Bibliography
Galison, P., & Hevly, B. (Eds.). (1992). Big Science: The Growth of Large-Scale Research. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.
Review by Michael Beach
Like many of the books I read for my post-graduate studies, this is a compilation of papers. In this case, the chapters relate to scientific research projects that are considered big enough in scope to meet the editors’ speculative attempt at a definition of big. As one might suspect, the introduction is by one of the editors, Peter Galison, and contains the thought around how to draw the boundary between big and not big. Galison also spends time discussing why the topic matters. Like in most things, one’s perspective on what ‘big’ means depends a great deal on where one is. For example, Galison notes, “Seen from the inside – from scientists’ perspective – big science entails a change in the very nature of a life in science” (Galison & Hevly, 1992, p. 1). Is it the size of the team working on a given project? Is it the size of the budget? Is it a function of the hoped-for outcomes? Are big science projects only those funded by the government? Are they those that will do the most ‘good’? You can see the nature of the discussion covered in this book.
The questions above are tackled by a number of authors through the depiction of historical events in the scientific research community. There are five chapters about the growth of particle physics. Four more chapters discuss the tension between researcher priorities and those of funders such as governments and large corporations. The last four authors examine the relationship between research and national security. These are followed by an afterword by the other editor, Bruce Hevly.
When science is big enough to capture public attention because of the potential impact, some of the tensions mentioned above also grow. In the afterword, Hevly admits a clear definition of big science “remains an elusive term” (Galison & Hevly, 1992, p. 355). He further calls the term “conveniently murky” (Ibid.) in that something can be termed ‘big’ or ‘not big’ based on what’s to one’s advantage. For example, when seeking funding for grants perhaps big means having an important mission for humanity. When appealing to a private funder, maybe economic value has more appeal to be big. Yet, if one is looking for less attention perhaps the moniker is more troublesome. For example, if a work gains less attention by others then perhaps patents can be more easily obtained through reduced competition. Maybe the scientists involved can garner notability through being the first to publish on a given topic that others are not thinking about because it wasn’t big enough to get their attention. Whatever one calls ‘big’ in science, there are certainly many scientific efforts that have created impact on civilization in part or in whole. In the end the question remains. How big is big?
Galison, P., & Hevly, B. (Eds.). (1992). Big Science: The Growth of Large-Scale Research. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.
Review by Michael Beach
Like many of the books I read for my post-graduate studies, this is a compilation of papers. In this case, the chapters relate to scientific research projects that are considered big enough in scope to meet the editors’ speculative attempt at a definition of big. As one might suspect, the introduction is by one of the editors, Peter Galison, and contains the thought around how to draw the boundary between big and not big. Galison also spends time discussing why the topic matters. Like in most things, one’s perspective on what ‘big’ means depends a great deal on where one is. For example, Galison notes, “Seen from the inside – from scientists’ perspective – big science entails a change in the very nature of a life in science” (Galison & Hevly, 1992, p. 1). Is it the size of the team working on a given project? Is it the size of the budget? Is it a function of the hoped-for outcomes? Are big science projects only those funded by the government? Are they those that will do the most ‘good’? You can see the nature of the discussion covered in this book.
The questions above are tackled by a number of authors through the depiction of historical events in the scientific research community. There are five chapters about the growth of particle physics. Four more chapters discuss the tension between researcher priorities and those of funders such as governments and large corporations. The last four authors examine the relationship between research and national security. These are followed by an afterword by the other editor, Bruce Hevly.
When science is big enough to capture public attention because of the potential impact, some of the tensions mentioned above also grow. In the afterword, Hevly admits a clear definition of big science “remains an elusive term” (Galison & Hevly, 1992, p. 355). He further calls the term “conveniently murky” (Ibid.) in that something can be termed ‘big’ or ‘not big’ based on what’s to one’s advantage. For example, when seeking funding for grants perhaps big means having an important mission for humanity. When appealing to a private funder, maybe economic value has more appeal to be big. Yet, if one is looking for less attention perhaps the moniker is more troublesome. For example, if a work gains less attention by others then perhaps patents can be more easily obtained through reduced competition. Maybe the scientists involved can garner notability through being the first to publish on a given topic that others are not thinking about because it wasn’t big enough to get their attention. Whatever one calls ‘big’ in science, there are certainly many scientific efforts that have created impact on civilization in part or in whole. In the end the question remains. How big is big?
RSS Feed