts of AI on science, but so far little data. We provide early insights on this from three data sources: a sample of 15 million Gemini interactions, an inventory of over 2,600 specialized AI models across disciplines, and a survey of over 600 scientists. We map these data to a new taxonomy of scientific tasks to study how scientists are using AI. Four main findings emerge. First, we find broad adoption and coverage: scientists use AI more than most other occupations. Specialized AI models have broad disciplinary coverage and are highly cited. Nearly half of the scientists surveyed report using some form of AI every day. Second, we document evidence that LLMs (proxied through Gemini usage) and specialized models act as complements-- LLMs are used for general analysis, coding, and manuscript preparation, while specialized models provide domain-specific predictions, data generation and classification. Third, scientists report large productivity gains from using AI: a saving of nearly 7 hours per week, time which is primarily re-invested in more research. Finally, we show that AI is already changing the scientific process. As some stages of scientific research become easier, bottlenecks shift downstream. Scientists report an increased backlog of untested hypotheses and substantial demand for output verification. Our findings suggest that AI holds significant potential to increase scientific productivity. However, as with other sectors, its ultimate impact will be governed by complex task interdependencies and investment into the elimination of emerging bottlenecks.

Suggested Citation

  • Mihai Codreanu & Alex Imas & Juan Mateos-Garcia & Joseph Emmens & Evalyne Muiruri & Arthur Turrell & Julian Jacobs & Atoosa Kasirzadeh & Ana Trisovic & Yiyuan Chen & Tanya Rodchenko & Catherine Pollar, 2026. "AI in Science: Early Insights," Papers 2609.28504, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2026.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2609.28504
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2609.28504
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas Renault & Antonin Bergeaud & Cl'ement Bosquet, 2026. "Comment on Scientific production in the era of large language models," Papers 2605.17979, arXiv.org.
    2. Stefano Bianchini & Moritz Muller & Pierre Pelletier, 2023. "Drivers and Barriers of AI Adoption and Use in Scientific Research," Papers 2312.09843, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2024.
    3. Qianyue Hao & Fengli Xu & Yong Li & James Evans, 2026. "Artificial intelligence tools expand scientists’ impact but contract science’s focus," Nature, Nature, vol. 649(8099), pages 1237-1243, January.
    4. Nicholas Crafts, 2021. "Artificial intelligence as a general-purpose technology: an historical perspective," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 37(3), pages 521-536.
    5. Ruth Appel & Peter McCrory & Alex Tamkin & Miles McCain & Tyler Neylon & Michael Stern, 2025. "Anthropic Economic Index report: Uneven geographic and enterprise AI adoption," Papers 2511.15080, arXiv.org.
    6. Bianchini, Stefano & Müller, Moritz & Pelletier, Pierre, 2022. "Artificial intelligence in science: An emerging general method of invention," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    7. Ufuk Akcigit & Douglas Hanley & Nicolas Serrano-Velarde, 2021. "Back to Basics: Basic Research Spillovers, Innovation Policy, and Growth," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 88(1), pages 1-43.
    8. Babina, Tania & Fedyk, Anastassia & He, Alex & Hodson, James, 2024. "Artificial intelligence, firm growth, and product innovation," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    9. 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.
    10. Agrawal, Ajay & Gans, Joshua S. & Goldfarb, Avi, 2019. "Exploring the impact of artificial Intelligence: Prediction versus judgment," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 1-6.
    11. Ryan R. Hill & Carolyn Stein, 2026. "How Artificial Intelligence Shapes Science: Evidence from AlphaFold," NBER Working Papers 35143, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Stefano Bianchini & Moritz Müller & Pierre Pelletier, 2022. "Artificial intelligence in science: An emerging general method of invention," Post-Print hal-03958025, HAL.
    13. Mokyr, Joel, 1992. "The Lever of Riches: Technological Creativity and Economic Progress," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195074772.
    14. Mert Demirer & John J. Horton & Nicole Immorlica & Brendan Lucier & Peyman Shahidi, 2026. "Chaining Tasks, Redefining Work: A Theory of AI Automation," Papers 2606.15960, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2026.
    15. Michael Park & Erin Leahey & Russell J. Funk, 2023. "Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time," Nature, Nature, vol. 613(7942), pages 138-144, January.
    16. Aaron Chatterji & Thomas Cunningham & David J. Deming & Zoe Hitzig & Christopher Ong & Carl Yan Shan & Kevin Wadman, 2025. "How People Use ChatGPT," NBER Working Papers 34255, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. 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.
    18. Jones, Charles I, 1995. "R&D-Based Models of Economic Growth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 103(4), pages 759-784, August.
    19. Jack H. Culbert & Anne Hobert & Najko Jahn & Nick Haupka & Marion Schmidt & Paul Donner & Philipp Mayr, 2025. "Reference coverage analysis of OpenAlex compared to Web of Science and Scopus," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(4), pages 2475-2492, April.
    20. Zanna Iscenko & Scott Strand & Yiyuan Chen & Guillaume Aimard & Mihai Codreanu & Vivek Sampathkumar & Alex Imas & Julian Jacobs & Evalyne Muiruri & Juan Mateos-Garcia & Jia Jen Ng & Samirah Javed & Jo, 2026. "Google's AI & Economy ATLAS v1.0: Mapping Gemini Usage in the Economy," Papers 2608.00038, arXiv.org.
    21. Mert Demirer & John J. Horton & Nicole Immorlica & Brendan Lucier & Peyman Shahidi, 2026. "Chaining Tasks, Redefining Work: A Theory of AI Automation," NBER Working Papers 34859, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    22. Richard Van Noorden & Jeffrey M. Perkel, 2023. "AI and science: what 1,600 researchers think," Nature, Nature, vol. 621(7980), pages 672-675, September.
    23. Lisa Messeri & M. J. Crockett, 2024. "Artificial intelligence and illusions of understanding in scientific research," Nature, Nature, vol. 627(8002), pages 49-58, March.
    24. Tamay Besiroglu & Nicholas Emery-Xu & Neil Thompson, 2022. "Economic impacts of AI-augmented R&D," Papers 2212.08198, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2023.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. John Conlon & Peter Schwardmann, 2026. "Creative destruction: Human-AI competition in an experimental market," Papers 2610.18921, arXiv.org.

    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. Bianchini, Stefano & Di Girolamo, Valentina & Ravet, Julien & Arranz, David, 2026. "AI in science: When and where it makes a difference," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(6).
    2. Fulvio Castellacci & Tommaso Ciarli & Yuan Gao & Marianna Marino & Giacomo Marzi & Massimo Riccaboni & Maria Savona & Simone Vannuccini, 2026. "Generative Artificial Intelligence in Scientific Research: Individual Benefits, Collective Risks, and a Framework for Responsible Research with AI," Papers 2607.24879, arXiv.org.
    3. Carvalho, Vasco & Freund, Lukas B., 2026. "Firms as Foragers," CEPR Discussion Papers 21753, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    4. 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).
    5. Ina Ganguli & Jeffrey Lin & Vitaly Meursault & Nicholas Reynolds, 2026. "Spreading Out Across Expanding Idea Space," Working Papers 26-39, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.
    6. Flavio Calvino & Luca Fontanelli, 2026. "Decoding AI: an early look at how French firms use AI," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 16(1), pages 51-93, March.
    7. Koehler, Maximilian & Sauermann, Henry, 2024. "Algorithmic management in scientific research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(4).
    8. Choi, Jin-Uk & Lee, Chang-Yang, 2022. "The differential effects of basic research on firm R&D productivity: The conditioning role of technological diversification," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    9. Maya M. Durvasula & Sabri Eyuboglu & David M. Ritzwoller, 2024. "Counting Clinical Trials: New Evidence on Pharmaceutical Sector Productivity," Papers 2405.08030, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2025.
    10. Lutz Bornmann & Russell J. Funk, 2025. "Popper’s probability calculus and the decline of scientific disruptiveness," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(8), pages 4801-4807, August.
    11. Calvino, Flavio & Fontanelli, Luca, 2026. "AI users are not all alike: The characteristics of French firms buying and developing AI," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(5).
    12. 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.
    13. Richard M. H. Suen, 2013. "Research Policy and U.S. Economic Growth," Working papers 2013-18, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
    14. Shi, Jincheng, 2026. "Does hybrid intelligence trigger breakthrough innovation?," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    15. Nathalie Greenan & Dario Guarascio & Jelena Reljic, 2025. "AI and the labour market: opening the black box," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 15(4), pages 925-951, December.
    16. Fontanelli, Luca & Guerini, Mattia & Miniaci, Raffaele & Secchi, Angelo, 2025. "Predictive AI and productivity growth dynamics: Evidence from French firms," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 240(C).
    17. 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.
    18. Wang, Jieshu & Lobo, José, 2024. "Extensive growth of inventions: Evidence from U.S. patenting," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    19. Xu, Yanan & Sun, Yaowu & Zhou, Yiting, 2024. "Unpacking the intellectual structure and evolution trend of general-purpose technologies development in innovation studies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    20. Callaghan, Christian William, 2021. "Growth contributions of technological change: Is there a burden of knowledge effect?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:2609.28504. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arxiv.org/ .

    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.