Waypoints for Evaluating Big Science*

William Bianco, Donald Gerhart and Sean Nicolson†Crotty

Social Science Quarterly, 2017, vol. 98, issue 4, 1144-1150

Abstract: As illustrated by the articles in this volume, there are considerable gaps in the measurement of research productivity/innovation for programs enabled by large initial and ongoing infrastructure investments. Such programs include NASA's International Space Station, DOE's National Ignition Facility, NSF's Polar Program, and CERN's Large Hadron Collider. The enormous sums spent on these projects are often justified by predictions about their contributions to knowledge, the economy, or innovation. But at virtually any point in the lifecycle of a Big Science program, it is not easy to explain to the public, elected officials, and scientists whose proposals were rejected why the program is a compelling investment, given that all of the aforementioned benefits will emerge only over time—if at all.

Date: 2017
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12467

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bla:socsci:v:98:y:2017:i:4:p:1144-1150

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.blackwell ... bs.asp?ref=0038-4941

Access Statistics for this article

Social Science Quarterly is currently edited by Robert L. Lineberry

More articles in Social Science Quarterly from Southwestern Social Science Association
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().