Last year I read The Double Helix and The Code Breaker within a few months of each other, and what really stood out to me is that while we celebrate the first person who discovers something, in reality there were several teams all racing to the finish line, and were sometimes days or only even hours behind in presenting their findings. Yet only one team gets the accolades and their names in textbooks, the others are a mere footnote at best.

This was my first time reading about the history of discoveries like this, and I guess prior I thought these celebrated names had moved humanity forward by decades if not centuries by connecting the dots of the runes of the universe, but the reality is really very different.

Yeah, looks like it works that way mostly - based on the examples written up in "How Innovation Works: Serendipity, Energy and the Saving of Time" by M Ridley (https://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Innovation-Works-Matt-Ridley/dp...). Having done some R&D myself I tend to think of re-search as "repeated search for something that works" these days. Luck (or lack of) plays a big role too, the circumstances and the personalities of the actors involved likewise. Another book on a similar theme (but for medicine specifically) that I really enjoyed reading is "Happy Accidents: Serendipity in Major Medical Breakthroughs in the Twentieth Century" by MA Mayers (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Happy-Accidents-Serendipity-Breakth...).

Apparently the theory behind LK-99 was inspired by the studies from Eastern European scientists. However, after the Soviet collapse, the study was lost.

According to Wikipedia, the material was invented in 1999.

Intelectual theft fuelled by spy agencies is nothing new.

Same for people looking at patents from other countries.