Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

The faces of Big Science

Abstract

Fifty years ago, academic science was a calling with few regulations or financial rewards. Today, it is a huge enterprise confronted by a plethora of bureaucratic and political controls. This change was not triggered by specific events or decisions but reflects the explosive 'knee' in the exponential growth that science has sustained during the past three-and-a-half centuries. Coming to terms with the demands and benefits of 'Big Science' is a major challenge for today's scientific generation. Since its foundation 50 years ago, the European Molecular Biology Organization (EMBO) has been of invaluable help in meeting this challenge.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: The exponential rise of biology.

References

  1. Price de Solla, D. J. Little Science, Big Science (Columbia University Press, 1963).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. Kurzweil, R. The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology (Viking, 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Kovác, L. 'Finitics'. A plea for biological realism. EMBO Rep. 9, 703–708 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Perutz, M. F. Will biomedicine outgrow support? Nature 399, 299–301 (1999).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Larsen, P. O. & von Ins, M. The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index. Scientometrics 84, 575–603 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Prinz, F., Schlange, T. & Khusru A. Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 10, 712 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Begley, C. G. & Ellis, L. M. Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature 483, 531–533 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Arrowsmith, J. Trial watch: Phase II failures: 2008–2010. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 10, 328–329 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Colhoun, H. M., McKeigue, P. M., & Davey Smith, G. Problems of reporting genetic associations with complex outcomes. Lancet 361, 865–872 (2003).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ioannidis, J. P. A. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2, e124 (2005).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Neumann, U. in Vom Wandel der Wissensorganisation im Informationszeitalter. Festschrift für Walther Umstätter zum 65. Geburtstag. (eds Hauke, P. & Umlauf, K.) 49–64 (Bock & Herchen, 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Simons, K. The misused impact factor. Science 322, 165 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Alberts, B. Impact Factor Distortions. Science 340, 787 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Schroter, S. et al. What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? J. R. Soc. Med. 101, 507–514 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Grens, K. Fake paper exposes failed peer review. The Scientist [online], (2013).

  16. Sample, I. Nobel winner declares boycott of top science journals. The Guardian [online], (2013).

  17. Schatz, G. Europe: not enough independence for young scientists. Trends Biochem. Sci. 2, 1 (1981).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Schatz, G. Euro-blues. FEBS Lett. 521, 1–2 (2002).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Nowotny, H. European research momentum. Science 305, 753 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Schatz, G. The Swiss vote on gene technology. Science 281, 1810–1811 (1998).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Nurse, P. EMBO at 50. Science 343, 117 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank S. Edelstein, S. Gasser, L. Kovácˇ, C. Kraft, S. Merchant, M. Schweiger, A. Spang and W. T. Wickner for their valuable help.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gottfried Schatz.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing financial interests.

Related links

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schatz, G. The faces of Big Science. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 15, 423–426 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm3807

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm3807

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing