Knowledge and Prematurity: The Journey from Transformation to DNA

The phenomenon of all-elements-sleeping-beauties in scientific literature

“…In scientific literature, there is the phenomenon of delayed recognition, where papers that initially are unappreciated but later go on to be recognized as significant are referred to as premature discoveries (Stent 1972;Wyatt 1975), resisted discoveries (Barher 1961), delayed recognition (Cole 1970), or sleeping beauties (Van Raan 2004; Glänzel and Garfield 2004;Burrell 2005;Braun et al 2010;Egghe et al 2011). We find four special cases, in which sleeping beauties seem to be injured by spindles so that they fall into sleep then are awakened by princes.…”

Genetics in the Study of Carbohydrate Transport by Bacteria: Sixth Griffith Memorial Lecture

“…I did not have the privilege of knowing Dr Griffith (he was killed in an air raid on London 35 years ago this month) and thus have no means of knowing the answer to that question. Indeed, except in so far as it allows men wiser than I am to speculate on the factors that often prevent a breakthrough being recognized as such at the time (Stent, 1972;Wyatt, 1975), I do not think that the question is relevant to the importance of his contribution. After reading his paper, I am profoundly aware of the great debt that we owe to Frederick Griffith, who in 1928 so modestly and honestly recorded and discussed his observations on the significance of pneumococcal types and who thus opened a new chapter in microbiology.…”

Bias against Novelty in Science: A Cautionary Tale for Users of Bibliometric Indicators

“…While research that takes a novel approach has a higher potential for major impact, it also faces a higher level of uncertainty of impact. In addition, it may take longer for novel research to have a major impact, displaying a profile of scientific prematurity (Stent, 1972), delayed recognition (Garfield, 1980), or that of a sleeping beauty (Van Raan, 2004), either because of resistance from incumbent scientific paradigms (Kuhn, 1962;Merton, 1973;Planck, 1950) or because of the longer time required to recognize and incorporate the findings of novel research into follow-on research (Garfield, 1980;Wyatt, 1975). The "high risk/high gain" nature of novel research makes it particularly appropriate for public support (Arrow, 1962).…”