Image: Carl Wiens
When Isaac Newton developed calculus and his theory of gravity, he reaped a reward far greater than stock options in a start-up or a big year-end bonus. He got credit for his work and recognition among his peers—and eventually the wider world. Since Newton, science has changed a great deal, but this basic fact has not. Credit for work done is still the currency of science.
How should credit for scientific work be assigned? The question has tremendous implications for how science is done and what society gets from its investment. Since the earliest days of science, bragging rights to a discovery have gone to the person who first reports it. This “priority rule” has led to some colorful disputes—Newton famously got into a tussle with Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who wanted credit for inventing calculus—but by and large, the rule has worked well. In recent years, however, intense competition among scientists has led to difficulties, and we have begun to wonder if there isn't a better way.
At its best, the priority rule fosters healthy competition, which can be a strong motivator for scientists to innovate and rapidly solve problems. Economists view scientific knowledge as a public good, which means that competitors are free to make use of that knowledge once it is publicized. The priority rule provides a potent incentive for scientists to share their knowledge. Some think that the priority rule also helps to ensure that society gets the optimal return from its investment in science because rewards go to those scientists who benefit society the most.
The winner-take-all aspect of the priority rule has its drawbacks, however. It can encourage secrecy, sloppy practices, dishonesty and an excessive emphasis on surrogate measures of scientific quality, such as publication in high-impact journals. The editors of the journal Nature have recently exhorted scientists to take greater care in their work, citing poor reproducibility of published findings, errors in figures, improper controls, incomplete descriptions of methods and unsuitable statistical analyses as evidence of increasing sloppiness. (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.)
As competition over reduced funding has increased markedly, these disadvantages of the priority rule may have begun to outweigh its benefits. Success rates for scientists applying for National Institutes of Health funding have recently reached an all-time low. As a result, we have seen a steep rise in unhealthy competition among scientists, accompanied by a dramatic proliferation in the number of scientific publications retracted because of fraud or error. Recent scandals in science are reminiscent of the doping problems in sports, in which disproportionately rich rewards going to winners has fostered cheating.
The importance of teamwork in science has never been greater. Studies of publications over the past 50 years show that teams increasingly dominate science and are contributing the highest-impact research. Collaborators, consortia and networks are essential for tackling interdisciplinary problems and massive undertakings, such as the Human Genome Project. The priority rule may be undermining this process.
The appropriateness of the priority rule for science has never been seriously questioned. Is it best suited to the modern scientific age, in which scientists operate in large teams that put a premium on cooperation? An alternative system that celebrates team effort toward solving problems may work better. Industry, which favors collective goals over individual achievement, and the NIH Intramural Research Program, which encourages risk taking and collaborative partnerships with industry and academia, provide contrasting but instructional examples. Perhaps scientists would gladly trade the benefits of the priority rule (individual reward) for a system that offers greater stability of support and collegiality, freer sharing of information, more fairness, and improved scientific rigor and cooperation. This would be a discovery of enormous benefit to the scientific enterprise and the society it serves.
See what we're tweeting about
9 Comments
Add CommentIt is the price we pay for the current speed of communication and the devious greed of some individuals, it is wide spread and explains why the financial markets are so increasingly jittery and panic driven...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are both the perpetrator and the victim...
It seems to me a gross error to think that eliminating the quest for personal glory will improve things dramatically. I certainly agree that there needs to be a framework to deal with and support larger team efforts, but so many of us do things FOR the personal glory that the take that incentive away would be like eliminating all the prodigies from your music program. Shall we now call the orchestra the "creator" and ignore the composer? Maybe we can eliminate the Quarterback from football and the associated fame that goes with the position. Perhaps we could use pitching machines in baseball so that all hitters have the same opportunity, then we cull the good hitters by paying em' just like the not-so-good hitters.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTeam greatness and individual greatness must co-exist and each be recognized, not one to the detriment of the other. I can live with greed that overly zealous people experience, but I can't live with cheating. I can live with large teams choosing to work together, but I can't live with reducing the individual and eliminating the competition that exists between great minds striving for great reward.
I agree. Also, by giving credit to a team instead of an individual you are creating a system where free loaders prosper and contributors are not given credit. Anyone that has worked in a team environment knows that ideas are generated by individuals and then fleshed out by the team. The only people that prefer working in a team environment are people that are below average in work ethic, knowledge, skills and idea generation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am already starting to see this trend where people get credit for "contributing" on a research project when, in fact, they did almost literally nothing but need constant explanation. To create a system where this is the norm would be very disappointing.
This is very true. Just think about what happened with Wallace and Darwin. Wallace never got the recognition that he deserved for his work in evolution; instead Darwin was very happy to claim all the credit knowing fully well that he should have shared it with Wallace. The lack of scruples is also shared by people within the scientific community and that they (scientists) are also capable of cannibalizing their own to advance their own agenda.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy not mention competition among scientists who study warfare?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisВозможно в секретных лабараториях некоторые открытия сделаны намного раньше чем это сделали в открытых лабараториях.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do believe Darwin extended full credit to Wallace for the role he played at getting the theory out there. It is the Darwin Mafia that has tended to belittle Wallace's contributions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wouldn't say it was competition that's the problem, but the reactions of some to that competition. The problem really lies with those who are stupid and/or lazy who have gotten the impression from somewhere that they can cheat and get away with it. Fortunately science has a fact checking device news editors would do well to emulate, and that involves checking out the claim to see if there is any validity to it. Nothing is taken on faith, but must be reliably and repeatedly replicated before it is accepted. Witness the rejection of the Copernican Solar System until one Johannes Kepler worked out the elliptical orbits of the planets and settled that matter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn short, competition can be a good thing, so long as you remain honest. Competition combined with dishonesty is where you run into trouble.
Well, all this is well and good. But, tell me, why are the Nobels given to individuals instead of Colleges and Universities?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd, team sports still keeps score.