What was the bigger deal, the science behind cloning and gene sequencing, or the invention of the transistor, microprocessor or the Internet?

A new paper by researchers at the University of Waterloo and Stanford University detailed a new way to look at this question empirically, The Atlantic reported. They counted word in patent texts. The analysis looked at everything from plastics and laser technology to laptops and mp3 players.

Since the 1970s, medicine and computers have reigned over patents. Patents that introduce entirely new fields of study spur much more new research than subtle tweaks to old ideas, the research found.

Yet there is evidence that organizations like the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation are more likely to subsidize projects in highly familiar areas. By awarding established scientists in well-understood fields, the government is implicitly discouraging the most radical innovation.