Matthew94 said:
The wartime example is actually an argument for collaborative. Manhattan project, Space Race, etc. were thanks to some of the highest concentrations of joint scientific manpower in modern history.Daystar Clarion said:
Poll: Should scientific research be competitive or collaborative?
- Thread starter DJ_DEnM
- Start date
Recommended Videos
And why do you think they got so many people working on one project?Scipio1770 said:
I believe a collaborative effort gets the results, but it takes competition for for them to get the funding so they can do the work.
I am fairly convinced that competition brings most progress, so I'm voting for that.
I'd rather not it be nation-based competition, though.
I'd rather not it be nation-based competition, though.
Collaboration is clearly superior. There aren't any benefits to competition, since that's not where the motivation of elite researchers come from (they are thinking about ideas, and their motivation is to find the truth; they are not thinking about people and getting motivated by some idea of "winning" a social game).
Collaberative definately. It's hard to get anything done when you can only work alone. Inviting anyone else in on a competetive project is just begging for some back stabbing. It would also be difficult to finish anything when others are constantly sabatouging your work and you're to busy doing the same to others to get as much done.
It isn't one or the other. For example, creating and publishing new research is very competitive because the journals only want to publish the best and they will receive more submissions than they publish.
Where the collaboration happens is that the only way to win is to share your results. Publish or die. When you publish that means anyone else could take your idea and improve on it.
Both cooperation and competition are essential components of the process. Asking which is more important is like choosing between air and water.
Where the collaboration happens is that the only way to win is to share your results. Publish or die. When you publish that means anyone else could take your idea and improve on it.
Both cooperation and competition are essential components of the process. Asking which is more important is like choosing between air and water.
Pretty much this. Competition drives innovation, because in a competitive environment you need to be better than the rest to survive. There's really nothing else to it, it's the same principle behind the free economy. Those who can adapt and change to meet the environment succeed wildly, and those who can't fail. That's how growth happens.Matthew94 said:
Also, you are 100% correct. Out of the last 300 years, the largest economic and scientific advancements have almost entirely been made in wartime. WWII (and the Cold War immediately after) drove the vast majority of modern technology, to be perfectly honest. The only modern convenience we use that was not either invented or vastly improved by an explicit war is the advanced electronics/computers we have now, and the development of most of the key components was funded by the US DoD.
Collaborative
I know absolutely nothing about how scientific research is done. Though it would seem as though we'd be more efficient if all research data was shared globally. This would prevent redundant research projects from happening simultaneously.
In reality, if research was a collaborative global effort, I'd imagine it would get so bogged down in red tape that almost nothing would get accomplished.
I know absolutely nothing about how scientific research is done. Though it would seem as though we'd be more efficient if all research data was shared globally. This would prevent redundant research projects from happening simultaneously.
In reality, if research was a collaborative global effort, I'd imagine it would get so bogged down in red tape that almost nothing would get accomplished.
When something is competitive, they will tend to hide their pieces from their competitors, so they all have pieces of a puzzle that neither can solve.
Ideally both, but if I had to choose I would say collaborative. That is just what science is all about. Science is meant to be shared. I would hate to hear that the cure for cancer was delayed (at all) ten years because two teams didn't want the other copying off of them. That actually brings in a huge ethical dilemma. Science is meant to be for the greater good.
In science, fucking the other person over has historically been a wellspring of setbacks, fraud, hasty and unnecessary ends to promising careers, and years of research and funding wasted on dead-end ideas.Matthew94 said:
Competition also stifles communication and the sharing of data, two things that are absolutely essential to good, reliable science. To think that competition in science is a good thing is to not understand its methods or its history.
One of the first and greatest verifications of Relativity, a theory proposed by a German, was made by a British astronomer just after WWI ended. It is still regarded as one of science's greatest moments not just because of how important it was to physics, but as a demonstration that science need not be bound by war, nationalism, or politics, but can and does thrive in spite of them.
If there's one thing that Dilbert, my work and the internet has taught me, competition gives birth to filthy, dirty lies.
I don't like having lies in my science.
Therefore, I'd go with collaborative.
I don't like having lies in my science.
Therefore, I'd go with collaborative.
Contemporary research is a mixture of both, as scientists compete for the funding they need to carry out their projects, but collaboration on various levels is highly valued and actively encouraged. As someone mentioned in the thread, nobody wants to be sitting on pieces of the puzzle when they can finish it together.
However, I chose Collaborative because I feel that the competitive culture in academia (particularly in the US and Europe, and in natural sciences) causes some big problems. The competition for funding means that researchers come up with more and less brilliant ideas, but the grants aren't always given based on the brilliance or usefulness of the project. The researchers that get funded are the ones that manage to sell their project, which means that quite a few good researchers with great projects get dropped in favor of loudmouths, crafty science "salespeople" and friends of people on the grant committee. And even if they get funded, the project report needs to be "sexy" enough to get published ... (In a high-impact journal, anyway; and who wants to be printed the equivalent of some podunk town rag when you can be in the equivalent of Time and Frankfurter Allgemeine?)
However, I chose Collaborative because I feel that the competitive culture in academia (particularly in the US and Europe, and in natural sciences) causes some big problems. The competition for funding means that researchers come up with more and less brilliant ideas, but the grants aren't always given based on the brilliance or usefulness of the project. The researchers that get funded are the ones that manage to sell their project, which means that quite a few good researchers with great projects get dropped in favor of loudmouths, crafty science "salespeople" and friends of people on the grant committee. And even if they get funded, the project report needs to be "sexy" enough to get published ... (In a high-impact journal, anyway; and who wants to be printed the equivalent of some podunk town rag when you can be in the equivalent of Time and Frankfurter Allgemeine?)