The persistence of big science and megascience in research and innovation policy

Science and Public Policy

Volumn 39, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 411-415

  Jacob, Merle ^a   Hallonsten, Olof ^a  

^a LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Big science; Infrastructure; Institutional persistence; Megascience; Science policy

Indexed keywords

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT; INFRASTRUCTURE; INNOVATION; POLICY APPROACH; RESEARCH WORK; TECHNOLOGY POLICY;

EID: 84866751504     PISSN: 03023427     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/scipol/scs056     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Agrell, W. (2012) 'Framing prospects and risk in the public promotion of ESS Scandinavia', Science and Public Policy, 39: 429-38.
2. Blind, K. and Grupp, H. (1999) 'Interdependencies between the science and technology infrastructure and innovation activities in German regions: Empirical findings and policy consequences', Research Policy, 28: 451-68.
3. Conceicao, P. and Heitor, M. V. (1999) 'On the role of the university in the knowledge economy', Science and Public Policy, 26: 37-51.
4. Donovan, C. (2007) 'Introduction: Future pathways for science policy and research assessment: metrics vs peer review'. quality vs impact', Science and Public Policy, 34: 538-42.
5. Elzinga, A. (2012) 'Features of the current science policy regime: Viewed in historical perspective', Science and Public Policy, 39: 416-28.
6. Feldman, M. P. and Desrochers, P. (2003) 'Research universities and local economic development: lessons from the history of Johns Hopkins University', Industry and Innovation, 10: 5-24.
7. Georghiou, L. (1998) 'Global cooperation in research', Research Policy, 27: 611-26.
8. Hackett, E.J., Conz, D., Parker, J., Bashford, J. and DeLay, S. (2004) 'Tokamaks and turbulence: Research ensembles, policy and technoscientific work', Research Policy, 33: 747-67.
9. Hallonsten, O. and Heinze, T. (2012) 'Institutional persistence through gradual organizational adaptation: Analysis of national laboratories in the USA and Germany', Science and Public Policy, 39: 450-63.
10. Hellströ m, T. (2011) 'Homing in on excellence: Dimensions of appraisal in Center of Excellence program evaluations', Evaluation, 17: 117-31.
11. Lepori, B., van den Besselaar, P., Dinges, M., Potì, B. et al. (2007) 'Comparing the evolution of national research policies: What pattern of change?', Science and Public Policy, 34: 372-88.
12. Nedeva, M., Georghiou, L. and Halfpenny, P. (1999) 'Benefactors or beneficiary-The role of industry in the support of university research equipment', Journal of Technology Transfer, 24: 139-47.
13. OECD. (2010) 'Report on establishing large international research infrastructures: Issues and options'. Paris: OECD.
14. Ratchford, J. and Columbo, U. (1996) 'Megascience in UNESCO World Science Report'. Paris: UNESCO.
15. Rosenberg, N. (1992) 'Scientific instrumentation and university research', Research Policy, 21: 381-90.
16. Stephenson, P. (2012) 'Talking space: The European Commission's changing frames in defining Galileo', Space Policy, 28: 86-93.
17. Weinberg, A. (1963/2000) 'Criteria for scientific choice', Minerva, 1: 159-171.
18. Westfall, C. (2012) 'Institutional persistence and the material transformation of the US national labs: The curious story of the advent of the Advanced Photon Source', Science and Public Policy, 39: 439-49.
19. Woodhouse, E. and Sarewitz, D. (2007) 'Science policies for reducing societal inequities', Science and Public Policy, 34: 139-50.