Biophysical Society Bulletin | July/August 2023

C a Ar enenruDael vMe el oept imn ge n t

Scooped...How to Deal with Competition in Research It’s mid-afternoon, and you are on your third cup of coffee when you see the

In Germany, the introduction of competition through Excel lence Clusters and Multi-Nation Science Grants led to initial resistance and avoidance of competition by investigators. A “friends in private, fight in public” approach cannot be too transparent, because funding bodies and journals do monitor reviewer behavior. Yet, humans are altruistic, and most com petitors employ a “cooperate first, then tit-for-tat” strategy, securing rewards for their own field. These strategies are unethical in the context of supposedly unbiased reviewing, and not only investigators, but also funding agencies and publishers, recognize that competition can be stressful and wasteful. Encouraging agreements (e.g., which exact areas to work on and the timing of publications) and even collabora tions between competing labs perhaps should be more openly promoted. Similarly, policymakers such as journal editors and heads of funding agencies have realized that hyper-competitive practices are detrimental to society, science, and scientists. In the realm of science publication, there have been signif icant changes. Journals like PLoS and eLife now embrace a “second is also great” policy, in which being second or third does not heavily affect acceptance, as long as the work is available within a few months. Such papers are encouraged because they validate the impact of the new results and pro vide different perspectives. Further changes are expected in publication, grant, and prize review processes. Double-blind, or soon AI-driven, reviews may be adopted to reduce bias, breaking the dependency on factors like the principal inves tigator’s previous publication record, h-index, or institution. Measures such as university rankings and standardized test requirements for PhD program admission are already being dismantled. Will we achieve an unbiased evaluation of a researcher’s accomplishments, devoid of biases that stem from relying on proxy indicators of success? For most scientists, there are limited achievements to rely on, and indulging in a state of blissful rest is not an option for long, someone once said. Many careers experience fluctuations, and at any given mo ment, your worth is roughly determined by your most recent handful of publications. As they say, “It’s not about the desti nation (end result), but the journey (the process itself).” — Molly Cule

abstract of your project in the email alert from a prominent journal. Your heart races in panic and disbelief: you have been scooped! When this Molly Cule writer was a graduate student, such a scoop hap pened to the lab. The advisor was quick

to declare: “Don’t worry! No two studies—even on the same protein and using the same techniques—are identical, and just a comparison of the results will be a paper by itself.” This was true; a paper was published jointly with the competing group, but the “scooped” work did end up in a less strato spheric journal. Overall, this was a tough situation (see the Molly Cule article titled “Dealing with Failure and Rejection” from the January 2021 issue of BPS Bulletin ). Scientific research, industrial or academic, is an inherently competitive endeavor because of limited resources and time, the need for product advancement, and new impactful theories. Cutting-edge science has had the feel of a tour nament in which coming in first was crucial. Winning races for high-impact papers, grants, prestigious positions at top universities, and academic prizes represents career-defining and often interconnected milestones. The Matthew Effect suggests that those already having resources and recognition tend to receive even more, where as those with less struggle to catch up. This hierarchical and intergenerational competition leads to disproportionate benefits for the privileged, and not just for individual investi gators. This writer is aware that many individuals are working hard to continuously uphold and augment the reputations of institutions, organizations, journals, etc. and that, in aggre gate, the level of excellence achieved is a critical component of academic and research culture. Although competition drives progress and excellence, it has a dark side. It can cause burnout, extreme stress, and herd mentality and reinforce biases based on gender, race, and pedigree. Competition can also lead to sloppy work, secrecy, and unethical behavior in publishing and grant reviewing. In essence, it becomes a zero-sum game. Competitive behavior can permeate an entire organization, department, or laboratory, stealing joy. Darwin’s theory applies, but can we rise above it?

July/August 2023

17

THE NEWSLETTER OF THE BIOPHYSICAL SOCIETY