I read the article from The Atlantic instead. While I disagree with their analysis, where I can't help thinking that they are just measuring the "wow-factor" which would diminish as more people are working on something in a more iterative fashion, the middle part of the article is quite interesting. I also appreciate that they left it rather open ended especially since I assume we wouldn't come to the same conclusion.
One thing they are at least implying, but I think they could have explored more is implementations. While you can argue whether there are less scientific breakthroughs or not, we certainly have less implementations. Were I assume I differ from their view is that I think this have to do with diminish returns for the implementations themselves.
To some extent it becomes meaningless to "cure cancer" when we have preventable diseases and situations killing people every day. So there can't realistically be a goal to do it. (Which isn't intended as an argument about the value of each). As I insinuated earlier I think a breakthrough is really in the eye of the beholder. Society these days doesn't really provide a platform for creating and implementing breakthroughs. The ambition get lost in the noise.
I think people assume when watching utopian science fiction that science resulted in society. Maybe in reality it is the other way around. Once you decide that everyone deserves e.g. housing the result becomes worth it and the science follows. That is certainly what happened in the ~60s in many parts of the world. If no one thinks that this is a worthy breakthrough why would anything happen in the first place today?
[What I really wanted to say was that I found the middle part of article surprisingly interesting].