دانلود رایگان مقاله بعضی اظهارات مربوط به تجزیه و تحلیل سود و زیان برای LHC در CERN

abstract

The cost/benefit analysis originally developed for infrastructures in the economic sector has recently been extended by Florio et al. to infrastructures of basic research. As a case study the large accelerator LHC at CERN and its experiments have been selected since as a paradigmatic example of frontier research they offer an excellent case to test the CBA model. It will be shown that in spite of this improved method the LHC poses serious dif- ficulties for such an analysis. Some principle difficulties are due to the special character of scientific projects. Their main result is the production of new basic scientific knowledge whose net social value cannot be easily expressed in monetary terms. Other problems are related to the very strong integration of LHC into the general activities of CERN providing however, interesting observations concerning a new management style for global projects. Finally the mission of CERN (including LHC) is unique since it was founded with two tasks—promote science and bring nations together. No way has yet been developed to assess in economic terms success for the second objective. The main conclusion is that the overall result of the CB analysis, the Net Present Value, although positive for LHC, has a large uncertainty and if used to assess a project needs a detailed discussion. On the other hand partial results can be very useful, for example for the results of education or technology transfer.

6. Conclusions

Scientific progress and technical innovations are increasingly considered as necessary elements for economic growth. The growing cost of large research infrastructures, also for basic research, makes it more difficult for politicians and funding agencies to take decisions since the benefits for society can hardly be known ex-ante. Hence to avoid possible criticism decision takers try to justify their decisions as much as possible by ‘objective’ criteria. Growing cost on one side and more serious constraints for public expenditure require a better public accountability and a more rigorous assessment of projects of basic research (Martin, 1996).