  Scholars are often categorized into two types: hedgehogs (specialists), who
focus on working within a specific research field, and foxes (generalists), who
actively contribute to a variety of fields. Despite the familiar anecdotes and
popularity of this distinction, its empirical foundation has remained largely
unexamined. We examine whether the research style of being a fox or a hedgehog
is a stable personal trait or an evolving strategy over a scientist's career.
Analyzing 2.3 million scholars' publication records over a century, we find
that research styles exhibit remarkable stability. Notably, the proportion of
fox-like scientists has dramatically declined in the past century, a phenomenon
we term "the death of Renaissance scientists." This decline is particularly
significant as science shifts toward team collaboration. Teams of foxes
consistently outperform teams of hedgehogs in generating new ideas and
directions, as confirmed by two emerging innovation metrics for papers:
atypicality and disruption. Our research is the first to quantify the process
and consequences of the decline of Renaissance scientists. By doing so, we
establish a universal link between research styles, demographic shifts, and
innovative output.
