Big Science

[Invader Zim]

So, I've been reading around the topic of big science as an historical concept to think about the changes to scientific research in the 20th Century (I'm actually toying with the idea of writing something fairly substancial (in words, not intellectual content :unsure:) about the idea). I then read the wikipedia article about it (below) and was particularly interested in the 'Criticism' section. Despite defining the term as an historical construct the criticisms are all purely about the practice of science. Almost like it is accepted by the author of the article that Big Science is "real", as opposed to framework to think about and describe an historical process.

So, I thought I would ask what people think about the idea of big science here; conceptually and intellectually. Normally, I would put a topic like this in the history forum or the science and environment forum, but it seemed like such a potentially disparate concept with feet in both camps that actually having a non-political (though possibly also political) kick around with the idea would be fun.

I half expect to get no takers, but for those interested:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Science

[ComradeAllende]

As a concept, I think "Big Science" does exist, although I don't think it has any particularly intentional biases per se. It's just the natural product of industrial development, which requires the mass utilization of the scientific method in ways that would shock many individuals that the scientific community hold in great esteem. It's just another one of those contradictions that arise when pre-capitalist institutions or norms are incorporated into capitalist society: the institution/norms are "modernized" to fit the social and material needs of capital.

Take religion, for instance. Christianity used to emphasize heavily communitarian ideas of social organization and hierarchy, emphasizing faith and the immaterial over reason and the material. Eventually, capitalism developed (aided by the Protestants) and made some "revisions" to Christian dogma. While religious hierarchy and notions about charity and goodwill are preserved, they lose their political and social power as individuals rely less on religion and more on materialist concepts like self-interest and reason. The religious hierarchy cedes political power to the capitalists, while credibility and the social power associated with it flows to the scientists and philosophy. Notions of charity and goodwill are confined to the political and personal spheres of society, leaving the economic sphere to benefit from the practical applications of reason and material self-interest with regards to innovations in industry, banking, and general commerce.

[Invader Zim]

As a concept, I think "Big Science" does exist, although I don't think it has any particularly intentional biases per se. It's just the natural product of industrial development, which requires the mass utilization of the scientific method in ways that would shock many individuals that the scientific community hold in great esteem. It's just another one of those contradictions that arise when pre-capitalist institutions or norms are incorporated into capitalist society: the institution/norms are "modernized" to fit the social and material needs of capital.

Take religion, for instance. Christianity used to emphasize heavily communitarian ideas of social organization and hierarchy, emphasizing faith and the immaterial over reason and the material. Eventually, capitalism developed (aided by the Protestants) and made some "revisions" to Christian dogma. While religious hierarchy and notions about charity and goodwill are preserved, they lose their political and social power as individuals rely less on religion and more on materialist concepts like self-interest and reason. The religious hierarchy cedes political power to the capitalists, while credibility and the social power associated with it flows to the scientists and philosophy. Notions of charity and goodwill are confined to the political and personal spheres of society, leaving the economic sphere to benefit from the practical applications of reason and material self-interest with regards to innovations in industry, banking, and general commerce.

See, I'm not sure it does. Because if we think about big science as it was conceptualised with the five 'M' (money, manpower, machines, military and media) then some really big projects, such as the Human Genome and CERN don't really apply. Though the point you're making is certainly really interesting, I guess I'm coming at my own critique froma different perspective.

Can we even think about the Manhatten Project, with its $2bn and 200,000 employees as being "big science"? Is it not lots of 'little' science which is being done and then fitted into a bigger picture?

[John Nada]

I think this "Big Science" is an interesting illustration of the interaction between the base and superstructure under modern imperialist-capitalism. Incidentally the Wiki article compares big science to a religion in pre-capitalist modes of production. Swapping pyramids and cathedrals for particle accelerators and rockets. The scientific method arose in early capitalism, yet continues to have echos from the past superstructure(which tends to changes slower).

Science itself is not outside of capitalism, and its direction is being shaped by imperialist-capitalist demand to translate scientific development into new techniques of production or even destructive forces(weapons). Both necessary for capitalism's continued existence, yet may actually be hampered by capitalism itself. Engels address something relevant to this in a letter: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/letters/94_01_25.htm

[ComradeAllende]

See, I'm not sure it does. Because if we think about big science as it was conceptualised with the five 'M' (money, manpower, machines, military and media) then some really big projects, such as the Human Genome and CERN don't really apply. Though the point you're making is certainly really interesting, I guess I'm coming at my own critique froma different perspective.

I don't understand how CERN and the Human Genome wouldn't apply under those conditions; all had significant amounts of state and private funding (money), large armies of researchers, statisticians, technicians, and engineers (manpower), heavily sophisticated technology (machinery), and significant media hype. Even the military is seeking to profit from these discoveries, specifically the advancements in phenotype analysis that the Human Genome Project supported. They are the epitome of "Big Science" as an established and authoritative apparatus with hierarchies, bureaucracies, and all the accouterments of "big" institutions.


Can we even think about the Manhatten Project, with its $2bn and 200,000 employees as being "big science"? Is it not lots of 'little' science which is being done and then fitted into a bigger picture?

Well, the Manhattan Project (in my opinion) was probably the first achievement of "Big Science", given its institutionalized framework and the degree of funding and prioritization it received compiling research from individual physicists and applying it towards an actual weapon of mass destruction.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Big science exists within and because of capital, therefore a clear (and quite obvious) limitation of capital-funded big science projects is that they cannot exist or attempt to exist outside the economic, social, and political limitations of capitalism. This is an overlap of the criticisms one could throw at Big Pharma, since as socialists we believe that technological innovation should primarily serve the betterment of people's (and animals') lives, and medicine is certainly a contributing factor in that regard.

[BIXX]

Are y'all primitivists?

[ComradeAllende]

Are y'all primitivists?

No.

[Ele'ill]

Are y'all primitivists?


:grin:

[John Nada]

Are y'all primitivists?:grin:Maybe you're really a Marxist?:blushing:

Perhaps the fSU and the PRC were/are actually playing the long con towards primitive communism. Only they use nukes, pollution and state enforced Malthusianism to aid the collapse of civilization. Hanging domestication with its own rope! That theory of productive forces is just an accelerationist ruse for the rewilding!:ohmy:

[BIXX]

No.

Idk you guys are throwing around some pretty dodgy ideas

[Invader Zim]

Idk you guys are throwing around some pretty dodgy ideas

Such as?

[Ele'ill]

What about "Weird Science" ?