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."
...if the scientists don't to develop technology with the Pentagon's Money for fear it will be used for destruction. If they develop the technology otherwise and the pentagon wants to use it for war they will anyway...and still take the credit. So why not take the cash and go with it?
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,
Yeah ok, tax payers money, useless vapor ware technology, lobbying yadda yadda...
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.
In Soviet Russia, the television watches YOU!
Why would scientists have a different set of ethics than, say, workers in munitions factories?
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
Technology is always a two-edged sword, but developing new technology generally serves to advance us, regardless of the specific area it may happen to be in. If person A shoots person B, is person a not 100% responsible for his actions? Then how much responsibility is left over for the gun maker?
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.
Everything's dual use. Box cutters that helped take down the planes two years ago were "dual use".
Bottom line, if you don't want to be funded by any agency, no one is breaking your arm to do it, or requiring you to stay where you are. That's your right. It's also someone elses right to be funded that way if they choose to be.
Why didn't airplanes have impermeable doors before 9-11?
Because it wasn't cost effective. Common sense and basic security took a back seat to the bottom line.
Until we are ruled by those who don't whore themselves out for the easy money of lobbyists and corporations, until the dollar takes a back seat to common sense, until we get off of our collective lard-asses, we have only ourselves to blame.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go watch reruns of Dukes of Hazzard.
I would say that this is simply the result of looking at a particular piece of innovation in unexpected and creative way. While engineers would probably be content with designing a piece of machinery to perform only a set of functions *and nothing more*, someone else may step in and say, "I don't care what it was *designed* to do. I want to know just what it *can* do." In many ways this is turning "conventional" research and development on its head and turning it towards other purposes. True, some purposes are more dubious and nefarious than others, but much of the strength of this country was built on looking at things unconventionally.
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.
This professor was my computer graphics and computer vision teacher. He was given offers to work for the DOD and for military contractors, but turned them down, not because he didn't agree with them, but because if he took the job, his work would be classifed and he wouldn't be able to publish.
Meldroc, Waster of Electrons
i've worked in various capacities for contractors of the dod (primarily darpa), for my entire technical life (> 15 years).
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.
I think there's a fine line here which we should probably give at least some attention too. Is the scientist who's working under a DoD contract to develop a system to see through smoke really rationalizing his work by saying "Well, it won't ONLY be used to kill people."
Isn't it more likely that they're saying something more like "Yes, this technology will be used to increase the effectiveness of our military to kill other soldiers, but if i do a good job and it's useful, maybe it'll save more people than it helps kill."
I'd like to think at least some of them feel that way, and i wouldn't hold it against someone for taking the funding they can get to work on a technology with broad non-military use, in addition to the specific ideas the DoD has in mind. As the article says, there are vast areas of gray, in fact, it's mostly gray, so it comes down to people making ethical decisions on the specific details at hand. Sometimes that'll lead you to not develop a technology, if you sway towards non-militarism, and so, great, one less way to kill, but sometimes you'll develop something that kills sometimes, but saves in other contexts, or pushes our comprehension of basic science, the universe, etc.
"I would rather the military run out of reasons to keep existing, and I don't want them to have any credit for something I have accomplished--which they clearly would if they gave me the money," says Steve Potter
It's amazing how people so clever in one field can exhibit appalingly naive and childish thought in other areas. I would rather scientists like Potter grow up and face the realities of the world outside their labs than have their silly views pandered to by an indulgent press.
"Surprise, surprise, it is different," he says. "Not different enough for me. Just think about the sheer magnitude of what hundreds of billions of dollars we spend on military efforts could do if spent on, for example, building schools in countries that need them, or creating diplomacy centers like the Carter Center, or informative research and practical solutions like those of the Union of Concerned Scientists."
Surprise, surprise, we do spend loads of money on countries that need schools and agricultural help and so on, but as anyone who has looked at the sad history of development aid in, say, Africa, knows, it is no use to build schools and whatnot if endemic violence destroys those schools and kills the people who would attend them. But like so many naive bien pensants, it's all 6 degrees of Dubya to him, and every evil that is is traceable back to the Pentagon.
I know this because Tyler knows this.
that battlefield medicine of the last two centuries has lead to great advances in first responder, emergency room treatment, and reconstructive surgery. What would our medical care be like without these traumatic events to push medicine along?
SCO to Hell
The 1994 genocide in Rwanda required only one invention: the machete. Preventing the genocide would have required very quick deployment of enough troops to put the whole country under occupation, something no military had at the time or has now. (Special forces troops can't occupy a whole country, and the rest of (e.g.) the American miltiary is a slow behemoth.) Maybe more miltary tech will enable timely action in the future. Or not. Only one way to find out. So, I would not have any compunctions against working on military tech. (Got that, Rumsfeld? Call me up, man, I'll send you a resume.)
Firstly, technology is rarely single use, only for the military. Average citizens drive frickin' Hummvees down highway streets, for crying out loud.
Secondly, since when is it unethical for a scientist to aid the military? The world is not a nice place, and if we accept that a military is necessary, then why not have the best damn military in the world?
Thirdly, guess what, posting messages to Slashdot is using technology developed with military grants -- a hell of a lot of communication research is done with military money. Shock, horror.
Signed, a telecommunication scientist who once served in the military.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
The reason money is *spent* is to get something out of it. DARPA isn't just saying "Here's a big chunk of cash...please make something cool with it". They develop ideas and plans and research tracks.
Now, on top of that, DoE already spends a *SHEDLOAD* of money on pure theoretical science. I believe the particle accelerator in Batavia, IL run by FNAL costs in aggregate some $6,000.00 odd dollars a minute to operate.
Those $450 million planes, by the way, have lead to great strides forward in material science, and may one day lead to the proper materials to build a space elevator.
This, as opposed to bottom-up economics, which would have this nation buried in cigarette butts and McDonalds hamburger wrappers.
This whole thread seems to express a kind of "if we had no weapons there would be world peace" mentality.
Think about this for a moment. If we eliminated weapons research could we expect other countries to do the same, and if not, for them to leave us alone? I don't think so.
If we greatly reduced weapons research such that it was only performed in time of war, could we assume this would be adequate protection against those we are fighting? I don't think so.
I'm sure there are a million reasons why scientists work on weapons systems, but I don't think many of them have this crisis of conscience as presented.
If we had been slower in development of nuclear weapons, or long range bombers, or other such instruments during and shortly after the great wars, would we (USA/EU) still be here to contemplate the evil of military technology? Who is to say some facist regime without scruples would not have walked all over democracies far and wide two decades ago?
I detest weapons and instruments of death, but I also accept the fact that the world is a harsh mistress; far too often people and nations find themselves in a kill or be killed situation.
I'm not going to work on weapons systems, but I am glad that some very smart people are working on them, and employing the technology to protect my country.
DANTE: My friend is trying to convince me that any contractors working on the uncompleted Death Star were innocent victims when the space station was destroyed by the rebels.
BLUE-COLLAR MAN: Well, I'm a contractor myself. I'm a roofer... (digs into pocket and produces business card) Dunn and Reddy Home Improvements. And speaking as a roofer, I can say that a roofer's personal politics come heavily into play when choosing jobs.
RANDAL: Like when?
BLUE-COLLAR MAN: Three months ago I was offered a job up in the hills. A beautiful house with tons of property. It was a simple reshingling job, but I was told that if it was finished within a day, my price would be doubled. Then I realized whose house it was.
DANTE: Whose house was it?
BLUE-COLLAR MAN: Dominick Bambino's.
RANDAL: "Babyface" Bambino? The gangster?
BLUE-COLLAR MAN: The same. The money was right, but the risk was too big. I knew who he was, and based on that, I passed the job on to a friend of mine.
DANTE: Based on personal politics.
BLUE-COLLAR MAN: Right. And that week, the Foresci family put a hit on Babyface's house. My friend was shot and killed. He wasn't even finished shingling.
RANDAL: No way!
BLUE-COLLAR MAN: (paying for coffee) I'm alive because I knew there were risks involved taking on that particular client. My friend wasn't so lucky. (pauses to reflect) You know, any contractor willing to work on that Death Star knew the risks. If they were killed, it was their own fault. A roofer listens to this... (taps his heart) not his wallet.
Linux could be used by the Department of Defense. It could even be used by al Qaeda. So should we abandon Linux?
The whole concept that people should refuse to do work for the DoD just because some 60's-era peaceniks think their point of view is somehow morally superior to everyone elses and that the only reason scientists would do DoD work is because they have a selfish addiction to money is absurd. "Give peace a chance" and "greedy capitalists" all in a single concept, priceless!
NEWS FLASH: We all hate war. But war is going to happen. We should be ready when it does happen and that doesn't mean that we start preparing when we see an immediate threat. If I can help my country build a more effective defense such that an attack on our country is less probable or, if there is a need for war, that fewer of my fellow citizens (our soliders) are killed in combat, AND I can make a buck doing it, that sounds like a sweet deal to me. I'll do it in a heartbeat. And I'll do it whether Bush or Clinton is president because, in the end, I'll be helping to save the lives of soldiers regardless of who sends them into combat.
If you're going to accept this whole "addicted to defense dollars" then we might as well accept the theory that many scientists that profess global warming is real are doing so to assure a continuing stream of federal research dollars.
People, the 60's are over. Even Clinton is history. Move on and stop being rebels without a cause, it gets old.
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.
If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
Seems there would be a lot of practicle uses for electromagnetic scattering, computer aided design, fly-by-wire controls, and who knows, perhaps even tail-less aircraft in the civilian sector. The B-2, as a finished product, certainly doesn't have civilian applications, but the technology and processes developed to build it (and its sister craft, the F1-117A) certainly does.
I for one would like to not have a military, but then we're left with the problem of gaining a reliable ally that has a very strong one.
common sense: noun
What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
In blunt terms, the anonymous submitter who began this discussion is dreadfully wrong when he implies that the United States of America (USA) is equivalent to totalitarian states like China (which includes Taiwan and Hong Kong) that emphasize military spending. Military spending in the USA is geared towards protecting lives. For example, in the Serbian military conflict (in which the Chinese supported the Serbians committing gross human-rights atrocities against the Kosovars in Kosovo), the Americans went out of their way to use precision military technology to destroy only military targets and to avoid hitting civilian targets like hospitals and schools .
We all can agree that merely needing weapons suggests the dreadful state of human affairs. Weapons are a necessary evil. Someone must develop them. That "someone" might as well be Westerners because we need them to safeguard the finest civilization known to human history.
Even the Japanese have awoken to this reality. Unlike the militaristic Chinese (which includes Taiwanese and Hong Kongers), the Japanese are extreme pacifists and have a constitution that forbids the use of force to settle overseas conflicts. However, after (1) the recent launching of nuclear-capable missiles by the North Koreans and (2) the recent confirmation of North Koreans kidnapping Japanese, Japanese policy makers are realizing the importance of developing state-of-the-art weapons systems. For the first time in recent memory, the Japanese are initiating discussions with the Americans on researching and building an impenetrable missile shield as soon as possible.
Well, I know that when I want to read biased unsubstantiated propaganda packaged as journalism, I turn first to the Villege Voice.
Where is the reporting to back the claim that U.S. scientists that don't take Pentagon money are "extremely rare"?
What we have here is a few anecdotal reports about a few people who apparently think that all weapons are evil and have chosen to preserve their unsullied souls by opting out of the Pentagon money pump. Well, good for them. Let's hope that they occasionally recall that they're able to act in this selfish fashion because other people are willing to use weapons (and give their lives) to defend their right to make their own choices.
Since the Voice makes its money by catering to the prejudices of country-loathing snobby wanna-be leftists. I'm not surprised to see them carry this little piece of phony muckraking.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
To live in blatant ignorance of reality, or to propose ways of changing an unpleasant state of affairs that are completely at odds with reality, is the province of childhood. I am not against idealism per se, but an idealism that is ineffective in the world is useless, or even worse than useless, as it can seduce people into unwise behavior.
The future should be a place where there are no militaries. The future should be a place where human beings are civilized enough to not brandish weapons at one another. Until then, we are not much better than animals.
Well, that's exactly what we are, including you. That humans are equally as capable of, and prone to, evil as good is a well documented fact and thumbing your nose at the military will not make that go away. That you can hold these beliefs and publically proclaim them without fear of being imprisoned or murdered you owe, ironically, to the very military you despise. As Orwell said, "pacifism is possible only in countries that possess strong navies."
The adult thing to do, faced with this, at a minimum is to realize that to have a society where people can live in relative peace and with some measure of dignity, militaries are necessary, and to at least show some appreciation for this, given the alternatives. To wish anyway for an abolishment of the military because violence offends you is the mark of a petulant child, not to mention a selfish indulgence considering the ramifications for the 270 or so million other people who would be without protection.
You and he refuse to face up to the world as it is and instead you advocate policies with no hope of changing things for the better. The only criterion you have it seems is what makes you feel good, not what is realistically best. That is not idealism, that is immaturity.
I know this because Tyler knows this.
Honestly, virtually all R&D in this country is financed by the government, usually by the military (often using defense contractors in the process). Internet? Yes. Aerospace technology for Boeing aircraft? R&D paid for by Pentagon defense contracts. Biotech, pharmaceuticals? Basic research funded by government. I've become interested in this topic recently...very little of R&D can not be traced back to the government. The one big private sector R&D success that towers above all others is Bell Labs - transistors, UNIX, C, you name it. But they were a government-granted monopoly! It's interesting because the economy really goes along on GDP growth, and that is mainly pushed by R&D leading to increased productivity. And the source of this is almost always the government, and usually through the military.
I for one would like to not have a military, but then we're left with the problem of gaining a reliable ally that has a very strong one.
Ah, that's Japan's solution to the problem. Maybe we should use their reliable ally.
Your country isn't so great if you'll end up fighting war after war because the rest of the planet hates you.
oh for hell's sake, pull your head out of the dark stink.
If he's part of the problem so are you. He never said it was acceptable, he said it's going to happen. Burying your head in the sand and blaming politics or the world for it won't slow it down, but you're sure as hell willing to try. "Let's all get along!" you'll say... what a load. Millions die every year all over Africa alone from wars 'we' (you know, the country that everybody hates) have nothing to do with (and ain't it funny how they hate us for that too). Iran and Iraq made war for some 20 years with very little prodding from us [very little mind you, not 'no prodding']. The Balkans region has been warring for _centuries_... before we were even a country to hate.
War happens. Sometimes it's politics, sometimes it's social injustice, sometimes it's a big f'ing misunderstanding, but it happens. A lot. And if you've even seen pictures of it, you'll know that you can't ignore it, and you'd better damn well be prepared for it or you'll be on the side that gets buried, burned or blown to hell.
So let me wrap up in this little temper tantrum of mine by saying - you're a fool. While it would be nice if everyone would settle down and talk about it, not every does. More often than not they will, but sometimes they'd rather just kill you. And your family. and your neighbors, friends or just the folks standing next to you for being there. It's easier that way, and sometimes just more FUN. Just ask Milosevic... I'll bet that guy hates us too.
Welcome to an imperfect world.