Debate
Should we stop giving science prizes to individuals?
Research is teamwork. So does it still make sense to award science prizes to individuals?
I highly welcome the idea of giving science prizes to teams. Science has changed radically in recent decades, in particular as a result of globalisation and digitalisation. As a consequence, we no longer observe the ‘local frog pond’ phenomenon in which scientists achieve fame within their peer group, while a winner-takes-it-all situation means only a few scientists can compete globally with real success.
In a world of individual winners, it’s luck and social networks that play decisive roles as to who wins and who doesn’t. Various studies suggest the most talented scientists are highly unlikely to prevail. Instead, those winners will be researchers working on a topic, in a discipline or with a method that is simply in line with the spirit of the times. Those who enjoy small, initial successes can significantly increase their success over time, publishing their research in important journals, receiving important research grants and awards, and getting appointments at renowned universities.
Giving prizes to individual scientists therefore sends the wrong signal to the market. It suggests the winners have better skills than the rest of the scientific community, and can lead to frustration among the losers. As market insiders, these winners actually know that the message thereby conveyed does not reflect reality. It can lead to them overestimating themselves, and ultimately to them believing they are more talented than the rest. It also encourages malpractice: many of the most recent cases of fraud in the academic system have occurred precisely among those who have received the most praise, and who subsequently lost touch with reality.
If prizes are awarded to groups, such misleading signals can be mitigated. When winners have to share a prize, hubris fades. Frustration among the ‘losers’ also decreases, because those prizes no longer declare individuals to be heroes, but instead acknowledge group success. Of course, a system that recognises group success can also have numerous disadvantages. But in my opinion, these disadvantages are greatly outweighed by the advantages of the system.
Katja Rost, a professor of sociology at the University of Zurich, analyses the role of luck and the Matthew effect in success.
The idea of giving scientific prizes to teams might be in line with the zeitgeist, but it’s still out of place.
The history of human knowledge suggests that it is individuals who produce brilliant, unorthodox ideas. Think of Descartes, Malthus or Einstein in the sciences, or Mozart and Picasso in the arts. They were usually well aware that the environment in which they worked and the people with whom they worked also played a role in their achievements. It also sometimes happened that more than one person had the same idea at about the same time. The best-known case is that of Darwin and Wallace. All the same, it’s not teams that come up with innovative ideas, but individuals. So it’s they who should be honoured with prizes.
And are others there just because of their status or their place in the hierarchy? Worse still: are some on the team just because they were able to acquire funds – maybe through knowing the right people? In such cases, we wouldn’t be giving a prize for innovative scientific achievement. We’d be awarding it for creating the administrative and financial conditions for research to take place. That can be important, but it’s surely not enough to merit a scientific prize. We would simply be honouring members of a bureaucracy that is already too dominant in research today.
Even in teams of three or four people, it can still remain open as to who contributed what. Most of the problems outlined above would apply to groups of any size, large or small – albeit to a lesser extent among the latter.
If prizes are given to large teams, it is surely only a matter of time before absolutely everyone gets a prize. That would greatly reduce both the incentive to excel in future, and the joy one feels when receiving a prize. Giving prizes to individual researchers, however, has a strong incentive effect. Those people become ambassadors for innovative ideas, providing the next generation of scientists with examples to imitate. And by giving scientific prizes to specific individuals, we also incentivise the non-winners to make a greater effort in future, in hopes of winning a prize themselves. Both these knock-on effects can promote future-oriented, provocative science.
Bruno S. Frey is the scientific director of the Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts in Zurich, and the author of books about honours and awards.
Ich begrüsse die Idee, Wissenschaftspreise an Teams zu verleihen, ganz eindeutig. Die Wissenschaft hat sich in den letzten Jahrzehnten grundlegend gewandelt, vor allem im Zuge der Globalisierung und Digitalisierung. Der «lokale Froschteich», in dem Forschende innerhalb ihrer Peer-Gruppe Berühmtheit erlangten, ist verschwunden. Stattdessen dominiert nun ein «Winner-takes-it-all»-System, in dem im globalen Wettbewerb nur ganz wenige Forschende wirklich erfolgreich sind.
In dieser neuen Welt spielen Glück und soziale Netzwerke eine entscheidende Rolle. Studien legen nahe, dass sich in der Regel nicht die talentiertesten Forschenden durchsetzen. Dafür gewinnt, wer an einem Thema, in einer Disziplin oder mit einer Methode arbeitet, die dem Zeitgeist entspricht. Wer früh gewisse Anfangserfolge hat, kann diese im Laufe der Zeit stets weiter ausbauen: mit Beiträgen in wichtigen Zeitschriften, mit angesehenen Forschungsstipendien und Preisen oder mit Berufungen an renommierte Universitäten.
Wenn einzelne Forschende ausgezeichnet werden, sendet dies ein falsches Signal an den Markt. Es erweckt den Eindruck, dass die Prämierten bessere Fähigkeiten besitzen als der Rest der Wissenschaftsgemeinde, was bei den anderen Frustrationen auslösen kann. Als Marktinsider wissen die Gewinnerinnen und Gewinner eigentlich, dass diese Botschaft nicht der Realität entspricht. Doch sie kann dazu führen, dass die Prämierten sich selbst überschätzen und letztlich glauben, dass sie talentierter sind als andere. Ausserdem entstehen Anreize für Fehlverhalten: Viele Betrugsfälle betrafen in letzter Zeit Personen, die besonders gefeiert worden waren und daraufhin den Bezug zur Realität verloren.
In Gruppen wirken solche Fehlsignale weniger stark. Wenn ein Team gewinnt, schwindet die Hybris. Auch die Frustration bei den «Verliererinnen» und «Verlierern» ist weniger gross, weil diese Preise nicht mehr einzelne Personen zu Helden erklären, sondern den Erfolg der Gruppe anerkennen. Natürlich kann ein System, das Gruppen belohnt, auch Nachteile haben. Meiner Meinung nach werden diese aber durch die Vorteile bei Weitem übertroffen.
Katja Rost, Professorin für Soziologie an der Universität Zürich, analysiert die Rolle von Glück und Matthäus-Effekten für den Erfolg.
The idea of giving scientific prizes to teams might be in line with the zeitgeist, but it’s still out of place.
The history of human knowledge suggests that it is individuals who produce brilliant, unorthodox ideas. Think of Descartes, Malthus or Einstein in the sciences, or Mozart and Picasso in the arts. They were usually well aware that the environment in which they worked and the people with whom they worked also played a role in their achievements. It also sometimes happened that more than one person had the same idea at about the same time. The best-known case is that of Darwin and Wallace. All the same, it’s not teams that come up with innovative ideas, but individuals. So it’s they who should be honoured with prizes.
And are others there just because of their status or their place in the hierarchy? Worse still: are some on the team just because they were able to acquire funds – maybe through knowing the right people? In such cases, we wouldn’t be giving a prize for innovative scientific achievement. We’d be awarding it for creating the administrative and financial conditions for research to take place. That can be important, but it’s surely not enough to merit a scientific prize. We would simply be honouring members of a bureaucracy that is already too dominant in research today.
Even in teams of three or four people, it can still remain open as to who contributed what. Most of the problems outlined above would apply to groups of any size, large or small – albeit to a lesser extent among the latter.
If prizes are given to large teams, it is surely only a matter of time before absolutely everyone gets a prize. That would greatly reduce both the incentive to excel in future, and the joy one feels when receiving a prize. Giving prizes to individual researchers, however, has a strong incentive effect. Those people become ambassadors for innovative ideas, providing the next generation of scientists with examples to imitate. And by giving scientific prizes to specific individuals, we also incentivise the non-winners to make a greater effort in future, in hopes of winning a prize themselves. Both these knock-on effects can promote future-oriented, provocative science.
Bruno S. Frey is the scientific director of the Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts in Zurich, and the author of books about honours and awards.
