Since the 1990s, recombinant growth theory has fascinated academic circles by proposing that new ideas flourish through reconfiguring existing ones, leading to accelerated innovation in science and technology. However, after three decades, a marked decline in scientific breakthroughs challenges this theory. We explore its potential limitations, suggesting that while it emphasizes complementarity among ideas, it overlooks the competitive dynamics between them and how this rivalry fosters major breakthroughs. Examining 20 scientific breakthroughs nominated by surveyed scientists, we reveal a recurring pattern where new ideas are intentionally crafted to challenge and replace established ones. Analyzing 19 million papers spanning a century, we consistently observe a negative correlation between reference atypicality, which reflects the effort to recombine more ideas, and paper disruption, indicating the extent to which this work represents major breakthroughs, across all fields, periods, and team sizes. Moreover, our analysis of a novel dataset, comparing early and subsequent versions of 2,461 papers, offers quasi-experimental evidence suggesting that additional efforts to increase reference atypicality indeed result in a reduction of disruption for the same paper. In summary, our analyses challenge recombinant growth theory, suggesting that scientific breakthroughs originate from a clear purpose to replace established, impactful ideas.

翻译：自20世纪90年代以来，重组增长理论通过提出新思想源于对既有思想的重新配置，从而加速科学技术的创新，引发了学界的广泛关注。然而三十年后，科学突破的显著减少对该理论提出了挑战。我们探讨其潜在局限性，指出该理论虽强调思想间的互补性，却忽视了思想间的竞争动态及其如何推动重大突破的产生。通过分析受访科学家提名的20项科学突破，我们发现一个反复出现的模式：新思想往往被刻意设计用于挑战和取代既有思想。在对跨越一个世纪的1900万篇论文进行分析后，我们一致观察到：反映重组更多思想努力的参考文献非典型性，与反映工作重大突破程度的论文颠覆性之间，在所有领域、时期及团队规模下均呈现负相关。此外，通过对包含2461篇论文早期与后续版本的新数据集分析，我们获得准实验证据表明：增加参考文献非典型性的额外努力，确实会导致同一篇论文颠覆性的降低。综上所述，我们的分析对重组增长理论提出质疑，表明科学突破源于取代既有重要思想的明确意图。