Under the Microscope: There is considerable pressure now in our universities to merge related departments into schools. Much emphasis is placed on creating larger research groups and the phrases "achieving critical mass" and "world class research" are regularly intoned like mantras. However, we must be careful. Large groups are appropriate for some types of work but not for others. Also, large groups tend to stifle individual creativity.
Big science locks itself onto a limited number of targets selected by the contemporary wisdom of science and by the utilitarian motives of the big funding agencies of government and industry. Such an approach works best on certain applications of science that apply established theory to achieve practical goals, eg the Manhattan Project and the Human Genome Project.
The Manhattan Project (1942) assembled a large team of the best physicists, mathematicians, chemists and engineers to build the first atomic bomb. The atomic bomb was based on the process of nuclear fission, which was understood. It was foreseeable that the project to build a practical bomb would be successful, given time and resources.
Certain types of basic science also call for the large-group approach because the essential experimental apparatus needed is so complex and expensive that many small groups could not possibly each have their own equipment, eg physics projects that require the largest particle accelerators, and certain researches in astronomy.
However, the history of science shows that all major advances came from especially creative and intellectually independent individuals - Galileo, Newton, Faraday, Hubble, Einstein, Mendel, Darwin, Wallace, Watson, Crick, and so on. And the 2005 Nobel Prize in Medicine was awarded to Barry Marshall and Robin Warren for showing that the bacterium Helicobacter pylori causes gastric ulcers. These two scientists had to fight the medical establishment and the pharmaceutical industry for 10 years before their breakthrough was acknowledged. Also, historically there is no doubt that science was spurred on far more by competition between individuals than by cooperation.
Einstein perfectly fits the bill of the lone intellectually independent and extraordinarily creative researcher. He was initially unable to find an academic job and during this period he published papers that did more to advance physics than all physicists put together have since achieved. As the well-known physicist Leo Smolin points out in Physics Today (June 2005), big advances in physics come when creative and independent individuals ask new questions and forge new directions.
Big science usually works on programmes that have been under investigation for many years. These programmes are appropriate in some cases, but they will not spawn new Einsteins or Darwins. In fact these programmes will mop up budding young geniuses and force them to work as cogs in a wheel. We must therefore take great care to reserve a significant fraction of support for science to allow brilliant young scientists to establish new daring research programmes that focus on deep and difficult questions.
At the moment it is difficult for a young research scientist to get on a secure career path unless he/she opts to work in a trendy area and joins a large group led by powerful senior scientists. This is the path to many publications and the reassuring patronage of established figures.
Leo Smolin believes we greatly overestimate the value of having large groups working on trendy basic research programmes, citing string theory as an example. This theory of elementary particles postulates that the fundamental entities are not point-like particles but incredibly small little strings. Large numbers of scientists have worked on this theory over the past 20 years but the programme has not made satisfactory progress and no evidence has been found to confirm the key hypotheses. If the theory is to fulfil its promise it needs an injection of new ideas and directions. However, the people most likely to provide this have a difficult time in establishing careers compared to less independent minded people who are prepared to follow the fashionable paths through string theory. Young US theorists who propose alternatives to string theory have great difficulty in securing academic positions.
The bulk of funding of Irish science is now coming from Government, whose basic motivation is to service the labour market. Since he who pays the piper calls the tune, the stage-setting of the university is coming under strong influence from the civil service. I respect the civil service, having seen it in action at close quarters over the years. However, very few of those involved in stage-setting have experience of conducting research. This results in a bureaucratic approach to funding that is heavily informed by the business model. Great emphasis is placed on "economies of scale", "teamwork", "goal setting", "auditing and accountability", "quality assurance", "mission statements", etc.
This is all well-intentioned and, although some of it makes sense, it is not the appropriate overall way to manage research. Many of the methods that make businesses efficient slow research down. For example, significant investment in explorations with no idea of their potential to produce successful applications in the short to medium term insults the conventional business mind but is essential for research to make overall progress. The rigid application of business methods to manage research runs the risk of producing a "mean lean machine" that runs on the spot. We must also provide places for brilliant young mavericks who "buck the system". Such a system doesn't look as tidy and efficient as the business model, but neither does it run on the spot.
William Reville is associate professor of biochemistry and public awareness of science Officer at UCC - http://understandingscience.ucc.ie