Browse by author
Lookup NU author(s): Dr Bruce Charlton
Full text for this publication is not currently held within this repository. Alternative links are provided below where available.
The modern world is characterized by progressive specialization of function and ever-larger-scale coordination of these ever-more-specialized functions. More and more of science is done by increasing-sized teams of specialists, and the ability to engage in 'teamwork' is regarded as an almost essential attribute for most scientists. But teamwork does not suit all personality types. Some 'maverick' individuals would rather have personal credit for a relatively modest scientific contribution which they achieved (mostly) by themselves, than a share of credit in a much larger scientific contribution generated by a large team. The present system of medical science is organized to discourage mavericks and, on the whole, this is probably justifiable on the basis that scientists are not natural team players. Extra inducements are necessary to get people to adopt the relatively self-effacing behaviours necessary for building the large organizations of complementary specialists that are necessary for tackling many of the most intractable modern scientific problems. However, an ethos of teamwork does carry substantial disadvantages. Although most scientists are dispensable, and do not make a significant personal contribution, the very best scientists do make a difference to the rate of progress of science. And top notch scientists are wasted as team players. The very best scientists can function only as mavericks because they are doing science for vocational reasons. The highest intensity of personal commitment requires individual rewards from distinctive contributions. In conclusion, the current incentive system that encourages teamwork involves a trade-off. The majority of modestly talented scientists can probably achieve more when working as members of a team. But the very best scientists probably need to work as mavericks. © 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Author(s): Charlton BG
Publication type: Editorial
Publication status: Published
Journal: Medical Hypotheses
Year: 2008
Volume: 71
Issue: 2
Pages: 165-167
ISSN (print): 0306-9877
ISSN (electronic): 1532-2777
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2008.04.022
DOI: 10.1016/j.mehy.2008.04.022
