e d i to ri a l
Big Science versus
Small Science
A scan of the table of contents page of any typical journal
will reveal that there is a continuing upswing of collabo-
rative research. The numbers of authors, institutions, and fund-
ing agencies acknowledged per article are clear evidence of the
trend. Gone are the days of the lonely, “mad” scientist work-
ing out of the garage. Science has gotten to be so intricate that
single-author inventions are now met with skepticism.
There is some truth in the assumption that all that can be
discovered easily has been discovered. On the other hand, col-
laborative research, especially along interdisciplinary lines, is rel-
atively unexplored. If something has been discovered previous-
ly, one might still be able to apply that to a different scientific
discipline with a new twist. This is not unlike the proliferation
of hyphenated analytical techniques. But while publications and
instrument sales can be generated multiplicatively in this man-
ner, advances are generally very much evolutionary rather than
revolutionary.
Genuine collaborative research requires true partnership
among the participants. It is insufficient to just add as coauthors
the names of colleagues who have been involved in some level
of discussion on the project. It is also a stretch to refer to results
from separated laboratories that are subsequently combined.
The key element is the added value—the whole is more than
the sum of its parts. There has to be a push–pull effort on both
sides. It is not surprising that shared graduate and postdoctoral
students are the cornerstones of successful collaborations.
Collaborative research has been driven by big-science themes,
such as the Manhattan Project, Sputnik, the Human Genome
Project, and nanoscience and technology. Funding agencies
have encouraged group proposals with programs such as sci-
ence and technology centers, glue grants, and core facilities.
Although some may be suspicious of “selling out” scientific
minds to “trendy” themes, others have thrived with these spe-
cial opportunities to interact with colleagues who were once
scientific strangers. The Human Genome Project, for one, has
pulled together the diverse communities of chemistry, biology,
and computational science.
Big science is culture-specific among various fields. The search
for elementary particles has always been a major focus of experi-
mental physics. It is noteworthy that over the years, most physi-
cists agree as to what particle should be pursued next and what
new accelerator should be built. The astronomers go as far as list-
ing their top 10 important research topics, with the implication
being that all other investigations are simply not as worthwhile.
Yet, theoretical concepts have invariably come from single investi-
gators. The relativistic framework of Albert Einstein or Andrew
Wiles’ proof of Fermat’s last theorem required a single, focused
train of thought that would have been interrupted by collabo-
ration. Chemistry is typically a small-science endeavor. This in-
cludes large teams working on the total synthesis of a natural
product, in which the many steps are merely divided up among
small groups of similarly trained co-workers.
In these days when research spending has to be accountable
to the general public, is there room for small science? Sure! Even
within the huge umbrella of the Human Genome Project, it is
clear that small laboratories invented linear polymer solutions
and fancy optics that enabled high-throughput DNA sequenc-
ing. Then, there are the MS concepts that were cited for the
latest Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Those early workers obvious-
ly did not have proteomics in mind. However, their contribu-
tions were instantly elevated in visibility by the emergence of
the big-science theme of proteomics. Analytical chemistry is
traditionally a small science but inherently a diverse discipline.
It is likely to be adaptable to any big-science theme that may
come along. It is therefore a natural interface between big sci-
ence and small science.
Edward Yeung
Iowa State University/Ames Laboratory
yeung@ameslab.gov
M A R C H 1 , 2 0 0 3 / A N A LY T I C A L C H E M I S T R Y 85 A