Slashdot Mirror


American Science: Addicted to Pentagon Cash?

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."

4 of 637 comments (clear)

  1. Military Ca$h by grub · · Score: 5, Interesting


    Funny, many people ragged on Theo de Raadt when he said "I try to convince myself that our grant means a half of a cruise missile doesn't get built." Yes these scientists are being painted as super-duper people with minty-fresh breath because they seemingly have some of the same convictions.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  2. well, probably not most.. by brarrr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That is a load of crap. My advisor (just for a start) will not take any DOD $, although NIH, NSF, DOE money is fair game. I would say that only half of the advisors in my department ever have accepted DOD $, the rest refusing.

    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

    --
    to email me: take my /. handle and append .net preceded by charter.
  3. .mil funding doesn't always mean weapons by Freeptop · · Score: 5, Interesting

    DARPA funds a wide range of scientific projects, not all of which are even directly military, much less meant for weapons systems. Many of the kinds of projects they fund are related to data storage, communications, etc, which are useful, in some cases even vital, to the military, but are not weapon-related at all, and definitely help more than just the military.
    Don't forget, before the internet, there was ARPAnet.

  4. Re:It doesn't matter... by xyzzy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Seriously. The guy who says "don't even speculate on how my [robots] will be used for military purposes or I will hold you responsible" is doing the scientific equivalent of holding his fingers in his ears and going "la la la la I can't hear you la la la".

    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.