World Science Scholars

3.5 Searching Supernovae

Viewing 5 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 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.

You must be logged in to reply to this discussion.

Send this to a friend