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.
-
Consolidating RRI and Open Science: understanding the potential for transformative change
Life Sciences, Society and Policy Open Access 01 September 2020
-
Unsustainable Growth, Hyper-Competition, and Worth in Life Science Research: Narrowing Evaluative Repertoires in Doctoral and Postdoctoral Scientists’ Work and Lives
Minerva Open Access 04 March 2016
-
Measuring impact in research evaluations: a thorough discussion of methods for, effects of and problems with impact measurements
Higher Education Open Access 03 March 2016
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$189.00 per year
only $15.75 per issue
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
References
Price de Solla, D. J. Little Science, Big Science (Columbia University Press, 1963).
Kurzweil, R. The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology (Viking, 2005).
Kovác, L. 'Finitics'. A plea for biological realism. EMBO Rep. 9, 703–708 (2008).
Perutz, M. F. Will biomedicine outgrow support? Nature 399, 299–301 (1999).
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).
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).
Begley, C. G. & Ellis, L. M. Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature 483, 531–533 (2012).
Arrowsmith, J. Trial watch: Phase II failures: 2008–2010. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 10, 328–329 (2011).
Colhoun, H. M., McKeigue, P. M., & Davey Smith, G. Problems of reporting genetic associations with complex outcomes. Lancet 361, 865–872 (2003).
Ioannidis, J. P. A. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2, e124 (2005).
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).
Simons, K. The misused impact factor. Science 322, 165 (2008).
Alberts, B. Impact Factor Distortions. Science 340, 787 (2013).
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).
Grens, K. Fake paper exposes failed peer review. The Scientist [online], (2013).
Sample, I. Nobel winner declares boycott of top science journals. The Guardian [online], (2013).
Schatz, G. Europe: not enough independence for young scientists. Trends Biochem. Sci. 2, 1 (1981).
Schatz, G. Euro-blues. FEBS Lett. 521, 1–2 (2002).
Nowotny, H. European research momentum. Science 305, 753 (2004).
Schatz, G. The Swiss vote on gene technology. Science 281, 1810–1811 (1998).
Nurse, P. EMBO at 50. Science 343, 117 (2014).
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
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The author declares no competing financial interests.
Related links
PowerPoint slides
Rights and permissions
About this article
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
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm3807
This article is cited by
-
Consolidating RRI and Open Science: understanding the potential for transformative change
Life Sciences, Society and Policy (2020)
-
Measuring impact in research evaluations: a thorough discussion of methods for, effects of and problems with impact measurements
Higher Education (2017)
-
Fewer numbers, better science
Nature (2016)
-
Unsustainable Growth, Hyper-Competition, and Worth in Life Science Research: Narrowing Evaluative Repertoires in Doctoral and Postdoctoral Scientists’ Work and Lives
Minerva (2016)