Current Science

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

One big science project or 1000 smaller ones?


Affiliations
1 International Joint Informatics Laboratory and Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Data Engineering and Knowledge Service, School of Information Management, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210023, China
2 Nottingham University Business School (China), University of Not-tingham Ningbo China, Ningbo 315100, China
 

Historical experiences show that big science projects such as Manhattan, Apollo, LHC and the Human Genome Project often need large investment and inevitably consume significant socio-economic resources, whereas small science projects need only small investment. While most big science projects are based on known scientific principles, smaller ones explore unknowns that may result in breakthroughs, some of which may lead to Nobel Prizes. Closing one big science project may afford 1000 small science projects quantitatively. As such, decision-making on a big science project is not only a scientific issue, but also a socio-economic one. Based on the cost–benefit analysis of LHC (big science) and CNAO (small science), we found that small science projects have a higher benefit/cost ratio. At least three policy effects need to be considered: (1) Decision on investing in a big science project should consider both scientific and socio-economic merits. (2) Small science projects could be more effective than bigger ones in exploring the scienti­fic frontier. (3) Replacing one big science project with many small science ones might benefit the scientific enterprise.

Keywords

Big and small science, Nobel Prize, cost–benefit analysis, socio-economic merits.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Price, D. J., Little Science, Big Science…and Beyond, Columbia University Press, New York, 1986.

  • Penrose, R., The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, Jonathan Cape, London, 2004.

  • Gibney, E., Inside the plans for Chinese mega-collider that will dwarf the LHC. Nature, 2018.

  • Group CEPCP-DS, The CEPC input for the European Strategy for Particle Physics – Physics and Detector, 2019.

  • Group TCEPCAS, The CEPC input for the European Strategy for Particle Physics – Accelerator, 2019.

  • Berg, J., Science, big and small. Science, 2017, 358, 1504.

  • Dennis M. A., Big science. Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc, 2017.

  • Alberts, B., The end of ‘small science’? Science, 2012, 337, 1583.

  • Weinberg, A. M., Impact of large-scale science on the United States. Science, 1961, 134, 161–164.

  • Alberts, B. M., Limits to growth: in biology, small science is good science. Cell, 1985, 41, 337–338.

  • Goldstein, J. L. and Brown, M. S., A golden era of Nobel laureates. Science, 2012, 338, 1033–1034.

  • Wu, L., Wang, D. and Evans, J. A., Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology. Nature, 2019, 566, 378–382.

  • Frenkel, K. A., Nobelist Steven Weinberg Calls for Bigger Science, More Taxes, 2011.

  • Bornmann, L., Measuring the societal impact of research. Embo Rep., 2012, 13, 673–676.

  • Bornmann, L., What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? A literature survey. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol., 2012, 64, 217–233.

  • Smith, R., Measuring the social impact of research – difficult but necessary. Br. Med. J., 2001, 323, 528.

  • Salter, A. J. and Martin, B. R., The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review. Res. Policy, 2001, 30, 509–532.

  • Gaughan, P., Hallinan, D. and Reilly, K., Using economic cost benefit analysis methodologies to underpin the sustainability and strategic planning of coastal ocean research infrastructures in Europe. In OCEANS – Marseille Conference, Marseille, France, 2019.

  • Sheth, A. and Sarkar, D., Social benefit cost analysis of electric bus transit for Ahmedabad. Trans. Dev. Econ., 2021, 7, 6; https://doi.org/10.1007/s40890-021-00116-5.

  • Poder, T. G., Erraji, J., Coulibaly, L. P. and Koffi, K., Percutaneous coronary intervention with second-generation drug-eluting stent versus bare-metal stent: Systematic review and cost-benefit analysis. PLoS ONE, 2017, 12, e0177476; https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177476.

  • Florio, M. and Sirtori, E., Social benefits and costs of large scale research infrastructures. Technol. Forecast. Social Change, 2016, 112, 65–78.

  • Florio, M., Forte, S. and Sirtori, E., Forecasting the socio-economic impact of the Large Hadron Collider: a cost–benefit analysis to 2025 and beyond. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 2016, 112, 38–53.

  • Battistoni, G. et al., Cost–benefit analysis of applied research infrastructure. Evidence from health care. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 2016, 112, 79–91.

  • Magazinik, A. et al., Societal impact as cost–benefit analysis: comparative analysis of two research infrastructures. In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC). IEEE, France, 2019.

  • Frank, C. et al., Health research: measuring the social, health and economic benefits. Can. Med. Assoc. J., 2009, 180, 528–534.

  • Hossenfelder, S., The world doesn’t need a new gigantic particle collider. Sci. Am., 2020.


Abstract Views: 314

PDF Views: 121




  • One big science project or 1000 smaller ones?

Abstract Views: 314  |  PDF Views: 121

Authors

Shelia X. Wei
International Joint Informatics Laboratory and Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Data Engineering and Knowledge Service, School of Information Management, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210023, China
Howell Y. Wang
International Joint Informatics Laboratory and Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Data Engineering and Knowledge Service, School of Information Management, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210023, China
Cong Cao
Nottingham University Business School (China), University of Not-tingham Ningbo China, Ningbo 315100, China
Fred Y. Ye
International Joint Informatics Laboratory and Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Data Engineering and Knowledge Service, School of Information Management, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210023, China

Abstract


Historical experiences show that big science projects such as Manhattan, Apollo, LHC and the Human Genome Project often need large investment and inevitably consume significant socio-economic resources, whereas small science projects need only small investment. While most big science projects are based on known scientific principles, smaller ones explore unknowns that may result in breakthroughs, some of which may lead to Nobel Prizes. Closing one big science project may afford 1000 small science projects quantitatively. As such, decision-making on a big science project is not only a scientific issue, but also a socio-economic one. Based on the cost–benefit analysis of LHC (big science) and CNAO (small science), we found that small science projects have a higher benefit/cost ratio. At least three policy effects need to be considered: (1) Decision on investing in a big science project should consider both scientific and socio-economic merits. (2) Small science projects could be more effective than bigger ones in exploring the scienti­fic frontier. (3) Replacing one big science project with many small science ones might benefit the scientific enterprise.

Keywords


Big and small science, Nobel Prize, cost–benefit analysis, socio-economic merits.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.18520/cs%2Fv121%2Fi4%2F479-484