It is the enduring scientist stereotype: socially awkward, unkempt appearance, and more concerned with cracking the laws of nature than anything as trivial as social status.

The reality could not be more different, according to an academic who says science is falling victim to a crisis of narcissism.



According to Bruno Lemaitre, an immunologist at the EPFL research institute in Switzerland, it is no longer enough to be right – or even to get there first.

Reaching the top of the scientific hierarchy increasingly depends on a glittering media profile, publishing in “trophy journals” and cultivating a network of academic frenemies who are treated as close allies until they become obstacles in the path to academic glory.

Speaking last week at the MRC London Institute of Medical Sciences, Lemaitre described the cut-throat atmosphere of world-class laboratories and international conferences as closer to House of Cards than The Big Bang Theory.

“Many great scientists are narcissists. It’s a bit sad, but it’s a fact,” he said. “This might surprise an external observer, because scientists are usually perceived as being modest searchers for the truth and working collectively for the advancement of science.”

Lemaitre is not suggesting his profession is unique in having experienced a rise in individualism – politics, film or fashion are probably worse and the trend is global, he says, but it has some worrying implications that are specific to science.

“The influence of narcissism on so many aspects of science calls into question [its] very objectivity,” he said.

The replication crisis in psychology and the life sciences, in which “sexy” papers fail to stand up to closer scrutiny, can be blamed in part on scientists being motivated by a need for attention and authority as well as curiosity about the natural world, he said.

One study claiming that adopting a power pose makes you feel bolder, was debunked several times, but only after a TED talk based on the original research became the second most watched of all time. Overall, 64% of psychology findings in top journals cannot be reproduced.

The problem was made worse, Lemaitre said, by funding bodies’ preoccupation with rankings, metrics and impact, and by a failure to reward scientists for correcting the record with meticulous, but unflashy results.

The reliance on peer review for publishing papers and awarding grants allows narcissists, characterised by a Machiavellian ability to manipulate others, to network their way to success.

Even the relative lack of female professors - women tend to score less highly on narcissistic personality traits - can be linked to the issue, according to Lemaitre.

He was prompted to investigate, and write a book, on the subject after his former boss, the immunologist Jules Hoffman, was awarded the 2011 Nobel prize for a discovery that Lemaitre alleged was largely his own work. Hoffman has previously pointed out that he credited the contributions of his former colleague in his Nobel lecture.

Narcissists tend to view themselves in an overly positive light. Photograph: GuardianWitness

This subjective account aside, there is some evidence to support the theory that narcissism is on the rise in academia, and that it could be a professionally advantageous trait.



One US study, which found a steady increase in students’ scores on a narcissism questionnaire over two decades, with almost two-thirds of recent college students scoring above the mean 1979–85 score, a 30% increase.

Other research has found that people who scored highly on the narcissism scale were no more creative on average, but they were far better at pitching creative ideas.

Erica Hepper, a psychologist at Surrey University who has studied narcissism, said: “There is some evidence that narcissists do manage to get ahead over people who are more modest.

“They are going to be the ones who take credit for the efforts of a team and claim all the glory regardless of how much they put in. That definitely rings true in science.”

According to Hepper, narcissism is defined by grandiose self-belief, seeking power and attention and a belief that you have achieved everything on your own.

These traits might be irritating in a colleague, she said, but narcissists could also serve a purpose.

“They’re willing to take risks, they’re often quite creative,” she said. “While they can be difficult to work with and quite toxic on a personal level they can also be inspirational.”

Lemaitre concedes that bombastic individuals can help to promote the value of science to politicians and the public, but even this can become a nuisance.

“In the end all the universities are recruiting lots of [PRs] and lots of money is burned in things that are not necessarily positive for the system,” he said.

Narcissists are not evenly distributed throughout the world of science, according to Lemaitre, but tend to cluster in fashionable fields and at historic or wealthy laboratories, such as the Pasteur Institute, Rockefeller University and the Crick Institute in London.

“They enjoy jargon and specific language. I suspect that immunology in the past attracted narcissists, but today neuroscience is probably the place to go,” he said.

As a scientist, there are telltale signs that you might have a prime specimen in your midst.

“When you do a collective project with a narcissist at the end he has the feeling that he has done everything,” said Lemaitre.

Other clues include the constellation of academic titles in an email signature, constant monitoring of one’s “H-index”, a metric of how many highly-cited papers a scientist has authored, and referring to rivals’ research as “pedestrian”.

“Sometimes, even the mating pattern of a narcissistic professor can appear strategic when it reinforces his position in the faculty or highlights his power,” he said.

Lemaitre provides several strategies for dealing with a narcissistic colleague. First, do not fall prey to their social charm.

“You have a conversation at a meeting, there’s a nice atmosphere, you tell them what you’re working on,” he said. “They go back into their lab and say ‘I had an idea in the night’.”

Second, be aware that they are unlikely to change and avoid any emotional involvement.

Finally, and possibly the most effective, avoid talking to them or about them, denying them the attention they crave. “The day that no one looks at a celebrity, they will disappear,” he said.

Not everyone in science, however, is convinced that a crisis exists.

Lord Martin Rees, emeritus professor of cosmology and astrophysics at the University of Cambridge and the Astronomer Royal, said: “The range of personality types among scientists is broad, but on average certainly no more venal or reprehensible than those of other professions. Surely there’s less narcissism among us nerds than in the performing arts.”

Prof Bob Lanza, a prominent US stem cell scientist, who is described on his website as “the living embodiment of the character played by Matt Damon in the movie Good Will Hunting”, said high levels of self-belief were common in science, and sometimes even necessary to get ahead.

“But while it can lead to passion and drive, it can also be destructive and counterproductive. Depends on whether they’re right or not.”.

And how would LeMaitre rate himself? He reports that his score on the narcissistic personality inventory (NPI) is surprisingly low.