Loss of New Ideas: Potentially Long-lasting Effects of the Pandemic on Scientists (preprint)

Extensive research has documented the immediate impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on scientists, yet it remains unclear if and how such impacts have shifted over time. Here we compare results from two surveys of principal investigators, conducted between April 2020 and January 2021, along with analyses of large-scale publication data. We find that there has been a clear sign of recovery in some regards, as scientists' time spent on their work has almost returned to pre-pandemic levels. However, the latest data also reveals a new dimension in which the pandemic is affecting the scientific workforce: the rate of initiating new research projects. Except for the small fraction of scientists who directly engaged in COVID-related research, most scientists started significantly fewer new research projects in 2020. This decline is most pronounced amongst the same demographic groups of scientists who reported the largest initial disruptions: female scientists and those with young children. Yet in sharp contrast to the earlier phase of the pandemic, when there were large disparities across scientific fields, this loss of new projects appears remarkably homogeneous across fields. Analyses of large-scale publication data reveal a global decline in the rate of new collaborations, especially in non-COVID-related preprints, which is consistent with the reported decline in new projects. Overall, these findings highlight that, while the end of the pandemic may appear in sight in some countries, its large and unequal impact on the scientific workforce may be enduring, which may have broad implications for inequality and the long-term vitality of science.

Adaptability and the Pivot Penalty in Science (preprint)

The ability to confront new questions, opportunities, and challenges is of fundamental importance to human progress and the resilience of human societies, yet the capacity of science to meet new demands remains poorly understood. Here we deploy a new measurement framework to investigate the scientific response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the adaptability of science as a whole. We find that science rapidly shifted to engage COVID-19 following the advent of the virus, with scientists across all fields making large jumps from their prior research streams. However, this adaptive response reveals a pervasive "pivot penalty", where the impact of the new research steeply declines the further the scientists move from their prior work. The pivot penalty is severe amidst COVID-19 research, but it is not unique to COVID-19. Rather it applies nearly universally across the sciences, and has been growing in magnitude over the past five decades. While further features condition pivoting, including a scientist's career stage, prior expertise and impact, collaborative scale, the use of new coauthors, and funding, we find that the pivot penalty persists and remains substantial regardless of these features, suggesting the pivot penalty acts as a fundamental friction that governs science's ability to adapt. The pivot penalty not only holds key implications for the design of the scientific system and human capacity to confront emergent challenges through scientific advance, but may also be relevant to other social and economic systems, where shifting to meet new demands is central to survival and success.

Quantifying Policy Responses to a Global Emergency: Insights from the COVID-19 Pandemic (preprint)

Public policy must confront emergencies that evolve in real time and in uncertain directions, yet little is known about the nature of policy response. Here we take the coronavirus pandemic as a global and extraordinarily consequential case, and study the global policy response by analyzing a novel dataset recording policy documents published by government agencies, think tanks, and intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) across 114 countries (37,725 policy documents from Jan 2nd through May 26th 2020). Our analyses reveal four primary findings. (1) Global policy attention to COVID-19 follows a remarkably similar trajectory as the total confirmed cases of COVID-19, yet with evolving policy focus from public health to broader social issues. (2) The COVID-19 policy frontier disproportionately draws on the latest, peer-reviewed, and high-impact scientific insights. Moreover, policy documents that cite science appear especially impactful within the policy domain. (3) The global policy frontier is primarily interconnected through IGOs, such as the WHO, which produce policy documents that are central to the COVID19 policy network and draw especially strongly on scientific literature. Removing IGOs' contributions fundamentally alters the global policy landscape, with the policy citation network among government agencies increasingly fragmented into many isolated clusters. (4) Countries exhibit highly heterogeneous policy attention to COVID-19. Most strikingly, a country's early policy attention to COVID-19 shows a surprising degree of predictability for the country's subsequent deaths. Overall, these results uncover fundamental patterns of policy interactions and, given the consequential nature of emergent threats and the paucity of quantitative approaches to understand them, open up novel dimensions for assessing and effectively coordinating global and local responses to COVID-19 and beyond.

Quantifying the Immediate Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Scientists (preprint)

The COVID-19 pandemic has undoubtedly disrupted the scientific enterprise, but we lack empirical evidence on the nature and magnitude of these disruptions. Here we report the results of a survey of approximately 4,500 Principal Investigators (PIs) at U.S.- and Europe-based research institutions. Distributed in mid-April 2020, the survey solicited information about how scientists' work changed from the onset of the pandemic, how their research output might be affected in the near future, and a wide range of individuals' characteristics. Scientists report a sharp decline in time spent on research on average, but there is substantial heterogeneity with a significant share reporting no change or even increases. Some of this heterogeneity is due to field-specific differences, with laboratory-based fields being the most negatively affected, and some is due to gender, with female scientists reporting larger declines. However, among the individuals' characteristics examined, the largest disruptions are connected to a usually unobserved dimension: childcare. Reporting a young dependent is associated with declines similar in magnitude to those reported by the laboratory-based fields and can account for a significant fraction of gender differences. Amidst scarce evidence about the role of parenting in scientists' work, these results highlight the fundamental and heterogeneous ways this pandemic is affecting the scientific workforce, and may have broad relevance for shaping responses to the pandemic's effect on science and beyond.