Hannah Devlin Science
correspondent
Cut-throat atmosphere in
world-class labs and conferences closer to House of Cards than Big Bang Theory,
says Swiss academic
It is the enduring scientist
stereotype: socially awkward, unkempt appearance, and more concerned with
cracking the laws of nature than anything as trivial as social status.
The reality could not be more
different, according to an academic who says science is falling victim to a
crisis of narcissism.
According to Bruno Lemaitre,
an immunologist at the EPFL research institute in Switzerland, it is no longer
enough to be right – or even to get there first.
Reaching the top of the
scientific hierarchy increasingly depends on a glittering media profile,
publishing in “trophy journals” and cultivating a network of academic frenemies
who are treated as close allies until they become obstacles in the path to
academic glory.
Speaking last week at
the MRC London Institute of Medical
Sciences, Lemaitre described the cut-throat atmosphere of world-class
laboratories and international conferences as closer to House of Cards than The
Big Bang Theory.
“Many great scientists are
narcissists. It’s a bit sad, but it’s a fact,” he said. “This might surprise an
external observer, because scientists are usually perceived as being modest
searchers for the truth and working collectively for the advancement of
science.”
Lemaitre is not suggesting his
profession is unique in having experienced a rise in individualism – politics,
film or fashion are probably worse and the trend is global, he says, but it has
some worrying implications that are specific to science.
“The influence of narcissism
on so many aspects of science calls into question [its] very objectivity,” he
said.
The replication
crisis in psychology and the life sciences, in which “sexy” papers
fail to stand up to closer scrutiny, can be blamed in part on scientists being
motivated by a need for attention and authority as well as curiosity about the
natural world, he said.
One study claiming that
adopting a power pose makes you feel bolder, was debunked several times, but
only after a TED
talk based on the original research became the second most watched of
all time. Overall, 64% of psychology findings in top journals cannot be
reproduced.
The problem was made worse,
Lemaitre said, by funding bodies’ preoccupation with rankings, metrics and
impact, and by a failure to reward scientists for correcting the record with
meticulous, but unflashy results.
The reliance on peer review
for publishing papers and awarding grants allows narcissists, characterised by
a Machiavellian ability to manipulate others, to network their way to success.
Even the relative lack of
female professors - women tend to score less highly on narcissistic personality
traits - can be linked to the issue, according to Lemaitre.
He was prompted to
investigate, and write a
book, on the subject after his former boss, the immunologist Jules Hoffman,
was awarded the 2011 Nobel prize for a discovery that Lemaitre alleged was
largely his own work. Hoffman has
previously pointed out that he credited the contributions of his
former colleague in his Nobel lecture.
This subjective account aside,
there is some evidence to support the theory that narcissism is on the rise in
academia, and that it could be a professionally advantageous trait.
One
US study, which found a steady increase in students’ scores on a narcissism
questionnaire over two decades, with almost two-thirds of recent college
students scoring above the mean 1979–85 score, a 30% increase.
Other
research has found that people who scored highly on the narcissism
scale were no more creative on average, but they were far better at pitching
creative ideas.
Erica Hepper, a psychologist
at Surrey University who has studied narcissism, said: “There is some evidence
that narcissists do manage to get ahead over people who are more modest.
“They are going to be the ones
who take credit for the efforts of a team and claim all the glory regardless of
how much they put in. That definitely rings true in science.”
According to Hepper,
narcissism is defined by grandiose self-belief, seeking power and attention and
a belief that you have achieved everything on your own.
These traits might be
irritating in a colleague, she said, but narcissists could also serve a
purpose.
“They’re willing to take
risks, they’re often quite creative,” she said. “While they can be difficult to
work with and quite toxic on a personal level they can also be inspirational.”
Lemaitre concedes that
bombastic individuals can help to promote the value of science to politicians
and the public, but even this can become a nuisance.
“In the end all the
universities are recruiting lots of [PRs] and lots of money is burned in things
that are not necessarily positive for the system,” he said.
Narcissists are not evenly
distributed throughout the world of science, according to Lemaitre, but tend to
cluster in fashionable fields and at historic or wealthy laboratories, such as
the Pasteur Institute, Rockefeller University and the Crick Institute in
London.
“They enjoy jargon and
specific language. I suspect that immunology in the past attracted narcissists,
but today neuroscience is probably the place to go,” he said.
As a scientist, there are
telltale signs that you might have a prime specimen in your midst.
“When you do a collective
project with a narcissist at the end he has the feeling that he has done
everything,” said Lemaitre.
Other clues include the
constellation of academic titles in an email signature, constant monitoring of
one’s “H-index”, a metric of how many highly-cited papers a scientist has
authored, and referring to rivals’ research as “pedestrian”.
“Sometimes, even the mating
pattern of a narcissistic professor can appear strategic when it reinforces his
position in the faculty or highlights his power,” he said.
Lemaitre provides several
strategies for dealing with a narcissistic colleague. First, do not fall prey
to their social charm.
“You have a conversation at a
meeting, there’s a nice atmosphere, you tell them what you’re working on,” he
said. “They go back into their lab and say ‘I had an idea in the night’.”
Second, be aware that they are
unlikely to change and avoid any emotional involvement.
Finally, and possibly the most
effective, avoid talking to them or about them, denying them the attention they
crave. “The day that no one looks at a celebrity, they will disappear,” he
said.
Not everyone in science,
however, is convinced that a crisis exists.
Lord Martin Rees, emeritus
professor of cosmology and astrophysics at the University of Cambridge and the
Astronomer Royal, said: “The range of personality types among scientists is
broad, but on average certainly no more venal or reprehensible than those of
other professions. Surely there’s less narcissism among us nerds than in the
performing arts.”
Prof Bob Lanza, a prominent US
stem cell scientist, who is described on his website as
“the living embodiment of the character played by Matt Damon in the movie Good
Will Hunting”, said high levels of self-belief were common in science, and
sometimes even necessary to get ahead.
“But while it can lead to
passion and drive, it can also be destructive and counterproductive. Depends on
whether they’re right or not.”.
And how would LeMaitre rate
himself? He reports that his score on the narcissistic personality
inventory (NPI) is surprisingly low.
No comments:
Post a Comment