Scooped
24/09/10 15:53
Submitted by S. Pelech - Kinexus on Fri, 09/24/2010 - 15:53.
I doubt that there are very few established scientists that have not at some stage in their careers been "scooped." Usually though, it is still possible to publish one's results. Independent verification of published findings is a critical component of the scientific discovery process.
It's worth remembering that Charles Darwin took 20 years to write and publish his first book on the origin of the species. He very nearly got scooped by Alfred Wallace, and more than a hundred and fifty years later both are recognized for the theory of natural selection. Darwin received the greater glory, not since he published first, but rather because he had started working on the problem of evolution of life much earlier than Wallace.
In the big scheme of things, however, most scientific research is pretty redundant and pedestrian. Scientific progress is made in very small increments. With hundreds of genomes available from different species, and at this rate, thousands to come, does it really matter who was first to sequence the cacao or Tasmanian devil's genomes? Presumably, Dr. Schuster was funded to complete these tasks, and he did what he set out to achieve. No one should fault him for that.
It is basic human nature for scientists' to want their research contributions to be significant and this often translates into needing to being the first to describe a discovery. Coverage of one's work by the popular press does serve to encourage the notion that the reported findings have significance. However, in my observations, such coverage is uneven, often politically or economically motivated, and real significant advancement is usually lacking. Despite peer-review, the rush to publish can also result in many shoddy scientific papers. The proliferation of research reports, many fitting the profile of a "minimum publishable unit" is driven by the need or desire to publish first.
In my own career, I have published over 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers. Upon reflection, I recognize that had I not undertaken this research and reported my discoveries, eventually quite independently someone else would have. Perhaps, my work has slightly increased the pace of science in my field, but not that significantly in the big scheme. While there are hundreds of thousands of very dedicated and diligent scientists, unfortunately such is the lot for the vast majority of us.
Rather than celebrating individual scientists that are the first to report a big discovery (one hit wonders!), perhaps we should prize more those who have a long track record of scientific contribution and achievement. Scientific journals should be less concerned about whether a similar finding has just been reported elsewhere by a different research group and pay more attention to the quality and completeness of the scientific manuscripts that they receive. In the end, it is advancement of human knowledge for all that matters, not the individual that is fortunate enough to make a discovery.
Link to the original blog post.
I doubt that there are very few established scientists that have not at some stage in their careers been "scooped." Usually though, it is still possible to publish one's results. Independent verification of published findings is a critical component of the scientific discovery process.
It's worth remembering that Charles Darwin took 20 years to write and publish his first book on the origin of the species. He very nearly got scooped by Alfred Wallace, and more than a hundred and fifty years later both are recognized for the theory of natural selection. Darwin received the greater glory, not since he published first, but rather because he had started working on the problem of evolution of life much earlier than Wallace.
In the big scheme of things, however, most scientific research is pretty redundant and pedestrian. Scientific progress is made in very small increments. With hundreds of genomes available from different species, and at this rate, thousands to come, does it really matter who was first to sequence the cacao or Tasmanian devil's genomes? Presumably, Dr. Schuster was funded to complete these tasks, and he did what he set out to achieve. No one should fault him for that.
It is basic human nature for scientists' to want their research contributions to be significant and this often translates into needing to being the first to describe a discovery. Coverage of one's work by the popular press does serve to encourage the notion that the reported findings have significance. However, in my observations, such coverage is uneven, often politically or economically motivated, and real significant advancement is usually lacking. Despite peer-review, the rush to publish can also result in many shoddy scientific papers. The proliferation of research reports, many fitting the profile of a "minimum publishable unit" is driven by the need or desire to publish first.
In my own career, I have published over 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers. Upon reflection, I recognize that had I not undertaken this research and reported my discoveries, eventually quite independently someone else would have. Perhaps, my work has slightly increased the pace of science in my field, but not that significantly in the big scheme. While there are hundreds of thousands of very dedicated and diligent scientists, unfortunately such is the lot for the vast majority of us.
Rather than celebrating individual scientists that are the first to report a big discovery (one hit wonders!), perhaps we should prize more those who have a long track record of scientific contribution and achievement. Scientific journals should be less concerned about whether a similar finding has just been reported elsewhere by a different research group and pay more attention to the quality and completeness of the scientific manuscripts that they receive. In the end, it is advancement of human knowledge for all that matters, not the individual that is fortunate enough to make a discovery.
Link to the original blog post.