A sobering thought on the civility that society holds so dear

Balancing loyalty and competition is important if a group of individuals are to achieve their best in a creative and productive collaboration. Oxford sociologist Jerome Ravetz reviews a new book about scientific societies during the Enlightenment in this week's edition of Nature and reveals the subtle challenges involved in getting this balance right.

Describing the delightful civility of the British Royal Society in the seventeenth century, the book's author Steven Shapin seems to have turned a blind eye on what Ravetz calls the dark side of this very fertile period of European research: Newton's dubious treatment of Gottfried Leibniz concerning Leibniz's contribution to the development of calculus.

Ravetz reflects on the dark secrets that seem to characterize so many periods of intense innovation by considering the genteel world of the Quants in our banking system. The quiet confidence of this group of talented souls is contrasted with the violent collapse of their elaborate financial constructs during the past 2 years.

I was reminded of a comment by another researcher of loyalty and competition, Ernst Fehr. Fehr (pictured, centre) has devoted the best part of a decade to demonstrating the importance of loyalty and other forms of what he calls 'other regarding preferences' for the successful functioning of modern society.

Fehr's research presentations are music to my commune-attuned ears and sensibilities, but I am glad to have also heard him present the dark side of his position on group loyalties. On one occasion he calmly commented that "of course, the mafia also display a well developed sense of loyalty and other regarding preferences,".

As Ravetz concludes in his reflection on the contribution of civil collegiality in the financial meltdown, "[it is] a sobering thought".