پیش بینی تاثیر اجتماعی و اقتصادی LHC: تجزیه و تحلیل هزینه-سود تا سال 2025 و فراتر از آن  Forecasting the socio-economic impact of the Large Hadron Collider: A cost–benefit analysis to 2025 and  beyond

1. Introduction Cost–benefit analysis (CBA) is widely used by governments and economists to evaluate the socio-economic impact of investment projects; it requires the forecasting of inputs, outputs, and their marginal social values (MSVs) in order to determine the expected net present value (NPV) of a project. CBA theory is reviewed for example by Drèze and Stern, 1987, 1990; Johansson, 1991; Boardman et al., 2006; Florio, 2014, and Johansson and Kriström, 2015. In this framework, a project is desirable if its social benefits exceed costs over time. This approach is well developed for conventional infrastructure and is supported for example by the World Bank, the European Commission, the European Investment Bank, the OECD, and other national and international institutions (Baum and Tolbert, 1985 and World Bank, 2010; European Commission, 2014; European Investment Bank, 2013, and OECD, 2015; for the WHO, see Hutton and Rehfuess, 2006). Until now, the application of CBA to research infrastructure (RI) has been hindered, however, by claims that the unpredictability of future economic benefits of science creates a difficulty for any quantitative forecasts. For example OECD, 2014 (p. 12), in a recent study of the social impact of CERN, states that a qualitative approach is preferred because of possible criticism of quantitative methods. In a survey of past experience, Martin and Tang (2007, p. 15) – while noting substantial advances in empirical analysis of the different channels through which research expenditures spill over to society – conclude that it is impossible to compare the different channels of propagation of the social benefits of science, or to provide “a quantitative answer to the question of how the overall level of benefits from basic research compares with the level of public investment in such research.” They suggest that quantitative forecasts would lead to underestimation of the benefits, and cite Feller et al., 2002, who report that according to survey data, “firms investing in university research do not attempt to make any costbenefit analysis of this investment on the grounds that it would be too complex and costly.” We acknowledge that CBA of research infrastructure is complex and that there is a risk of underestimation of benefits. Nevertheless, given the importance and the increasing cost of science, the potential advantages for decision-makers of exploring new ways to measure and compare social benefits and costs of large-scale research infrastructure cannot be exaggerated.