General Question about Competition in Science?

[british_spy]

I'm a young student in the early stages of graduate school and I have this idealized view that information should be freely exchanged and that science is more enjoyable and productive when this happens. But a week ago I was asked by a collaborator not to discuss our project with a friend I was meeting that day (another scientist working in the same

Comments

[nervous_neuron]

Ah collaboration vs competition.

I suppose it does depend on the area. As cypherangel, industry may thrive on this competition, but what about academic, basic science? With the current system, it can be competitive as a good idea can net you a publication in a prestigious journal and a potential to attract more funding for your lab. So competition may increase the quality of the science. Sometimes idea sharing won't influence the competition - for example getting published in Nature, where there are many different fields being published, so a scoop would be difficult and fairly obvious. The problem is within similar fields. What's stupid is when two 'competitors' are working on similar projects and its a race to publish first when the competitors can become collaborators and combine their data into one paper. I've seen a paper where two different labs did the same experiment, and it added to the validity of the paper, because two independent labs produced the same results and it was all there on the one paper. Of course, there is the problem of 'first author', so in that case, things like post doc positions should take things into account, like joint first author on a larger paper. I don't know if 'author dilution' is much of a problem, but I believe things like h-index are the cause for this competition.

Collaboration allows the free exchange of information early on, not just after publication. Science depends on the exchange of knowledge. I wonder if it would work if everyone in a given field could work together with each lab's specialty, without anybody stepping on their toes. But it isn't an ideal world, there is always arguments about who gets credit for what, even within a lab. For example, if a conference attendee, during question time, suggests a small alteration to an experiment, or an angle to pursuit and it's published, should that attendee receive authorship? Because they thought of an idea?

I don't think it's naive, but competition is there. However, there is a potential for the system to change, because it fuels the competition. What needs to be looked at is whether competition helps or hinders science. Otherwise measures can be put in place to reduce or change the nature of the competition, such an an overhaul to the granting system and the way people are given credit for their work.