Vijay, Parvathi and Arrabito, Ignazio (2026) What makes big biology worth pursuing?: New dimensions of scientific value. [Preprint]
![[img]](https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/style/images/fileicons/text.png) |
Text
Manuscript_What Makes Big Biology Worth Pursuing.docx.pdf - Accepted Version Download (534kB) |
Abstract
The emergence of large-scale collaborative initiatives in biology – such as the Human Genome Project (HGP), Encyclopedia of Human DNA Elements (ENCODE), and the Human Cell Atlas (HCA) – has reshaped how biological knowledge is produced, validated, and utilized. These projects transcend traditional experimental paradigms by blending hypothesis-driven inquiry, infrastructure development, and technological innovation. However, existing philosophical frameworks for evaluating scientific “pursuitworthiness” – the criteria determining whether a research endeavor merits investigation – struggle to assess such initiatives. Developed primarily for small-scale hypothesis-testing or physics-inspired “big science,” traditional models inadequately capture the hybrid nature of big biology, which functions simultaneously as knowledge generator, technological incubator, and community resource. This paper examines the limitations of current pursuitworthiness frameworks through comparative case studies of the aforementioned landmark biological projects – the HGP, ENCODE, and the HCA. We argue that their value stems not just from answering specific research questions but from enabling diverse downstream investigations, democratizing technologies, and establishing shared standards. The analysis reveals tensions between big biology’s organizational realities and philosophical assumptions. Unlike physics projects with centralized facilities and stable theories, biological initiatives navigate irreducible complexity, decentralized collaboration, and evolving societal expectations. Funding cycles prioritizing rapid deliverables further complicate evaluations, as projects must balance immediate outputs with long-term infrastructural goals. To address these challenges, the paper recommends the integration of a multidimensional system for assessing pursuitworthiness in large-scale biology, recognizing that a project’s worth evolves across phases – from feasibility testing to community adoption. To illustrate this, we propose a tripartite framework considering epistemic, infrastructural, and technological dimensions of value. The analysis highlights the need for dynamic, context-sensitive evaluation that balances accountability with epistemic humility, and recognizes the delayed and distributed impacts of such initiatives. We call for models that align with biology’s evolving practices while inviting further refinement of criteria to better capture the multifaceted contributions of large-scale projects in the life sciences.
| Export/Citation: | EndNote | BibTeX | Dublin Core | ASCII/Text Citation (Chicago) | HTML Citation | OpenURL |
| Social Networking: |
Monthly Views for the past 3 years
Monthly Downloads for the past 3 years
Plum Analytics
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
![[feed]](http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/style/images/feed-icon-32x32.png){kind=icon}