A data-driven look at Max Planck’s provocative idea
In the early 20th century, the physicist Max Planck made an observation that still unsettles scientists today:
New scientific truths don’t win by convincing opponents—but because opponents eventually die, and a new generation takes over.
Over time, this sharpened into the famous line:
“Science advances one funeral at a time.”
It sounds cynical—almost anti-scientific. After all, aren’t scientists supposed to follow evidence wherever it leads?
But what if Planck was, at least partly, right?
A modern study published in the American Economic Review takes this idea out of philosophy and into data—and the results are surprisingly striking.
📊 The natural experiment: what happens when a “giant” dies?
The study (by Azoulay, Fons-Rosen, and Graff Zivin, 2019) looked at what happens in scientific fields when a highly influential (“star”) scientist dies unexpectedly.
Why is this powerful?
- Death acts as a kind of natural experiment
- It abruptly removes a dominant figure from a field
- It lets us observe how the field changes because of that absence
The researchers tracked:
- Publication patterns
- Citation impact
- Entry of new scientists
- Direction of ideas
🔍 What they found (this is where it gets interesting)
1. 🚪 New scientists enter—but they’re different
After a star scientist’s death:
- There is a significant increase in new entrants into that field
- These newcomers are often not from the star’s immediate network
👉 Translation:
While the star was alive, the field was somewhat “closed.” After their death, it opens up.
2. 💡 The ideas shift
The new entrants don’t just continue the old work.
They:
- Pursue different questions
- Use different methods
- Challenge previously dominant assumptions
👉 This suggests that dominant scientists don’t just lead fields—they also shape what is considered acceptable to study.
3. 📈 Impact actually increases
This is the most striking result:
- Papers by these new entrants are more likely to be highly cited
- The field sees a boost in high-impact contributions
👉 In other words:
Innovation accelerates after the dominant figure is gone.
4. 🧱 Before death: subtle suppression
The study suggests (carefully, but clearly) that while star scientists are alive:
- They may unintentionally discourage alternative ideas
- Their influence over peer review, funding, and hiring can shape the direction of research
- Competing approaches may be underexplored
This isn’t about malice—it’s about intellectual dominance.
🧠 So was Planck right?
Partly—but the data lets us refine his idea.
Planck imagined stubborn old scientists refusing to change their minds.
The modern evidence suggests something more nuanced:
Scientific fields are shaped by power structures, networks, and intellectual gatekeeping—not just individual stubbornness.
It’s less about people refusing to believe new ideas, and more about:
- Who controls journals
- Who trains students
- Who decides what gets funded
🔬 A better interpretation
Instead of:
“Science progresses because old scientists die”
A more accurate, data-driven version would be:
Science progresses when intellectual monopolies weaken, allowing new ideas and new people to enter.
Death is just one way that monopoly ends.
🧬 Why this matters today
This insight is deeply relevant to modern science:
1. Large labs and “celebrity scientists”
Fields dominated by a few powerful labs may:
- Define what counts as “important”
- Crowd out alternative approaches
2. Peer review and funding bias
Reviewers (often established experts) may:
- Favor familiar frameworks
- Be skeptical of disruptive ideas
3. Training pipelines
Students trained in a dominant paradigm:
- Often inherit the worldview of their mentors
- Reinforce the existing structure
⚖️ The uncomfortable truth
Science is often portrayed as:
A pure meritocracy of ideas
But the evidence shows it is also:
A social system, shaped by hierarchy, influence, and human psychology
This doesn’t invalidate science—it makes it more realistic.
🌱 The hopeful ending
Here’s the encouraging part:
Even if Planck was partly right, science still progresses.
Not just because of funerals—but because of:
- New generations
- New tools
- New perspectives
- And sometimes, bold outsiders willing to challenge the norm
🔑 Final takeaway
Planck’s quote endures because it captures a tension at the heart of science:
- Science is self-correcting
- But the correction is often slower and more human than we like to admit
So yes—sometimes science advances one funeral at a time.
But more precisely:
It advances when space is created for new ideas to breathe.
