See Inside
Intense competition among scientists has led to abuses. Is there a better way?
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN ONLINE
For a list of books and articles relevant to this topic, go to ScientificAmerican.com/aug2012/priority-rule
Arturo Casadevall is Leo and Julia Forch heimer Chair in Microbiology and Immunology at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and editor in chief of mBio. Ferric C. Fang is a professor of laboratory medicine and microbiology at the University of Washington and editor in chief of Infection and Immunity.
Arturo Casadevall is Leo and Julia Forch heimer Chair in Microbiology and Immunology at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and editor in chief of mBio. Ferric C. Fang is a professor of laboratory medicine and microbiology at the University of Washington and editor in chief of Infection and Immunity.
See what we're tweeting about
notscientific Human cloning: the potential health benefits and the fear of human clones cultivated in labs http://t.co/RCSNxvNjQG
gmusser It is a world war, and it does involve z's, but based on the trailer, I can't find any other way the World War Z film resembles the novel.
Myrmecos I invoice the more egregious infringers for two reasons: fairness to my regular clients, and as compensation for lost time.
Deadline: Jul 30 2013
Reward: $100,000 USD
The Seeker desires a method for producing pseudoephedrine products in such a way that it will be extremely difficult for clandestine che
Deadline: Jul 25 2013
Reward: Varies
This challenge provides an opportunity for Solvers to build a web-based or mobile “app” to explore data relationships in scholarly conte
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
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.