big science and the transits of venus 129
R & D is dwarfed by Big Science investment in military, nuclear, and space
programs (Ross 1996 , 5 ). Egyptian decision makers discounted alterna-
tives to the high dam in Aswan because they could not match the con-
spicuousness, boldness, and symbolic value of this grandiose construction
(Rycoft and Syliowicz 1980 ). The outcome was extravagant both in the
scale of construction and in the scale of its deficiencies. Weinberg ( 1961 ,
161 ) finds historical support for the Gatsby effect that accompanies monu-
mental Big Science projects: “In many cases the distortion of the economy
caused by construction of the big monuments contributed to the civiliza-
tion’s decline.” Alongside the long- term risk of bankruptcy, trying to de-
velop Big Science on the cheap is a risky strategy as well. It can sometimes
lead to tragic consequences, as was painfully demonstrated by the August
2003 deadly Brazilian satellite rocket accident, which killed twenty- one of
Brazil’s top scientists (Rother 2000 , 2004 ).
While a prestige- driven analysis of Big Science seems intuitively pos-
sible, we need to look more closely at alternative (or complementary)
explanations. The following section offers three primary utility – based al-
ternatives. The analysis highlights the shortcomings of these explanations
and suggests that conspicuous consumption is a necessary complementary
component for the analysis of Big Science. In particular, primary- utility
explanations fail to account for the intense competitive nature of Big
Science in international relations, and they cannot explain the dubious
scientific utility of many such projects.
The Utility of Big Science
In 1865 the British Geographical Society was trying to secure governmen-
tal funding for an expensive expedition to the North Pole. Captain S. Os-
born, one of the leading supporters of the proposed expedition, described
the opposition to the idea as “the cuckoo cry of cui bono.” An anonymous
“Naval Fellow” offered his rejoinder to this “cuckoo cry” in a letter to the
editor of the Times: “You, Sir... surely will agree with me in thinking that
it is not unreasonable before embarking in any scheme to submit it to the
‘cui bono’ test, and inquire first, whether any and what benefit can result
from it, and secondly, whether such benefit is commensurate with the cost”
(“Letters to the Editor,” Times [London] February 4 , 1865 , 12 ). The cui
bono test is still an important step in understanding and evaluating the
logic of Big Science. What motivates governments to fund Big Science?
