The Pursuit of Scientific Advancements

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is a gigantic and expensive particle collider built in 2008. At the time, it seemed like a massive breakthrough for the field of physics as it was estimated that countless new particles could be discovered. Disappointingly, the only particle that could be observed was the Higgs boson. Although the confirmation of the Higgs was incredibly important for physics as a whole, no other valuable information was gleaned, leaving many physicists downcast. Overall, there were much bigger expectations than what was delivered. Billions of dollars were spent for what seemed like little reward. 

 A few years ago, the debate about the creation of another, even bigger particle collider exploded. Physicists disheartened by the minimal results of the LHC were not supportive of another collider that would perhaps give no new knowledge. There were two main groups: those who thought a new collider was a waste of time and money, and those who believed that a lack of discovery is just as important as discovery. The conflict boiled down to one simple question: how do we decide if scientific advancements are worth pursuing? 

Advancements in the natural sciences are worth pursuing if the time and resources are available to pursue the knowledge. Science is a very broad subject consisting of scientists throwing ideas at a wall and seeing what sticks. It can be valuable to rule out possibilities if finding the truth is difficult. Prescod-Weinstein and Tait in the article “Particle Physics is Doing Just Fine” believe that testing particles and getting answers different from expectations is a good way to focus testing because theories can be disproven. Knowing that something is wrong is still adding to the collective knowledge, especially in the uncertain field of physics. In addition, ruling out possibilities can eventually bring new conclusions. If there is money to go through possibilities and test theories, then the advancement is worth pursuing. Any knowledge is helpful, even if it isn’t sensational or groundbreaking. 

However, as asserted by Hossenfelder in the New York Times article “The Uncertain Future of Particle Physics,” many medium scale experiments are put on the backburner in favor of large sensational experiments that may or may not gather useful data. There isn’t anything inherently wrong with focusing on one topic over another if the other topic can be explored later. If a project is of a large scale and has the potential for big discoveries, then it should be explored to the fullest extent. There’s no sense in putting off a project that people are excited about. If it becomes clear after time that little discoveries are going to come from an advancement in the natural sciences, then some resources should move on to other lower priority projects. Resources shouldn’t be entirely taken away from a project because of inconclusive results, only partially so that theories can still be disproven by not finding new knowledge.

Natural sciences aren’t built in a year: it takes decades of research and peer review to get to new knowledge. There are no shortcuts, no way to skip to discoveries. The work in the middle needs to be done, which often doesn’t seem useful because the future cannot be predicted. A new particle accelerator could be groundbreaking or worthless, no one knows, but the pursuit of knowledge is not all-or-nothing. Multiple projects can and should receive time and money. After their worth is proven, then resources should be allotted accordingly based on the individual situation. In the circumstance of a new particle accelerator, this course of action should be taken. After careful thought, if the accelerator is made then after testing the decision to continue the devotion of resources to it can be made. If it turns out unworthy as many scientists expect, then money can be diverted to another, more worthy pursuit.

There is no one answer to the question of what scientific advancements are worth pursuing; one broad statement will not suffice to encapsulate the struggle financiers of science struggle with, and no one person gets to make the decision. Ultimately, the funding of scientific progress comes down to individual cases, and plenty of healthy debate. 

Brooke Baggett is a senior at Plano East Senior High in Plano, Texas. She is a student in the International Baccalaureate program and has been involved in National Honor Society as well as varsity and show choirs. She likes reading, birds, and anything scientific.