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."
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,
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
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.
"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.
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.
Why didn't airplanes have impermeable doors before 9-11?
Why weren't you out there advocating it?
Because no one ever though a bunch of terrorists were going to take over a plane with razor blades and crash it into the world trade center.
Common sense and basic security? Give me a break.
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.
Government funding for research is inarguably the #1 reason why the United States is the technological world leader. Unfortunately, this is way too much of a fuzzy concept for the average American to understand.
Americans see technology soming from "Sony," or "HP," or "Dell." These companies do, at best, very little science research (I'm not counting product development as research). They don't understand that the technological concepts are developed far from the private sector in government-fundded research labs and universities.
Americans are constantly barraged with the notion that all money spent by the government is "wasted." Thus, our politicians are pressured to cut everything they can. The degree to which a project is 'safe' from cutting depends only on the strength of the lobby defending it.
For politicians, cutting pure science is a no-brainer. There is no lobby to defend pure science research. There is no apparent downside to cutting the research since practical application is in the distant future (i.e. longer than one term of office). I think NASA is a perfect example. For 20 years, NASA's budget has gotten smaller. It is an easy target.
So, how do you justify science expense to the masses? Call it "military research," and fund it though semi-military organizations like DARPA. It's bulletproof, because Americans will support any military expense (if you doubt me, I refer you to Bush's $87 billion request this week).
As a scientist, I have absolutely no problem with this arrangement.
CV
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.
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.