Postpone the SSC Decision For Two Years

There are several arguments against the Superconducting Supercollider that come from outside high-energy physics. High-energy physics, an exciting pioneer field in science, suffers from Big Science syndrome: it requires massive efforts in human and material resources to further the acquisition of knowledge. Meanwhile, areas systemic research show great promise with only moderate expenditure of resources. Huge potential breakthroughs in the principles of accelerator building (such as the superc

Michael Moravcsik
Jun 1, 1987
There are several arguments against the Superconducting Supercollider that come from outside high-energy physics.
  1. High-energy physics, an exciting pioneer field in science, suffers from Big Science syndrome: it requires massive efforts in human and material resources to further the acquisition of knowledge. Meanwhile, areas systemic research show great promise with only moderate expenditure of resources.
  2. Huge potential breakthroughs in the principles of accelerator building (such as the superconducting materials) promise a reduction in cost of 1000 times or more. A Superconducting Supercollider built now using the old technologies appears to be uneconomical and obsolete.
  3. There is no serious competitive threat from other countries to build a similarly huge accelerator. Even if there were, projects of this magnitude should be undertaken as a cost-sharing international effort.
  4. Since the SSC would consume about 10 percent of U.S. funds for all basic research each year of its existence, it would disturb the balance...

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

Receive full access to digital editions of The Scientist, as well as TS Digest, feature stories, more than 35 years of archives, and much more!
Already a member?