The Perverse Effects of Competition on Scientists’ Work and Relationships


Competition among scientists for funding, positions and prestige, among other things, is often seen as a salutary driving force in U.S. science. Its effects on scientists, their work and their relationships are seldom considered. Focus-group discussions with 51 mid- and early-career scientists, on which this study is based, reveal a dark side of competition in science. According to these scientists, competition contributes to strategic game-playing in science, a decline in free and open sharing of information and methods, sabotage of others’ ability to use one’s work, interference with peer-review processes, deformation of relationships, and careless or questionable research conduct. When competition is pervasive, such effects may jeopardize the progress, efficiency and integrity of science.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.


  1. 1.

    Fox, M. (2002). Lucky man. New York: Hyperion.

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Feller, I. (1996). The determinants of research competitiveness among universities In: A. H. Teich (Ed.), Competitiveness in academic research (pp. 35–72). Washington: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Merton, R. K. (1957). Priorities in scientific discovery. American Sociological Review, 22, 635–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Hagstrom, W. O. (1965). The scientific community. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Hagstrom, W. O. (1970). Factors related to the use of different modes of publishing research in four scientific fields In: C. E. Nelson & D. K. Pollack (Eds.), Communication among scientists and engineers. Lexington: Heath Lexington Books .

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Hagstrom, W. O. (1974). Competition in science. American Sociological Review, 39, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Institute of Medicine, National Research Council. (2002). Integrity in scientific research: Creating an environment that promotes responsible conduct. Washington: National Academy of Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Thomas, L. G. III (1996). The two faces of competition: Dynamic resourcefulness and the hypercompetitive shift. Organization Science, 7, 221–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Merton, R. K. (1942). Science and technology in a democratic order. Journal of Legal and Political Sociology, 1, 115–126.

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Ziman, J. (2000). Real science: What it is and what it means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Ben-David, J. (1960). Scientific productivity and academic organization in nineteenth-century medicine. American Sociological Review, 25, 828–843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Ben-David, J., & Zloczower, A. (1962). Universities and academic systems in modern societies. European Journal of Sociology, 3, 45–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Merton, R. K. (1968). Behavior patterns of scientists. American Scientist, 58, 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Kennedy, D. (1997). Academic duty. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Blumenthal, D., Campbell, E. G., Gokhale, M., Yucel, R., Clarridge, B., Hilgartner, S., & Holtzman, N. A. (2006). Data withholding in genetics and other life sciences: Prevalences and predictors. Academic Medicine, 81, 137–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Walsh, J. P., & Hong, W. (2003). Secrecy is increasing in step with competition. Nature, 422, 801–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Louis, K. S., Anderson, M. S., & Rosenberg, L. (1995). Academic misconduct and values: The department’s influence. The Review of Higher Education, 18, 393–422.

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Anderson, M. S. (1996). Misconduct and departmental context: Evidence from the Acadia Institute’s graduate education project. Journal of Information Ethics, 5, 15–33.

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Anderson, M. S. (2000). Normative orientations of university faculty and doctoral students. Science and Engineering Ethics, 7, 487–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Zuckerman, H. (1977). Scientific elite: Nobel laureates in the United States. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Kanigel, R. (1986). Apprentice to genius: The making of a scientific dynasty. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Watson, J. D. (1997). The double helix: A personal account of the discovery of the structure of DNA. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Goodstein, D. (2002). Scientific misconduct. Academe, 88, 28–31.

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Field, K. (2004). U.S. is said to produce too few scientists. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 50, A28.

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Wasley, P. (2006). College presidents join ad campaign to increase spending on scientific research and education. The Chronicle of Higher Education

  28. 28.

    Freeman, R., Weinstein, E., Marincola, E., Rosenbaum, J., & Solomon, F. (2001). Competition and careers in biosciences. Science, 294, 2293–2294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Russo, E. (2003). Victims of success. Nature, 422, 354–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Juliano, R. L. (2003). A shortage of Ph.D.s? Science, 301, 763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Kaiser, J. (2005). NIH funding: Success rates squeezed as budget growth slows. Science, 307, 1023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Butz, W. P., Bloom, G. A., Gross, M. E., Kelly, T. K., Kofner, A., & Rippen, H. E. (2003). Is there a shortage of scientists and engineers? How would we know? RAND Issue Paper—Science and Technology. Santa Monica, CA, pp. 1–7.

  33. 33.

    Teitelbaum, M. S. (2003). Do we need more scientists? The Public Interest, 153, 40–53.

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Kennedy, D., Austin, J., Urquhart, K., & Taylor, C. (2004). Supply without demand. Science, 303, 1105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Geiger, R. (1997). Doctoral education: The short-term crisis vs. long-term challenge. The Review of Higher Education, 20, 239–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Juliano, R. L., & Oxford, G. S. (2001). Critical issues in PhD training for biomedical scientists. Academic Medicine, 76, 1005–1012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Krueger, R. A. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research, third edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Morgan, D. L., & Krueger, R. A. (1998). The focus group Kit, vol. 1–6. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    De Vries, R., Anderson, M. S., & Martinson, B. C. (2006). Normal misbehavior: Scientists talk about the ethics of research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics,, 1, 43–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Cech, T. R. (2005). Fostering innovation and discovery in biomedical research. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 294, 1390–1393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Committee on Bridges to Independence. (2005). Bridges to independence: Fostering the independence of new investigators in biomedical research. Washington: National Research Counci.

    Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Goldman, C. A., & Massy, W. F. (2001). The PhD factory: Training and employment of science and engineering doctorates in the United States. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Rajan, T. V. (2005). Biomedical scientists are engaged in a pyramid scheme. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 51, B16.

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., De Vries, R. (2006). Scientists’ perceptions of organizational justice and self-reported misbehaviors. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1, 51–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Lloyd, A. L. (1995). Computing bouts of the prisoner’s dilemma. Scientific American, 272, 110–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


This research was supported by the Research on Research Integrity Program, a collaborative program between the Office of Research Integrity and the National Institutes of Health, grant #R01-NR08090. Raymond De Vries’ work was also supported by grant #K01-AT000054-01 (NIH, National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine).

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Melissa S. Anderson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Anderson, M.S., Ronning, E.A., De Vries, R. et al. The Perverse Effects of Competition on Scientists’ Work and Relationships. Sci Eng Ethics 13, 437–461 (2007).

Download citation


  • Competition
  • Misconduct
  • Research integrity
  • Ethics in science