Ever-increasing competition for unfairly limited funding is backfiring. Territorial allocations and research topic fixing is hurting the creativity of researchers and specially demotivating the younger generation.

The title of this post may sound too provocative, but let me quote three dialogs, which I have witnessed in the last six months, to show how real this threat is. You may have heard such conversations as well.

1. Prof. A tells visitor B: “Your research suggestion is indeed interesting and we can do it but prof. C may want to do it as well, and he is a good friend.”
2. Young senior D replies to junior E’s proposal of trying slightly different samples: “Those kind of samples are investigated by Prof. F and this is a very competitive field.”
3. Senior G, who is planning to submit a proposal, hears about the intention of Prof. H, who works on a similar subject and wants to submit a proposal as well. He decides to make sure their proposal titles are different before submission.

For a PhD student, who once chose a career in science to nurture his creativity, these observations are very disappointing. It is no more just the old boys network’s habit of citing friends and inviting them for conferences. My general feeling is that this attitude toward fixing research topics is nowadays a rule rather than an exception. Following this unwritten rule is encouraged by the rocketing expenses of contemporary research, the lack of enough transparency in reviewing proposals and articles, too limited number of academic positions, and too much quantification of scientists’ merits. Furthermore, the old fashioned hiring and grant allocation system which gives more and more power to those who are qualified as “prominent” by the criteria posed by themselves, or their network, acts as a positive feedback loop in forming closed clusters of researchers who try to peacefully share the available resources and avoid any friction inside their sector.

Just look at the definition of Cartel in wikipedia: “A cartel is a formal (explicit) agreement among competing firms. It is a formal organization of producers that agree to coordinate prices, marketing, and production”. I am afraid that we do see the same phenomenon among researchers and hence the title of this post. Imagine that a whole generation of researchers grow up with the attitude that they must make peace with their competitors and benefit from the friendship, instead of more hardworking or genuine production. As this attitude reaches the head of the system, no young force will ever be able to penetrate the system without obeying the cartel rules. This is like letting the Oil industry be responsible for developing renewable sources of energy or asking Microsoft to regulate new Operating System platforms.

Maybe I am too pessimistic about the urbanization of worldwide research system, where individuals are no more free to cross the lines  just for pleasing their talents and must follow the community rules. But, if the free soul of scientific innovation, and any other form of creative development, falls in the trap of “more compromise for less struggle”, there would be no way back.

Follow