On Reward Systems

Motivations set goals—they define a conceptual space within which we perceive the world, and within which we manifest our general desires to achieve. In his 1988 seminal book Science as a Process, David Hull puts forth that science is driven by combinatory cooperation and competition; and that what makes science good is the connection between the motivations and goals of individual scientists, and the goals of science itself. Neither cooperation nor competition is indispensable, though science is distinguished by an interplay between these two ideals. This synergy emerges from science’s intrinsic reward system and the framework in which it functions.

Hull contends that the primary professional motivation for the individual scientist is the desire for recognition; and the most significant type of recognition in science is use. Scientists strive to have their work employed by other scientists—with proper attention paid to citation, naturally, as credit must be given where credit is due. For Hull, this procedure of practical application and mandatory citation is of paramount importance, and is the dominant motivational mechanism for scientists. Each scientist acquires the concepts, theories and methods of their respective fields from the great minds who came before them, thus establishing a sort of genealogy of recognition.

Since the aspiration to create work that is used and cited comes with the requirement that one must use and cite the work of others, a modicum of trust and a spirit of cooperation is necessary. Those whose demand to know whether they can have confidence in experimental results is exigent will attempt to replicate them. Replicability of experimental results is vital, and lack thereof is indicative of untrustworthiness. The discovery of fraudulent results has the potential to be devastating for all those whose work had been predicated upon the deception. With such a thoughtful and thorough community, it is in everyone’s best interest to remain honest and ethical when reporting results.

Both curiosity and the desire for recognition are basic motivational characteristics in humans—let alone scientists. According to Hull, individuals who do not find the reward system found in science to be satisfying “might never finish graduate school”. Indeed, the essence of competition that is ingrained in science may not be appealing to all; and while competition is only one aspect of the process, it encourages us to strive for something. A collaborative spirit is an invaluable asset which should not be underestimated; but we only find out what we are made of when we are pushing our own limits. The delicate balance of competition and cooperation is a difficult line to toe, but those who are able to strike this balance are good for science as a whole.