Team Science’s Groupthink Risk

Efforts to ensure fairness and credit large teams can unintentionally suppress solitary incubation and heterodox ideas. Paired with winner‑take‑all metrics, this pushes research toward consensus and away from risky breakthroughs. A healthier ecosystem would acknowledge solitary phases and lineage explicitly while still valuing collaboration. — It links equity‑driven institutional design to epistemic outcomes, warning that well‑meant reforms can dull innovation.

Sources

The only interdisciplinary conversations worth having

Paul Bloom 2025.09.08 72% relevant

Bloom’s account of Templeton‑funded cross‑discipline committees and forced psychologist–anthropologist pairings tracks the critique that formal, committee‑driven 'team science' often yields shallow consensus and weak output; he endorses Fodor’s view that the productive 'interdisciplinary conversation' occurs within a single mind, not in staged cross‑disciplinary panels.

Prequels, Classics & Sequels

Santa Fe Institute 2025.07.29 100% relevant

Krakauer’s point 3: 'the justified concern with fairness and broader recognition of teamwork… can inadvertently generate group think,' presented alongside examples and lineage framing.