numbers: a few projects will be stunningly rewarding, and the combination of these breakthroughs
and many smaller successes creates rapid small-science progress.
Big science, however, lacks this safety in numbers. If a single big-science project fails, public reaction to the ‘wasted taxpayers’ money’ can hurt all scientists’ reputations and funding prospects. Such was the initial impact of the Hubble space telescope. Fortunately, NASA corrected its deficiencies, and recent Hubble results have been breathtaking.
Ego and the Scientific Pecking Order
“Go, wondrous creature! mount where Science guides,
Go, measure earth, weigh air, and state the tides;
Instruct the planets in what orbs to run,
Correct old Time, and regulate the Sun.
. . . Go, teach Eternal Wisdom how to rule -
Then drop into thyself, and be a fool!” [Pope, 1733]
The scientific pecking order is another manifestation of the attitude of “me, in competition with them; me, better than them; me, rather than them.” Like chickens, some scientists seem to be obsessed with climbing an imagined pecking order. Those ‘below’ such a scientist see a scornful user of their efforts; those ‘above’ such a scientist see a productive team player.
Beyond the local interpersonal pecking order is a broader pecking order of professions that is remarkably fluid in its ability to place one’s personal field at the apex. One common pecking order of scientific superiority is ‘hard’ sciences (i.e., physical sciences) > social sciences. Within the physical sciences physics <>mathematics (of course depending on whether one is a physicist or mathematician), and physics & math > astronomy >> other physical sciences. For example, the following provocative ‘joke’ by Rutherford [Blackett, 1962] makes a non-physicist’s blood boil: “All science is either physics or stamp collecting.” Academics > applied scientists of industry, because of the hasty generalization that the latter are materialists first and scientists only second. Applied scientists > academics, because of the hasty generalization that the latter are marginally useful ivory-tower dabblers. For example, the applied scientist Werner von Braun said [Weber, 1973], “Basic research is what I’m doing when I don’t know what I am doing.”
Theoreticians > experimentalists, because the latter are less intelligent grunt workers. Experimentalists > theoreticians, because the latter are out of touch with reality and think that ‘data are confirmed by the model.’ Oliver [1991], for example, claims that theories are useless except as an “organization of observations” and that “observation is the ultimate truth of science.” Full-time researchers (‘full-time scientists’) > college teachers (‘part-time scientists’) > high school teachers, though in reality the latter may have the most highly leveraged impact on science and the least glory. Professor > assistant professor > lecturer > student, because seniority is more important than originality. Ph.D. researchers > technicians > scientific administrators, because the latter are not ‘true scientists’, though they may be just as essential for science.
All of these hierarchies are counterproductive and hypocritical. They are counterproductive because the pecking instinct allows only one at the top of each of the many hierarchies; we all must be both pecked and peckers. This defensive ego building is successful in creating a feeling of superiority only by careful editing of perceptions to focus downward. It is also counterproductive because time and energy are wasted worrying about where one is. The scientific pecking order is hypocriti -
