184 notes to pages 133–140
once it enters the public domain, is a good example of a nonrival good (Hartley
and Sandler 1999 , 29 ). The value of Einstein’s theory of relativity does not diminish
when it is used by a larger number of scientists. On the contrary, the more a theory
is used, the more influential it becomes. Moreover, the norms of scientific research
limit the ability to exclude free riders from enjoying the benefits of the produced
knowledge. In many cases, limited access to such knowledge would dramatically
decrease its value because it would limit its influence and diminish the prospects
of further scientific progress.
- Big Science is therefore a “joint product” combining private and collective
goods (Hartley and Sandler 1999 , 29 – 37 ). In basic science (more public good), we
can expect higher levels of free riding. Within alliances, public goods lead to un-
even burden sharing, where larger allies bear more than their fair share (Hartley and
Sandler 1999 ; Olson and Zeckhauser 1966 ). This seems to match the international
distribution of Big Science funding. - Hughes ( 2002 ) found similar patterns in funding of particle accelerators in
the 1960 s. According to Hughes, funding became “part of the ‘pork- barrel’ politics
by which federal funds and projects are distributed to particular regions for politi-
cal reasons.” - Texas played a similar political role in the superconducting supercollider
project. The project, which involved massive construction, was coveted by many
states. In 1988 it was awarded to Texas, shortly before George H. W. Bush took
office. Presidential support was crucial in order to secure congressional approval,
and the selected location was chosen with the interests of a Texan president in
mind (Lambright 1998 , 265 ). In the case of the European Spallation Source, Swe-
den was selected following a prolonged political process that involved coalition
building and significant side payments (Jacob and Hallonsten 2012 ). - Economic circumstances in the eighteenth century were significantly differ-
ent from contemporary conditions. It is therefore difficult to offer accurate conver-
sions of the worth of eighteenth- century monetary sums to today’s terms. According
to Measuringworth.com, a website constructed by two University of Illinois econo-
mists, the value of the French investment in TOV observations in 1761 (£ 12 , 000 )
ranges from £ 1 , 517 , 000 to £ 134 , 900 , 000 in 2011 terms, depending on the conversion
method. While the lower number calculates the real price of the investment, ac-
counting for inflation and growth, the higher estimate looks at its economic power,
the share of GDP captured by the sum in 1761. Regardless of the selected index,
£ 12 , 000 was clearly a significant amount of money. - The expenditure on such expeditions included the cost of personnel, trans-
portation, accommodation, scientific instruction, and instruments. Most expedi-
tions lasted more than a year, and the adventurous astronomers had to be compen-
sated accordingly. Instruments were another expensive component. In the absence
of mass production, a good telescope was likely to cost as much as £ 1 , 400 , and take
months to prepare. For comparison, Messier, Delisle’s well- paid assistant, earned
£ 500 a year (Woolf 1959 , 75 ).