In this paper, I consider issues relating to the pursuitworthiness of some prominent instances of big science. Building off of DiMarco and Khalifa (2022), I provide a framework for the prominent risks and possible benefits of different kinds of big science. Based on this, I propose funding allocation mechanisms for evaluating the pursuitworthiness of different variants of big science. Special attention will be paid to the economic-epistemic impacts big science can have on pluralism, while engaging issues related to replication in big science and social responsibility. After clarifying what is meant by ‘big science’, I distinguish between three kinds of big science: normal, revolutionary, and socially-oriented big science. I go on to argue that modified crowdfunding, lotteries, and citizen juries present respectively appropriate funding mechanisms for their evaluations.
