Science Thrives on Trust: Why Collaboration Is Our Greatest Strength

In a competitive academic world, building bridges instead of walls may be our most powerful tool to accelerate discovery and rebuild public trust in science.

Written byPedro Leão, PhD
| 4 min read
Illustration of four arms working to assemble blue, orange, yellow, and white puzzle pieces.
Register for free to listen to this article
Listen with Speechify
0:00
4:00
Share

Science has long been portrayed as a solitary pursuit: a lone genius hunched over a bench, quietly unraveling the mysteries of the universe. But in today’s research landscape, that image couldn’t be further from reality—in fact, it never really was accurate.

When mathematician Timothy Gowers launched the Polymath Project in 2009, he invited the world to solve complex problems together online. Within weeks, a global team of mathematicians had tackled questions faster than any individual effort could. Likewise, the Human Genome Project—an achievement spanning thousands of scientists and dozens of institutions—remains one of the clearest demonstrations that collaboration, not competition, drives scientific breakthroughs.1

I’ve seen the power of collaboration firsthand. As a postdoctoral researcher in archaeal biologist Brett Baker’s group at the University of Texas at Austin, I studied the origin of eukaryotes. We had computational predictions about an archaeal origin of some eukaryotic immune mechanisms. I wanted to validate these experimentally, but we didn’t have this expertise on our team, so accomplishing these analyses would have taken our team months, if not years. To fill this crucial gap, I struck up an early collaboration with Ilya Finkelstein, a biophysicist, and his group at the University of Texas at Austin. The Finkelstein group, with their expertise in experimental molecular biology, joined forces with us, and they brilliantly conducted the experiments that validated our predictions. This partnership raised the quality of our work to an entirely different level—proof that combining strengths across disciplines accelerates discovery.

This was just the beginning of how collaborations influenced the quality of our work. As we prepared our manuscript, Aude Bernheim, a microbiologist at the Pasteur Institute, and her group were working independently on a very similar topic and approached us at a conference. Both groups had uncovered unique findings about the origins of viperins, a protein associated with antiviral activity found in all types of organisms. Rather than viewing each other as competitors, though, we appreciated how our results complemented each other and quickly recognized the opportunity to tell a much richer, more impactful story. Instead of worrying about "stealing novelty," we were reminded that science is not a zero-sum game.

While we worked independently on our respective papers, we openly shared updates and aligned the framing of our narratives, ensuring that the two studies together would provide a more complete view of the topic. Then, we coordinated our submission to the same journal at the same time. This was only possible because of trust: Both groups committed to transparency about their data, interpretations, and even storytelling strategies. It was an example of how openness within science fosters better science.

Yet despite these positive personal experiences, a deep tension remains in academia. Collaboration should be inherent to science—and often is—but the fear of being "scooped" can create barriers. Many researchers feel that sharing ideas makes them vulnerable to this publishing woe, even though ironically, the opposite is often true. Broadcasting your ideas early, whether through talks, social media, or preprints, is one of the best protections against being scooped. In a digital era where preliminary findings can be rapidly shared, visibility is a powerful way to establish leadership in a field while inviting collaboration rather than secrecy.

Additionally, the data show that cooperation launches and advances more careers than it stifles. Collaborative research papers, especially those involving multiple institutions, receive significantly more citations and have a broader impact.2 Moreover, interdisciplinary teams—bringing together biologists, engineers, and data scientists—consistently outperform single-discipline teams in driving innovation and breakthroughs in different fields of research.3

Building a truly collaborative research culture requires more than goodwill. Institutions and funding agencies can help by explicitly recognizing collaborative outputs, not just individual achievements, when evaluating grants, promotions, and awards. Journals can highlight cooperative studies and encourage joint submissions. Mentorship programs can teach young scientists that collaboration is a strength, not a compromise. And finally, labs and departments can create environments where sharing preliminary data (good or bad) is encouraged.

Importantly, the benefits of collaboration extend beyond the scientific community. In an era when public trust in science is fragile, how scientists interact with one another sends a powerful message. If we don't trust and work openly with our peers, how can we expect society to trust us? A recent research study showed that open science practices—sharing methods, data, and preliminary findings—can increase public confidence in scientific research.4 Transparency within science sets the standard for transparency toward society.

It’s tempting to view success as a race to the top, but the reality is more powerful: Scientific progress is a team sport. More work on a topic doesn't dilute its value; it strengthens it by adding perspectives, narratives, and new pieces to the puzzle. The next breakthrough won’t be the product of one mind alone. It will be born from many, composed not only of scientists exploring data, but also an engaging society that supports science.

  1. Vermeulen N, et al. Understanding life together: A brief history of collaboration in biology. Endeavour. 2013;37(3):162-171.
  2. Adams J. The fourth age of research. Nature. 2013;497(7451):557-560.
  3. Okamura K. Interdisciplinarity revisited: Evidence for research impact and dynamism. Palgrave Commun. 2019;5(1):141.
  4. Cole NL, et al. The societal impact of Open Science: A scoping review. R Soc Open Sci. 2024;11(6):240286.

Related Topics

Meet the Author

  • Photograph of Pedro Leão, a microbiologist studying archaeal biology at Radboud University. Leão is wearing a grey, V-neck t shirt and is smiling at the camera.

    Pedro Leão is a microbiologist and Assistant Professor at Radboud University. He advocates for open science, and the improvement of scientific impact and quality metrics.

    View Full Profile
Share
You might also be interested in...
Loading Next Article...
You might also be interested in...
Loading Next Article...
July Digest 2025
July 2025, Issue 1

What Causes an Earworm?

Memory-enhancing neural networks may also drive involuntary musical loops in the brain.

View this Issue
Screening 3D Brain Cell Cultures for Drug Discovery

Screening 3D Brain Cell Cultures for Drug Discovery

Explore synthetic DNA’s many applications in cancer research

Weaving the Fabric of Cancer Research with Synthetic DNA

Twist Bio 
Illustrated plasmids in bright fluorescent colors

Enhancing Elution of Plasmid DNA

cytiva logo
An illustration of green lentiviral particles.

Maximizing Lentivirus Recovery

cytiva logo

Products

The Scientist Placeholder Image

Sino Biological Sets New Industry Standard with ProPure Endotoxin-Free Proteins made in the USA

sartorius-logo

Introducing the iQue 5 HTS Platform: Empowering Scientists  with Unbeatable Speed and Flexibility for High Throughput Screening by Cytometry

parse_logo

Vanderbilt Selects Parse Biosciences GigaLab to Generate Atlas of Early Neutralizing Antibodies to Measles, Mumps, and Rubella

shiftbioscience

Shift Bioscience proposes improved ranking system for virtual cell models to accelerate gene target discovery