Matthew Effect in Science R K Merton

This paper – looks at allocation of rewards to scientists – in turn affects flow of ideas
and findings through communication network of science
Based on interviews of Nobel Laureates by Harriet Zuckerman and diaries, letters,
biographies, notebooks and scientific papers of other scientists

Problem of 41st Chair

It is assumed that Nobel prize – ultimate accolade in science and the recipients –
distinct from others
But those who have not received it have contributed to science immensely
Derived from French academy of science – who decided to nominate 40 outstanding
scientists as members
The occupants of 41st chair include – Descarte, Moliere, Flaubert, Diderot, Rousseau,
Saint-Simon, Pascal, Zola, Proust, Stendahl, Bayle, etc.
What holds for Fench academy – holds for other insti or orgn designed to reward
talent – there are always occupants of 41st chair
Can be due to – errors of judgement, fixed no. of rewards at the summit of
recognition, large numbers of contributions at a time excludes some scientists who in
other era could easily have got it, no scope for posthumous award etc., less no. of
prestigious awards though can carry better cash rewards
 Matthew Effect in Science R K Merton
In stratification system of honour – there is sometimes ‘ratchet effect’ – once
having achieved a particular degree of eminence do not fall below that level
(though can be outdistanced by newcomers)
Can be due to – high expectations which can create its own motivation and
stress, perceived belief in their continuing potential (once a Nobel Laureate always
a Nobel Laureate)
Such reward system can be converted to instrumental asset – enlarged facilities
can be made available to decorated scientists
Such system can create a ‘class structure’ – differential access to means of
scientific production, stratified distribution of chances among scientists
Thus there is a continuous interplay between reward system based on honour
and prestige and a class system based on differential life chances which locates
scientists in differing positions in the opportunity structure of science
Social structure of science provides context for this inquiry
Eminent scientists get disproportionately greater credit for their
accomplishments than relative newcomers
One Physics laureate put it – world is peculiar when it comes to giving credit, it
tends to give credit to already famous scientist
 Matthew Effect in Science: R K Merton
Such pattern of recognition happens primarily
A. in cases of collaborations
B. in cases of independent multiple discoveries made by scientists of distinctly different
rank
Chemistry laureate makes a point: when people see my name on a paper, they are apt to
remember it not the other names
A physiology and medicine guy says: you remember the names you are familiar with, even
if it is the last, it sticks in your mind
People look at the acknowlegement section and say: oh, this is from green’s lab or so and
so’s lab, you remember that -than long list of authors-contributors
Matthew Effect - taken from Saint Matthew’s gospel - consists in accruing of greater
increments of recognition for particular scientific contributions to scientists of
considerable repute and withholding of such recognition to scientists who have not made
their mark
Nobel Laureates are aware of this phenomenon and try to counteract it by – sometimes refusing to
put their name to joint projects
Some eminent ones think: if my name is first, people will think I am the main guy, others are just
technicians, if my name is last, I shall get credit anyway so I want others to have bit of glory
 Matthew Effect in Science: R K Merton
It leads to double unintended injustice: unknown scientists unjustifiably victimised and famous ones
unjustifiably benefitted
Matthew effect seen in terms of a basic inequity in the reward system that affects the careers of
individual scientists
But it has other implications as well
Matthew effect in the communication system
Though M E is dysfunctional for newcomers, but can be functional and positive for scientific
communication – it may work to heighten the visibility of a particular work if it bears the name of a
famous scientist
There is exponential increase in volume of scientific work – makes it increasingly difficult to read all
In such a situation, the readers read works by people of better professional credentials
Matthew effect and Character of science
Science is public and socially shared even though the very process of discovery is private
Making of discovery may be complex personal experiences
For science to be advanced, it has to go beyond new experiments developed, new ideas originated,
new problems formulated, new methods instituted
The innovation must be effectively communicated to others
Contribution to science means something given to the common fund of knowledge
In the end, science, then, is the socially shared and socially validated body of knowledge
 Matthew Effect in Science: R K Merton
Matthew Effect and Multiple Discoveries
It’s a fact that great scientists are typically involved in multiple discoveries
Holds for Newton, Faraday, Galileo, Maxwell, Cavendish, Lavoisier, Thomas Alva Edison etc
Kelvin, for instance, involved in 32 or more multiple discoveries
So it took 32 other men to contribute what Kelvin did individually!
Social and Psychological Bases of Matthew Effect
Greater visibility of contri. By reputed scientists not merely an impact of their personal prestige but a
result of their certain part of their socialisation, scheme of values and their social character
Focalising – a distictive fuction of eminent scientists
Exm: Sigmund Freud, Fermi, Delbruck – they play charismatic role
They excite the mind of the contemporaries and successors
They pass on a series of norms and values that governs research
Their personal influence becomes routinized, their charisma “institutionalised”
They have a knack of problem finding than only problem solving
Pass on the taste for and judgement of finding problems of fundamental importance
This , the eminent scientists invariably got it in their formative years of training from an evocative
environment
For exm: 55 of current Nobelists interviewed, 34 worked with 46 Nobelists in young days
 Matthew Effect in Science: R K Merton
Social and Psychological Bases of Matthew Effect
Great scientists have exceptional ego strength
Tremendous self confidence (to the extent of attractive arrogance), ability to critically evaluate
others’ and own work, capacity to tolerate frustration, absorb repeated failure (research - a rough
game), prepared to tackle diff problems than easy and secure ones
Wait for big problems and wait for delayed gratification – their taste acquired early in creative
environments help them tackle big problems, fundamental problems, beautiful problemst
Hence their output is eagerly waited, get more notice and visibility
In another way, they get notice bcoz they ignore smaller, peripheral problems, avoid pedestrian work
They many a times abandon reporting mediocre findings – avoid the itch to publish to ensure quality
That in turn is linked to M E as people say: Freud or Fermi or Feynman decided to report it then it is
worth reading and hence gets more attention
But this perspective is also dysfuntional under certain conditions!
Though eminent scientists likely to make significant contri. The lesser known and young are also
capable of making equally brilliant discoveries
People do not begin by being eminent, they become one
Hist of Sc is replete with exm. of Failure , neglect and disappointment of now known scientists
Waterston’s work on molecular velocity rejected as “nonsense”, Mendelian genetics got poor
response initially, Fourier’s classic work on propagation of heat had to wait 13 years for publishing
 Matthew Effect in Science: R K Merton
On contrary, Lord Raleigh’s work was considered for publication once the identity of author known
This violates the norm of universalism embodied in the institution of science
This curbs the advancement f knowledge
Institutional version of Matthew Effect
There is a stratification system operating in allocation of resources to institutions
Centres of demonstrated excellence get more funding for research
A classic case of Marxian idea of rich getting richer and poor poorer
The richer insti, in turn, attracts more promising students
6 elite insti (Harvard, Berkley, CalTech, Columbia and Chicago, Princeton) – produced (in mid 60s) 22%
of PhDs in Physical and Bio Sciences of which 69% went on to get Nobel!
The elite institutes also manage attract bright and exceptional faculty members which over a period
of time results in lopsided education delivery
This social process of social selection deepens the concentration of scientific resources and talent in
certain elite institutions
It reinforces the reflection of Matthew Effect in macro structures
 Matthew Effect in Science II: Cumulative Advantage and the
Symbolism of Intellectual Property
Cumulative advantage
Social process thro which opportunities, symbolic & material rewards that accumulate for
researchers & organizations

Accumulation of advantages and advantages for scientists & institutions

Widening gaps: initial comparative advantages of trained capacity, structural location &
availability of resources  increments of advantage

In-equal / Skewed distributions in scientific research:

 papers produced
 use of papers by peers - publications & citations
 number of years & citations

Diffusion of findings of equal small scientists: repute > periphery universities

Top scientists from top universities

 Matthew Effect in Science II: Cumulative Advantage and the
Symbolism of Intellectual Property
Institutionalised bias for Precocity

Ignoring potential of late bloomers

(Maths, Physics & humanities)

Inequality:
 peer recognition
 access to resources

Contextual difference (social class or fields of intellectual activity)

& individual differences in patterns of intellectual growth – affects
success & failur for potential late bloomers
 Matthew Effect in Science II: Cumulative Advantage and the
Symbolism of Intellectual Property
Countervailing processes

Efforts by seniors to counter

Priority to juniors in co-authorships

(Lecturers to Professors – authorship changes)
Refusal to co-author
Competition between different scientific units for
resources
Accommodation capacity of research units – limited to a certain
extent
Mobility of dissatisfied scientists
Government initiatives
 Matthew Effect in Science II: Cumulative Advantage and the
Symbolism of Intellectual Property
Symbolism of Intellectual property in Science
In science, one’s private property is established by giving its substance away

Only after communicating/ publishing work – scientists can legitimately own it/ secure
it as their contribution

Positive recognition by peers – basic form of reward – all other (monetary or career
advance or material scientific capital) derive from it

References & citations - not nuisance but incentive to scientists

Normative guidelines of reciprocity ( or else amounts to Plagiarism)

Serves two functions

1. Instrumental: Directs the readers to the original source - leads to
further source of knowledge
2. Symbolic: Peer recognition, registers the intellectual property of the
author, maintains intellectual tradition