The Gollum Effect

[gleem]

Recently a scientific article came to my attention related to aberrant professional behavior of not sharing data or methods or impeding competing research of other investigators. This often interfered with the development of early investigators. It has become known as the “Gollum Effect” after the character in J. R. R. Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings” who obsessively guarded one of the rings of power in that series. The full paper available through this website presents a summary of the first large study of this effect in the areas of ecology, evolution, and conservation.

The next question is how prevalent is it in other disciplines.

Abstract:

The academic culture is often characterized by hyper-competitive pressures and steep hierarchies, which can drive inappropriate possessiveness over research topics and resources - a phenomenon termed the "Gollum effect." While anecdotal accounts suggest this is common, its true prevalence and impact remain unknown. This study presents the first large-scale, empirical investigation of the Gollum effect, drawing on survey responses from over 400 participants across 45 countries, ranging from undergraduates to professors. The findings reveal over 40% of participants have experienced the Gollum effect, mostly by high-profile researchers, supervisors, competing groups, institutions, and government agencies. The Gollum effect significantly disrupted critical research stages, from planning to publication, with disproportionate impacts on marginalized groups and early-career researchers. An overwhelming two-thirds stated the Gollum effect impacted their career, with over 10% reporting a complete change in career path, including leaving academia altogether. Interestingly, 20% admitted to potentially exhibiting Gollum-like behavior themselves, underscoring how normalized these practices have become. Participants proposed interventions like promoting collaboration, enhancing accountability, mentorship training, and raising awareness. This study reveals the widespread harm caused by the Gollum effect, emphasizing the urgent need for reforms and cultural shifts to promote cooperation, accountability, and inclusivity in research

 

[jedishrfu]

I know that new ideas can be like gold in the corporate world. People get promoted with great new ideas, and it's not uncommon to hear someone steal an idea.

---

My uncle told me a story about having this great idea, which he showed to his coworker, who negatively critiqued it. Sometime later, that coworker presented the same concept to management and was rewarded for it.

---

In my case, I worked on a project as the architect, developer, and tester—basically a one-man show. The software package was designed to test new updates to our mainframe OS. It tested the batch and timesharing systems nominally, looking for variances. The idea was to add more tests and learn over time as we uncovered flaws in existing updates that were missed.

I had a team lead with whom I would discuss my ideas, but he didn't do the design, coding, or testing. He was a great guy, but his boss gave him all the credit when the project was completed. I brought it to their attention, and a few months later, I got a mention in another article published in the in-house newsletter. I felt cheated.

---

I've seen similar things happen with patent ideas where someone had this great idea but a flaw was found so it got rejected. Later, one of the reviewers uncovers a way to fix the flaw and submits a new patent idea that gets patented. The original inventor is out of luck.

The most famous example was presented on This American Life, where a group of programmers got together to develop a file-sharing program in the early days of the Internet. It came out of the need of two of the programmers, who would meet periodically and swap code backups so that they always had a backup saved in the other programmer's city.

They developed the idea, founded a company to implement it, and hired a consultant to help with it. Sadly, the company had too many issues and collapsed. The consultant had taken notes and used those to submit patents on filesharing, which he was awarded. A patent trolling operation helped him use those patents to sue several internet companies for infringement on the filesharing idea, including podcasters and online file storage. They went after Carbonite, a well-known file storage service.

During the trial, a Carbonite lawyer noticed an apostrophe in the inventor's notes and asked about it. The inventor claimed it was his poor understanding of English grammar and not that someone else had contributed an idea.

The court didn't buy it. They realized that he had yet to include the original company's other inventors, which voided his patent application. Boom! Carbonite won the case, and the internet was saved from trolls attempting to tax every file shared on it.

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/441/when-patents-attack

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/496/when-patents-attack-part-two

 

[gleem]

It is certainly understandable in a commercial situation to guard or protect information and in academia temporarily to be secretive about some aspects of one's research to prevent from being scooped. Competition in academia is brutal but interfering in or obstructing other research to protect your own is as unethical as falsifying data. I have first-hand knowledge about the denial of a research proposal based on a perceived transgression.

One would think that opening a door to a new approach to research would be the goal of a scientist not hoard it for himself. Academic researchers are teachers and one would think they would like to see their students excel and accomplish greater things than they have.

 

[mcastillo356]

Here at the University of the Basque Country, a friend told me that the first academic years studying Biology everyone shared knowledge, notes... That came to an end the last year: nobody helped any classmate: competition became wild towards who was going to finish up with the best academic record

 

[jedishrfu]

Its more nuanced than that.

Researchers hoard their data because they need to be comfortable about releasing it to others. It may be sloppy data or there is some hidden flaw in the measurements. Everything needs to be checked and double checked.

Then theres the problem of releasing preliminary data that another researcher uses to scoop you on part 2 of your research. Its like playing poker. You never show your hand until its time.

—-

There's a sports analogy, too. In one story, an experienced bicyclist shared drafting with a newbie. The understanding was that the experienced rider would draft first, with the newbie following and setting the pace. Then, in the final stretch, they would reverse roles so the experienced rider could rest a bit before pushing ahead for the win. However, the newbie took the lead and raced away, winning the race.

They never talked for many years until finally, the newbie, now an accomplished rider, apologized and gave the guy the trophy for that old race.

 

[Baluncore]

When the only way you can assert control, is by withholding knowledge from others, you have left the community and become part of the problem, not part of the solution.

One academic had the habit of listening to the group discussion, then he would leave the room, saying "That is not the way to do it". When asked alone later, how it should be done, he would smile, and refuse to reply. He used "gaslighting", to unite the department, against himself.

 

[gleem]

I have another story as related to in Bill Byson's book "The Body: A Guide for Occupants". A Biology undergraduate Albert Schatz in 1943 had a hunch that a new antibiotic might be found in soil. Analyzing hundreds of samples he discovered Streptomycin effective on gram-negative bacteria on which Penicillin was ineffective.

His supervisor Selman Waksman took over clinical trials. He had Schatz sign over the patent right to Rutgers. Unbeknownst to Schatz Waksman went to scientific meetings and presented the discovery as his own. He also did not relinquish patent rights and was the beneficiary of millions of dollars. Schatz sued Waksman and Rutger and won, receiving credit as a co-discoverer and a portion of the royalties. But the suit ruined his reputation being only to find employment in a small agricultural college, His papers were repeatedly rejected by prominent journals.

In 1952 Waksmans received the Nobel Prize in Physiology/Medicine for discovering Streptomysin and continued to receive sole credit for the discovery. He did not mention Schatz in his Nobel acceptance speech nor in his autobiography. Twenty years after Waksman's death on the 50th anniversary of the discovery of Streptomycin the Society of Microbiology invited Schatz to address the society. In recognition of his achievements, they bestowed on him their greatest award, the Selman A. Waksman medal.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I find this subject very click-baity.

First, this paper has not been reviewed, much less published.

Second, they claim to be a "large scale study" but is simply a survey of 400 people.

Third, when to release data is something that is definitely a matter of professional opinion. We don't want scientists releasing crap. And yes, I know there are at least two PF members who have accused scientific groups of misconduct for not releasing their results on the time scale they would prefer. More's the pity.

Fourth, examples of bad behavior 80 years ago are not informative of conditions today. Further, if they were I could argue the whole paper should be ignored because the authors are German and Germans were certainly doing bad things 80 years ago.

While there might be an issue worth discussing, this is an extraordinarily poor basis for it.

 

[gleem]

I find this subject very click-baity.

Keep in mind this study is in three areas of biological research. What is your experience in this area? What do ou know of this culture?

they claim to be a "large scale study" but is simply a survey of 400 people.

The first large study. How large in your mind is large? These are also self-reported from an anonymous online survey. After all, the authors could not know who might have been involved in any incidents.

when to release data is something that is definitely a matter of professional opinion.

If your paper is published your data should be suitable for dissemination don't you think? The nature of the Gollum effect includes data withholding, refusal of access to study sites, blocking publication, misappropriation of intellectual property,). It also included Investigated whether participants took action to address the Gollum effect (e.g., sought mediation, changed collaborators, abandoned the project), and if so, the effectiveness of those actions

Fourth, examples of bad behavior 80 years ago are not informative of conditions today.

Bad behavior is going on today, especially with falsifying data which I had never heard of or even thought possible 60 years ago.

While there might be an issue worth discussing, this is an extraordinarily poor basis for it.

400 persons responded as affected by the Gollum Effect or as a perpetrator of it. Suggestion?

 

[Vanadium 50]

What is your experience in this area? What do ou know of this culture?

This is Physics Forums.

How large in your mind is large?

PRL alone publishes 18000 papers per year. I don't see 400 being "large".

If your paper is published your data should be suitable for dissemination don't you think?

That grossly oversimplifies. Papers often use a subset of data, and and the data quality improves as the calibration does. It is not just possible but common for data good enough for one analysis is not good enough for another.

But there is also sociology. The idea is that Mere Technicials build the experiment, operate the experiment, calibrate the experiment and process the data. If the data were then handed to the Real Scientists who can then scoop the Mere Technicians because they don't have any operational responsibilities, pretty soon there would be no data left, as all the Mere Technicians stop doing this.

Further, my experience with the LHC data releases is that very little additional science was done, but a lot of people got angry. "The calibration is not good enough for me!" "The electron purity is too low!" "I know that's the data I asked for, but it's not the data I wanted." "It takes too long to download." And my personal favorite "What do you mean I have to buy the medium you are copying the data to!"

The solution the field has adopted seems to me to be fair. You want access to the data? Either help us take it or wait your turn.

Bad behavior is going on today,

Then those would be better examples.

The solution the field has adopted seems to me to be fair. You want access to the data? Either help us take it or wait your turn.

 

[gleem]

This is Physics Forums

Which apparently encourages participation from other disciplines including Biology.

PRL alone publishes 18000 papers per year. I don't see 400 being "large".

What does the number of papers published by PRL have to do with a survey from a particular paper?

WRT the sharing of data. The paper is not about different institutions sharing or not data but about unreasonable behaviors related to controlling resources, access to data, and hampering competition within institutions. The largest group affected was graduate students.