> "Imagine a tool was invented to help a researcher to improve by just 1%. > The gain would hardly be noticeable in a single individual. But if the 10 million

> "Imagine a tool was invented to help a researcher to improve by just 1%. > The gain would hardly be noticeable in a single individual. But if the 10 million scientists in the world all benefited from the tool, the inventor would increase the rate of scientific progress by roughly the same amount as adding 100,000 new scientists." This used to be called Chinese maths, not sure what it's called now. In total there are 10 million researchers so it'd have to be pretty generic. And unless it's a bottleneck it'd have no effect. Reducing transport times by 1% just means people go home early. Helping the 90% of researchers who are dead wood wouldn't help either. The internet and computers are examples of successful tools so it is possible. The replication crises is an example of a problem that could be looked at. But targeted tools seems like a better attack. And this all assumes science is where we are lagging, compared to the commercial application of science (which the internet and computers have also helped)