COLLABORATIONS BETWEEN CHEMISTS AND BIOLOGISTS - Collaborative Computational Technologies for Biomedical Research - page 115

both the chemist involved and the biologist involved recognize that the
problem will not be solved without highly integrated creative efforts by both
chemist and biologist. Life, good health, and disease are chemical processes in
the context of the complexities of life, in the case of human health and disease
multicellular life. Thus in entering a collaboration both chemist and biologist
will need to recognize that collaboration will require that they both will be
doing research that they had not previously considered, and thus they must
be prepared to be completely open to new thinking about the problem they
are trying to solve together. Indeed, in my successful collaborations, generally
very quickly, often within a few months or a year, the research has taken on
new directions not initially envisioned. I would suggest that you know you
have a good collaboration when both parties involved are soon doing research
that they had not initially planned to do.
On the other hand, I have not had as much success in collaboration when
the potential collaborator is convinced that what they had in mind to do is all
they will do. They are convinced they know where they are going and do not
need to consider alternate thinking. Alternatively, they see their collaborator
as simply a means to their ends. No doubt this can be and often is very useful.
Such cooperations are very important in science and often lead to new and
useful results. However, they are not collaborations, and the possibilities for
creativity and novel insights and directions are lost or more generally either
explicitly or implicitly suppressed. Even more to the point, most research these
days, whatever the source of support, is “hypothesis” driven. Such an approach
to research is very congenial for the bureaucracy and bureaucrat who can
defend his or her support for the research on very practical grounds without
any real knowledge of the research area. In a good collaboration “hypotheses”
are viewed as temporary starting points with the understanding that modifying
the working hypothesis is not only a possible but also a desired likelihood as
the research progresses. One other critical aspect of creative and productive
collaboration is that all participants must take ownership and thus responsibil-
ity for success while at the same time share in both the success and failure. In
this regard, doing high-risk, high-reward research generally has failures.
Indeed, failure often is a critical part for ultimate success. Knowing when to
reexamine and change your most cherished ideas is always diffi cult whether
or not the research involves collaboration, but doing so when collaboration is
involved is especially diffi cult. Fingerpointing never solves any problems
whether in life or in research, but here congenial critical examination of the
problem in a group environment is critical. If done properly, it often can lead
to the most creative solutions moving forward. For this purpose I have found
that when such research problems occur it is best if all participants—the
principal investigators, students, postdocs, and technicians—discuss the
problem together. Such discussions can often lead to the most creative solu-
tions, especially as it provides those who have experienced failure an oppor-
tunity to fully discuss their efforts and what has been learned and gives them
permission from the entire group to move in new directions with enthusiasm