Nothing is more exciting than fresh ideas, so why are areas of knowledge often so slow to adopt them?

The allure of fresh ideas is universal. They spark excitement and promise progress, making them undeniably fascinating. However, many times society is hesitant and delays the acceptance and adoption of these ideas in their lives. The title "Nothing is more exciting than fresh ideas, so why are areas of knowledge often so slow to adopt them?" invites us to explore the realms of enthusiasm, resistance, and adaptation in the world of knowledge as well as the factors influencing it. ‘Fresh ideas’ refer to novel, innovative concepts that are new or unique in some way which bring a new perspective to a subject or a problem. In my exploration, I will delve into the natural sciences and human sciences, two areas of knowledge (AOKs) offering unique perspectives on how new ideas are received.

In Biology, specifically the research field, the pace at which domains embrace new ideas can be due to a demand dynamic known as “egoistic altruism”. This assertion gains clarity when examining the contrasting trajectories of progress observed in cancer research and the exigent response witnessed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Cancer research, known for the meticulous and deliberate approach followed is the true definition of a stride towards innovation. This cautiousness is not only attributed to complexity of cancer but also to a phenomenon known as “egoistic altruism”. Scientists in such a competitive landscape tend to display a need to prioritize their personal or institutional ranking over collaborative breakthroughs. This inclination ends up creating a culture of incrementalism, which has been proven by the observation that the average time for a new cancer drug to move from the research phase to the clinical one is about 7 years (DiMasi et al, 2016). Additionally, a study that was published in the Nature Human Behaviour journal showed that the reward system structure that is present in scientific institutions can foster a culture of self-promotion and competition, which potentially comes between collaborating thus slowing down the adoption of new ideas (Wicherts et al, 2016).

On the other hand, the COVID-19 pandemic caused a surprising and swift global response from the scientific community. All new ideas, ranging from the mRNA vaccine technologies to the aspect of trying to repurpose existing drugs were quickly actualized. The urgency of this global health crisis created a huge demand for immediate solutions as millions lost lives every day, thus it called for a departure from the traditional approach of measured clinical trials to quick trials. The urgency of the situation ranked above the other potential hindrances like scepticism and individual gain. Because of this, the pandemic brought in a change that was defined by collaboration and the use of new innovative procedures. This change is proven by the evidence of two main COVID-19 vaccines which were developed and passed for emergency use within an astoundingly short time. Pfizer-BioNTech took only 8 months while Moderna took 9 months which is almost five times less than the standard 7 years (Polack et al, 2020; Baden et al, 2021). These elaborations are drawn from scientific approach comparisons related to searching for cancer cures and the ongoing need to find a solution for COVID-19. These trace complex relationships that demand dynamism and egoistic altruism concerning the adoption of ideas and perspectives on how to fill a void in times of pressing needs. In this respect, cancer research is elusive to persistent demand; therefore, egoistic altruism comes in handy. On the contrary, the world's red light that came amid the COVID-19 pandemic was a situation that called for teamwork when high and immediate demand for solutions overpowered individualistic approaches. Consequently, a situation arose when it became all the more expedient to engage in team effort for the immediate and rapid generation of new ideas. The exhaustive examination of the two helps respond to the title as it highlights the many factors which influence how new ideas  are accepted into the natural science field. They tend to lead to different speeds in adopting new ideas and approaches through demand, egoistic altruism, and the nature of the challenge. In that case, if such was a low demand for COVID-19, the new vaccine ideas would have been not acted upon as promptly as they were, thus their acceptance would be slow. And so, because of the very high demand, all new ideas were welcome and acted upon. As much as it allows us to appreciate how demand would be a key driving force towards accepting change, it also allows the same space to appreciate that self-serving altruism can also play a role. This rather discerning perspective shows just why there is a complexity in incorporating new ideas, which further guarantees that scientific method is not the only force towards adoption of new ideas.

When it comes to human sciences, especially psychology, theories and fresh ideas usually face a lot of questioning, hesitance and a generally slow adoption because of societal norms like religion and the need to maintain the status quo. Sigmund Freud’s theory of sexual inversion, specifically his ideas on homosexuality, forms a credible example of a huge revolutionary concept that encountered lots of opposition.

When he started his psychoanalytic theory, Freud suggested that homosexuality was because of a deviation from the normal sexual development process. The theory was outlined in Freud’s “Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality” (1905), which posed a challenge to the beliefs that were there during the 20th century.

Social conventions and religious dogmas were quite pronounced in their alliance with "straight" or "naturally heterosexual" views on sexuality. The Sigmund Freud theory brought to light the concept that homosexuality was a variation of nature, not an illness. His ideas completely contradicted many of these sets of established norms, which were religious and resistant to accepting different perspectives of human sexuality.

However, society then, guided by religious preferences in the general perception, only strictly complied with a heteronormative view of sexuality. His theory postulated that homosexuality might not be a pathology but instead be a variation in sexual development, perhaps as open an affront to these standards as could possibly be imagined. Firm beliefs in such outlooks at that time were based on factors related to religious dogma that tended to resile from the recognition of a different human sexuality model. What has influenced this reluctance to take up his ideas is the morality and social values that were preeminent at his time. These norms birthed a clear understanding of sexuality, and with that in mind, his idea could not be able to gain any support. The need for society to act in such a way as to maintain heterosexuality as what is normal while following on religious teachings and abiding by social expectations is hence what made his theory be disregarded.

This instance is the basis of influence of social attitudes and religious beliefs for playing role for acceptance of fresh ideas in psychology. His contributions to psychoanalysis were very groundbreaking and are respected to be true even these days, but back then, their resistance showed barriers new ideas tended to face when they challenged deeply rooted beliefs in culture and religion. Current views of modern psychology are much more tolerant in regard to how widely sexuality can be defined and present a new understanding of human behavior. However, the historical struggles that Freud went through for his ideas reminded the challenges that the new ideas could come across when they contrast existing social norms and existing religious dogma. This reflects the underlying fact that the wish to maintain a status quo in religion and culture can play a role in reducing the reception of new ideas in human sciences.

These analyses of the adoption of ideas in both natural and human sciences reveal an extremely nuanced view with regard to the blend of factors that make new ideas take root so slowly in most areas of knowledge. It is seen on this base that the fact the views brought forward by the reaction to COVID-19 and cancer research are giving regard to the multi-dimensionality of this process. If egoistic altruism that is shining through is, in fact, a very vital factor, the demand influence is often perceived more pronounced than it, and thus it normally overshadows its effect reflecting the balance between collaboration and individual ambition. This then problematizes the simple idea that idea adoption is purely a matter of control of the scientific method, which needs to be seen against a clearer understanding of many other influences. Freud's theory of sexual inversion is further proof of great old examples of ideas that met with resistance because of social norms and religious dogma. His notions flew in the face of conventional wisdom and finally ran into strong opposition at a time when the views on sexuality were very stiff. This kind of resistance that lay in store for his ideas is representative of what new ideas will face, trying to break the stranglehold of tradition or culture. This proves the long-term influence of the social attitude in ideas adoption. While new understandings are developed to perceive diversity in sexual orientation, past experiences come as a criterion for new radical ideas to arrive. Evaluation of these examples gives an insight into the whole scope of the slow adoption of fresh ideas. The answer to this question of why does grappling often characterize fresh idea adoption within areas of knowledge, what such an understanding instead seems to highlight is the need for a more balanced factor mix of such ingredients as external demand, collaborative effort, and challenges that are posed from both individual and societal levels.

DiMasi, J. A., Grabowski, H. G., & Hansen, R. W. (2016). Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: New estimates of R&D costs. Journal of Health Economics, 47, 20-33.

Freud, S. (1905). Three essays on the theory of sexuality. Standard Edition, 7, 125-245

Wicherts, J. M., Bakker, M., & Molenaar, D. (2016). Willingness to share research data is related to the strength of the evidence and the quality of reporting of statistical results. PLoS ONE, 11(12), e0161353.