Big science versus little science---do you have to build it? (panel session)

Abstract

Research can be called big science if projects have numerous researchers, large funding, significant infrastructure, and plans to build complex tools or prototypes. Most experimental physicists practice big science, as do computer architects who build prototype software-hardware systems.Conversely, research can be called little science when projects have few researchers, modest funding, little special infrastructure, and no plans to build complex tools or prototypes. Most mathematicians practice little science, as do computer architects who study aspects of a design and build confidence in their proposals with models or simulations.A very simple model contrasting the two approaches is illustrated below, where money flows from governments (GOV) to academia (EDU) which produce ideas for industry (COM) to make better products for all (POP). A key difference is whether governments fund a few, large research projects or many, smaller ones.The goal of this session is explore whether, when and why universities should do big or little science. Panelists may discuss why big science wastes money, exploits graduate students and makes research too short range. They may argue that little science produces results that are too deep and narrow, oblivious to global systems issues, not properly validated, and too out of touch with reality to ever be practical. Panelists may also find some advantages to both kinds of science.Panelists include members from government, academia and industry, who are also members of the general population. To keep the discussion lively, nothing said necessarily represents the opinion of any government agency, university or corporation with whom panelists are affiliated.