The Reluctance to Let Go
Science is a beautiful, relentless pursuit of truth, but it is also expensive—astronomically so, in some cases. The sunk cost fallacy, a well-known cognitive bias, is not just the domain of gamblers at the poker table or hopeless romantics in doomed relationships. It is alive and well in the realm of scientific megaprojects, where politicians, lobbyists, and scientists sometimes struggle to hit the brakes on a project that has already consumed billions.
But what exactly is the sunk cost fallacy? In simple terms, it’s the human tendency to continue an endeavor simply because of the resources—time, money, effort—already invested, rather than evaluating whether it makes sense to persist. This psychological trap is responsible for bloated budgets, extended deadlines, and the occasional eye-watering realization that we’ve spent billions on something that might never work.
The Particle Accelerator Arms Race: Smashing Protons, Smashing Budgets
When the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN discovered the Higgs boson in 2012, scientists celebrated a historic achievement. The LHC, a 27-kilometer ring buried under the Swiss-French border, cost around $10 billion to build and billions more to operate. But now, the physics community is contemplating an even larger collider, one that could be double or triple the size. The proposed Future Circular Collider (FCC) could run up a bill of $20 billion or more.
The argument? We’ve already spent so much; why stop now? And indeed, this is the crux of the sunk cost fallacy. While the potential for groundbreaking discoveries remains, we must ask whether a more efficient or radically different approach to understanding fundamental physics might exist. The alternative is a never-ending cycle of bigger, costlier colliders, justified by the money already spent on previous ones.
Space Projects: The Final Frontier of Spending
Space exploration has long been a symbol of human ambition, but it is also a prime example of the sunk cost fallacy in action. Take NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS), a super-heavy rocket designed to send astronauts to the Moon and beyond. The program has been plagued by delays, cost overruns, and technological redundancy—especially given the rise of private competitors like SpaceX and its fully reusable Starship. Yet, billions continue to flow into SLS because abandoning it now would mean admitting that years of investment led to an inferior product.
Even the International Space Station (ISS) exhibits the sunk cost fallacy. With the station aging and private space stations on the horizon, the logical move might be to deorbit it and reallocate resources. However, because so much has already been poured into the ISS—over $150 billion and counting—governments are hesitant to move on. Instead, there are patchwork solutions to extend its life, much like how a homeowner insists on fixing an old car that should have been scrapped years ago.
The Nuclear Fusion Dream: Perpetually 30 Years Away
If there were an Olympic event for scientific projects most influenced by the sunk cost fallacy, nuclear fusion would take the gold. Fusion energy—the same process that powers the Sun—has been touted as the ultimate solution to the world’s energy problems for decades. Yet, despite billions spent and numerous breakthroughs, the dream of commercial fusion is perpetually “30 years away.”
ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) in France is one of the biggest fusion projects in history. Originally estimated to cost $6 billion, the price tag has ballooned past $22 billion, with delays pushing the timeline well into the 2030s. Every time a cost increase is met with fresh funding, the justification is that stopping now would render all previous investments meaningless. But is it better to continue pouring resources into a distant dream, or should we consider other viable energy solutions, like improved battery storage for renewables?
Politicians, Lobbyists, and Scientists: The Triangle of Influence
Scientific projects of this scale are rarely just about science. There is a delicate dance between three key players: politicians, lobbyists, and scientists. Each has their own vested interests that contribute to the persistence of projects that should, in some cases, be reconsidered.
Politicians: The Keepers of the Purse Strings
Politicians love grand scientific projects. They create jobs, stimulate local economies, and offer prestige. A massive new collider, a Moon base, or a cutting-edge research facility is an excellent way to secure reelection by demonstrating a commitment to innovation. Once taxpayer money is allocated, canceling a project becomes politically unpalatable. Voters don’t like to hear that billions of their dollars went to waste, even if cutting losses might be the smarter decision.
Lobbyists: The Persistent Whisperers
The industrial and corporate interests surrounding these projects are immense. Contractors, construction firms, and technology suppliers all benefit from continued funding. Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and countless specialized companies depend on government contracts for projects like the SLS, ITER, or the FCC. These organizations lobby hard to ensure that funding streams remain open, often arguing that abandoning a project would result in economic catastrophe.
Scientists: The Reluctant Participants
Scientists are often caught in the middle. On the one hand, they pursue truth and discovery, but on the other, they need funding to continue their work. Many researchers spend decades on a single scientific endeavor. Admitting that their field has hit a dead end or needs a radical shift can be career-threatening. The culture of academia, which rewards persistence and long-term specialization, further reinforces the sunk cost mindset.
Other Industries Affected by the Sunk Cost Fallacy
The scientific community is not alone in struggling with the sunk cost fallacy. It affects other industries, sometimes with catastrophic results:
- Military Projects: The F-35 fighter jet program, initially budgeted at $233 billion, has skyrocketed to over $1.7 trillion. Despite numerous flaws, canceling it is politically impossible due to the vast investments already made.
- Pharmaceutical Research: Some drug trials continue long past the point where data suggests they won’t be effective, simply because millions have already been spent.
- Infrastructure Projects: Bridges to nowhere, unused highways, and underutilized airports continue to be funded to avoid admitting wasted spending.
Escaping the Sunk Cost Trap
So, how do we escape the sunk cost fallacy? The key lies in rational decision-making:
- Recognizing the Fallacy: Simply acknowledging that past investments shouldn’t dictate future ones is crucial.
- Cost-Benefit Reevaluation: Projects should be periodically reassessed based on updated data, not past expenditures.
- Allowing for Graceful Exits: Creating exit strategies for large projects can reduce the fear of abandoning them when necessary.
- Encouraging Scientific Flexibility: Funding alternative approaches rather than putting all eggs in one basket can prevent runaway costs.
Conclusion: Science at a Crossroads
Science thrives on ambition, but ambition must be tempered with wisdom. The sunk cost fallacy, while understandable, should not dictate the future of scientific investment. By critically evaluating ongoing projects, making hard decisions about resource allocation, and ensuring that science remains a pursuit of knowledge rather than an economic behemoth fueled by inertia, we can ensure that progress remains both meaningful and sustainable.
It’s time we learned that sometimes, the smartest move is knowing when to walk away—even if it means admitting that billions have already been spent.
