Big Science Ruining Sciencev

Impact of Large-Scale Science on the United States Author(s): Alvin M. Weinberg Source: Science, New Series, Vol. 134, No. 3473 (Jul. 21, 1961), pp. 161-164 Published by: American Association for the Advancement of Science Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1708292 Accessed: 29-07-2015 12:02 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. American Association for the Advancement of Science is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Science. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 129.177.32.58 on Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:02:36 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 21 July 1961, Volume 134, Number 3473 SCIENC:E I.s Big Science Ruining Sciencev The English astronomer Fred Hoyle recently set off a lively controversy by arguing against the United Kingdonl's Itupact of Large-Scale Science going into large-scale space research. His argument, which applies to much 011 of Big Science, is twofold: first, that tlle United States the intrinsic scientific interest of space research is not worth the money and Big science is here to stay, but we have yet to make the manpower that goes into it and cer- tainly does not justify spending more hard financial and educatiollal choices it imposes. on it than on any other branch of science; and second, that wherever science Alvin M. Weinberg is fed by too much money, it becomes fat and lazy. He claims to see evidence that the tight intellectual discipline necessary for science is, especially in Throughouthistory, societies have ex- and the motivations of the church build- America, being loosened. I shall touch pressed their aspirations in large-scale, ers and the pyramid builders. We build later upon Hoyle's first point: Is Big monumental enterprises which, though our monuments in the name of scientific Science giving us our money's worth? not necessary for the survival of the truth, they b-uilttheirs in the name of For the moment I want to discuss his societies, have taxed them to their religious truth; we use our Big Science second point, which can be paraphrased physical and intellectual limits. History to add to our country's prestige, they as, "Is Big Science ruining science?" often views these monuments as sym- used their churches for their cities' I confess that I share Hoyle's mis- bolizing the societies. The Pyramids, prestige; we build to placate what ex- givings. In the first place, since Big the Sphinx, and the great temple at President Eisenhower suggested could Science needs great public support it Karnak symbolize Egypt; the magnifi- become a dominant scientific caste, they thrives on publicity. The inevitable re- cent cathedrals symbolize the church built to please the priests of Isis and sult is the injection of a journalistic culture of the Middle Ages; Versailles Osiris. flavor into Big Science which is funda- symbolizes the France of Louis XIV; The emergence of Big Science and mentally in conflict with the scientific and so on. The societies were goaded its tools as a supreme outward expres- method. If the serious writings about into these extraordinary exertions by sion of our culture's aspirations has Big Science were carefully separated their rulers the pharaoh, the church, created many difficult problems, both from the journalistic writings, little the king who invoked the cultural philosophic and practical. Some of the harm would be done. But they are not mystique when this was suflicient, but problems-concern science itself, sorne so separated. Issues of scientific or who also used force when necessary. the relation between science and our technical merit tend to get argued in Sometimes, as with the cathedrals,local society. I shall address myself to three the popular, not the scientific, press, pride and a sense of competition with specific questions, all of which arise or in the congressional committee room other cities helped launch the project. from the growth of Big Science: first, rather than in the technical-society lec- In many cases the distortion of the Is Big Science ruining science?; second, ture hall; the spectacular rather than economy caused by construction of the Is Big Science ruining us financially?; the perceptive becomes the scientific big monuments contributedto the civili- and third, Should we divert a larger standard. When these trends are added zation's decline. part of our eSort toward scientific issues to the enormous proliferation of scien- When history looks at the 20th cen- which bear more directly on human tific writing, which largely remains un- tury, she will see science and tech- well-being than do such Big-Science read in its original form and therefore nology as its theme; she will find in spectacularsas manned space travel and must be predigested, one cannot escape the monuments of Big Science the high-energy physics? These questions the conclusion that the line between huge rockets, the high-energy acceler- are so broad, and so difficult, that I journalism and science has become ators, the high-ux research reactors- cannot do more than raise them here. blurred. symbols of our time just as surely as Since they involve the issue of the sci- she finds in Notre Dame a symbol of entist's responsibility to his science and The author is director of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn. This article is the Middle Ages. She might even see to his society, I believe I shall have based on a talk given before the American Rocket Society-Oak Ridge National Laboratory Space- analogies between our motivations for done some service merely by urging Nuclear Conference, Gatlinburg, Tenn., 4 May building these tools of giant science scientists to think seriously about them. l961, 2 I JULY 1961 161 This content downloaded from 129.177.32.58 on Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:02:36 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Xn the second place, one sees evi- outwardly seem to be. I do not believe the onerous housekeeping function, the dence oiTscientists' spending money in- that we at Oak Ridge, or I suspect at layer of inevitable administrators and stead of thought. This is one of the other such institutions, are completely publicists, is already in being Profes- most insidiolls eSects of large-scale sup- successful in these efforts. We do the sors in such collaborating universities, port of science. In the past the two best we can, however; and at least, by who might be drawn in part, but not commodities, thought and money, have confining Big Science to such institu- wholly, from the existing scientific staSs both been hard to come by. Now that tions, we prevent the contagion from of the big laboratories,would not have money is relatively plentiful but thought spreading. to get involved so strongly in activities is still scarce, there is a natural rush to What really bothers me is the evi- not related to their science as they spend dollars rather than thought to dence that Big Science is invading the would if they had to start Big Science order a $107 nuclear reactor instead of 1lniversities. One need not look far to from the beginning. In addition, the devising a crucial experiment with the find Bev accelerators and megawatt re- big government laboratories have facil- reactors at hand, or to make additional search reactors on many campuses. The ities and technically trained personnel large-scale computations instead of re- justificationfor putting these devices on that are not now pulling their fllll ducing the problem to tractable dimen- university campuses is that such gadgets weight in the educational job which sions by perceptive physical approxima- of Big Science are now needed to per- must be done. tion. The line between spending money form large parts of basic research, and Exactly what pattern should be estab- and spending thought is blurring. that basic research is best done in con- lished would vary from institution to Finally, the huge growth of Big Sci- junction with education. But I think institution. The Rockefeller Institutefor ence has greatly increased the number there is a very grave danger to our Medical Research has recently been re- of scientific administrators.Where large universities in this incursion of Big chartered as the Rockefeller University sunls of public money are being spent Science. A professor of science is ---this is the most extreme possibility. there must be many administratorswho chosen becallse he is extrenaely well I think that a more generally appropri- see to it that the money is spent wisely. qualified as a scientist, as a thinker, or ate pattern would involve, first, a great Just as it is easier to spend money than as a teacher. If he becomes too in- expansion in the use of short-tenure, to spend thought, so it is easier to tell volved with Big Science he will have to postdoctoral fellows at the big labora- other scientists how and what to do become a publicist, if not a journalist, tories, and second, the establishment than to do it oneself. The big scientific an administrator,and a spender of big of independentgraduate schools of tech- community tends to acquire more and money.

Load more