Manufacturing.ai

Topicsai-in-research

AI in Scientific Research

A sourced collection on what AI has demonstrably delivered to science and what the institutions of science have decided to require of it — built from awarding bodies and publishers rather than from the organisations that build the models.

Assertions
3
Sources consulted
3
Read in full
2/3
Cited as evidence
2

3 sources sit behind this page — including any that arrive with a concept this page shares with another collection. 2 were retrieved and read in full, and only those can back an assertion. 1 were surfaced and deliberately set aside. Every one of them is named in the register below, with the reason in view. How we source this.

Timeline newest first · evenly spaced, not to scale

NOWEARLIEROct 9, 2024A Nobel Prize for an AI Result
Background

Our own synthesis, written to orient you — not evidence. Every factual statement here is asserted and sourced further down this page.

This collection asks a narrower question than the usual one about AI and science: not what AI might do, but what a body with no product to sell has been willing to certify that it did, and what the institutions that decide what counts as published have written down in response.

The clearest answer to the first question is dated 9 October 2024. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences awarded half the Nobel Prize in Chemistry jointly to Demis Hassabis and John Jumper for protein structure prediction, stating that AlphaFold2 — presented in 2020 — has predicted the structure of virtually all the 200 million proteins researchers have identified, and has been used by more than two million people from 190 countries. Those are the Academy's figures. The other half of the prize went to David Baker for computational protein design, work beginning in 2003 that is not an AI result, which is a useful corrective to reading the whole prize as a machine's.

The answer to the second question is narrower than either enthusiasm or alarm would suggest. Springer Nature's editorial policy treats AI as a supporting technology and states that scholarly judgement, accountability and responsibility always remain human: accountability for content, evaluation and editorial decisions cannot be delegated to an AI system, and AI must not determine conclusions or decisions. That is a boundary drawn by a publisher, in a policy document, before any of the disputes now in the news.

This collection is deliberately small, and names what is missing rather than filling it in. A subject this large deserves more than two primary sources, and the honest position four days into building it is that two is what has been read.

For the sharp end of the same story — a claimed Millennium Prize result, an attribution dispute between named people, and a declaration signed by twenty-five Fields Medallists — see the AI in Mathematics collection, which this one provides the frame for.

Concepts

The vocabulary this subject is built from, and what we can show about each.

What a Prize Committee Was Willing to Certify

other

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences awarded half the 2024 Nobel Prize in Chemistry jointly to Demis Hassabis and John Jumper 'for protein structure prediction', stating that AlphaFold2, presented in 2020, has predicted the structure of virtually all the 200 million proteins researchers have identified and has been used by more than two million people from 190 countries; the other half went to David Baker 'for computational protein design' for work beginning in 2003.

ReportedSupported by the sources below, not yet editor-reviewed.
1 source1 retrieved & read

What Publishers Decided to Require

other

Springer Nature's editorial policy applies a risk-assessment framework to authors, reviewers and editors alike, stating that accountability for scholarly content and editorial decisions cannot be delegated to AI systems, that AI must not determine conclusions or decisions, and that 'Scholarly judgement, accountability, and responsibility always remain human.'

ReportedSupported by the sources below, not yet editor-reviewed.
1 source1 retrieved & read

Timeline

What actually happened, in order, with sources.

Coverage
  • 1 Sweden

Where this topic’s events took place, as far as our sources establish it. Events with no single location — a standards publication, say — and events we have not yet attributed are both counted as unattributed rather than omitted.

  1. Oct 9, 2024

    A Nobel Prize for an AI Result

    otherSweden

    On 9 October 2024 the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry with one half to David Baker 'for computational protein design' and the other half jointly to Demis Hassabis and John Jumper of Google DeepMind 'for protein structure prediction', citing AlphaFold2's prediction of virtually all 200 million identified proteins and its use by more than two million people from 190 countries.

    ReportedSupported by the sources below, not yet editor-reviewed.
    1 source1 retrieved & read

Source register

All 3 sources behind this page — what we read, what we tried to read and could not, and what we looked at and set aside, with the reason in view for each. A concept shared with another collection brings its own references with it, so some entries here were surfaced for a neighbouring topic rather than this one.

Cited as evidence
2
Tried, could not read
0
Surfaced, set aside
1
Cited sources 2 distinct links

Original publisher links. Files open on the publisher’s site; we do not host copies. A linked document is not an additional source or an independent verification.

Surfaced, set aside1

These came up while researching and were deliberately not used. We do not claim to have read them — each is listed with why it was passed over, so the shape of the survey is visible and not just its conclusions.

Coverage & limits

What this page does and does not claim.

Twenty-ninth packet through the generic ingestion pipeline, researched 12 September 2026, and deliberately published as a stub rather than padded out. Two sources were read in full: the Royal Swedish Academy's own press release for the 2024 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, and Springer Nature's current editorial policy on AI. Both are primary for what they assert, and the Nobel release is preferred over any vendor account of the same result precisely because the Academy has no product in the market. Named gaps, which are large. The Academy's detailed scientific background was not retrieved, so nothing about AlphaFold2's measured accuracy is asserted. The Springer Nature policy page carries no date, so it supports no event and is dated only to when it was read. Several episodes that clearly belong in this subject were identified and are not included because no source was read for them this session — among them AI-assisted results in materials discovery, the arrival of AI-generated submissions and the policies written in response, AI in peer review, and the effect on retraction rates. Each will be added when a primary source has been read, not before. The one thing this collection will not do is date a milestone from memory. Not yet editor-reviewed; every assertion reads as reported.

Source check, 2026-09-17. Numeric-presence checks passed for 3 assertions using available source text, which may be cached. This is not verification of their meaning. What this check does and does not prove →

  • Not editor-reviewed unless labelled. Assertions marked Reported are assembled from the sources shown and have not yet been checked by an editor. Only Primary source and Corroborated mean a human verified them.
  • Disagreements are preserved, not resolved. Where sources conflict, both accounts appear and the assertion is marked Disputed.
  • Retrieval status is disclosed per source. A source we could not open is never counted as evidence for an assertion.

This page is also available as structured data: /api/v1/topics/ai-in-research