Competition VS. Collaboration

Even though there is ample proof that competition does not lead to the best scientific discoveries, it has always found its way into the world of science. The competition gives scientists incentives and makes them feel compelled to share their discoveries with the world, which leads to an increase in new discoveries as each scientist strives to outdo the other. However, history has shown that important scientific advancements have not been made through rivalry but rather by collaboration, which has significantly aided in the conservation of resources (Fang and Casadevall 2015). The paper takes a look at some of the measures that are aimed at encouraging collaboration of the scientist in doing scientific researchers and discourage competition in the scientific field.

Recognition matters among the scientist and to be given the priority in resources is very crucial in the field and that is why they are very keen on competing for that preference. Recognition translates to the prestige that is earned amongst peers of the scientific world upon the discovery, and it leads to funding, employment, membership in honorific societies and prizes. Although many researchers and book authors such as Benoit Mandelbrot say that science will be ruined if competition is prioritised, there is definite evidence that competition to some extent is healthy. For instance, according to Robert K. Merton, a sociologist viewed competition as a crucial thing in the development of science and it was a critical motivator of the scientist (Fang and Casadevall 2015). He gave examples such as Watson and Crick competing with Pauling on the structure of the DNA gave a better notion in the scientific world. In addition, competition has been seen to provide a platform for corrective for the board to favor only evidence that is supporting belief that is existing before.

Apart from the positive side of competitions many historians disapprove the benefit of competition in the scientific world. For example a historian by the Hagstrom explains that competition is not necessary in the scientific world since it is wasteful and inefficient (Fang and Casadevall 2015). The reason he gives is that when individuals compete there is duplication of the findings they find and this could have been avoided if at all the two principles that are competing could have joined hands and worked together. However, Hagstrom also acknowledges that to some extent competition can be a good stimulant for new ideas.

Hagstrom also gives credit to competition saying that it will encourage the scientist to publish their results but this is greatly disagreed by Sullivan. He suggests that when scientist are subjected to competition there is a high chance of secrecy among them since the scientist fear that their rivals may scoop their findings and use them to their advantage so as to progress in the research. Sullivan’s suggestion is also seconded by McCain who observes that when the scientist are competing there is a high chance of them to reduce the tendency to share any information concerning the research. Sabotage among the researchers is among some of the reasons why competition is discouraged among the scientist. In addition, research done under competitive status may lead to the scientist indulging in questionable research methods and in some cases there is performance of peer reviews that are biased. Career has also been affected by the competition since some of the individual find the pressure created by the hyper competition is too much making them deviate from the career route and it is evident among the female scientist

The effects of competition have also been addressed by various authors such as Margaret Heffernan on her book ‘A Bigger Prize: How We Can Do Better than the Competition. She explains the effects of competition that are present in all aspects of the society. According to her tournament (competition) has adverse effects on the long term progression and is costly in activities that require collaboration to proceed such as science. To cement on her argument a recent example of a young scientist confirmed that it is true competition affects the science world even career-wise. The young researcher wanted to be part of research that was being conducted by a senior researcher, but his request was declined 1. The senior scientist provided a reason that the reason that he declined the offer was due to the overlap of ideas which would not be so good for his research.

Competition between the scientists has compromised even the literature that has been published. A survey conducted by the Belgian scientists confirmed that they were forced to publish more and more articles without proper peer reviewing and sometimes being biased just to be relevant in the competition. The competition also compromised the relationship between the scientists since they are always working on the rivalry. Research requires funding to run smoothly and every scientist looks for sponsors who can fund their projects. Due to this fact researchers in the United States practice questionable research methods and careless behaviour to obtain external funding and soft cash salary.









The paper suggests that in the field of science competition is not necessary and great things can be achieved by collaborating. If two great minds come together definitely the outcome will be much better compared to when one mind was working alone. For instance, Emil von Behring came up with the humoral immunity concept in the study of diphtheria later on another scientist by the name Shibasaburo Kitasato joined the project lab they made a greater advancement which was to show the protection against tetanus. Referencing from a classic scientist that made great advancement can sometimes be misleading especially on this topic since some examples show that scientific competition can be good. An example is a competition between Russell and Darwin on the advancement of calculus. The two worked separately and when they came to represent their work Russell made a great advancement on the original concept by Darwin, but after that, they did not work together after that.

Competition is a double-edged sword looking at some of the past scientific examples. The tournament can be advantageous or disadvantageous, and in most cases, it lies on the disadvantages. A classic example of how the search for priority in a scientific competition has been a problem is when Pauling in the event of having a better result than Watson in the structure of the DNA 1. He suggested that the DNA was a three-helical structure which proved to be wrong and compromised the scientific research just because of the need for priority. Although Kitasato had collaborated in previous years, in 1984 he was not in the mood to do so, and he refused to collaborate with Yersin on the study of the plague. The competition leads him to make a rushed conclusion on the cause of the plague which was later tested to be inaccurate making his specimen to be considered as contaminated. His competitive nature did him no good since Yersin’s discovery was adopted and his name given preference in giving the causative agent of the disease a name (Fang and Casadevall 2015).

Competition does not emerge at the beginning of discovery, but it only happens after the discovery has happened and the need to add more information to the discovery emerges. Discoveries that were made without any competition being involved are the type that is later characterized with many competitors since the goals are defined the scientist now get the idea of what to do and what to improve to get a reward. The biggest reward in the science world is the Nobel Prize, and it is given to exceptional individuals(Fang and Casadevall 2015). The scientist that have been awarded in most cases do not expect since they did the research that is self-driven rather than through competition. Therefore, this shows that competition is a limitation when it comes to discoveries that are exceptional.

Since competition has proved not be so much useful in scientific research, it is best to make sure that the competitive nature of the scientist is channeled to a more collaborative nature. Competition can only be useful in researches that require less creativity and more of algorithmic tasks. The first way to encourage the collaboration between the scientists is to make sure that the involved board award scientist that is releasing information to the society on regular without withholding for competition purposes. Also, the boards should encourage that groups that are aiming to publish their work should do so at the same time reduce the chances of coping with each other’s content and improving it hence rivalry. Finally, effective policies should be developed on the scientist that behave selfishly(Fang and Casadevall 2015).









Works Cited

Fang FC, Casadevall A. 2015. Competitive science: Is competition ruining science? Infect. Immun. 83:1229–1233. doi:10.1128/IAI.02939-14.