Competitive Science: Is Competition Ruining Science?. Fang, F. C. & Casadevall, A. Infection and Immunity, 83(4):1229–1233, April, 2015.
doi  abstract   bibtex   
Science has always been a competitive undertaking. Despite recognition of the benefits of cooperation and team science, reduced availability of funding and jobs has made science more competitive than ever. Here we consider the benefits of competition in providing incentives to scientists and the adverse effects of competition on resource sharing, research integrity, and creativity. The history of science shows that transformative discoveries often occur in the absence of competition, which only emerges once fields are established and goals are defined. Measures to encourage collaboration and ameliorate competition in the scientific enterprise are discussed. [Excerpt] In the winner-take-all economics of science, scientists compete above all for priority, the recognition that they are the first to make a discovery (2). The '' priority rule'' gives scientists an incentive to share knowledge of their discoveries with the community (3) but also ensures that individuals and research teams must compete with each other. The primary currency of science is the prestige conferred by peers on the basis of one's discoveries. Prestige in turn can lead to employment, funding, prizes, and membership in honorific societies. [] It is often taken for granted that competition is beneficial for any enterprise because it provides incentives for individuals to excel. In his classic 1957 essay, the sociologist Robert K. Merton viewed competition as a favorable influence on the scientific enterprise, which promotes the rapid dissemination of research discoveries and motivates scientists (2).[...] [The dark side of competition] Not all historians of science have viewed competition in a uniformly favorable light. Hagstrom suggested that competition could be inefficient and wasteful because it leads to duplication of effort, although he acknowledged that competition may be stimulatory and can help to diffuse new ideas (5). While Hagstrom suggested that competition might encourage scientists to publish their results, Sullivan suggested that competition might actually lead to greater secrecy, as scientists fear being scooped by their rivals (6). McCain also observed that competition reduces the tendency of researchers to share materials, information, and methods, thus impeding scientific progress (7). [] More recently, focus group discussions have confirmed that competition discourages sharing and may even lead some scientists to sabotage competitors, perform biased peer review, and engage in questionable research practices (8). Scientific leaders have decried the detrimental effect of today's hypercompetitive environment on science (9, 10). Hypercompetition may be driving some young people away from careers in science, and this may be particularly true for young female scientists (11-13). [...] [Limits of competition] It is unclear whether competition is an important incentive in science. The Nobel Prize is the most prestigious honor in science, but few laureates have had the prize in mind when they made their award-winning discoveries, and most recipients have already received ample recognition by the time Stockholm calls (36). Competition probably works best when the goals are clearly defined and a field is technologically ready. A good example is the Human Genome Project, in which competition between publicly and commercially supported teams resulted in success years ahead of schedule (37). However, competition by itself cannot necessarily lead to progress if the goals are too ambitious, as demonstrated by the many unclaimed prizes in science and technology (38). [] With the shortcomings of competition becoming more evident, its counterpart collaboration appears to be in ascendancy. The successful demonstration of the Higgs boson by research teams at CERN involving thousands of scientists working over a period of decades is an example of successful scientific teamwork. The need for diverse research approaches and transdisciplinary teams to address complex problems is increasingly recognized (39). However, a greater emphasis on '' team science'' will require a radical reconsideration of how scientists are organized, supported, and rewarded (40-42). [Detrimental effects of competition on creativity] By channeling research efforts along defined paths, competition may constrain the creativity required for transformative breakthroughs. Moreover, there may be an even more insidious effect of competition on scientific creativity. At its best, science is a creative process on par with art, music, and literature (43). Like creative disciplines in the humanities, science involves imagination, intuition, synthesis, and aesthetics (44). Patterns of brain activation observed by functional magnetic resonance imaging during word association tasks show similar patterns of activation in association cortex and socioaffective processing areas among artists and scientists (45). [...] Studies by psychologists have shown that intense competition and stress can actually stifle creativity. [...] Creativity flourishes when an individual is allowed to pursue a subject about which he or she cares passionately in an environment that feels more like play than work (48). Experimental subjects motivated by external rewards are less likely to produce creative results (49). [...] The intensity of the stress is also an important factor; a meta-analysis of 76 experimental studies found that although mild levels of stress can stimulate creativity, high stress levels impede creative thinking (53). [...] [] Experimental studies of groups of undergraduates and scientists in the real world have revealed important differences between how men and women tend to respond to competition. In one such study, intense competition between teams enhanced creativity in teams composed of men but impeded creativity in teams composed of women, whereas women thrived in a collaborative environment in which teams worked side by side (54). This might relate to deep-seated gender differences in cooperation and competition that have been designated the '' male-warrior hypothesis'' (55). The ability of women to broaden the perspective of research teams and promote collaboration has been one factor used to advocate for their greater inclusion at all levels of the scientific hierarchy (56). [] Does cooperation work? In contrast to competition, there are many examples of the benefits of cooperation and collaboration. Empirical evidence suggests a synergy between networking of individuals in noncommercial settings. The author Steven Johnson analyzed 135 major innovations in science and technology emerging during the 19th and 20th centuries and found that 40\,% of these discoveries arose from networks and nonmarket settings, in comparison to 26\,% from networks in market settings or from individuals in nonmarket settings and just 8\,% from individuals working in market settings (57). [...] [] When asked how to build a motivated research group, Uri Alon recommended providing young scientists with challenging problems that engage them, giving them the autonomy to seek their own solutions, and placing them in an environment in which they can readily network with others (58). [How to channel competition and foster cooperation] There remains a role for competition in science. Competition appears to work best for algorithmic tasks rather than heuristic tasks that require great creativity. Thus, defining specific goals that are technologically feasible can help to advance a field, just as Hilbert's definition of 23 unsolved problems in 1900 helped to galvanize the attention of mathematicians. [] However, most science today would benefit from a radically different structure that promotes cooperation, collaboration, and creativity. Useful measures may include changing the criteria for professional advancement, with an emphasis on common rather than individual goals and a reduced emphasis on publication in prestigious venues (59). Unselfish scientific acts such as mentoring and making useful reagents and information available to the community should be recognized, along with more effective policing of scientists who behave selfishly. Another strategy to reduce the detrimental effects of competition is for competing groups to cooperate by publishing their findings at the same time so as to not '' scoop'' one another. [...] [] A major change in the economic structure of science with a renewed national investment in research and development is required to alleviate hypercompetition for grants and jobs. (Imagine the efficiency of the armed forces if only one out of every five soldiers were issued weapons and the rest were asked to spend all of their time writing applications to explain what they would do if they had one.) While it is often stated that more funding alone will not be adequate to fix science, more funding is an essential part of any effective solution. In this regard, a system that funds people instead of projects may be more rational given studies showing that this approach fosters higher-impact science (73) and that track record rather than project reviews is predictive of future researcher productivity (74, 75). A greater emphasis should be placed on open-ended investigator-initiated research and less on targeted programs. Institutions should reduce their dependence on soft money to provide researchers with more stable salary support. Larger research teams to increase numbers of senior scientist positions can enhance intragroup networking and ameliorate competition among trainees. [] Scientists today must work in an environment of relentless stress, time pressure, and insecurity, factors that are counterproductive to good science. Fortunately, research in neurobiology and social psychology has provided a clear prescription. Creativity thrives on freedom and interactivity. It is time to apply these principles to reform the scientific enterprise itself. [...]
@article{fangCompetitiveScienceCompetition2015,
  title = {Competitive Science: Is Competition Ruining Science?},
  author = {Fang, Ferric C. and Casadevall, Arturo},
  year = {2015},
  month = apr,
  volume = {83},
  pages = {1229--1233},
  issn = {1098-5522},
  doi = {10.1128/iai.02939-14},
  abstract = {Science has always been a competitive undertaking. Despite recognition of the benefits of cooperation and team science, reduced availability of funding and jobs has made science more competitive than ever. Here we consider the benefits of competition in providing incentives to scientists and the adverse effects of competition on resource sharing, research integrity, and creativity. The history of science shows that transformative discoveries often occur in the absence of competition, which only emerges once fields are established and goals are defined. Measures to encourage collaboration and ameliorate competition in the scientific enterprise are discussed.

[Excerpt] In the winner-take-all economics of science, scientists compete above all for priority, the recognition that they are the first to make a discovery (2). The '' priority rule'' gives scientists an incentive to share knowledge of their discoveries with the community (3) but also ensures that individuals and research teams must compete with each other. The primary currency of science is the prestige conferred by peers on the basis of one's discoveries. Prestige in turn can lead to employment, funding, prizes, and membership in honorific societies.

[] It is often taken for granted that competition is beneficial for any enterprise because it provides incentives for individuals to excel. In his classic 1957 essay, the sociologist Robert K. Merton viewed competition as a favorable influence on the scientific enterprise, which promotes the rapid dissemination of research discoveries and motivates scientists (2).[...]

[The dark side of competition] Not all historians of science have viewed competition in a uniformly favorable light. Hagstrom suggested that competition could be inefficient and wasteful because it leads to duplication of effort, although he acknowledged that competition may be stimulatory and can help to diffuse new ideas (5). While Hagstrom suggested that competition might encourage scientists to publish their results, Sullivan suggested that competition might actually lead to greater secrecy, as scientists fear being scooped by their rivals (6). McCain also observed that competition reduces the tendency of researchers to share materials, information, and methods, thus impeding scientific progress (7).

[] More recently, focus group discussions have confirmed that competition discourages sharing and may even lead some scientists to sabotage competitors, perform biased peer review, and engage in questionable research practices (8). Scientific leaders have decried the detrimental effect of today's hypercompetitive environment on science (9, 10). Hypercompetition may be driving some young people away from careers in science, and this may be particularly true for young female scientists (11-13). [...]

[Limits of competition] It is unclear whether competition is an important incentive in science. The Nobel Prize is the most prestigious honor in science, but few laureates have had the prize in mind when they made their award-winning discoveries, and most recipients have already received ample recognition by the time Stockholm calls (36). Competition probably works best when the goals are clearly defined and a field is technologically ready. A good example is the Human Genome Project, in which competition between publicly and commercially supported teams resulted in success years ahead of schedule (37). However, competition by itself cannot necessarily lead to progress if the goals are too ambitious, as demonstrated by the many unclaimed prizes in science and technology (38).

[] With the shortcomings of competition becoming more evident, its counterpart collaboration appears to be in ascendancy. The successful demonstration of the Higgs boson by research teams at CERN involving thousands of scientists working over a period of decades is an example of successful scientific teamwork. The need for diverse research approaches and transdisciplinary teams to address complex problems is increasingly recognized (39). However, a greater emphasis on '' team science'' will require a radical reconsideration of how scientists are organized, supported, and rewarded (40-42).

[Detrimental effects of competition on creativity] By channeling research efforts along defined paths, competition may constrain the creativity required for transformative breakthroughs. Moreover, there may be an even more insidious effect of competition on scientific creativity. At its best, science is a creative process on par with art, music, and literature (43). Like creative disciplines in the humanities, science involves imagination, intuition, synthesis, and aesthetics (44). Patterns of brain activation observed by functional magnetic resonance imaging during word association tasks show similar patterns of activation in association cortex and socioaffective processing areas among artists and scientists (45). [...] Studies by psychologists have shown that intense competition and stress can actually stifle creativity. [...] Creativity flourishes when an individual is allowed to pursue a subject about which he or she cares passionately in an environment that feels more like play than work (48). Experimental subjects motivated by external rewards are less likely to produce creative results (49). [...] The intensity of the stress is also an important factor; a meta-analysis of 76 experimental studies found that although mild levels of stress can stimulate creativity, high stress levels impede creative thinking (53). [...]

[] Experimental studies of groups of undergraduates and scientists in the real world have revealed important differences between how men and women tend to respond to competition. In one such study, intense competition between teams enhanced creativity in teams composed of men but impeded creativity in teams composed of women, whereas women thrived in a collaborative environment in which teams worked side by side (54). This might relate to deep-seated gender differences in cooperation and competition that have been designated the '' male-warrior hypothesis'' (55). The ability of women to broaden the perspective of research teams and promote collaboration has been one factor used to advocate for their greater inclusion at all levels of the scientific hierarchy (56).

[] Does cooperation work? In contrast to competition, there are many examples of the benefits of cooperation and collaboration. Empirical evidence suggests a synergy between networking of individuals in noncommercial settings. The author Steven Johnson analyzed 135 major innovations in science and technology emerging during the 19th and 20th centuries and found that 40\,\% of these discoveries arose from networks and nonmarket settings, in comparison to 26\,\% from networks in market settings or from individuals in nonmarket settings and just 8\,\% from individuals working in market settings (57). [...]

[] When asked how to build a motivated research group, Uri Alon recommended providing young scientists with challenging problems that engage them, giving them the autonomy to seek their own solutions, and placing them in an environment in which they can readily network with others (58).

[How to channel competition and foster cooperation] There remains a role for competition in science. Competition appears to work best for algorithmic tasks rather than heuristic tasks that require great creativity. Thus, defining specific goals that are technologically feasible can help to advance a field, just as Hilbert's definition of 23 unsolved problems in 1900 helped to galvanize the attention of mathematicians.

[] However, most science today would benefit from a radically different structure that promotes cooperation, collaboration, and creativity. Useful measures may include changing the criteria for professional advancement, with an emphasis on common rather than individual goals and a reduced emphasis on publication in prestigious venues (59). Unselfish scientific acts such as mentoring and making useful reagents and information available to the community should be recognized, along with more effective policing of scientists who behave selfishly. Another strategy to reduce the detrimental effects of competition is for competing groups to cooperate by publishing their findings at the same time so as to not '' scoop'' one another. [...]

[] A major change in the economic structure of science with a renewed national investment in research and development is required to alleviate hypercompetition for grants and jobs. (Imagine the efficiency of the armed forces if only one out of every five soldiers were issued weapons and the rest were asked to spend all of their time writing applications to explain what they would do if they had one.) While it is often stated that more funding alone will not be adequate to fix science, more funding is an essential part of any effective solution. In this regard, a system that funds people instead of projects may be more rational given studies showing that this approach fosters higher-impact science (73) and that track record rather than project reviews is predictive of future researcher productivity (74, 75). A greater emphasis should be placed on open-ended investigator-initiated research and less on targeted programs. Institutions should reduce their dependence on soft money to provide researchers with more stable salary support. Larger research teams to increase numbers of senior scientist positions can enhance intragroup networking and ameliorate competition among trainees.

[] Scientists today must work in an environment of relentless stress, time pressure, and insecurity, factors that are counterproductive to good science. Fortunately, research in neurobiology and social psychology has provided a clear prescription. Creativity thrives on freedom and interactivity. It is time to apply these principles to reform the scientific enterprise itself. [...]},
  journal = {Infection and Immunity},
  keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-13706887,~to-add-doi-URL,cognitive-biases,competition,cooperation,knowledge-integration,research-funding,research-management,research-metrics,science-ethics,team-diversity,transdisciplinary-research},
  lccn = {INRMM-MiD:c-13706887},
  number = {4}
}
Downloads: 0
About
Documentation
Keywords
Search
Users
Terms and Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Sitemap
© BibBase.org 2021