Collaboration in science is crucial, so how should collaborative projects proceed in a fair fashion, and how should credit be assigned for those discoveries?

Collaboration in science is crucial for the most robust discoveries, so how should collaborative projects proceed in a fair fashion, and how should credit be assigned for those discoveries?

How has this changed over time, in your opinion?

Yes, collaboration in science is indeed crucial. Federal grants are now often given to collaborative groups of scientists rather than to individual researchers. Credit should be assigned to all contributors of scientific publications by listing the names of all of the contributors as co-authors. Usually the first author is the individual that spearheaded the research.

Collaboration in this novel was based on funding, gentleman's agreements, competition for a topic, and perceived skill level.
How projects can be assigned in a fair fashion would require an accounting of each lab, who has what skills and the level of that skill, how many researchers per lab, etc. It can be endless. It seems that if all labs focused on certain projects and scientists were allowed to transfer at will or through temporary exchanges, the best results could be achieved. but that could get very complicated.
How to assign credit for work done should be done at each step of the way. Rosalind did discover a lot of the DNA structure, but not all of it. Unfortunately, her work was stolen and passed off as someone else's work. There should be a signing off of each step and verification of that work by neutral scientists.

The work is often is important that it would be better if the results were less important than the credit, however in the realm of grants and funding one needs to be a lobbyist and politician as well as a researcher. I agree with kmillerarndt above, credit should be carefully confirmed and assigned, and collaboration should be encouraged and rewarded.

As others have said, collaboration is crucial but so often is tied to recognition for the sake of money involved. Those who make a reputation for themselves or their lab will receive the money and grants for further research. Not sure about assigning certain scientists to study certain issues but I can't see any way around the rewards for the discoveries. Competition for results can benefit medical research. Many drug companies have been working to develop vaccines for COVID as well as treatment procedures. If they were not anxious to be the first to succeed then I suspect it would take longer to get the needed results.

Collaboration is definitely required in science today, especially because not one person/lab has necessarily all the most up-to-date expertise across several areas in science. I think that when a big discovery is made, authors should provide detailed methodology and proof of the experiments done (as in raw data/images), and that if one "forgets" of someone else's crucial contributions, even if it is by acknowledgement, than funding should be reduced/negated for a period of time

Assigning credit in collaborative efforts is a dilemma that starts in elementary school--how to determine if each collaborator pulls his/her weight in completing a project. As a teacher, I required the group to delineate who was to complete each phase of the project and graded accordingly. That said, I always hated group projects!

Collaboration is crucial, its important that those that work on the project to each put in the same amount of time to the development. Credit is given to all members of the team. Funding for these projects is always a constant issue.