Failure is a fundamental part of science. Negative experiments are central to the discovery process, but other forms of failure (e.g., misunderstandings and mistakes) are pervasive but rarely discussed. This avoidance can become an insidious problem affecting anything from the quality and scope of questions addressed to altered career trajectories or loss of experienced personnel. The problem may even worsen if data are altered to prevent blame and/or other consequences of admitting mistakes. In avoiding discussions about failure, the scientific enterprise suffers a compounded loss: a diminished universe of perspectives, erosion of institutional memory, and system-induced risk aversion precisely when bold, collaborative problem solving is needed.

We define failure as not achieving set goals and leveraging failure as the deliberate practice of: (1) naming errors, breakdowns, and harms; (2) mapping contributing conditions and power dynamics across the socio‑technical system; and (3) identifying multiple levers for change. We propose a coaching mindset (curiosity, forward motion) that helps normalize failure paired with systems analysis (causal mapping, incident taxonomies) and team‑science structures (clear roles, cultural norms) for more robust outcomes.

This interactive panel will discuss how failure manifests in academic science and explore ways to leverage failure for greater work satisfaction, scientific rigor, and innovation. We will explore failure using multiple frameworks, addressing thorny questions using the lens of Panarchy, a systems-level approach to the study of systems collapse at various levels (e.g., individual, team, institutional, and societal). Through these frameworks, we will approach failure as an analyzable function of the system and a lever for change.

Failure in science can be sobering and sometimes tragic. Yet when we name it, map its conditions, and design levers at individual, team, institutional and societal levels, failure becomes a renewable resource. By integrating systems analysis with team‑science best practices we can move beyond blame and resignation. We replace quiet exits (eg. silent attrition) with empowered voices, flexible definitions of success, and systemic learning, making the scientific enterprise more rigorous, equitable, and resilient. We believe this will ultimately result in higher research quality (fewer repeated errors, faster, safer pivots) and healthier team climates (greater safety, clarity, and fairness). By integrating systems thinking with practices from the Science of Team Science, we aim to frame failure as a collective asset that is hopeful, meaningful, and actionable.

We present this panel in hopes of initiating a robust area of inquiry in the Science of Team Science community. We intend to utilize the lessons learned from the interactive panel discussion to develop a failures framework.

We envision that conversations like these will uncover practices that could help individuals thrive and teams collaborate more effectively. Further, what we learn may allow institutions to gain earlier signals on structural breakdowns, credible mechanisms for course correction, and improved return on public investment.