World Science Scholars

3.5 Searching Supernovae

discussion Discussion
Viewing 24 reply threads
    • Adam Riess’s team of scientists was famously in competition with another group that ultimately came to the same conclusion about the existence of dark energy. What do you think about competition versus collaboration in science? Does one impact scientific advances more than the other?

    • n/a

    • i think collaboration and competition are both equally important.
      i think that in collaboration you can cross-reference and check work among peers, while in competition each individual is trying to push the envelope with the possibility of finding something new before someone else does.it still advances scientific understanding either way to me.

    • I believe they’re both equally important but they differ in how they affect the person researching. If a researcher is more competitive, the sense of competition would definitely encourage him to work more whereas for an average competent person peer collaboration would be of more significance.

    • competition in a field is good. because it helps us achieve better even if we fail. it gives a boost to take the risks needed. but collaboration can be good and bad. it basically depends on who you collaborate with. they can either be a asset or a liability to the project.

    • Collaboration brings higher form of understanding and clarity to the subject, while competition brings the urge to keep everything in check and get best results possible, while being time efficient about the process. Proper proportion of both can surely lead us to success.

    • Collaboration trumps competition. Collaboration is where the work gets done. Competition only increases motivation.

    • Both are important. But on the other hand I think that Science itself does not depends on any collaboration or competition.

    • I took a course with Brian Schmidt, he also was surprised at the results. He always gave credit to the other teams.

    • I guess Collaboration is something that can help a lot, because it is the same objective, but the competition motivates a lot…

    • My view is that competition is closely related to human ambition. No scientist should care about who gets the money and reputation but still a lot of science has been realized just because of that. Collaboration is sometimes harder because people have to lower their egoes for the benefit of the common cause. I believe that free exchange of information would push science forward faster.

    • Both are important, but if one team discovers a new truth before the other, then it doesn’t change the actual discovery just the people who discovered it.

    • Collaboration is essential and competition is not necessarily waste of time and money. In competition one team can find different methods to reach same results. At the end of the day the competitors worked for the same goal.

    • Competition definitely aids in discovery, but collaboration is more important. Competition could motivate people more to find something, which could lead to more errors or corner cutting. With collaborative efforts, sharing information could easily help accelerate new discoveries. Less competitive tensions will also aid in clearing the minds of all parties involved, creating a more welcoming and positive environment, as opposed to a “we have to be the first to discover it” attitude. Collaboration could also expand projects into areas it otherwise would have not gone; more minds and ideas to pick from. I believe the discovery itself is important, but how you got there just as much.

    • Collaboration is great, speeds results and gives a psychological advance. Up to point competition is good for staying focus, but to much can cause bad decisions and burnout.

    • Collaboration much powerful

    • I think collaboration is more important,. Competition often brings out the very worst in people.

    • My view is that competition is closely related to human ambition. No scientist should care about who gets the money and reputation but still a lot of science has been realized just because of that. Collaboration is sometimes harder because people have to lower their egoes for the benefit of the common cause. I believe that free exchange of information would push science forward faster.

    • good

    • Brian P. Schmidt was a professor in one of the EDX courses that I took a few years ago, so it is super cool to actually hear about the project from Adam that brian was part of as well.

    • Economists generally like competition as an effective way to maximize innovation and progress.

    • If we had more collaborations in the world, I think the world would be a better place. Humanity would achieve so much more.

    • Both have their role in science, but I think that after all it’s collaboration that is most important.

    • I think both play a role. Competition pushes scientists and brings out their best. Given the limitation of terrestrial resources, collaboration is critical to get more bang for the buck spent on science globally.

    • Adam Riess’s team of scientists was famously in competition with another group that ultimately came to the same conclusion about the existence of dark energy. What do you think about competition versus collaboration in science? Does one impact scientific advances more than the other?

      Competition and collaboration are equally important in science, I think what scientists have to keep in mind is that, despite them being separated in various and competing teams, the goal of science is fundamentally the same. So, a healthy competition is great, but we also have to remember that all of us are actually belong on the same boat, regardless of the various differences we have with each other.

You must be logged in to reply to this discussion.

Send this to a friend