notes to pages 118–132 183
inflating the data set by introducing identical data points that offer very little ad-
ditional information or variance (Green, Kim, and Yoon 2001 ).
- This finding corresponds with Van der Veen’s observation that there was a
parallel decline in aid flows and military expenditures in the years following the
end of the Cold War. Aid flows did not experience a discernable peace dividend,
refuting substitutability arguments and suggesting joint causation. For literature
regarding the peace dividend, see Ward and Davis 1992 ; Gleditsch et al. 1996.
Chapter Five
- For additional examples, see Adler 1987 ; Van Dyke 1964 ; Etzioni 1964 ; Ry-
croft and Szyliowicz 1980 ; Pavitt 1973 ; Shreeve 2004. - The OECD differentiates between Big Science and megascience. Megasci-
ence refers to large multinational research centers. These centers are so large as
to necessitate international cooperation (hence national laboratories, regardless
of size, are considered Big Science rather than megascience). In addition, unlike
Big Science, megascience centers can be technoscience (such as the superconduct-
ing supercollider) but not purely technological (such as the international space
station) (Jacob and Hallonsten 2012 , 412 ). For the purposes of this study, I do not
distinguish between Big Science and megascience. - The Mohole Project ( 1957 – 66 ) was a defunct attempt at drilling a hole
through the crust of the earth to the mantle (otherwise known as the Mohorovicic
discontinuity or “Moho”) (Greenberg 1967 , 176 ). - Interestingly, Hughes ( 2002 ) finds that Big Science budgets became in them-
selves a source of professional prestige, and thus physicists found themselves com-
peting over who can gather budgets to construct the biggest possible particle accel-
erator: “If you really wanted to become famous in our field, you had to get yourself
the biggest and most powerful accelerator” ( 161 ). The logic of conspicuous con-
sumption in science affected prestige in several prestige spaces: the profession, the
state, and the international system. - See also Van Dyke 1964 ; Etzioni 1964 ; Rycroft and Szyliowicz 1980 ; Pavitt
1973 ; Shreeve 2004. - Current concerns (Alberts 2012 ) echo those of the 1960 s Big Science de-
bate (Tuve 1959 ; Hoyle 1964 ; Weinberg 1961 ). Moreover, these concerns resemble
those of British scientists in the late nineteenth century who feared that increased
government funding could mean an end to scientific freedom (MacLeod 1971 , 339 ). - Investment in Big Science does not signal a broad commitment to scientific
research. In fact, the United States trails other industrialized powers in civilian
R & D budget as a percentage of GNP (Solingen 1993 , 38 ). - For scientific knowledge to be considered a pure public good, the benefits
it produces should be nonrival and nonexcludable. Indeed, scientific knowledge,