The article doesn't make the assumption of linear change in science, on the contrary, studying nobelists means you have only those who made the big leaps forwar

The article doesn't make the assumption of linear change in science, on the contrary, studying nobelists means you have only those who made the big leaps forward. There were big leaps in medicine and chemistry, and the pattern seems to be valid: to my knowledge in life sciences you have few young geniuses and many awards are given to collaborative work. Seems like a natural consequence of the fact that science has become increasingly complex and computational.