Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42335224›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2026

Three centuries of technological innovation: Opportunity is the mother of invention.

Jordan G Okie, James H Brown, Astrid Kodric-Brown, Joseph R Burger, Tatiana P Flanagan, Trevor S Fristoe, Sean T Hammond, Norman Mercado-Silva, Jeffrey C Nekola, Jennifer Richter

Abstract readHistorical Article
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Three centuries of technological innovation: Opportunity is the mother of invention.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Jordan G OkieSchool of Earth and Space Exploration, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287.ORCID 0000-0002-7884-7688
James H BrownDepartment of Biology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87106.ORCID 0000-0002-5034-7585
Astrid Kodric-BrownDepartment of Biology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87106.
Joseph R BurgerDepartment of Biology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506.
Tatiana P FlanaganSchool of Math, Science, and Engineering, Central New Mexico Community College, Albuquerque, NM 87106.
Trevor S FristoeDepartment of Biology, University of Puerto Rico-Río Piedras, San Juan 00925, Puerto Rico.
Sean T HammondDepartment of Earth System Science and Policy, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND 58202.
Norman Mercado-SilvaCentro de Investigación en Biodiversidad y Conservación, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos, Chamilpa, Cuernavaca 62209, Mexico.
Jeffrey C NekolaDepartment of Botany and Zoology, Faculty of Science, Masaryk University, Brno 611 37, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0001-6073-0222
Jennifer RichterSchool for the Future of Innovation in Society, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

What socioecological conditions nurture the ingenuity and collaborative interactions underlying transformative technological innovations? We compiled a dataset on more than 400 major technological inventions from 1690 to 1990 spanning seven categories (agriculture, armaments, information and communication, household, industry, medical, and transportation) and performed inductive macroecological analyses to address how attributes of inventors, teams, and their social and geographic environments contributed to the innovation of new technologies that have changed the way people live. The vast majority of inventions were attributed to single inventors of various ages. The frequency, size, and cultural diversity of teams increased in the 20th Century, as did the proportion of inventions attributed to women and immigrants. A wide variety of environments acted as innovation hubs, including rural areas as well as specialized institutions and large cities. Invention rate (number of inventions per time period) peaked during the 1800s in cities, rural areas, and most categories but continued increasing over time in institutional environments and medical and communication technologies. The overall pattern across ages, genders, team attributes, environments, technological categories, and time periods supports the conclusion that opportunity, ingenuity, and environment all play key roles in the inventiveness phase of the innovation process: creative individuals in particular ecological environments and social settings come up with novel solutions to specific practical problems. Similar innovation patterns have been observed for tool use among nonhuman primates, highlighting unifying processes of innovation. Our macroecological approach offers valuable insights into the emergence and drivers of innovation and material culture.

Indexed as

InventionsTechnologyFemaleHistory, 17th CenturyHistory, 18th CenturyHistory, 19th CenturyHistory, 20th CenturyHistory, 21st CenturyHumansbreakthroughsinventivenessteam sizetechnological evolutiontechnological innovation

Identifiers

PMID42335224
PMCPMC13321222

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.