Puzzles & Links: A Note on Collaboration in Science
Published on Sep 27, 2025 01:15 AM
Nothing truly valuable can be achieved except by the unselfish cooperation of many individuals - Albert Einstein.
The quest for independence in the present world has resulted in many people cultivating the attitude of solving every single problem they confront by themselves. Whether it is to avoid anybody else from laying claim to the success or a means of increasing personal productivity is beyond the purview of this piece. This piece addresses the need for and presents a psychological incentive to achieving scientific collaboration.
We save resources when we ask for and receive help from others. Although there is a general notion that people we turn to for help may think less of us, research shows otherwise. Heidi Grant, the author of ‘Reinforcements: How to Get People to Help You’, puts it succinctly in a Harvard Review interview she granted, 'Basically, the idea is: if I help you, I want to like you. We want to be consistent in what we do, so we believe that if I helped someone, I must like them’. An extension of this idea is 'the Benjamin Franklin effect' - a cognitive bias that makes you like someone more after doing them a favour, especially if you were neutral towards or disliked them before. Well, that this idea holds true doesn't mean it works for everyone or on every occasion.
"We save resources when we ask for and receive help from others. Although there is a general notion that people we turn to for help may think less of us, research shows otherwise."
Now, to science...
In this era of complex problems, a multidisciplinary approach to finding answers is becoming the status quo. It is common for biological research to involve chemistry expertise, especially because living organisms have chemical processes going on within them, and the tools of biology are modest in answering all the questions that could arise from studying them. The introduction of technology and informatics into biological research has also opened up diverse avenues for collaborative research between biologists and computer/data scientists. With such collaborative efforts, the progress made in understanding complex biological systems has been astounding and will have immense applications in the future of medicine.
However, starting a collaborative venture is not as easy as it sounds. A seemingly harmless collaboration might cause conflict and resentment if mishandled. Here are a few issues to consider if you want to navigate scientific collaborations successfully:
Establish the relevance of the collaboration: It is important to ensure that there is a need for collaboration in the first place. Researchers from less-privileged backgrounds usually want to collaborate with well-known researchers to leverage their expertise. Sometimes these collaborations are borne out of the need to get a well-known researcher’s name on a publication and not because there is an actual need. Take Femi, for example, who needs to submit a publication for a grant application next year in the area of molecular biology. He contacts Dr Kremlin, who is well-known in the area of human genetics, for a potential partnership on the project (even though Femi and his team are fully capable of handling the project). Femi expects that Dr Kremlin would contribute to the research conception, but the latter is very busy and cannot fulfil this expectation. Many months down the line, the paper is ready, and Dr Kremlin did not contribute significantly to the paper but was eventually included in the list of authors. Ideally, Femi should not include Dr Kremlin in the list of authors, but because leaving him out might affect the relationship he has with Dr Kremlin and because he needs Dr Kremlin’s name on the paper to succeed in the grant application, he is forced to include Dr Kremlin’s name. Establishing the need to collaborate in the first place is a huge step toward avoiding cases of ethical dilemma.
Discuss the expectations of team members: It is pertinent to discuss what everyone expects to get out of the project. Does Sonya need the paper to finish her doctoral dissertation? Does Azeez want to patent a process used in the project? These expectations must be discussed. If Azeez fails to raise his expectations during the project discussion, the paper might be published, and he will not be able to patent his process (publicly available data in published form cannot be patented in retrospect). If Femi had communicated with Dr Kremlin about the need for his contribution to the conceptualisation, it could have helped Dr Kremlin to decline or decide to offer some contribution. People are more likely to contribute if they know that other people expect them to. Authorship MUST also be discussed, as it can be a slippery subject that can potentially cause conflict or resentment.
Discuss task-sharing: Everyone on the team needs to know what aspects of the project they are handling. A team may need to contribute to the animal studies or do chemical analysis, or handle the writing of the paper. Accountability and tracking the progress of the paper will be much more organised with task-sharing.
Clear communication and regular feedback: Feedback on the progress of the project, in the form of meetings or calls, is necessary at regular intervals. It helps to ensure everyone is on track towards the deadline set for the project.
Discuss the expectations for data obtained: It is necessary to discuss whether the data can be made open and to whom the data can be made available. This will prevent research scooping or data falling into the wrong hands.
The future of scientific research will involve confronting problems with an arsenal made up of experts in different fields. Much of the developed world has greatly leveraged this understanding and currently reaps its benefits. It is relevant that areas of rapidly advancing scientific research understand the need for collaboration and embrace it fully.
Newsletter Feature: Written by Adeboye Bamgboye