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.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Fox, M. (2002). Lucky man. New York: Hyperion.
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.
Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Merton, R. K. (1957). Priorities in scientific discovery. American Sociological Review, 22, 635–659.
Hagstrom, W. O. (1965). The scientific community. New York: Basic Books.
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 .
Hagstrom, W. O. (1974). Competition in science. American Sociological Review, 39, 1–18.
Institute of Medicine, National Research Council. (2002). Integrity in scientific research: Creating an environment that promotes responsible conduct. Washington: National Academy of Sciences.
Thomas, L. G. III (1996). The two faces of competition: Dynamic resourcefulness and the hypercompetitive shift. Organization Science, 7, 221–242.
Merton, R. K. (1942). Science and technology in a democratic order. Journal of Legal and Political Sociology, 1, 115–126.
Ziman, J. (2000). Real science: What it is and what it means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ben-David, J. (1960). Scientific productivity and academic organization in nineteenth-century medicine. American Sociological Review, 25, 828–843.
Ben-David, J., & Zloczower, A. (1962). Universities and academic systems in modern societies. European Journal of Sociology, 3, 45–84.
Merton, R. K. (1968). Behavior patterns of scientists. American Scientist, 58, 1–23.
Kennedy, D. (1997). Academic duty. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
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.
Walsh, J. P., & Hong, W. (2003). Secrecy is increasing in step with competition. Nature, 422, 801–802.
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.
Anderson, M. S. (1996). Misconduct and departmental context: Evidence from the Acadia Institute’s graduate education project. Journal of Information Ethics, 5, 15–33.
Anderson, M. S. (2000). Normative orientations of university faculty and doctoral students. Science and Engineering Ethics, 7, 487–503.
Zuckerman, H. (1977). Scientific elite: Nobel laureates in the United States. New York: Free Press.
Kanigel, R. (1986). Apprentice to genius: The making of a scientific dynasty. New York: Macmillan.
Watson, J. D. (1997). The double helix: A personal account of the discovery of the structure of DNA. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Goodstein, D. (2002). Scientific misconduct. Academe, 88, 28–31.
Field, K. (2004). U.S. is said to produce too few scientists. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 50, A28.
Wasley, P. (2006). College presidents join ad campaign to increase spending on scientific research and education. The Chronicle of Higher Education http://chronicle.com/daily/2006/02/2006020804n.htm.
Freeman, R., Weinstein, E., Marincola, E., Rosenbaum, J., & Solomon, F. (2001). Competition and careers in biosciences. Science, 294, 2293–2294.
Russo, E. (2003). Victims of success. Nature, 422, 354–355.
Juliano, R. L. (2003). A shortage of Ph.D.s? Science, 301, 763.
Kaiser, J. (2005). NIH funding: Success rates squeezed as budget growth slows. Science, 307, 1023.
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.
Teitelbaum, M. S. (2003). Do we need more scientists? The Public Interest, 153, 40–53.
Kennedy, D., Austin, J., Urquhart, K., & Taylor, C. (2004). Supply without demand. Science, 303, 1105.
Geiger, R. (1997). Doctoral education: The short-term crisis vs. long-term challenge. The Review of Higher Education, 20, 239–251.
Juliano, R. L., & Oxford, G. S. (2001). Critical issues in PhD training for biomedical scientists. Academic Medicine, 76, 1005–1012.
Krueger, R. A. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research, third edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Morgan, D. L., & Krueger, R. A. (1998). The focus group Kit, vol. 1–6. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
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.
Cech, T. R. (2005). Fostering innovation and discovery in biomedical research. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 294, 1390–1393.
Committee on Bridges to Independence. (2005). Bridges to independence: Fostering the independence of new investigators in biomedical research. Washington: National Research Counci.
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.
Rajan, T. V. (2005). Biomedical scientists are engaged in a pyramid scheme. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 51, B16.
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.
Lloyd, A. L. (1995). Computing bouts of the prisoner’s dilemma. Scientific American, 272, 110–113.
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).
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). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-007-9042-5
- Research integrity
- Ethics in science