American Science: Addicted to Pentagon Cash? 637
An anonymous submitter writes: "In totalitarian states the military can compel scientists to perform research for weapons systems. That's not true in the United States, yet American scientists who refuse military work are exceedingly rare today. This may be in part because scientists, like most other citizens, agree that the U.S. is facing dangerous foes. But some dissidents argue the cause is more likely that Pentagon cash has become an addiction that scientists rationalize by working on 'dual use' technologies -- radar that maps planets and guides missiles; robots that peer through smoke in apartment fires to rescue victims, and through battlefield smoke to find human targets."
Military Ca$h (Score:5, Interesting)
Funny, many people ragged on Theo de Raadt [openbsd.org] when he said "I try to convince myself that our grant means a half of a cruise missile doesn't get built." [computerworld.com] Yes these scientists are being painted as super-duper people with minty-fresh breath because they seemingly have some of the same convictions.
Look under the hood.. (Score:2, Interesting)
So...what so bad about it? (Score:5, Interesting)
Still is it a bad thing that people are trying to develop technology even if the only purpose is war? TV, radio, even the internet were all initialy military projects. There is nothing "bad", "evil" or "immoral" about it. In the end it's technology and the military power that came with it which allows this country to exist as it does today. How you see that, good/bad is your own opionion.
well, probably not most.. (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems about the same with other departments/schools as far as I've spoken. The exception being $ coming indirectly (naval research lab and DOD paid for a trip to europe for me).
However, any worthwhile advisor would allow a student to pursue their own funds, and if I want to apply for a DOD fellowship, my advisor will support me completely.
But I think it is a bit foolish to say that most scientists are taking military money due to the perceived threat. If anything, their proposals are worded such to give the impression of being realted to homeland security while simply obfuscating within, the true research they want to do.
put fark in the subject if you want to email me
Easy, its more fun. (Score:3, Interesting)
Combine this with a film industry and televsion industry that makes off with uber-fantastic items, usually military related, and it does tend to have an effect.
Yes, there is lots of nastiness coming from this quarter, but a big portion of it does an ample job of preventing its own use. Nothing like making the scenario really really messy to deter others from abusing technology.
Lastly, its probably a little easier to come up with new ways to blow things up, move things fast, and put it where you want it than mucking around in the human genome. (plus everyone expects you to fuck something up when the primary purpose of the invention is to go BOOM)
.mil funding doesn't always mean weapons (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't forget, before the internet, there was ARPAnet.
Nature of innovation and engineering... (Score:4, Interesting)
I do not mean to evaluate the moral/philosophical implications here. I am merely pointing out that this is nothing more than an exhibition of one strength of a free society where innovation is encouraged.
One of my professors turned down military work. (Score:4, Interesting)
dole (Score:4, Interesting)
only because there is no other place to do interesting research and advanced development. there are plenty of positive things that can be done with my work, but no one else has the money to allow me to pursue it.
American economy = military spendings (Score:2, Interesting)
Scientists, as a subset of the american workforce are subject to the same realities that govern the american economy.
If the government decided to spend all that money (hundreds of billions each year) towards more noble causes such as renewable energy or solving humanity's problems, that dilemma wouldn't exist. Of course that's impossible due to the forces that be. Look at who actualy puts people in office and who owns the media (mass influence) and you'll see that it's the same people who get the money.
My 0.02 CAN$
Re:Cut the crap... (Score:2, Interesting)
Pentagon money (Score:3, Interesting)
For those asking why not take the money if you are going to do the work anyway, you still legitimize military spending by accepting the money and, in so doing, lending your name to them. But if you accept the money and then speak out about how you think basic research should be funded directly and not via the military budget, their giving money to you might lend you some legitimacy in the eyes of congress members too.
Re:Advancing (Score:1, Interesting)
And let us not forget (Score:2, Interesting)
Also, if someone can help remind me, there's a show called "Tactical to Practical"... Discovery channel, maybe? (shrug)
Re:It doesn't matter... (Score:5, Interesting)
If he's worried about the military import of his work, he should not do the work. Picking and choosing among the money is splitting hairs beyond that point. The reason so much "interesting" tech is now funded by the military is that we live in a high-tech society -- it isn't all just a-bombs and battleships and radar any more.
Not to mention (Score:5, Interesting)
DOD Gets Technology Sooner Or Later (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, isn't that sweet?
Folks, the DOD is going to get this research sooner or later. If they pay for it, they get access to it first, and that's an advantage they are willing to pay for, but either way they'll get the technology sooner or later, regardless.
So would his hands truly be bloody? Or does he rest easier by fooling himself into believing that, if he just pretends he's not part of the problem, no one will blame him?
If he does the research using DARPA funds, but doesn't directly create a weapon, is he still a bad man? I would argue that he's not, that he is realistically taking advantage of a resource knowing full well that that non-warm-and-fuzzy, Big-Bird-less reality is that the DOD will serve its purpose, whether or not he delays them until he publishes.
Keep one thing in mind. (Score:5, Interesting)
obvious answer (Score:3, Interesting)
Or maybe because if you just completed a PhD in nuclear physics, you aren't going to apply those skills working in the research department of Toys R Us.
Fuel Cell's on Missiles (Score:2, Interesting)
I have attended several seminars (chemistry) where military money accounted for some of the funding. In particular a gentleman from the Colorado School of Mines was doing research on a methanol reformer/fuel cell. He alluded to the fact that it was only need for a one way trip. Apparently it was part of some missile technology.
I totally agree that the dual use argument is lingering just under the surface. Typically the researchers thank those that funded the research at the conclusion of the seminar, but it's never a really big deal. The importance of funding for scientific research is extremely important however it is achieved. You have to wonder if this leads to a more militant society though.
Re:Well, so? (Score:3, Interesting)
So there is a readily observable split between the physicists and other people along the line of ethics and politics that isn't easily explained away, but is apparent non the less.
what about grad students? (Score:2, Interesting)
So, what about us poor grad students? I went to 3 prospective advisers at the beginning of last year: one's doing augmented reality, the other one bioinfo, the last ODEs. All of them had defense or army funding, and I had a problem with that. So I brought up as nicely as I could the fact that I objected to doing research that was being funded by military institutions.
The first one suggested that I figure out my priorities early on in my academic career and I would always be a loser if I chose not to take the money where I could get it. The second said it would be better if peace-loving folk like "us" took the money and did something with it that had peaceful applications. The third ignored me.
Frankly, I'm not satisfied with any of those attitudes. I suppose I could rant on and on about why, but the point is, grad students have to live with this climate and we don't always like it. Maybe that's even when the problem starts... You don't have a choice at the beginning of your career, when you're actually thinking intensely about this stuff, and maybe you get stuck feeling like you have no choice later, when you really do, and when you could be giving your underlings a choice too.
Sorry, this became a rant...
Graaaaaay areas (Score:2, Interesting)
I think this process is at least as much a beaurocratic effect as anything else -- the Pentagon has a big budget for research, but there's only so much research you can really do that has direct military applications, so they protect the budget by funding a lot of stuff that might not be militarily important in any obvious way but is pretty neat and could pay off in the long run (again, this is pretty much exactly what the director of DARPA said in the article). The effect is a lot of stuff getting funded that has immediate, concrete civilian benefits (example -- the IR map of the Milky Way, funded by SDI) but military benefits which are less immediate, less concrete, and further off (they never actually built SDI, so the military payoff is a little nebulous, but the papers still got published).
To give an example without the emotional baggage of military funding, consider that I worked last summer on a NASA grant. The area I worked on consisted of field theory applied to ultracold quantum gases. Now, to be perfectly honest, I have no idea how ultracold quantum gases might prove useful to NASA. Going one step further, I have no idea whether there's anything ultracold gases might be useful to which might be useful to NASA. Now, if you were a Village Voice reporter describing my summer, would you say that I was in the gray area of the space-industrial complex, or would you conclude that NASA chose to fund something that didn't directly relate to space, but which is interesting nonetheless?
Good (Score:2, Interesting)
Besides, the US military is going to win any war it gets into at this point and I see nothing that's going to change that fact in the future. Why not work for them? The technology that you develop is going to end up saving lives. The wars themselves are going to be shorter, less troops on both sides are going to die, and certainly less civilians will get killed in the process. Eventually that same technology works itself into the civilian world too, usually with great benifit.
Damned bloody so and so... (Score:5, Interesting)
This paragraph show a wierd sort of rationalization that these guys do:
He won't take money from the military, because it's "blood money", but has no problem ripping apart living breathing rats to get at neural tissue. Sure it may be cultured now, but even that culture had to come from some once living rat. This isn't even medical research here, he's using the neurons to control robots. Why not take a neurel net chip and use that, if your so concerned with the morals of your research? I personally don't care, I eat meat, I wouldn't have any problem taking money from the DoD for research, and don't give a rat's ass (ahem) for dead rats, but I'd like to point out some inconsistancy in his moral outrage.
Re:It doesn't matter... (Score:1, Interesting)
For proof, all we have to do is look at the $billions thrown down failed or marginally successful weapons programs. The most successful weapons we have today were built on technologies developed in the private sector and adapted for weapons.
That's not to say that the military is good at nothing. For example, I routinely use MIL 217 for calculating MTBF on hardware designs. The insights into why electronics fail, how they fail and where the critical breakpoints for failure occur can only be discovered with the kind of regimented approach that is uniquely suited for military mindsets and unsuited for the mindsets that developed them in the first place. GPS is another good example: the underlying technologies were all things that existed but required a large-scale coordinated effort to put into place and make it feasible.
But pure research? Things that require thinking "outside of the box"? Good God, NO!
Difference (Score:3, Interesting)
In the former researchers make all the effort to adapt their thought process to the medical problem at hand. They might talk to doctors, patients, etc. If they are successful they might save some lives. In the latter they might think about accuracy, speed and whatever, but they know it's all about detonating that bomb at the right time and in the right place. They might talk to generals and strategists. If they are successful they might more accurately kill the people the military wanted to kill.
In science and technology, R. Feynman famously said that the prime problem is not to fool oneself, because Nature cannot be fooled. If you work on weapons development of any kind and you are rationalizing that you are helping your country defend itself and that maybe your technology might be used for pacific uses as well, who are you fooling?
There is also the argument that better technology kill fewer people because it is more accurate. This always assumes that the users of that technology are both wise and cautious. It's up to you but I don't trust anybody with weapons in hand even if they are the `good guys'.
Re:But we get returns from defense spending (Score:3, Interesting)
"Pure" research, or rather, non-applied research, is not something that private industry is interested in. If it won't generate a return in 5 years with high probability, then it won't get funded privately. So you can't turn to them for funding. Unless you happen to be interested in a problem that happens to have immediate practical payoff, the government is your only realistic option.
Also, the government spends a shedload of money on grants that have nothing whatsoever to do with the DoD, NASA, DoE, or DARPA. However, that money is still finite. So if a researcher can increase the pool of grants they can apply to by adding a military benefit spin to it, then most researchers will jump at it. Indeed, researchers in hard-science fields that don't accept defence money come in two classes: unsuccessful (cause they can't get any funding) or absolutely successful (since they're so wonderful that every grant they write is accepted, DoD be damned).
Consider getting tenure. In hard-science fields, the recomendation of the department carries a lot of weight. These are people who can draw on money from many more sources, and so the institutions will assume that they can come up with their own grant money, and all that matters is if they can get along with their coworkers. In, say, the history department, it is commonplace for a faculty member that the department is desparate to keep to leave, because their tenure case failed.
It isn't that DoD money is addictive, it's just that in a field that is so competitive, failing to use it as a resource puts you at a disadvantage, which can have negative effects in the long run. DARPA does not have a huge effect on the direction of research, either. I'd guess that the majority of grants are re-writes of something that was originally submitted to NSF or another no-strings source of money.
And if anybody in the DoD happens to agree with me, I'd be happy to accept a fellowship. CS, interests in distributed systems, willing to accept as much baby-killer money as it takes to pay the rent.
Re:Nice Article (Score:3, Interesting)
Hands guns to anyone who wants them - you can buy them from K-Mart.
And it also hands bigger weapons, even WOMD to Israel - a country which has been breaking UN resolutions since the UN was founded.
Re:It does matter... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll just add that the idea of seperating a military technology from a technology in general is a waste of time. It's an even greater waste of time to seperate military technology into a "good" column and a "bad" column.
If you are a scientist, researching for a military organization seems to make sense if the opportunity presents itself. After all, if you like the country, wouldn't you want to help to provide for the common defense? And if you don't like it, why are you living there?
And I'll add another news flash: dollars mean that the house of representatives have passed a bill allowing spending. It's not as though the people have no say.
Re:Military Ca$h (Score:2, Interesting)
Try learning some history. The decisive force in Europe in WWII was the Soviet Union, pure and simple. The invasion of France was a sideshow when compared to the fighting on the Eastern Front, as any competent historian will point out but USA textbooks happily ignore. Similarly, those textbooks conveniently downplay the large-scale fighting between Japan and China, which was quite significant. A classic comment with more than a bit of truth to it is that WWII was really two wars, one between Germany and Russia and one between Japan and China, and that the United States won both.
Re:Are you kidding me? (Score:4, Interesting)
My father is a retired university professor who did NASA and DOD sponsored research almost his entire career. That research has led to improved monitoring of the environment, among other things.
Furthermore, except for people who are a bit clueless about the need for a military to protect their right to not support the military, most scientists and engineers have no moral objection to doing work for the military.
Re:It does matter... (Score:1, Interesting)
Yes, I know, at least as long as the good old US of A continue their current foreign policy.
USA has an unequaled record of military interventions abroad, between WWII and 9/11 they add up to 67 in total.
If the young and not so prosperous country has any traditions, acts of war is certainly one of them - it's up to you, dear voters, to do something about that.
--
Anon C. Oward