







"Most people are plenty smart enough to make a contribution to science, and many of them are interested. All that’s lacking are tools that help connect them to the scientific community in ways that let them make that contribution. Today, we can build those tools."
Jul 24, 2026 at 9:28 PM

Without a theory of intelligence
The history of science — and of progress — is a series of benefits that are direct results of new tools.

The Scientific Contribution Graph: Automated Literature-based Technological Roadmapping at Scale
Sir Isaac Newton famously wrote, “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants”. Scientific contributions are rarely developed in isolation, but build upon prior contributions, such as problem framings, experimental methods, and empirical findings. Understanding these prerequisite relationships is important for studying scientific progress, and for automated scientific discovery systems that must reason about which existing capabilities can be used to develop new ones (e.g. Lu et al., 2024; Jansen et al., 2025b; Baek et al., 2025).
The Engine of Scientific Discovery: How New Methods and Tools Spark Major Breakthroughs
Abstract. How do we spark new scientific discoveries? Why do some breakthroughs seem even accidental? And most importantly, how can we accelerate them and

How and When to Involve Crowds in Scientific Research - The Book
This book explores how millions of people can significantly contribute to scientific research. Discover main elements, authors, and who this book is for and why.
Artificial intelligence and illusions of understanding in scientific research
Scientists are enthusiastically imagining ways in which artificial intelligence (AI) tools might improve research. Why are AI tools so attractive and what are the risks of implementing them across the research pipeline? Here we develop a taxonomy of scientists’ visions for AI, observing that their appeal comes from promises to improve productivity and objectivity by overcoming human shortcomings. But proposed AI solutions can also exploit our cognitive limitations, making us vulnerable to illusions of understanding in which we believe we understand more about the world than we actually do. Such illusions obscure the scientific community’s ability to see the formation of scientific monocultures, in which some types of methods, questions and viewpoints come to dominate alternative approaches, making science less innovative and more vulnerable to errors. The proliferation of AI tools in science risks introducing a phase of scientific enquiry in which we produce more but understand less. By analysing the appeal of these tools, we provide a framework for advancing discussions of responsible knowledge production in the age of AI.



Guest post: If you’re going to critique science, be scientific about it
Loren K. Mell Editor’s note: This post responds to a Feb. 13 article in The Atlantic, “The Scientific Literature Can’t Save Us Now,” written by Retraction Watch cofounders Adam Marcus and Ivan Oran…

Artificial intelligence tools expand scientists’ impact but contract science’s focus
Nature - Artificial intelligence boosts individual scientists’ output, citations and career progression, but collectively narrows research diversity and reduces collaboration, concentrating...

Rebuilding the Architecture of Science
Science built the modern world. It’s time to rebuild the world of science.


Science Communication as a Collective Intelligence Endeavor: A Manifesto and Examples for Implementation
Effective science communication is challenging when scientific messages are informed by a continually updating evidence base and must often compete against misinformation. We argue that we need a new program of science communication as collective intelligence—a collaborative approach, supported by technology. This would have four key advantages over the typical model where scientists communicate as individuals: scientific messages would be informed by (a) a wider base of aggregated knowledge, (b) contributions from a diverse scientific community, (c) participatory input from stakeholders, and (d) better responsiveness to ongoing changes in the state of knowledge.

Push-button science
Technological advances change not only what we can learn as scientists, but also how science is conducted. Here we explore how automation and outsourcing are affecting the act of doing science.
This is why @atproto.science is so relevant rn This compilation of essays indicates that scientists are most frustrated by insufficient “community tools and resources... Essential infrastructure for sharing, maintaining and building on existing work and data is also badly underdeveloped." >
What Scientists Said: Results from Astera's First Essay Competition
asterainstitute.substack.com"what if engineering a scientific revolution is, at least in part, a problem of organizing humans and coordinating effort?" uniconq.substack.com/p/the-ground-truth-institute h/t @ranganaut.bsky.social
The Ground Truth Institute
uniconq.substack.com