Scientific collaboration is supposed to advance science, on national and international levels. The question is if scientific collaboration enhances or hinders
the process of scientific advancement.
Please take a look at the list of Nobel Prize winners in Physics, Chemistry and Physiology/Medicine. The majority of winners in these scientific disciplines during last decade (19 out of 30) have been trios. Only 4 solo winners (Ertl, Edwards, Shectman, and Ohsumi) and 7 duos. The facts speak for themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates#List_of_laureates
The vast majority of significant advances in science are made by team members working together rather than individuals working alone. If collaboration hindered the process of scientific advancement, then there would be more solo efforts. The rewards for scientists further encourage collaboration as the attached article explains.
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21710792-scientific-publications-are-getting-more-and-more-names-attached-them-why
Collaboration fosters innovation, that´s a common assumption in innovation research.
The more public knowledge is, the more it will be use.
What might hinder innovation is collaboration aiming at patenting something.
Hi,
If collaboration is known as advancing scientific development, so how is it that very known scientists and Nobel Prize winners in the past appeared as single persons, and not so much as collaborators ?
Please take a look at the list of Nobel Prize winners in Physics, Chemistry and Physiology/Medicine. The majority of winners in these scientific disciplines during last decade (19 out of 30) have been trios. Only 4 solo winners (Ertl, Edwards, Shectman, and Ohsumi) and 7 duos. The facts speak for themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates#List_of_laureates
Hi,
Thanks for the answer,
What I meant refers to scientists at the beginning of the 20th century. Also, the question if collaboration enhances or hinders advancement in science refers also to the funding organizations that are determining, to a large extent, the direction of science.
This is called collaborative research, which contributes significantly to scientific knowledge.
It is very important to share our research especially getting feedback from other scientists
I agree completely with your assessment of collaborative research.
Yes by all means if you are not confined in the narrow system “publish or perish”. However it is only possible if you trust your colleagues. I strongly believe that with the increasing complexity of actual projects and science in general, it is one of the best way to make good progresses (multidisciplinary synergism).
Hi,
I agree that collaborative scientific work contribute to science, nevertheless, I heard about cultures where sharing knowledge and scientific results is not recommended. This is actually the incentive to my question.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Human-Computer Interaction
- Collaboration