The Price of Prestige

(lily) #1

big science and the transits of venus 133


burden of fundamental discovery for us, that universities would carry it as a

byproduct of education, and that our men of great benevolence would oc-

casionally endow a Smithsonian or a Carnegie Institution or a Rockefeller

Institute” (Greenberg 1967 , 52 ). Hoover aptly describes the confluence of

domestic and international market failures that resulted in suboptimal

levels of funding.

Conspicuous consumption provides a possible solution to the collective

action problem by focusing on prestige externalities. If actors gain inter-

national prestige by engaging in expensive and conspicuous endeavors,

then we are no longer dealing with a question of a pure collective good:

“More than curiosity or altruism or even profit, what drives discovery is

the spirit of competition.... The prospect of personal glory or national

prestige propels us to risk reputation, capital and even our lives to get

there first” (Safire 2004 ). The prestige impetus, according to this argu-

ment, is strong enough to overcome the collective action problem. Con-

sequently, actors who fund Big Science generate both collective goods, in

the form of scientific knowledge, and private goods, in the form of status

and prestige.^9 In fact, the collective-good quality of science emphasizes

the voluntary burden that is accepted by the funder. The decision not to

free ride enhances the costliness and therefore the credibility of the sig-

nal. The ability to solve a market failure and provide the collective good

altruistically is in itself a source of prestige. Zabusky’s ( 1995 , 229 ) analysis

of the European space program homes in on this connection between pro-

sociality, Big Science, and prestige.

For Europe to succeed in its bid for superpower status, it is not enough simply
to participate in a space agency that brings pragmatic rewards; the region must
demonstrate its ability to compete in this (apparently) altruistic endeavor as
well, supporting science research that is perceived as being good for humankind,
and not just for the particular economic interests of sponsoring governments.

Finally, providers of public goods are often more interested in being rec-

ognized for their contribution than in the actual provision of the good.

They are more interested in being seen doing the job than in getting the

job done. Actors often go to great lengths in order to ensure that discover-

ies are associated with their particular effort and genius.

Given the public- good characteristics of scientific knowledge, both do-

mestically and internationally, it is difficult to assume that the thirst for

knowledge alone could generate and consolidate sufficient political sup-

port to provide the massive funding required by Big Science. It is hard
Free download pdf