Scientists and inventors set the direction of their work amidst an evolving landscape of questions, opportunities, and challenges. This paper introduces a measurement framework to quantify how far researchers move from their existing research when producing new works. We apply this framework to millions of scientific publications and patents and uncover a pervasive "pivot penalty", where the impact of new research steeply declines the further a researcher moves from their prior work. The pivot penalty applies nearly universally across scientific publishing and patenting and has been growing in magnitude over the past five decades. While creativity frameworks suggest a benefit to exploratory search by researchers and often emphasize outsider advantages in driving breakthroughs, we find little evidence for such an advantage. The pivot penalty is consistent with increasingly narrow specializations of researchers, and when researchers undertake large pivots, a signature of their work is weak engagement with established mixtures of prior knowledge. Unexpected shocks to the research landscape, which may push researchers away from existing areas or pull them into new ones, further demonstrate substantial pivot penalties. COVID-19 provides a high-scale case study, where many researchers engaged the pandemic, yet the pivot penalty remains severe. The pivot penalty generalizes across fields, career stage, productivity, collaboration, and funding contexts, highlighting both the breadth and depth of the adaptive challenge. Overall, the findings point to large and increasing challenges in adapting to new opportunities and threats. The results have implications for individual researchers, research organizations, science policy, and the capacity of science and society as a whole to confront emergent demands.