Poll: Should scientific research be competitive or collaborative?
- Thread starter DJ_DEnM
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Both.
It should be competitive, so that technology doesn't stagnate and there can continue to be advancements.
and it should be collaborative so that researchers can compare notes and create better medical technology, medicines and cures for diseases.
It should be competitive, so that technology doesn't stagnate and there can continue to be advancements.
and it should be collaborative so that researchers can compare notes and create better medical technology, medicines and cures for diseases.
Matthew94 said:
Ah but you see theres competition between countries but collaberation within countries to make such a thing possible and show the trend you described. I think collaberation up to a point is VERY usefull and most advances wouldnt be made without the input of others from different fields working together toward a goal. However on that note you cant exmpect everyone to be a saint and work around the clock just for the greater good. If they know they gotta beat the guy next to them, even if its just for the glory, they will try all the harder. Who wants the nobel prize/immortality in history/billions of dollars for the AIDS cure? This guy does.Daystar Clarion said:
Real science is a mixture of both. You have teams of researchers sharing information on experiments they did to their field, which enables others to go further based on these results. You also have multiple teams working together on certain areas they're interested in. Research just wouldn't progress as fast without both of those.
I voted competitive, but I also do believe it is important to share ideas and resources every so often. If only to spark that competitiveness to further heights. 
Collaborative. I voted competitive, but thought about it and that's bad.
Science should be people working together to get things done for the greater good. Anyone in the same field who wants to work on the same problem should be working together, on the same team, because that'll get things done more. Competition is caused by scarcity, which we shouldn't have to deal with.
Science should be people working together to get things done for the greater good. Anyone in the same field who wants to work on the same problem should be working together, on the same team, because that'll get things done more. Competition is caused by scarcity, which we shouldn't have to deal with.
Exactly this.Rowan93 said:
EDIT: Should probably clarify.
I think people can advance in science without wartime. If we bring the world to as much peace as possible, we won't have any wars to fight and will instead focus on making flying cars with all the manpower and extra money.
The nobel prize is offered becauuuuuuse?Rowan93 said:
It adds healthy competition. Its a fantastic place that honors and encourages advancement accross the field while also encouraging that prizes are earned by teams. The nobel prize is the ultimate example of how competition in science spawns genius ideas.
Yeah both. That's how modern science works doesn't it? From scientist to scientist, company to company, country to country.
If you want cancer to be "cured" and the lunar surface colonized, its going to take a shit load of cooperation. In order to ensure individual recognition and funding is there, competition is necessary. Simps.
If you want cancer to be "cured" and the lunar surface colonized, its going to take a shit load of cooperation. In order to ensure individual recognition and funding is there, competition is necessary. Simps.
Co-Op just seems to generate less stress between sides. Friendly competition doesn't usually stay friendly as far as i've been able to observe...
Working on the idea that some ideas can not be formulated until earlier concepts have been discovered (i think this is a proper theory used to explain why so many things were developed independently yet simultaneously (calculus, lightbulbs etc.)) I think it is important to share data and ideas, to increase overall progress.
Competitions is great for inventions, however i think collaboration is better for science. Hence, Microsoft and Apple are in competition, but the LHC and the Tevatron share and collaborate.
Competitions is great for inventions, however i think collaboration is better for science. Hence, Microsoft and Apple are in competition, but the LHC and the Tevatron share and collaborate.
A lot of useful technology was adapted for other purposes.SmashLovesTitanQuest said:
Medical advancements for instance.
It's so hard to choose!
Both stand up so well. I actually had examples of both, but lost all my typing when the internet refreshed (GRRRRR!!!!).
Just by doing your own competitive research you can find lots of examples to try and prove your points, and that leads to collaborative learning!
Both stand up so well. I actually had examples of both, but lost all my typing when the internet refreshed (GRRRRR!!!!).
Just by doing your own competitive research you can find lots of examples to try and prove your points, and that leads to collaborative learning!