ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

We have used 19.9 million papers over 5 decades and 2.1 million patents to demonstrate that teams increasingly dominate solo authors in the production of knowledge. Research is increasingly done in teams across nearly all fields. Teams typically produce more frequently cited research than individuals do, and this advantage has been increasing over time. Teams now also produce the exceptionally high-impact research, even where that distinction was once the domain of solo authors. These results are detailed for sciences and engineering, social sciences, arts and humanities, and patents, suggesting that the process of knowledge creation has fundamentally changed.
Content may be subject to copyright.
DOI: 10.1126/science.1136099
, 1036 (2007); 316Science
et al.Stefan Wuchty,
of Knowledge
The Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only.
. clicking herecolleagues, clients, or customers by
, you can order high-quality copies for yourIf you wish to distribute this article to others
. herefollowing the guidelines
can be obtained byPermission to republish or repurpose articles or portions of articles
(this information is current as of October 2, 2010 ):
The following resources related to this article are available online at
version of this article at:
including high-resolution figures, can be found in the onlineUpdated information and services,
can be found at: Supporting Online Material
found at:
can berelated to this articleA list of selected additional articles on the Science Web sites
, 3 of which can be accessed for free: cites 14 articlesThis article
70 article(s) on the ISI Web of Science. cited byThis article has been
13 articles hosted by HighWire Press; see: cited byThis article has been
: subject collectionsThis article appears in the following
registered trademark of AAAS.
is aScience2007 by the American Association for the Advancement of Science; all rights reserved. The title
CopyrightAmerican Association for the Advancement of Science, 1200 New York Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20005.
(print ISSN 0036-8075; online ISSN 1095-9203) is published weekly, except the last week in December, by theScience
on October 2, 2010 www.sciencemag.orgDownloaded from
References and Notes
1. G. G. Simpson, C. Dean, Science 296, 285 (2002).
2. L. Corbesier, G. Coupland, Plant Cell Environ. 28,54
3. T. Imaizumi, S. A. Kay, Trends Plant Sci. 11, 550 (2006).
4. B. Thomas, D. Vince-prue, Photoperiodism in Plants
(Academic Press, London, 1997).
5. Y. Kobayashi, H. Kaya, K. Goto, M. Iwabuchi, T. Araki,
Science 286, 1960 (1999).
6. I. Kardailsky et al., Science 286, 1962 (1999).
7. S. Takada, K. Goto, Plant Cell 15, 2856 (2003).
8. H. An et al., Development 131, 3615 (2004).
9. M. Abe et al., Science 309, 1052 (2005).
10. P. A. Wigge et al., Science 309, 1056 (2005).
11. J. A. D. Zeevaart, Plant Cell 18, 1783 (2006).
12. E. Lifschitz et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 103, 6398
13. H. Böhlenius, S. Eriksson, F. Parcy, O. Nilsson, Science
316, 367 (2007).
14. T. Izawa et al., Genes Dev. 16, 2006 (2002).
15. S. Kojima et al., Plant Cell Physiol. 43, 1096 (2002).
16. R. Hayama, S. Yokoi, S. Tamaki, M. Yano, K. Shimamoto,
Nature 422, 719 (2003).
17. R. Ishikawa et al., Plant Cell 17, 3326 (2005).
18. A. Guivarc'H, A. Spena, M. Noin, C. Besnard, D. Chriqui,
Transgen. Res. 5, 3 (1996).
19. T. Asano et al., Plant Cell Physiol. 43, 668 (2002).
20. R. Ando, H. Hama, M. Yamamoto-Hino, H. Mizuno,
A. Miyawaki, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 99, 12651
21. S. Arimura, J. Yamamoto, G. P. Aida, M. Nakazono,
N. Tsutsumi, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 101, 7805
22. P. Giavalisco, K. Kapitza, A. Kolasa, A. Buhtz, J. Kehr,
Proteomics 6, 896 (2006).
23. M. K. Chailakhyan, C. R. Acad. Sci. URSS 13, 79 (1936).
24. A. Lang, in Encyclopedia of Plant Physiology,
W. Ruhland, Ed. (Springer, Berlin, 1965), vol. 15,
pp. 13801536.
25. J. A. D. Zeevaart, Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 27, 321
26. M. G. Muszynski et al., Plant Physiol. 142, 1523 (2006).
27. P. Teper-Bamnolker, A. Samach, Plant Cell 17, 2661 (2005).
28. H. Böhlenius et al., Science 312, 1040 (2006).
29. We thank J. Kyozuka (University of Tokyo) for advice on
the experiments and comments on the manuscript,
K. Kadowaki (NIAS, Tsukuba) for the RPP16 promoter,
H. Uchimiya (University of Tokyo) for the rolC promoter,
and members of the Laboratory of Plant Molecular
Genetics at NAIST for discussions. This research was
supported by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research on
Priority Areas of the Ministry of Education, Culture,
Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan (to K.S.).
Supporting Online Material
Materials and Methods
Figs. S1 to S3
26 February 2007; accepted 6 April 2007
Published online 19 April 2007;
Include this information when citing this pap er.
The Increasing Dominance of
Teams in Production of Knowledge
Stefan Wuchty,
* Benjamin F. Jones,
* Brian Uzzi
We have used 19.9 million papers over 5 decades and 2.1 million patents to demonstrate that teams
increasingly dominate solo authors in the production of knowledge. Research is increasingly done in
teams across nearly all fields. Teams typically produce more frequently cited research than individuals
do, and this advantage has been increasing over time. Teams now also produce the exceptionally high-
impact research, even where that distinction was once the domain of solo authors. These results are
detailed for sciences and engineering, social sciences, arts and humanities, and patents, suggesting that
the process of knowledge creation has fundamentally changed.
n acclaimed tradition in the history and
sociology of science emphasizes the role
of the individual genius in scientific dis-
covery (1, 2). This tradition focuses on guiding
contributions of solitary authors, such as Newton
and Einstein, and can be seen broadly in the tend-
ency to equate great ideas with particular names,
such as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, Eu-
clidean geometry, Nash equilibrium, and Kantian
ethics. The role of individual contributions is also
celebrated through sciences award-granting in-
stitutions, like the Nobel Prize Foundation (3).
Several studies, however , have explored an
apparent shift in science from this individual-
based model of scientific advance to a teamwork
model. Building on classic work by Zuckerman
and Merton, many authors have established a
rising propensity for teamwork in samples of
research fields, with some studies going back a
century (47). For example, de Solla Price ex-
amined the change in team size in chemistry from
1910 to 1960, forecasting that in 1980 zero per-
cent of the papers would be written by solo au-
thors (8). Recently , Adams et al. established that
over time, tea mwork had increased across
broader sets of fields among elite U.S. research
universities (9). Nevertheles s, the breadth and
depth of this projected shift in manpower remains
indefinite, particularly in fields where the size of
experiments and capital investments remain
small, raising the question as to whether the
projected growth in teams is universal or
cloistered in specialized fields.
A shift toward teams also raises new ques-
tions of whether teams produce better science.
Teams may bring greater collective knowledge
and effort, but they are known to experience so-
cial network and coordination losses that make
them underperform individuals even in highly
complex tasks (1012), as F. Scott Fitzgerald
concisely observed when he stated that no grand
idea was ever born in a conference (13). From
this viewpoint, a shift to teamwork may be a
costly phenomenon or one that promotes low-
impact science, whereas the highest-impact ideas
remain the domain of great minds working alone.
We studied 19.9 million research articles in
the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web
of Science database and an additional 2.1 million
patent records. The W eb of Science data covers
research publications in science and engineering
since 1955, social sciences since 1956, and arts
and humanities since 1975. The patent data cover
all U.S. registered patents since 1975 (14). A team
was defined as having more than one listed author
(publications) or inventor (patents). Following the
ISI classification system, the uni verse of scientific
publications is divided into three main branches
and their constituent subfields: science and
engineering (with 171 subfields), social sciences
(with 54 subfields), and arts and humanities (with
27 subfields). The universe of U.S. patents was
treated as a separate category (with 36 subfields).
See the Supporting Online Material (SOM) text
for details o n these classifications.
For science and engineering, social sciences,
and patents, there has been a substantial shift
toward collective research. In the sciences, team
size has grown steadily each year and nearly
Northwestern Institute on Complexity (NICO), North-
western University, Evanston, IL 60208, USA.
School of Management, Northwestern University, Evanston,
IL 60208, USA.
*These authors contributed equally to this work.
To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail:
Table 1. Patterns by subfield. For the three broad ISI categories and for patents, we counted the
number (N) and percentage (%) of subfields that show (i) larger team sizes in the last 5 years
compared to the first 5 years and (ii) RTI measures larger than 1 in the last 5 years. We show RTI
measures both with and without self-citations removed in calculating the citations received. Dash
entries indicate data not applicable.
team size
RTI > 1
(with self-citations)
RTI > 1
(no self-citations)
% N
% N
Science and engineering 171 170 99.4 167 97.7 159 92.4
Social sciences 54 54 100.0 54 100.0 51 94.4
Arts and humanities 27 24 88.9 23 85.2 18 66.7
Patents 36 36 100.0 32 88.9 ––
18 MAY 2007 VOL 316 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org1036
on October 2, 2010 www.sciencemag.orgDownloaded from
doubled, from 1.9 to 3.5 authors per paper , over
45 years.
Shifts toward teamwork in science and en-
gineering have been suggested to follow from the
increasing scale, complexity , and costs of big
science. Surprisingly then, we find an equally
strong trend toward teamwork in the social sci-
ences, where these drivers are much less notable.
Although social scientists in 1955 wrote 17.5%
of their papers in teams, by 2000 they wrote
51.5% of their papers in teams, an increase
similar to that in sciences and engineering. Mean
team size has also grown each year. On average,
todays social sciences papers are written in pairs,
with a continuing, positive trend toward larger
teams. Unlike the other areas of research, single
authors still produce over 90% of the papers in
the arts and humanities. Nevertheless, there is a
positive trend toward teams in arts and human-
ities (P < 0.001). Lastly , patents also show a
rising dominance of teams. Although these data
are on a shorter time scale (1975200 0), there
was a similar annualized increase in the propen-
sity for teamwork. Average team size has risen
from 1.7 to 2.3 inventors per patent, with the
positive trend toward larger teams continuing.
The generality of the shift to teamwork is
captured in T able 1. In sciences and engineering,
99.4% of the 171 subfields have seen increased
teamwork. Meanwhile, 100% of the 54 subfields
in the social sciences, 88.9% of the 27 subfields in
the humanities, and 100% of the 36 subfields in
patenting have seen increased teamwork.
T rends for individual fields are presented in
table S1. In the sciences, areas like medicine,
biology, and physics have seen at least a doubling
in mean team size over the 45-year period. Sur-
prisingly , even mathematics, long thought the do-
main of the loner scientist and least dependent of
the hard sciences on lab scale and capital-intensive
equipment, showed a marked increase in the frac-
tion of work done in teams, from 19% to 57%,
with mean team size rising from 1.22 to 1.84. In
the social sciences, psychology, economics, and
political science show enormous shifts toward
teamwork, sometimes doubling or tripling the
propensity for teamwork. With regard to average
team size, psychology, the closest of the social
sciences to a lab science, has the highest growth
(75.1%), whereas political science has the lowest
(16.6%). As reflected in Fig. 1A, the humanities
show lower growth rates in the fraction of
publications done in teams, yet a tendency
toward increased teamwork is still observed. All
areas of patents showed a positive change in both
the fraction of papers done by teams and the team
size, with only small variations across the areas
of patenting, suggesting that the conditions
favoring teamwork in patenting are largely
similar across subfields.
Our measure of impact was the number of
citations each paper and patent receives, which
has been shown to correlate with research quality
(1517) and is frequently used in promotion and
funding reviews (18). Highly cited work was
defined as receiving more than the mean number
of citations for a given field and year (19). Teams
produced more highly cited work in each broad
area of research and at each point in time.
To explore the relationship between team-
work and impact in more detail, we defined the
relative team impact (R TI) for a given time period
and field. R TI is the mean number of citations
received by team-authored work divided by the
mean number of citations received by solo-
authored work. A RTI greater than 1 indicates
that teams produce more highly cited papers than
solo authors and vice versa for R TI less than 1.
When RTI is equal to 1, there is no difference in
citation rates for team- and solo-authored papers.
In our data set, the average R TI was greater than
1 at all points in time and in all broad research
areas: sciences and engineering, social sciences,
humanities, and patents. In other words, there is a
broad tendency for teams to produce more highly
cited work than individual authors. Further, R TI
is rising with time. For example, in sciences and
engineering, team-authored papers received 1.7
times as many citations as solo-authored papers
in 1955 but 2.1 times the citations by 2000. Simi-
lar upward trends in relative team impact appear
in sciences and engineering, social science, and
arts and humanities and more weakly in patents,
although the trend is still upward (20). During the
early periods, solo authors received subst an t ial ly
more citations on average than teams in many
subfields, especially within sciences and engi-
neering (Fig. 2E) and social sciences (Fig. 2F).
By the end of the period, however, there are
almost no subfields in sciences and engineering
and social sciences in which solo authors typical-
ly receive more citations than teams. Table S1
details R TIs for major individual research areas,
indicating that teams currently have a nearly uni-
versal impact advantage. In a minority of cases,
RTIs declined with time (e.g., 34.4% in mathe-
matics and 25.7% in education), although even
here teams currently have a large advantage in
citations received (e.g., 67% more average cita-
tions in mathematics and 105% in education).
The citation advantage of teams has also been
increasing with time when teams of fixed size are
compared with solo authors. In science and engi-
neering, for example, papers with two authors
received 1.30 times more citations than solo au-
thors in the 1950s but 1.74 times more citations
in the 1990s. In general, this pattern prevails for
comparisons between teams of any fixed size
versus solo authors (table S4).
A possible challenge to the validity of these
observations is the presence of self-citations, giv-
en that teams have opportunities to self-cite their
work more frequently than a single author. To
address this, we reran the analysis with all self-
citations removed from the data set (21). We
found that removing self-citations can produce
modest decreases in the RTI measure in some
fields; for example, RTIs fell from 3.10 to 2.87 in
Thus, removing self-citations can reduce the R TI
by 5 to 10%, but the relative citation advantag e of
teams remains essentially intact.
Because the progress of knowledge may be
driven by a small number of key insights (22), we
further test whether the most extraordinary con-
cepts, results, and technologies are the province
of solitary scientists or teams. Pooling all papers
and patents within the four research areas, we
calculated the frequency distribution of citations
to solo-authored and team-authored work, com-
paring the first 5 years and last 5 years of our
data. If these distributions overlap in their right-
hand tails, then a solo-authored paper or patent is
just as likely as a team-authored paper or patent
to be extraordinarily highly cited.
Our results show that teams now dominate
the top of the citation distribution in all four re-
search domains (Fig. 3, A to D). In the early years,
a solo author in science and engineering or the
social sciences was more likely than a team to
receive no citations, but a solo author was also
more likely to garner the highest number of cita-
tions, that is, to have a paper that was singularly
influential. However, by the most recent period, a
team-authored paper has a higher probability of
being extremely highly cited. For example, a
team-authored paper in science and engineering
is currently 6.3 times more likely than a solo-
authored paper to receive at least 1000 citations.
Lastly, in arts and humanities and in patents, in-
dividuals were never more likely than teams to
produce more-influential work. These patterns al-
so hold when self-citations are removed (fig. S5).
Fig. 1. The growth of teams. These plots present changes over time in the fraction of papers and
patents written in teams (A) and in mean team size (B). Each line represents the arithmetic average
taken over all subfields in each year. SCIENCE VOL 316 18 MAY 2007
on October 2, 2010 www.sciencemag.orgDownloaded from
Taken together, these results suggest two im-
portant facts about preeminent work in our obser-
vational periods. First, it never appeared to be the
domain of solo authors in arts and humanities and
in patents. Second, solo authors did produce the
papers of singular distinction in science and engi-
neering and social science in the 1950s, but the
mantle of extraordinarily cited work has passed
to teams by 2000.
Over our 5-decade sample period, the in-
creasing capital intensity of research may have
been a key force in laboratory sciences where the
growth in teamwork has been intensive (8), but it
is unlikely to explain similar patterns in mathe-
matics, economics, and sociology , where we
found that growth rates in team size have been
nearly as large. Since the 1950s, the number of
researchers has grown as well, which could
promote finer divisions of labor and more
collaboration. Similarly, steady growth in knowl-
edge may have driven scholars toward more
spec ial iz atio n, p ro mpt ing lar ger and more diverse
teams (7, 10). However, we found that teamwork
is growing nearly as fast in fields where the
number of researchers has grown relatively
slowly (see Supporting Online Material).
Declines in communication costs could make
teamwork less costly as well (9, 23). Shift-
ing authorship norms may have influenced co-
authorship trends in fields with extremely large
teams, such as biomedicine and high-energy phys-
ics (24, 25), and yet our results hold across diverse
fields in which norms for order of authorship,
existence of postdoctorates , and prevalence of
grant-based research differ substantially.
References and Notes
1. R. K. Merton, Science 159, 56 (1968).
2. P. J. Bowler, I. R. Morus, Making Modern Science:
A Historical Survey (Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago,
3. J. F. English, The Economy of Prestige: Prizes, Awards,
and the Circulation of Cultural Value (Harvard Univ.
Press, Cambridge, MA, 2005).
4. R. Collins, The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory
of Intellectual Change (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge,
MA, 1998).
5. D. Cronin, D. Shaw, K. La Barre, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci.
Technol. 54, 855 (2003).
6. H. Zuckerman, R. K. Merton, in The Sociology of Science,
R. K. Merton, N. Storer, Eds. (Univ. of Chicago Press,
Chicago, 1973), pp. 545550.
7. B. F. Jones, Nal. Bur. Econ. Res. Work. Pap. Ser.,
no. 11360 (2005).
8. D. J. de Solla Price, Little Science, Big Science (Columbia
Univ. Press, New York, 1963).
9. J. J. Adams, G. Black, R. Clemmons, P. E. Stephan, Res.
Policy 34, 259 (2005).
10. R. Guimerà, B. Uzzi, J. Spiro, L. Amaral, Science 308,
697 (2005).
11. N. Babchuk, K. Bruce, P. George, Am. Sociol. 30,5
12. K. Y. Williams, C. A. O'Reilly, in Research in
Organizational Behavior, B. Staw, R. Sutton, Eds.
(JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, 1998), vol. 20, pp. 77140.
13. F. S. Fitzgerald, in The Crack Up, E. Wilson, Ed. (New
Directions, New York, 1993), p. 122.
14. B. H. Hall, A. B. Jaffe, M. Trajtenberg, Natl. Bur. Econ.
Res. Work. Pap. Ser., no. 8498 (2001).
15. M. Trajtenberg, Rand J. Econ. 21, 172 (1990).
16. B. H. Hall, A. B. Jaffe, M. Trajtenberg, Rand J. Econ. 36,
16 (2005).
Fig. 3. Exceptional research. Pooling all publications and patents within the four research
categories, we calculated frequency distributions of citations received. Separate distributions are
calculated for single authors and for teams, and the ratio is plotted. A ratio greater than
1 indicates that a team-authored paper had a higher probability of producing the given range of
citations than a solo-authored paper. Ratios are compared for the early period (first 5 years of
available data) and late period (last 5 years of available data) for each research category, sciences
and engineering (A), social sciences (B), arts and humanities (C), and patents (D).
Fig. 2. The relative impact of teams. (A to D) Mean team size comparing all papers and patents with
those that received more citations than average in the relevant subfield. (E to H) The RTI, which is the
mean number of citations received by team-authored work divided by the mean number of citations
received by solo-authored work. A ratio of 1 indicates that team- and solo-authored work have
equivalent impact on average. Each point represents the RTI for a given subfield and year, whereas the
black lines present the arithmetic average in a given year.
18 MAY 2007 VOL 316 SCIENCE
on October 2, 2010 www.sciencemag.orgDownloaded from
17. D. W. Aksnes, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 57, 169
18. N. S. Ali, H. C. Young, N. M. Ali, Libr. Rev. 45, 39 (1996).
19. Citations received were counted from publication year to
2006. Recent publications have smaller citation counts
because they have had less time to be cited, but this
effect is standardized when comparing team versus solo
publications within a given year.
20. In patenting, we may observe weaker trends because (i)
citing earlier work can limit a patents scope, so that
applicants may avoid citations, and (ii) patent examiners
typically add the majority of citations, which makes
patent citations different from paper citations (26, 27).
21. A self-citation is defined as any citation where a common
name exists in the authorship of both the cited and the
citing papers. All citations were removed in which a citing
and cited authors first initial and last name matched.
This method can also eliminate citations where the
authors are different people but share the same name.
However, performing Monte Carlo simulations on the
data, we find that such errors occur in less than 1 of
every 2000 citations. Thus, any errors introduced by this
method appear negligible. We did not remove self-
citations from patents because citations to previous work
in the patent literature are primarily assigned by the
patent examiner (27), who independently assigns
citations to earlier work based on the relevance of
previous patents content.
22. T. S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Univ.
of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1970).
23. G. Becker, K. Murphy, Q. J. Econ. 107, 1137 (1992).
24. J. Drenth, JAMA 280, 219 (1998).
25. B. Cronin, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 52, 558
26. B. Sampat, Determinants of patent quality: An empirical
analysis (Columbia Univ., New York, 2005).
27. J. Alcacer, M. Gittelman, Rev. Econ. Stat. 88, 774 (2006).
28. We thank R. Guimera, S. Stern, K. Murnighan,
K. Williams Phillips, and two anonymous referees for
their helpful comments. The Northwestern Institute on
Complex Systems provided financial support.
Supporting Online Material
SOM Text
Figs. S1 to S5
Tables S1 to S5
10 October 2006; accepted 3 April 2007
Published online 12 April 2007;
Include this information when citing this pap er.
MET Amplification Leads to Gefitinib
Resistance in Lung Cancer by
Activating ERBB3 Signaling
Jeffrey A. Engelman,
Kreshnik Zejnullahu,
Tetsuya Mitsudomi,
Youngchul Song,
Courtney Hyland,
Joon Oh Park,
Neal Lindeman,
Christopher-Michael Gale,
Xiaojun Zhao,
James Christensen,
Takayuki Kosaka,
Alison J. Holmes,
Andrew M. Rogers,
Federico Cappuzzo,
Tony Mok,
Charles Lee,
Bruce E. Johnson,
Lewis C. Cantley,
Pasi A. nne
The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) kinase inhibitors gefitinib and erlotinib are effective
treatments for lung cancers with EGFR activating mutations, but these tumors invariably develop
drug resistance. Here, we describe a gefitinib-sensitive lung cancer cell line that developed
resistance to gefitinib as a result of focal amplification of the MET proto-oncogene. inhibition of
MET signaling in these cells restored their sensitivity to gefitinib. MET amplification was detected in
4 of 18 (22%) lung cancer specimens that had developed resistance to gefitinib or erlotinib. We
find that amplification of MET causes gefitinib resistance by driving ERBB3 (HER3)dependent
activation of PI3K, a pathway thought to be specific to EGFR/ERBB family receptors. Thus, we
propose that MET amplification may promote drug resistance in other ERBB-driven cancers as well.
yrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are an
emerging class of anticancer therapies that
have shown promising clinical activity.
Gefitinib (Iressa) and erlotinib (T arcev a) inhibit
the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) ki-
nase and are used to treat nonsmall cell lung
cancers (NSCLCs) that have activating mutations
in the EGFR gene (14). Although most EGFR
mutant NSCLCs initially respond to EGFR in-
hibitors, the vast majority of these tumors ulti-
mately become resistant to the drug treatment. In
about 50% of these cases, resistance is due to the
occurrence of a secondary mutation in EGFR
(T790M) (5, 6). The mechanisms that contribute
to resistance in the remaining tumors are
To explore additional mechanisms of gefitinib
resistance, we generated resistant clones of the
gefitinib hypersensitive EGFR exon 19 mutant
NSCLC cell line, HCC827, by exposing these
cells to increasing concentrations of gefitinib for
6 months. The resultant cell line, HCC827 GR
(gefitinib resistant), and six clones isolated from
single cells were resistant to gefitinib in vitro
>10mM) (Fig. 1A). Unlike in the parental
HCC827 cells, phosphorylation of ERBB3 and
Akt in the HCC827 GR cells was maintained in
the presence of gefitinib (Fig. 1B).
We previously observed that EGFR mutant
tumors activate phosphoinositide 3-kinase
(PI3K)/Akt signaling through ERBB3 and that
down-regulation of the ERBB3/PI3K/Akt signal-
ing pathway is required for gefitinib to induce
apoptosis in EGFR mutant cells (7, 8). In addi-
tion, persistent ERBB3 phosphorylation has also
been associated with gefitinib resistance in
ERBB2-amplified breast cancer cells (9). We
therefore hypothesized that gefitinib resistance in
EGFR mutant NSCLCs might involve sustained
signal ing via ERBB3. After excluding the
presence of a secondary resistance mutation in
EGFR (10), we investigated whether aberrant
activation of anoth er receptor might be mediating
the resistance. We used a phosphoreceptor tyro-
sine kinase (phospho-RTK) array to compare the
effects of gefitinib on 42 phosphorylated RTKs in
HCC827 and HCC827 GR5 cells (Fig. 1C). In
the parental cell line, EGFR, ERBB3, ERBB2,
and MET were all phosphorylated, and this phos-
phorylation was either completely or markedly
reduced upon gefitinib treatment. In contrast,
in the resistant cells, phosphorylation of MET,
ERBB3, and EGFR persisted at higher levels in
the presence of gefitinib (Fig. 1C).
We next performed genome-wide copy num-
ber analyses and mRNA expression profiling of
the HCC827 GR cell lines and compared them
with the parental HCC827 cells (fig. S1 and table
S1). The resistant but not parental cell lines
showed a marked focal amplification within chro-
mosome 7q31.1 to 7q33.3, which contains the
MET proto-oncogene (Fig. 1D). MET encodes a
transmembrane tyrosine kinase receptor for the
hepatocyte growth factor (scatter factor), and MET
amplification has been detected in gastric and
esophageal cancers (11 , 12). Analysis by quanti-
tative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) confirmed
that MET wasamplifiedbyafactorof5to10in
the resistant cells (fig. S2), and sequence analysis
provided no evidence of mutations in MET .
To determine whether increased MET
signaling underlies the acquired resistance to
gefitinib, we examined whether MET inhibition
suppressed growth of the resistant cells. HCC827
GR cells were exposed to PHA-665752, a MET
tyrosine kinase inhibitor, alone or in combination
with gefitinib (13). Although the HCC827 GR5
cells were resistant to both gefitinib alone and
PHA-665752 alone, combined treatment resulted
Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston,
MA 02114, USA.
Department of Systems Biology, Harvard
Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Department of
Signal Transduction, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center,
Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Lowe Center for Thoracic Oncolo-
gy, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer
Institute, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Department of Thoracic
Surgery, Aichi Cancer Center Hospital, Nagoya 464-8681,
Department of Pathology, Brigham and Womens
Hospital, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Pfizer Global Research
and Development, Department of Research Pharmacology, La
Jolla Laboratories, La Jolla, CA 92121, USA.
Istituto Clinico
Humanitas, Department on Hematology-Oncology, Rozzano
20089, Italy.
Department of Clinical Oncology, Chinese
University of Hong Kong, Shatin, New Territories, Hong
Kong, China.
*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: SCIENCE VOL 316 18 MAY 2007 1039
on October 2, 2010 www.sciencemag.orgDownloaded from
... Research collaboration has been continuously growing in academia to increase scientific productivity, to share research costs, and to achieve new knowledge and interdisciplinary skills. Despite being predominantly found in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM), it has been gaining relevance even in areas which have historically been less cooperative, such as the humanities and social sciences (Dahlander & McFarland, 2013;Wuchty et al., 2007). ...
... The literature has given its attention to scientific collaboration and co-authorship. There are studies that focus on comparisons between fields, concluding that STEM areas tend to show more cooperative efforts (Dahlander & McFarland, 2013;Wuchty et al., 2007), but also studies that focus on research impact and productivity (Li et al., 2013, Bordons et al., 2015 or even the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on co-authorship networks (Sachini et al., 2021). ...
Full-text available
We use data on research collaboration among 5,230 scholars in the University of São Paulo between 2000 and 2019 to understand how a network with high academic endogamy is structured, to identify if academic collaboration is more commonly found among those who share endogamy status, and to analyze if the likelihood of tie formation is distinct among inbred and non-inbred scholars. Results show growth of collaborations over time. However, ties between scholars are more likely to occur when endogamy status is shared by both inbred and non-inbred ones. Furthermore, such homophily effect seems to gradually be more influential on non-inbred scholars, suggesting this institution could be missing out on opportunities of exploring non-redundant information from within its own faculty members.
... A growing body of Science of Team Science (SciTS) research has demonstrated that interdisciplinary and inter-institutional teams produce knowledge and products that are most impactful in the field and result in greater societal benefit [1]. Consequently, the CTSA consortium has embraced the interdisciplinary team approach to advance clinical and translational research to meaningful health outcomes [2]. ...
... Knowledge brokers are established and connected senior-level scientists that disseminate research discoveries or products throughout the scientific field [50,51]. These dissemination activities enhance the diffusion of knowledge in the scientific field, publication impact, and adoption of new technologies characteristic of successful interdisciplinary teams [1]. In our studies of TTs in the CTSA environment, non-academic team members, such as community or industry members with vested interests in the translational outcome ("stakeholders"), were involved at distinct times as the project matured towards clinical application. ...
Full-text available
A translational team (TT) is a specific type of interdisciplinary team that seeks to improve human health. Because high-performing TTs are critical to accomplishing CTSA goals, a greater understanding of how to promote TT performance is needed. Previous work by a CTSA Workgroup formulated a taxonomy of 5 interrelated team-emergent competency “domains” for successful translation: 1). affect, 2). communication, 3). management, 4). collaborative problem-solving, and 5). leadership. These Knowledge Skills and Attitudes (KSAs) develop within teams from the team’s interactions. However, understanding how practice in these domains enhance team performance was unaddressed. To fill this gap, we conducted a scoping literature review of empirical team studies from the broader Science of Team Science literature domains. We identified specific team-emergent KSAs that enhance TT performance, mapped these to the earlier “domain” taxonomy, and developed a rubric for their assessment. This work identifies important areas of intersection of practices in specific competencies across other competency domains. We find that inclusive environment, openness to transdisciplinary knowledge sharing, and situational leadership are a core triad of team-emergent competencies that reinforce each other and are highly linked to team performance. Finally, we identify strategies for enhancing these competencies. This work provides a grounded approach for training interventions in the CTSA context.
... Moreover, we demonstrate how abduction is a collective process, typically occurring across teams of scientists and inventors rather than within them. The most surprising successes occur not through interdisciplinary careers or multi-disciplinary teams 53,54 , but expeditions of scientists from one disciplinary context traveling to another. This implies that abduction is routinely social, where scientists from distant fields achieve substantial impact in advancing on a topic or challenge by bringing them into conversation with alien insights and perspectives. ...
Full-text available
We investigate the degree to which impact in science and technology is associated with surprising breakthroughs, and how those breakthroughs arise. Identifying breakthroughs across science and technology requires models that distinguish surprising from expected advances at scale. Drawing on tens of millions of research papers and patents across the life sciences, physical sciences and patented inventions, and using a hypergraph model that predicts realized combinations of research contents (article keywords) and contexts (cited journals), here we show that surprise in terms of unexpected combinations of contents and contexts predicts outsized impact (within the top 10% of citations). These surprising advances emerge across, rather than within researchers or teams—most commonly when scientists from one field publish problem-solving results to an audience from a distant field. Our approach characterizes the frontier of science and technology as a complex hypergraph drawn from high-dimensional embeddings of research contents and contexts, and offers a measure of path-breaking surprise in science and technology.
... The number of scientific papers has been growing exponentially for over a century (Dong et al. 2017, Fortunato et al. 2018). The number of papers per author has been relatively stable for a long time, but it has been increasing over the past decades (Dong et al. 2017), favored by the growing tendency of scientists to work in teams (Wuchty et al. 2007). ...
Full-text available
The exponentially growing number of scientific papers stimulates a discussion on the interplay between quantity and quality in science. In particular, one may wonder which publication strategy may offer more chances of success: publishing lots of papers, producing a few hit papers, or something in between. Here we tackle this question by studying the scientific portfolios of Nobel Prize laureates. A comparative analysis of different citation-based indicators of individual impact suggests that the best path to success may rely on consistently producing high-quality work. Such a pattern is especially rewarded by a new metric, the E-index, which identifies excellence better than state-of-the-art measures. Peer Review
... In the 1990s, the number of empirical studies began to steadily increase until the 2010s, peaking in 2012 and followed by a slow decline. It is interesting to note that the rise in the number of publications somewhat mirrors the increase proportion of team-authored relative to solo-authored publications within social sciences (Wuchty et al., 2007). The growth of knowledge in SOR research might have prompted a collaboration between researchers with different research expertise (e.g., clinical assessment, statistics, correctional psychology, criminological theory) in a way that contributed to the growth of the field. ...
Sex offender recidivism (SOR) has been the subject of research for over 70 years. Myths, misconceptions, and erroneous conclusions about SOR, however, remain widespread, impeding the development of evidence-based policies aimed at preventing sexual offenses. To address the rich but uneven literature, a comprehensive review was conducted making it possible to provide a contextualized overview of scientific knowledge against the backdrop of methodological issues, challenges, and shortcomings. Over the years, researchers have been asked to provide a simple answer to a seemingly simple question: what are the recidivism rates for sexual offending? In response, the field has produced a wide range of findings making it difficult to draw firm conclusions, leaving room for interpretation and personal biases. The variations in recidivism rates are attributable to offender and methodological characteristics, both of which are embedded in a particular sociolegal context. As a result, the base rate of SOR is more effectively considered in terms of a series of questions that should include the type of recidivism, with whom, over what period, and in what context. Issues and debates that have marked the field and fueled its growth are highlighted. Research innovations and important areas of research are also discussed.
... For individual academic staff, there are clear trends in that fostering networks of transdisciplinary collaboration can have benefits for researcher profiles and career progression. Evidence suggests that collaborative research attracts significantly more international research funding, providing researchers with the scope and resources to tackle impactful issues [25], while also attracting significantly more citations [31]. ...
Full-text available
Discussions on the potential for technology to disrupt education have appeared at regular intervals for many years [...]
... According to Wuchty et al. (2007), research in the fields of sciences and social sciences has become substantially collaborative over time. Consistent with the global authorship trends, the publications of the D-8 countries have progressively become more collaborative. ...
Full-text available
Intergovernmental Economic Organizations usually leverage the scientific capacity of their member countries to ensure economic prosperity through consensual science policies. The D-8 Organization for Economic Cooperation is an intergovernmental economic forum constituting eight developing Muslim-majority countries with a host of recent initiatives toward encouraging inter-state scientific and technological collaborations. This study presents an overview of the forum’s overarching science policies and the research performance in the member countries in the past two decades. The individual D-8 countries’ performance over a set of STI indicators is analyzed to examine the driving forces of the STI system in the member countries. Findings revealed marked disparities among the countries in economic prosperity, R&D expenditure, and the stock of researchers in their STI systems. Although the aggregate research volume of the D-8 countries almost quadrupled over the 2010s compared with the aughts, there are salient differences in the research capacity and scientific impact among these countries. GDP, R&D expenditure, human development index, GNI per capita and the number of researchers (FTE per million inhabitants) contribute to explain the growth of publications in some of the D-8 countries. Knowledge sharing, transfer of technology, research collaboration, and investment in R&D infrastructure among the member countries underline the recent overarching scientific policy initiatives of the D-8 organization. Peer Review
Increasingly, teams consist of members from widely distinct knowledge domains. This article studies the extent to which research and development (R&D) teams can transform their members’ different technological knowledge into impactful inventions. Although teams composed of members with distinct expertise can create impactful new technologies, in order to realize this potential, team members must have the ability and motivation to integrate each other’s knowledge. This article argues that the ability to do so is shaped by the patterns of intrateam ties, measured in terms of coauthorships on patents. Our results suggest that teams’ ability to reap the advantages of members’ distinct expertise is shaped by the patterns of members’ prior collaboration ties. Prior experience working together (i.e., density) and the presence of factions of team members with common history (i.e., subgroups) improve teams’ ability to leverage differences in members’ knowledge. In contrast, when prior collaborations center on one focal person (i.e., centralization), teams are less able to take advantage of the knowledge differences on the team. An analysis of 32,612 nanotechnology R&D teams provides support for the hypotheses. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at .
Full-text available
We chronicle the use of acknowledgments in 20th-century scholarship by analyzing and classifying more than 4,500 specimens covering a 100-year period. Our results show that the intensity of acknowledgment varies by discipline, reflecting differences in prevailing sociocognitive structures and work practices. We demonstrate that the acknowledgment has gradually established itself as a constitutive element of academic writing, one that provides a revealing insight into the nature and extent of subauthorship collaboration. Complementary data on rates of coauthorship are also presented to highlight the growing importance of collaboration and the increasing division of labor in contemporary research and scholarship.
Full-text available
In this study scientists were asked about their own publication history and their citation counts. The study shows that the citation counts of the publications correspond reasonably well with the authors' own assessments of scientific contribution. Generally, citations proved to have the highest accuracy in identifying either major or minor contributions. Nevertheless, according to these judgments, citations are not a reliable indicator of scientific contribution at the level of the individual article. In the construction of relative citation indicators, the average citation rate of the subfield appears to be slightly more appropriate as a reference standard than the journal citation rate. The study confirms that review articles are cited more frequently than other publication types. Compared to the significance authors attach to these articles they appear to be considerably “overcited.” However, there were only marginal differences in the citation rates between empirical, methods, and theoretical contributions. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Develops a series of factors to be considered when developing criteria for determining the quality of a research article, as well as the quality of a publication (journal) for tenure or promotion decisions. Discusses ways to measure the quality of a particular publication and the research article using a checklist format. Raises commentaries on each perception and variable to enlighten the novice regarding philosophical and ethical issues. The process described is not prescriptive but explorative, allowing the institutional evaluators to compare their individual evaluations using a standardized format and rating scale. The values assigning to each exclusive factor can be varied according to the institutional objectives.
This inquiry examines comparative trends in collaboration among scholars, both over several decades and for several scientific disciplines. Findings suggest that in sociology specifically and science generally the trend is toward greater collaborative scholarship. At the turn of the twentieth century, better than 90 percent of the articles appearing in major periodicals in physics, biochemistry, biology, and chemistry were sole authored. Today, over 95 percent of such articles are collaboratively published. Disciplines affiliated with the social and mathematical sciences have experienced similar monotonic increases in collaborative activity, albeit, at a slower rate. A discussion of plausible explanations is offered for this observed growth in scientific collaboration.
This paper explores recent trends in the size of scientific teams and in institutional collaborations. The data derive from 2.4 million scientific papers written in 110 top U.S. research universities over the period 1981–1999. The top 110 account for a large share of published basic research conducted in the U.S. during this time.We measure team size by the number of authors on a scientific paper. Using this measure we find that team size increases by 50% over the 19-year period. We supplement team size with measures of domestic and foreign institutional collaborations, which capture the geographic dispersion of team workers. The time series evidence suggests that the trend towards more geographically dispersed scientific teams accelerates beginning with papers published at the start of the 1990s. This acceleration suggests a sharp decline in the cost of collaboration. Our hypothesis is that the decline is due to the deployment of the National Science Foundation's NSFNET and its connection to networks in Europe and Japan after 1987.Using a panel of top university departments we also find that private universities and departments whose scientists have earned prestigious awards participate in larger teams, as do departments that have larger amounts of federal funding. Placement of former graduate students is a key determinant of institutional collaborations, especially collaborations with firms and with foreign scientific institutions. Finally, the evidence suggests that scientific output and influence increase with team size and that influence rises along with institutional collaborations. Since increasing team size implies an increase in the division of labor, these results suggest that scientific productivity increases with the scientific division of labor.
Classical assumptions about the nature and ethical entailments of authorship (the standard model) are being challenged by developments in scientific collaboration and multiple authorship. In the biomedical research community, multiple authorship has increased to such an extent that the trustworthiness of the scientific communication system has been called into question. Documented abuses, such as honorific authorship, have serious implications in terms of the acknowledgment of authority, allocation of credit, and assigning of accountability. Within the biomedical world it has been proposed that authors be replaced by lists of contributors (the radical model), whose specific inputs to a given study would be recorded unambiguously. The wider implications of the ‘hyperauthorship’ phenomenon for scholarly publication are considered.
This paper considers specialization and the division of labor. A more extensive division of labor raises productivity because returns to the time spent on tasks are usually greater to workers who concentrate on a narrower range of skills. The traditional discussion of the division of labor emphasizes the limitations to specialization imposed by the extent of the market. We claim that the degree of specialization is more often determined by other considerations. Especially emphasized are various costs of “coordinating” specialized workers who perform complementary tasks, and the amount of general knowledge available.
The development of science, according to respected scholars Peter J. Bowler and Iwan Rhys Morus, expands our knowledge and control of the world in ways that affect-but are also affected by-society and culture. In Making Modern Science, a text designed for introductory college courses in the history of science and as a single-volume introduction for the general reader, Bowler and Morus explore both the history of science itself and its influence on modern thought. Opening with an introduction that explains developments in the history of science over the last three decades and the controversies these initiatives have engendered, the book then proceeds in two parts. The first section considers key episodes in the development of modern science, including the Scientific Revolution and individual accomplishments in geology, physics, and biology. The second section is an analysis of the most important themes stemming from the social relations of science-the discoveries that force society to rethink its religious, moral, or philosophical values. Making Modern Science thus chronicles all major developments in scientific thinking, from the revolutionary ideas of the seventeenth century to the contemporary issues of evolutionism, genetics, nuclear physics, and modern cosmology. Written by seasoned historians, this book will encourage students to see the history of science not as a series of names and dates but as an interconnected and complex web of relationships between science and modern society. The first survey of its kind, Making Modern Science is a much-needed and accessible introduction to the history of science, engagingly written for undergraduates and curious readers alike.
Thomas S. Kuhn's classic book is now available with a new index. "A landmark in intellectual history which has attracted attention far beyond its own immediate field. . . . It is written with a combination of depth and clarity that make it an almost unbroken series of aphorisms. . . . Kuhn does not permit truth to be a criterion of scientific theories, he would presumably not claim his own theory to be true. But if causing a revolution is the hallmark of a superior paradigm, [this book] has been a resounding success." —Nicholas Wade, Science "Perhaps the best explanation of [the] process of discovery." —William Erwin Thompson, New York Times Book Review "Occasionally there emerges a book which has an influence far beyond its originally intended audience. . . . Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions . . . has clearly emerged as just such a work." —Ron Johnston, Times Higher Education Supplement "Among the most influential academic books in this century." —Choice One of "The Hundred Most Influential Books Since the Second World War," Times Literary Supplement