TAG of the Week: The Solo Act vs. Team Science
Highly collaborative teams produce results. Science is a diverse and highly dynamic field that requires the interaction of different scientists. Think back on the pair-bonding paper, which fields of science can you identify? Team building is now occurring across institutions. Why do you think that this is effective? What are ways do you think that it might slow down the work flow? From the graph with the nodes, do you think that certain groups are "cliquey" in their research? Does this enhance or detract from scientific research?
Click on article link:
In the article, researchers found that the number of collaborative papers doubled since 2006. They also found that researchers were more likely to collaborate within their own departments and institutions. For instance, the first author, Hughes, who is a baseball fan, elaborated on the fact that even in completely different fields like baseball—they measure performance quantitatively. He contends that the same should be done for science. His statement goes to show that all fields should not only collaborate with each other, but that they should also share ideas. From the graph with the nodes, I think the medical group is the most prevalent in research, which realistically makes sense. The general medicine field is also connected to most other fields in the graph. On the other hand, the "cliquiest" in their research seems to be oncology which is isolated in the far left. It’s good to see that they interact with the fields of general medicine and pediatrics, but they should enhance their scope --- as cancer is in fact one of the leading causes of death in the US. It is important to note that this article was written last year however, so research could actually be blooming in their field. In the pair bonding article by Walum et al, “Genetic Variation in the Vasopressin receptor 1a gene (AVPR1A) associates with pair‐bonding behavior in humans,” I can identify several fields: Medical Epidemiology, Biostatistics, Pharmacology, Neuroscience and Physiology, Psychology, and Behavioral and Social Sciences. Further, the very National Institute on Aging funded the research for this paper as well as the National Institute of Mental Health. Overall, I think team building is hugely effective across institutions because humans in themselves are complex creatures impacted by a multifactorial process, therefore, fields must take a holistic approach to better target our diverse needs.
ReplyDeleteThe research discussed in the article shows that highly collaborative teams do in fact produce more results. Researchers of Penn's Institute for Translational Medicine and Therapeutics (ITMAT) applied quantitative methods to evaluate the collaborative nature of academic science and medicine and found that, as T. Contreras mentioned above, the number of collaborative papers doubled and researchers were more likely to collaborate within their own departments and institutions than between them. The study has concluded that these results could help inform decisions about which institutes, centers, or departments are most likely to facilitate collaboration, and learn how they're doing it, while also aiding cross disciplinary collaboration efforts between departments. Team building is certainly occurring across institutions and I believe that it is extremely effective because each individual is able to contribute his or her own input and the group's collaborative efforts are able to shape the research towards the group's primary specialty. If each person in a team solely did individual work, progress would be minimal in research efforts, which is why it is necessary for a team to work together, assign roles, collaborate, and then move forward. From the graph with the nodes in the article, although certain groups such as oncology and psychiatry may be slightly "cliquey" in their research, I think that each discipline is specialized for the researchers in the field and it is best for them to work within what they are most familiar with and confident in. However, they not be unwilling to expand and research in collaboration with other fields if it could be more potentially beneficial. Overall, consistent collaboration within teams/fields, as well as increased interdisciplinary collaboration between the different teams/fields, are necessary for improvement and greater results in research.
ReplyDeleteWithin the pair boding article I, like T. Contreras, was able to identify 6 different fields; social sciences, neuroscience and physiology, medical epidemiology, pharmacology, psychology, and bio-stats. I believe team building across institutions is effective because different institutions have access to different resources and may differ on their perspective from which they view a problem. By collaborating these ideas the group may be able to view the problem in a way that individually they would have not. It may disrupt work flow because it may be difficult to coordinate the schedules of all the individuals from all of the institutions. Certain groups, such as pediatrics, neurology and psychology, do appear to be more cliquey than others but this may be because their fields do not overlap on as many issues as the other fields. I do not think that this cliquey-ness enhances or distracts from the research and that perhaps the community as a whole has not reached a point to incorporate their expertise.
ReplyDeleteBased on the pair bonding article, it is evident that there are 6 different fields: social sciences, neuroscience and physiology, bio statistics, medical epidemiology, pharmacology, and psychology. When it comes to team building, I think that this is extremely effective because everyone that comes from a different institution has a different point of view based on their field, a different way of thinking about things. When coming together with all of these different schools of thoughts, etc. it will be easier to get further in ou research and advancements. The only possible way that this idea might slow down the work flow is because there may be so many different institutions involved that it would take time for everyone to come together and share, building, and put their ideas to work. However, I think that the results will be even better than when done without institutions using the idea of team building.
ReplyDeleteIt seems like from the graph with nodes there is definitely institutions that can be considered "cliquey". As T. Contreras already stated, it is evident that the group that is seem further from the rest, isolated, is the oncology group. Obviously, this is a group considered to be a part of the overall medical group so this would only hurt any future medical advancements. Perhaps specifically those that could be achieved in the oncology field.
In the pair bonding article many scientific fields were used on including: epidemiology, biostatistics, pharmacology, neuroscience, physiology, and psychology. I think that team building is effective because it allows scientists to be involved with even more studies than if they were working alone. The occurrence of co-authorship across institutions shines a light on the importance of higher education and expansion of knowledge. This seems to remove the competition and race to be the first to make a discovery but rewards academia for collaborating and helping each other out. This is a positive image to show students so that in the future a majority of people working in the science field will benefit from their coworkers knowledge and work. We have learned from the Human Genome Project that collaboration can make discoveries that might not have been possible if one scientist was working on and also at greatly increased speeds. The lack of competition, however, may slow the rate of work. If scientists all take on too much work because they are doing multiple projects with multiple partners they may be overwhelmed and not able to finish with speed and expertise that they might once have if working alone. According to the picture I think that certain groups are cliquey which could hurt the progression of research but limiting who works with whom. The greatest scientists could collaborate but the association with a particular institution or department may hold them back. Two minds are better than one regardless of where the other scientist works!
ReplyDeleteAs previously mentioned, the fields in the pair-bonding article are medical epidemiology and biostatistics, neuroscience and physiology, pharmacology, psychology, and behavioral and social sciences. In this article, team building was effective in that each department brought a different background and point of view in order to make an association between a single gene and a behavior, which is a very complicated association to make.
ReplyDeleteWorking across instead of within institutions may hinder work flow in that one department may believe their point of view deserves more significance than another. However, collaboration across all fields is necessary for the future since it has been shown that health is determined by multiple factors including genetics, behavior and the environment. In order to account for this complexity, fields such as oncology, which shockingly seems to be one of the most isolated disciplines, have to reach out in order to increase productivity and move medicine as a whole into the future.
I think that team building across multiple fields is crucial to advancement toward the most thorough outcomes. Virtually every single field is multi-faceted and can benefit from various outside perspectives. Particularly in the health field, where success is critical to the overall population health, it is critical that we draw from across the spectrum and incoporate any and all imformation that may be of benefit. Sometimes specialists in fields that initially seem the most unrelated can surprise you with the most to offer. Different perspectives allow people to look at different parts of a situation or project and can sometimes make crucial observations that have been missed by those working most closely. Although some fields tend to be "cliquey," I think that this is only harming them by not allowing them to be open minded to new perspectives that could significantly further their research.
ReplyDeleteAs others have mentioned, collaboration and teamwork in science leads to faster advancements than without teamwork. What the graph in the article shows makes perfect sense. As D. Choi said, people likely feel most comfortable and interested in research in their own field and probably think that they can produce the best results when they stay in their comfort zone. There are downfalls though, to the the fields being "cliquey" with others in their department. As E. Snack said, scientists are limiting their perspectives by only working with each other. Some groups were more isolated than others, particularly pediatrics. But if collaboration within departments lead to such an increase in publications (doubled since 2006), the possibilities are probably endless if there was more collaboration within fields. Collaborative efforts lead to new information on amazing things like pair-bonding and the human genome. Even though in the past it has made sense for people to stay within their department, to continue moving forward will require team building among departments and not just within. -Becca Adlman
ReplyDeleteI believe teamwork is positive when doing research because it is important to have multiple opinions when trying to find new discoveries. I think that by working with numerous people, the team can be more creative as they can have multiple influences. Additionally, on a team each individual brings different backgrounds and experiences. These differences can then spin the research into new fields and can be even more beneficial than the original "plan." I also think it is important to work in a team for complex projects because it allows the individuals within the team to bounce ideas off one another. This sharing of information can cause an overall good and enlightenment among the team members. It also can increase the progress within the project because the information is being spread among everyone, which can reduce the likelihood of repeated procedures.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do feel that group work does have some downsides. If the team is unable to work cohesively with one-another there may be issues when trying to complete the necessary tasks. This could reduce productivity and could even cause turmoil for all individuals in the group. Thus, I think it is important when working in the group to keep the main focus in mind and to not let petty disagreements or differences ruin the overall production of work.
In the pair bonding paper we read there were many scientific fields used. Like everyone has said there were the following fields: social sciences, neuroscience and physiology, bio statistics, medical epidemiology, pharmacology, and psychology. In this case collaborating across disciplines obviously had significant benefits.
ReplyDeleteI feel like team building over different scientific disciplines is always a good idea because that just makes it possible to use more and more information. People who are trained in different disciplines solve problems differently and this will help in achieving the task at hand. However there are downsides. Sometimes these differences can cause conflict. There can be issues with how task should be completed or in what order. In addition to conflicts from different personalities, there is also a lot of overlay between scientific disciplines which can lead to people being confused about what they have ‘jurisdiction’ over. Overall I personally think the goods outweigh the bad.
This article illustrates how working in highly collaborative teams does in fact produce more effective results. The ITMAT team applied quantitative methods to evaluate the effects of working in this collaborative nature and did indeed find that the number of papers for the members doubled since 2006. Michael Hughes, one of the researcher members, compared how we analyze scientific performance to baseball performance, and found that we should be measuring it quantitatively like they do in baseball. ITMAT, which was founded in 2004 as the world’s first translational medicine institute, reasoned that its increased productivity is due to how it facilitates collaborations between its researchers. I think that one of the main reasons why this team building idea is so successful and effective is mainly due to them sharing ideas and building off of each others thoughts. This, ultimately, will lead to stronger research results and more productivity. From the graph with the nodes, it seems evident that from the medical field, the oncology group seems to be the most “cliquey”. Team building and highly collaborative teams seems to be a very effective way for different institutions to produce more effective results, which is needed in our complex world.
ReplyDeleteWorking in collaborative teams is essential in all aspects of life when one wants to come to the best result possible. Some of the feilds mentioned in the article touched on social sciences, bio-statistical sciences, psycology, and several other feilds. Team building in scientific feilds is neccessary due to the need for large amounts of information to be developed. Individuals are trained in various different feilds and the ability to bring the vast areas of trainig into one area can benifit the outcomes of science 10 fold, but can also have a negative effect due to scientists having various beliefs and morals. From my personal history with team building, I believe that team building can only benifit the feild of science and the downfalls will be as minimal as possible.
ReplyDeleteTeam building is now occurring across institutions because, as discussed in the article, highly collaborative teams produce results. This seems logical because by bringing different fields of knowledge together more connections and elaborations can happen. The extra perspectives shed light on ideas others could not have seen because they don’t share the same body of experiences and knowledge. By coming together these people are spreading information and creating knowledge for others. This is productive in the sense that ideas are being created not independent of others where it becomes counterproductive to use limited resources in competition with one another and to withhold important data and information. Work flow however may be hindered by the varying protocols and procedure within different fields of study or even within different departments. I also agree with N.Stump, where there is a grey area of scientific ‘jurisdictions’ that may cause conflicts where experts disagree or in determining whose voice is heard. Like others have mentioned, it does seem as though Radiology/Oncology and Neurology seems very “cliquey” in their research, and it may hinder and detract from scientific research. It may just be a matter of time before they branch out. Like others have mentioned, with regards to the pair-bonding paper, 6 different fields can be identified- social sciences, neuroscience and physiology, medical epidemiology, pharmacology, psychology, and bio-stats.
ReplyDeleteThis article highlights how beneficial working collaboratively in teams can be to scientific research. While there does seem to be a problem with departmental cliques, this seems natural. Researchers who have connections in their department will naturally work among others with whom they have already established associations. Also, scientists who focus in psychiatry may only want to consult other researchers who share the same specialty because they are experts in their field. In this article, the graph shows that certain fields, including pediatrics, do in fact have a cliquey nature. I agree with the article which states that it is important to encourage “cross-disciplinary interactions” to increase research outcomes. When scientists of different backgrounds work together, new ideas are more likely to be produced because each individual has a unique perspective on their research. I found this article interesting because I never gave thought to how some medical specialties might have cliquey tendencies in respect to performing scientific research. The article explains that if scientists would come together and unite for the purpose of research, science would progress at a faster rate. In order to enhance further research, it is necessary to encourage multi-disciplinary team efforts among researchers. As stated by other students, I concur that two minds are better than one when it comes to solving complex scientific issues.
ReplyDeleteI, like the posters above me, believe that it is extremely beneficial for interdepartmental collaboration to occur in order to advance the field of science. If members of all scientific specialities worked together in terms of research, science would undoubtably progress at a faster rate, as the article mentioned. The benefits of team work lie outside the fact that each individual brings something new to the table, but relies in the reality that narrowing the spectrum to which one chooses to work from stunts the progression of the research. For instance, if scientific studies are being conducted to evaluate the causes of Alzhiemer's Disease and to ultimately find a cure, most people would choose the neurologist for help. From there, the neurologist would choose colleagues in his field and the research would be exclusive to neurological science. However, if other specialty scientists were included in the field, progression could occur at a much faster rate and the possibility that something outside of the field of neurology could be discovered as a source or even an indirect cause of the aforementioned disease. This goes for any type of research that has yet to yield successful results. Because of these viewsl, I agree with previous statements that it is better for interdepartmental collaborations to occur in order to advance the field of science and solve the medical issues that continuously affect the different populations of the world.
ReplyDeleteTeamwork across institutions can increase productivity and allows for new insights into the study in question. As many others have said, ITMAT has shown that collaborations between departments have produced double the amount of papers since 2006.
ReplyDeleteThough teamwork and collaborations are great, there are times where these practices may slowdown progress. If we take the US Homeland Security agency and agencies such as the CIA and FBI for example, there should be cooperation between these different departments, allowing for continuous flow of information that would benefit everyone, including the citizens of the United States. However, information is purposefully witheld from certain departments due to greediness and the fear of other departments coming up with new findings and receiving all the credit. This analogy can be used within the science community as well.
if we take a look at the graph, certain departments within the science community have their own niche, such as the pediatrics and psychiatry. This type of "cliquey-ness" in the science community can detract from advance in science.
For the constant advancement of science and abroad, there needs to be cooperation within all communities in their respective fields. There is only so much one aspect of science can provide without the help and insight of others.
team building is extremely effective as it can help scientists learn from each other, not just their research. ITMAT has shown that departments have been collaborations and have produced double the amount of papers since 2006. This is a great thing for everyone as more knowledge is being spread about. This may slow down team in the beginning but eventually I think this will speed up the process much more. When scientists learn to cooperate and help each other out, then we will be able to learn much more and help out the general population more more effectively. While some groups may be "cliquey" most of the articles in the graph seemed to be affiliated with another branch or co-authored by someone of a different field. It is hard to stay within one field in science as they all overlap.
ReplyDeleteIn agreement with everyone else, I think collaboration is absolutely key to producing sound scientific research. I think one thing that has not been highlighted yet is the growing movement in public health to incorporate in all different fields into public health research. For example, on the editorial board of the AJPH, there are a wide variety of MDs, RNs, educators, and and other educators. In relation to the article, we can see that there are certain subgroups of research specialities, but I think the overall trend is a movement towards collaboration and integration between a lot of different fields in publishing new research.
ReplyDeleteIncorporating team building across institutions can be very valuable to scientific research and the field as a whole. Collaborative efforts between individuals and teams allow many different individuals strengths to be utilized in doing a project. However, collaborative work also carries the potential to decrease work flow. This may occur if too many ideas are being said, or if individuals working on the project have friction and do not get alone. With many different individuals working together, there are many different styles of work and work rates, which may slow down the overall progress of a research project. A potential downfall of the creation of teams is that there may be cliques that form due to personal recognition with a specific group. I believe this has the potential to be both beneficial or harmful to scientific research. Competition between groups and cliques may motivate the groups to continue their research in a timely manner, and continue to further their specific field of science. The only time cliques may be considered harmful would be if the competition between the groups created a lack of information flow between the two groups. It is imperative for the scientific community to communicate and share ideas, research, theories, and findings. If this communication is inhibited in any way, important findings may be missed.
ReplyDeleteMedical Epidemiology, Biostatistics, Pharmacology, Neuroscience and Physiology, Psychology, and Behavioral and Social Sciences as have already been mentioned are the fields of science where a lot of interaction between fields occurs. On a personal level I believe cooperation and collaboration from various fields produces better results to on objective goal. By allowing individuals in these fields to specialize in an aspect of a project that particularly connects to their field, it enables the group to produce an end result with greater quality and rigor, because it enables individuals from cross disciplines to focus on meticulous details and provide insight that another individual might have overlooked.
ReplyDeleteLack of communication between fields may present itself as a major obstacle that gets in the way of the group’s productivity. By not sharing data and information, different fields might have to reproduce research findings to get results and information they need in order to implement a program or produce a project.
Based upon the connections linking sectors of the health discipline in the nodal graph, it appears as if the connectivity between Medicine, Pathology, Psychiatry, Pharmacology, Rad/Onocology, Pediatrics, Radiology, Anesthesia, Neurology, and Other are extremely dense and intertwined that it is difficult to distinguish one clique. It seems as if all these fields are more so co-dependent on one another than “cliquey” per say. I believe this codependence will enhance research, because the different fields can bring in different insights that may have been overlooked by another field.
I absolutely think that the move toward collaboration is a good thing. The medical field encompasses quite a lot of the research being done, and especially in the U.S., it is filled with specialists that have very high levels of training in one specific subject. On their own, these specialists have quite a narrow scope of how and what they want to research. However, if they work with other researchers, they become valuable members of a team which has more viewpoints and options available to it.
ReplyDeleteThe nodal graph shows that the different health disciplines are much less “cliquey” than I would have guessed. It is hard to distinguish any one group that is not somehow connected with several of the others. If any of them are more separate than the rest, it looks like radiology and oncology are sort of off to the edge of the graph a little bit.
In this article the following scientific areas were focused on more specifically: medical epidemiology, pharmacology, medical epidemiology, social sciences, neuroscience, physiology, and psychology; developments across these multiple fields are essential toward better outcomes. Team building across these different fields is also very important. This is so because each field is multi-faceted and has the potential to gain from outside perspectives and fresh outlooks. I agree with the article which states that it is important to encourage “cross-disciplinary interactions.” When scientists or professionals of different background work in unison, new more effective ideas are more likely to arise because each scientist has unique perspective as a result of their specific field, which can thus result in more effective research. It wasn’t until this article that I realized how some medical specialties might have cliquey tendencies in respect to performing scientific research, if they would just work together with other specialties, more discovers and procedures can be created.
ReplyDeleteThe article mentions that researchers found that the number of collaborative papers doubled since 2006, and in my opinion I do not find these statistics to be surprising at all. It makes perfect sense that different areas would work together and incorporate all of these different ideas together. These different fields including medical epidemiology, pharmacology, medical epidemiology, neuroscience, physiology, psychology, and the social sciences all seem to cooperate and honestly in my opinion I do not see why it took so long for these groups to collaborate and wonder why they waited until 2006. It is obvious that working together would only create better results and is much more effective than working alone. The old saying “two heads are better than one” definitely applies in this scenario because it would seem to be that there is far more potential for great and effective results when team work and cooperation is involved rather than working alone, or in this case, being limited to one single field. It would be far more beneficial if different aspects of all of these fields were working together because it enables people to think outside of the box.
ReplyDeleteThe graph does not show that there is much “cliqueness” involved amongst the different aspects and that in fact the groups are very much intertwined and cooperative. However the only group that does seem to be a bit isolated is oncology. Apparently they are the only group that has not come around to the new trend of reaping the benefits from good old teamwork!