>His experiment in cooperation with four other laboratories, he said, yielded “a very compelling body of data validated by many labs,” and has inspired the researchers to go on freely sharing with one another.”<
Would competition have produced a _more compelling body of data? Very likely if you ask me.
Competing anything involves massive duplication of effort and wasted talent. One day people will realize this.
http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previou...
"Tournament markets... discard huge amounts of very high-quality talent, training, and skill. In the mythic version, science rewards effort and ability... In the real world, casting off large numbers of extremely capable people is simply how a tournament market works."
For as long as everyone believes that the only alternative to cutthroat competition is sclerotic dictatorship, much human effort will continue to be thrown away in this manner. I give you Be, its patents bought up by patent trolls to prevent its technologies from ever being used:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BeOS
I give you Symbolics Genera, languishing in obscurity forever because of our society's obsession with property rights.
Possibly not, depending on how the experimental stratification was allocated among the labs. The press release about the research
http://newsroom.ucr.edu/news_item.html?action=page&id=20...
linked to from the submitted article doesn't make clear the nature of the collaboration among the various laboratories, but makes the claim that the previous competitive atmosphere among labs led to results that could not be replicated. Apparently the currently announced results have already been replicated.