Vol. 20 No. 1 $2.50

Science and the Military_ I ( ~t r THE MILITARIZATION OF RESEARCH Editor After nineteen years. we tend to take the long view. Science for l.estie Fraser the People has been a vehicle for antiwar analysis and activity since PUblisher its inception. Conceived in the struggle against U.S. involvement in Gary" Keenan the Vietnam War by an organization then called SESPA-Scientists Destgnet and Engineers for Social and Political Action-SftP continues to OavidGemm: challenge military applications of science and technology. Illustrator During the years of U.S. involvement in the war in Southeast John KlOsSner Asia, we protested Pentagon-funded research on campuses and the Art&Photos Catherine Berney, Department of Defense use of napalm, Agent Orange. and other chemical warfare agents John Klossner, MINTO against the Indochinese. SftP also helped organize chapters of Ciilf"Ol Ryan, Glenn Wolff Science for Vietnam. We collected books, journals. and lab materials Edltorfal Committee Tracey cohen, Leslie Fraser, Jeff Levy for Vietnamese libraries and schools, and worked with Vietnamese Ga!y Marchant. Gino Palmeri. Stephanie l"ollack scientists on research such as the carcinogenic properties of Joseph Regna, Seth ShUlman. Ellen Weinstock defoliants. Planning " J5Xtr.l Help In 1985, as a response to the U.S.-funded contra war in Cehtral Jon Beckwith, RICh cowan Mat4!rlaJ Requests America. we organized Science for Nicaragua. SftP has been JlmBartDn sending technical materials as well as North American teachers to Distribution the science departments of Nicaraguan universities for the past two RiChard Aichelmann years. OUtreach Coordinator So publishing a special issue on the impact of military funding on .JonBeckwilh research and science education is an appropriate way to begin our Fundralslng COordinator twentieth year. For this issue, we contacted old and new GenyWaneck acquaintances of SftP. Physicist Charles Schwartz was a founding Editorial Advisory Board Joseph Alper, Rita Arditti, .Jon BeckWith, member of SESPA in Berkeley. He teamed up with graduate student Philip L Bereano. Edith Brickman. Paul Selvin to write an oveNiew of the Pentagon's presence in Stepl"len 01orover. Fran Conrad. Eric Entemam, Roslyn Feldberg, Ross Feldberg, academia today. Robert Krinsky. a more recent friend of SftP, Marilyn Frankenstein, Douglas fi.!Wama, provided a historical and categorical look at trends in military Ted GoldfarD, Rae GoodeN. Stepl1en Jay Gould, David Himmelstein, funding of research science and education since World War II. Eric Holtzman. Ruth HUbbard, David Kahn, Charles Koplik, Richard l.eiAns. ~ Lewontirl, Greg LeRoy investigated the new research centers that have Karen llllessing, Frank Mirer, David Noble, proliferated in the Reagan era-consortiums of university, industry, Richard· Novick. CQmie PtliRips, Alvin F. Poossaint. Stepl"len Risch, RIChard Rosen. military and federal intelligence agency cooperation. Jonathan King Virginia SChaefer, Scott SChneider, Miriam Struck. sue Tafler, l\llichael Tanzer, SCott ThaCher, and Steve Nadis explored two areas of military research-biological John vandermeer, Geny Waneck, warfare and the Strategic Defense Initiative-and the broader Joseph weJzenbaurn, Sandy Wiper, Steffie WOofhandler military influence over scientific fields involVed in that research. Gary sUasCRIPilONS: u.s. one year/six issues: SIS. Foreign Marchant inteNiewed several scientists whose work has been rate:' $21. u.S. dbraries/institulians: $24. Foreign librarieS S30. Member subscriptiOns (Includes the magazine. our funded by the military to report on infringements of academic newsletter and other c01111'11Uf1lcatians): $30. Foreign subsaibe~ mqst remit in U.S. currency, wilt! either an freedom. political censorship, professional punishment, and lrrtemat:tonai Money Order or a check drawn 011 a u.s. constraints on the public release of even basic research results. bank: SCIENCE FOR THE I'EOPI.E is available 10 ~ 011 There are also reports from scientists whose laboratories. research, consignment 'fiom the publiSher or through Carrier Pigeon or university departments have been supported by Pentagon funds. Dimibul!:lrS. Box 2783, Boston, MA 02200. The magazine is available in microform 11om l..lnM!rsi\V MiCrOfilmS. 300 The experiences of these women and men-some of which are N. Zet:b Rd.. Ann 1\tbor, Ml 48106. Sdel1ce for !tie fl!ople is indexed in An:ernatille Pless lndex. Box 7229, Baltim:>re. documented in the section titled Working Around the Military­ W2J218. cover a spectrum of political and professional differences. Through SCIENCE FOR THE PEOPU! IISSN 0048--9662) is publiShed bimontllly l:ly the Sdel1ce Resoun;e Cenrer, Inc., their involvement with Pentagon contracts and research. each has a nonprofit corporation at 897 Main St., Cambridge. MA 02139, telephOne 617/547.0370. Edited and prodt1a!d l:ly developed an analysis and rationale for accepting or rejecting the national orgat11zat1011 of Sdel1ce tor 1t1e People. we offer a progressi>e view of science and technology. military funding of their work. The accounts of their personal tlttides, letterS, revieWS, l'1eWSI'101<5. phOIDS. and art 'Mllf< a~e welcome. Please send oouble-spaced. l;YPed journeys illustrate the power of professional and economic manuscripts. 011 Wordstar IBM

CONTENTS

2 SWORDS INTO SHEEPSKINS by Robert Krinsky The militarization of higher education since World War II

6 PUBLISH & PERISH by Paul Selvin and Charles Schwartz The integration of university science with the Pentagon

11 WARU by Greg LeRoy 0 High-tech battlegrounds on campus

BIOLOGY GOES TO WAR by Jonathan King Marching toward a biological arms race

AFTER THE BOYCOTT by Steve Nadis How scientists are stopping SO/

POLITICAL CONSTRAINTS by Gary Marchant Military funding and academic freedom

WORKING AROUND THE MILITARY Scientist testimonials BUYER BEWARE SCIENCE by Richard Ruquist MILITARY FUNDING OF PUBLIC RESEARCH by Sheila Rise and Yewell C. Howe SCAPEGOATING THE SCIENTIST by Hugh DeWitt COMMITTING SCIENCE TO PEACE by Vera Kistiakowsky

43 ECONOMIC CONVERSION by Jonathan Feldman An altemative to academic dependency on the military

A SPECIAL THANKS TO MARK OSTOW AND XANADU GRAPHICS FOR THEIR GENEROUS SUPPORT. BY ROBERT KRINSKY

he emergence of sustained close relations between the military and acadtrnia occurred concomitantly with the rise of the United States as Tthe dominant economic, political, and military power in the aftermath of World War II. In 1946, General Dwight Eisenhower, Army Chief of Staff, sent a memorandum to senior officials of the War Department on the subject of "Scientific and Technical Resources as Military Assets," in which he stated: "The lessons of the last war are clear. The military efforts required for victory threw upon the Army an unprecedented range of responsibilities, many of which were effectively discharged only through the invaluable assistance supplied by our cumulative resources in the natural and social sciences." Eisenhower asserted, ""l"heir understanding of the Army's needs made possible the highest degree of cooperation. This pattern of integration must be translated into a peacetime counterpart."1 In that same year, the Office of Naval Research (ONR) was established by the U.S. Congress as the first federal agency to contract for basic research. The ONR immediately received $40 million in unspent wartime project money. 2 Shortly thereafter came the establishment of the Army Research Office in 1 9 51, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research in 1952, and the Defense Advanced Projects Agency in 1958.3 The Pentagon had quickly trnplaced a research and development infrastructure devoted exclusively to military pursuits. Each of these military research and development ins,titutions was empowered to contract work from universities and other research institutions.

INCREASING ACADEMIC RESEARCH FOR THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT

Over the twenty-six year period from 1960 to 1986, Department of Defense (DOD) obligations to academic institutions

Robert Krinsky is co-director of the National Crmzmission for Disarmament and Econrmzic Conversion. He can be reached at 4800 N. Fairfax Dr., Arlington, VA 22203. (703) 527-0406.

John Klossner

2 Science for the People for research, development, testing, and a greater degree of applied research for the evaluation (RDT&E) totalled $20 billion Pentagon. During the period from 1976to in constant 198 7 dollars. In 1986, funding 1986, the technology base funding levels reached their zenith at the $l.l category comprised more than 60 percent billion level. of the annual research and development All Pentagon research is targeted for a funds to academia. This is a sharp decline military objective. The Defense Department from the levels of technology base funding research, development, testing, and which ranged between 78 percent and 88 evaluation budget category is comprised of percent annually over the period from six sequenced components: 6.1 activity 1978 to 1987.10 supports investigations in the nature of Emphasis on advanced applied research basic processes and phenomena, 6.2 funds is likely to persist, buoyed by such exploratory development, 6. 3 concerns programs as the strategic defense initiative advanced development, and 6.5 includes (SDI). All funding to academia from the management and support of research and SDI Innovatove Science and Technology development activities. The balance of Office is categorized as advanced development research and development programs are funding (6.3).11 SDI funding to academic allocated to operational systems devdopment.4 institutions grew more than five fold in Categories 6.1 and 6.2, taken together, constant dollars, from $24 million in 1985 are regarded by the Pentagon as the to $133.4 million in 1986, and maintained "technology base."5 Historically, they a high level in 198 7 at $10 l.3 million. (SDI have been the predominant areas of figures are in constant 19 82 dollars. )12 academia's involvement in military research and development. Though 6. 1 FEDERAL FUNDING OF funding is regarded as basic research, Dr. MIUTARY RESEARCH FROM James Suttle, formerly the DOD assistant NON·DOD SOURCES director for research and advanced technology in the first Reagan administration, The Department of Energy (DOE), the notes that such projects are selected in view National Aeronautics and Space Administration of their "potential relationship to the DOD (NASA), and the National Science mission."6 Suttle explains, "When a 6.1 Foundation (NSF) have become important program is successfully completed the sources of military research and development results often lead to a 6.2 program to funding to academia. Aggregate DOE explore the use of the proven concept in a appropriations for weapons procurement device for military use." 7 more than doubled, from $3.6 billion when The Defense Department nearly doubled, President Reagan assumed office in 1981 in real terms, its funding obligations for to $7.6 billion in 1987. Over this period, technology base research to academia weapons programs accelerated from 38 between 1976 and 1986. Academia's share percent of the DOE budget to 65 percent, of total Defense Department obligations with the 1988 budget request for $8.1 for basic research (6.1) began a steep billion. increase from 39.8 percent in 1980 to 54 Meanwhile, requested appropriations percent in 1986 (see graph). a Fluctuations for energy conservation (including of the percentage of total exploratory weatherization for low-income households, development obligations ( 6. 2) to academic schools, and hospitals) in 1988 are 89 institutions have been less dramatic over percent lower than in 1981. Appropriations this period, but the amount of money as requests for solar energy and other measured in constant dollars has increased renewable fuels are 88 percent lower than 40 percent above the 1980 level to $198 appropriations granted in 1981.13 million in 1986.9 Estimates of the level of militarization at In order to fully appreciate the pattern of NASA during the Reagan administration increasing academic involvement with range from 50 percent to 90 percent.14 Pentagon research, and the extent to which According to the Wall Street journal, this dramatically influences the character of "Military men ... are increasingly calling the research and development agenda at the shots in the U.S. space program."15 colleges and universities, it is essential to President Reagan's national space policy consider the changing composition of the gives the DOD priority access to the Pentagon's research obligations. shuttle-the design of which was heavily Academia is increasingly involved with influenced by military requirements.

January/February 1988 3 Prior to the space shuttle accident, 34 it is to pursue its overall national defense University administrators have not been percent of shuttle payloads through 1994 objectives at the highest possible level of passive agents in the resurgent militarization were scheduled for military commitments.16 effectiveness and insight. There are three of academia. It is notewothy that the idea (See "The Military History of the Space fundamental reasons. Many of the known for the Forum was initiated by the AAU Shuttle" by Jack Manno, in the September/ technological problems stem from gaps in and adopted as part of The Defense Science October 1983 issue of SftP.) The knowledge which only basic research can Board Task Force Report on University consequent backlog due to the shuttle crash fill. Basic research is a source of new Resptmsiveness to N atUmal Security Requirements is likely to cause a dramatic increase in this concepts which introduce major changes in issued in 1982.25 The AAU, representing commitment if and when the shuttle technological and operational capability. more than fifty-four of the largest public ascends again. And finally, it is a source of insight for and private research universities, has been The National Science Foundation is DOD policymakers and others in evaluating extremely effective in securing institutional increasingly being leveraged for military and reacting to the possibilities inherent in access to public coffers. The organization purposes through such joint efforts as the technical proposals and in technological is also responsible for spearheading NSF-DARPA-ONR suppott for advanced developments anywhere in the world."20 political action that resulted in legislation computer architecture at Princeton Acting on this concern, in 1978 Carter establishing the Office of Energy Research University. In an apparent bid to ensure increased research and development in the Department of Energy.26 significant NSF funding, Eric Bloch, allocations to colleges and universities by Though the Forum is co-sponsored by director of the NSF, is promoting linkages 30 percent above 1977 obligations. A academia and the Pentagon, an indication with the Pentagon. Bloch recently asserted broad interpretation of the Mansfield that the Pentagon has the upper hand is the to Congress, "We should have joint Amendment was rendered by Carter, so fact that nominations to the Forum by the support of some of the new science and that virtually no Pentagon research sponsoring associations must meet with technology centers in the president's funding would be excluded from academia 21 the approval of the Secretary of Defense. 27 competitiveness initiative. NSF has taken Additionally, a new position of Director of The Forum has significantly influenced the lead, but other agencies, especially in Research was formed, and the DOD the magnitude, direction, and character of Defense, should be involved. "1 7 reconstituted its office of university affairs DOD research at universities through its in 1980.22 working groups on science and engineering, GOVERNMENT • UNIVERSITY foreign language and area studies, and SUPPORT FOR MIUTARY THE DOD-UNIVERSITY FORUM export controls. Examination of these RESEARCH activities reveals the many ways in which By 1986, the Carter-Reagan military militarization of higher education is The pattern of Pentagon research and buildup in academia had brought research limiting the range of free thought and development funding to academic institutions and development obligations to a level 126 diverting scarce resources from civilian traces significant political initiatives by percent .greater in real terms than 19 77.23 requirements. both U.S. presidents and academic New institutional structures emerged executives. Funding obligations rose and during the Reagan administration to THE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH were sustained at relatively high levels cement closer ties between the military and INITIATIVE through President john Kennedy's missile academia. Formation of the DOD­ buildup and the escalation of the U.S. University Forum (hereafter called the The Forum's Engineering and Science government's aggression against Viet Forum) is the centerpiece. Education Working Group advised the N am throughout the administrations of The Forum is a policy advisory group DOD to implement the University Presidents Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. consisting of senior-level DOD and Research Initiative (URI). The URI was During President Richard Nixon's university administrators. It is jointly funded by the Congress at $90 million in escalation of the U.S. war on Vietnam, a sponsored by the DOD and three of the 1986 and an additional $35 million in crescendo of opposition on college most influential higher education associations: 1987. 28 It is a multidisciplinary research campuses across the nation caused the the Association of American Universities program focusing on ten priority military contraction of military funding to the (AAU), the National Association of State technologies involving the natural and academy. Academic senates adopted Universities and Land Grant Colleges, and physical sciences. policies prohibiting secret research. the American Council on Education. The These priorities include: technologies In 1970, the U.S. Congress enacted the official function of the Forum is to "advise for automation; biotechnology; electro­ Mansfield Amendment (section 203 of the the Department of Defense on the full optical systems and signal analysis; high 1970 DOD Authorization Act) which range· of research-related needs and issues performance materials for a broad restricted research and development to "a that affect the Department's ties with spectrum of defense applications; fluid specific military function or operation."18 universities."24 dynamics systems; human performance Defense Department obligations to factors for guiding design of machines; academic institutions dropped 22 percent sub-micron structures in order to meet the (in constant 1987 dollars) from 1969 to military's need to increase electronic 1970, and by 197 5 obligations had information processing five orders of plummeted 48 percent below the 1969 magnitude by the 1990s; environmental level. 19 science and technology in order to Relations between the Pentagon and understand the conditions in which the academia began to improve in 19 78. weapons systems will have to operate; and President Carter accelerated a wide variety propulsion technology, including plasma of military programs, and a special pr_op_ulsion systems for use on future space working group known as the Galt mtsswns. Committee was directed by Carter to The formulation of the URI is indicative review DOD research practices. The of the increased emphasis upon advanced committee's fmdings stressed the importance applied research in universities. Ronald of Pentagon access to university resources: Kerber, formerly Deputy Undersecretary "The DOD has supported basic research of Defense for Research and Advanced for decades, and it must continue to do so if Technology, stated that the purpose of the

4 Science for the People URI is to "accelerate the process by which The intensified shift toward "mission­ Department's role as a significant funding scientific discoveries are translated into oriented" advanced applied research source in the engineering and science practical applications for advanced defense following this evaluation assures that the disciplines. Diversion of scarce scientific systems."29 The URI effort is slated for a opportunities for spinoffs will fall off to talent from civilian projects exceeds the three-to-five-year duration. It is intended zero. Seymour Melman, professor of number of university researchers on the to facilitate contacts among university, industrial engineering at Columbia Pentagon payroll. industry, and DOD labs, as well as increase University, and others have documented More than 1 70 academic institutions the number of science and engineering in numerous instances that the characteristics submitted a total of 965 proposals students working in areas of concern to the of the design criteria and production requesting more than $6 billion in the URI military. practices in the military are inimical to competition. The DOD judged 165 to be Approximately 85 percent of URI funds competence in the civilian sector.34 "of greatest scientific merit and importance are allocated to multidisciplinary research The military practices the art of "anti- to national defense."38 A recent Pentagon programs. The balance finances graduate evaluation estimated that between one­ fellowships, young investigator awards to third and one-tenth of the proposals new faculty, and scientific personnel submitted by university researchers are exchanges between DOD labs and funded, but twice as many are worth universities. 30 These arrangements are funding. 39 financially lucrative to the researcher and When evaluating proposals from university university alike. For example, the Air researchers, the Defense Department Force's Laboratory Graduate Fellowship substitutes its own evaluative criteria for Program provided forty-five three-year the traditional peer review process of the fellowships to doctoral students in 1986. academic community. Peer review is All tuition and fees are paid and the designed to ensure scientific merit. The act fellow's department receives $2,000 per of an external institution imposing its year. Fellows accrue an escalating annual criteria on the university research process stipend of$13,000, $14,000, and $15,000 does not comport well with academic over the fellowship period. 31 freedom, nor with broad social accountability The ONR's Young Investigator Program by the universities which accept these provides a base funding of $50,000 terms as a condition for conducting annually for three years to academic Pentagon research. faculty who received a Ph.D. or equivalent The Pentagon's rationale for substituting within five years of the award date. its "merit review" procedure provides Further incentive is provided by the further evidence that research agendas are ONR's offer to match, on a two-for-one informed in significant part by political and basis, support gained by the investigator economic power: from Navy labs and/or the Navy Systems "While external peer reviewers can help Commands. Though ONR has an to judge the merit of the science, they are $80,000 cap on this lucrative deal, there is engineering," according to james Melcher, often not aware of the many facets of no limit on the amount of funds obtainable professor of electrical engineering at the projects already supported by a particular from these other Navy sources. The Massachusettss Institute of Technology agency, or how a proposed research ONR's goal is to "establish strong long­ (MIT) and director of the MIT Laboratory project might fulfill a specific mission for the Electromagnetic and Electronic term ties between DOD and outstanding 35 requirement. As a result, the Services and academics."32 Systems. Regarding DOD's civilian the Defense Agencies rely heavily on the spinoff claim, Melcher asserts, "If you're recommendations of their scientific going to run business in this country that THE MIUTARY'S ECONOMIC • 36 program managers who are credentialed BRAIN DRAIN way, we know that it is notcompetitive.'' experts themselves in scientific or technical The drain on the civilian economy is disciplines, and who also must be The damage done by diverting precious further exacerbated as a consequence of the knowledgeable of relevant areas of military human and capital resources from the Independent Research and Development systems and operations."40 civilian economy exacts a social and (IR&D) program. This was established The pursuit of knowledge as defined by economic cost toll far greater than the during the Reagan administration for the the military and for the military is the nominal price tag for the Pentagon purpose of providing incentives to consequence of the Pentagon's merit research activities fulfilled by academia. industrial military contractors for subcontract­ review process. The "spinoff' argument which peppers ing their research and development work nearly every public Pentagon document to universities. It is a program highly NOTES on research and development is an oversold regarded by the Pentagon, which recently I. Full text in Seymour ,\Ieiman, Pentagon Capitalism. stratagem used to perpetuate the flow of observed that "while it is difficult to :'-lew York: McGraw-Hill, 1970, pp. 231-2H. quantify the additional support for 2. "Office of :'-laval Research .\larks 40th large amounts of research funds to the Anniversary," Science, :'-lovember 21, 1986, p. 9 32. military. A retrospective study conducted university R&D due to these incentives 3. U.S. Department of Defense, The DepOTtment of by the National Academy of Engineering because the support includes exchanges of Defense Report 011 the L'niversity Role in Defense ReseOTch in 1977 concluded: engineers, the IR&D incentives are and Development for the Cmnmittees on Appropriations, considered effective."37 United States Congress. Washington, D.C.: The "With few exceptions, the vast technology Pentagon, April1987. p. 5. :'-late: these and subsequent developed by Federally funded programs Engineering and physical sciences have data in this article do not include money dispensed by since World War II has not resulted in historically been the recipients of the the Defense Department through university-operated, widespread 'spinoffs' of secondary or greatest share of DOD largesse and federally funded research and development centers currently these academic departments (FFRDCs). additional applications of practical products, 4. James R. Suttle, "Basic Research from Lewis & processes and services that have made an remain heavily reliant on DOD funds. Clark to Laser Physics." Defense 82, Washington, impact on the nation's economic growth, An ability to leverage the thoughts of a D.C.: The Pentagon, p. 2 3. industrial productivity, employment great many more capable minds than it 5. Ibid. gains, and foreign trade." 33 funds is a dividend to the Defense CONTINUED ON PAGE 45

January/February 1988 5 BY PAUL SELVIN AND CHARLES SCHWAlm

t 2 A.M. on April 15, 1986, the deafening roar over Tripoli arose from American F-Ill jer bombers engaged in a "surgical strike" to destroy the Libyan headA of state, Muamar el-Qaddafi. Guided by night-seeing infrared detectors linked to onboard computers, equipped with laser-guided "smarr" bombs, and hidden by electronic jamming devices, the F-Ills represent a new high-tech warfare pursued by Pentagon planners. The new soldiers in this technological battlefield do not reside in the Pentagon and have no military rank or military garb. Instead, they work in industrial labs and on college campuses, hold the degrees of B.S., M.S., and Ph.D., and often dress in raggedy jeans. They are researchers, teachers, and students of science and universities. "During the past decade, engineering. DOD has made a major effort to reverse On campus, there is talk about the Integration the effects of the relative neglect of militarization of science; in the Pentagon, university research that occurred during there is active effort to scientize the the Vietnam war."1 military. The Department of Defense Students, upon leaving the ivory tower, (DOD) is building bridges to the brain of University are finding that most roads lead to the centers of science and technology: the Pentagon. MIT president Paul Gray laments that the brain drain to the Paul Selvin is a graduate student in the Pentagon "may draw talented people, Science including students and faculty, away from Department of Physics at the University of California, Berkeley who has been active in other promising lines of inquiry"2 with issues surrounding the militarization of science. nonmilitary applications. Charles Schwartz is a longtime member of with the But stunted civilian operations that lack SftP who teaches physics at the University of fertile workers and technological nourish­ California, Berkeley and is trying to educate ment are only a domestic problem, harsher physics professors and students about the critics argue. An overfed military monster, military applications of their work. Pentagon armed with more powerful and effective

6 Science for the People technological thunderbolts, is stalking the that a graduate student will choose a of Physics comments: "In my experience, globe under U.S. foreign policy direction. research area of interest to the DOD. "If students go to academe or else they work they are engaged early in work that is for Caspar Weinberger, either directly or TRAINING • CHANNEUNG intellectually stimulating to them and that indirectly. " 5 TECHNICAL PERSONNEL has some promise for the future and is Physics Today, citing Susanne Ellis, an supported by the DOD, it seems to me you educational studies analyst involved with Most discussion concerning the contribution are well on the way to having them hooked the American Institute of Physics' annual of academia to the military-industrial into that enterprise for a long time."4 survey of physics bachelor-degree recipients, complex has focused on campus research, In business this technique is called a loss says, "It used to be the case ... that such as classified vs. unclassified research leader. Sell cheap initially to reap the graduating bachelors hardly ever wrote and military vs. civilian funding. This benefits later: fund scholarships or research anything in the part of the questionnaire discussion, while important, misses an grants to create a new crop of students reserved for comments. But in the last two !Xjually-if not more important-rontribution: familiar with DOD "products." With years," she continues, "respondents the training of students. The future "front­ effective advertising and sufficient support, mention increasingly frequently that they ! ine soldiers" of science-those with research fields become exciting, active, and are unhappy with the job prospects outside bachelor degrees-as well as the future full of users (colleagues). The Pentagon, the defense sector: A typical comment is, "captains" of science-the Ph.D.s-are all like a company with loyal customers, is 'The reason I have had such trouble trained at universities. content to hear the familiar professorial finding a job is that I do not want to do But recruits and trainers are in short "excuse:" "My research, although paid for defense-related work."'6 supply. In congressional testimony by the DOD, is completely unclassified; it The channeling of scientists and concerning the Department of Defense is the work I want to do, not what they tell engineers into military-related work, appropriations for 1986, Dr. Robert me to do." while particularly acute for baccalaureates, Rosenzweig, former vice president of While many academics who wish to also exists for Ph.D.s. "If you are in Stanford University and current president distance themselves from the military physics," says R.K. Weatherall, Director of the Association of American Universities, refuse to accept DOD money for research of MIT's Office of Career Services, "you testified that "an insufficient number of or, in more extreme circumstances, stop may have started out dreaming only of talented U.S. students are being attracted research altogether, it is almost unheard of contributing your bit to the stock of

into Ph.D. programs in the sciences and to reject the responsibilities of teaching. human knowledge. Later, with the Ph.D. engineering." He also claimed that "there One of the authors of this article, Professor under your belt, you may decide to leave is a shortage of engineering faculty ... that is Charles Schwartz of the University of the academic life for industry and then you hampering undergraduate engineering." California, Berkeley, has taken the unusual discover that many of the most exciting The faculty shortage is so acute that when step of refusing to teach graduate and places to apply your background in lasers, asked how a young Ph.D. engineer could undergraduate classes to physics and or cryogenics, or computer modeling are in best contribute to the Department of engineering majors. Fifteen years earlier, the defense sector. " 7 Defense, Dr. Rosenzweig responded: "If Professor Schwartz resigned as a principal The military web can also ensnare he is ... good enough, we would like him to investigator from a DOD research grant established physicists presently in the go back on university faculty." 3 after the funding agency, the Air Force civilian sector. Recent cutbacks in civilian The Defense Department is interested in Office of Scientific Research, refused to projects, combined with large increases in training a large number of technically reveal the military's interest in his work. military programs, are forcing former or oriented people to "build a cadre of Students, the center of attention in this present civilian-oriented researchers to scientists and engineers who will be battle, often find that the only job niche find military-related jobs. At the Lawrence participants in its programs in the future," available after leaving the university is in Livermore Laboratories, the Tandom according to Dr. Rosenzweig. Graduate the trenches of the military-industrial Mirror-Magnetic Confinement Fusion student support, through fellowships and complex. John Rigden of the University of Project was mothballed at the same time research grants, increases the likelihood Missouri and editor of the American Journal that Livermore landed a multimillion

January/February 1988 7 dollar Strategic Defense Initiative project, forcing fusion workers to move to a new job or join the SDI project. Data on Jobs and Budgets Similar cutbacks at MIT's Plasma Fusion Center have led Barton Lane, a theoretical physicist, to note: "People in hat percentage of scientists mathematicians are surprisingly high. fusion energy research are getting out of and engineers in the U.S. are These figures, however, should not be the field. They're going into the Strategic W employed in military-related raken at face value for today's situation; Defense Initiative. That's where the jobs jobs? Estimates vary widely: 14 percent instead, they provide lower bounds. The are today for these kinds of skills. " 8 (National Science Foundation); 20 true numbers today must be considerably Surprisingly, there are no uniform percent (National Academy of Engineering higher than these, due to the large statistical data available showing the & Office of Technology Assessment); 30 changes in federal priorities for R&D breakdown of military vs. civilian jobs for percent (Dumas); 40 percent (Thurow). funding that have occurred since 1980. scientists and engineers; numbers range As for the fraction of jobs taken by new The graph, reproduced from Science from 14 to 70 percent. (See the accompany­ science and engineering graduates that magazine, shows the dramatic shift ing sidebar.) are in the military sector, the estimates toward military funding in research and vary even more: 14 percent (NSF); 28 development-boosted from 50 percent percent (Davis); 70 percent (Tsurumi). to 73 percent-under Reagan. This DEVELOPING THE SCIENCE (Sources: NSF; Daniel S. Greenberg; graph shows only federal funding for AND TECHNOLOGY BASE Warren. F. Davis, unpublished manuscript, R&D, which is about one-half of the January 26, 1985.) entire national R&D expenditure. For years, the Department of Defense The military market for scientists and Of "basic" research funds which the has recognized the importance of science engineers depends strongly on the field federal government supplies, only about and technology in maintaining U.S. and also on the type of job. The 12 percent comes from the Department of military strength and "the essential role following table on scientists working for Defense (NSF, Science Indicators 1985). that the academic community plays in the the military presents the only disaggregated The Pentagon, however, puts its basic maintenance of U.S. technological leadership." data available. The entries show the research money into strategically chosen Consequently, "U.S. universities are a percentage of scientists and engineers, fields: in fiscal year I 986, the DOD major factor in current DOD activites within each category, who were employed portion of all federal support for affecting the U.S. technology base," a primarily in work for "national defense" university basic research amounted to 14 Pentagon report to Congress maintained. at the time of the 1980 census. percent in physics, 3 5 percent in In fact, DOD spending for basic research at For students considering science and mathematics, 48 percent in materials universities has grown at a rate "far higher engineering jobs outside of academic science, 48 percent in mechanical than the national growth of DOD (basic) institutions, the last column, "applied engineering, 54 percent in computer research funds as a whole."9 R&D," is the most relevant. The large science, 56 percent in aeronautics/ astronautics, However, the Pentagon does not need to percentage shown for aero/asrro engineers and 60 percent in electrical engineering, rigidly control academic basic research. is what one might have expected; but the according to Federation of American Scientists With $44 billion dedicated to applied near 50 percent figures for physicists and statistics. research and development-73 percent of all federally-sponsored research and development in the U.S.-the DOD is able to transform advances in basic research into Scientists and Engineers practical weapons systems. 'Fhe ideology Working for National Defense in 1980 of a "pure" search for the truth in universities, coupled with an extensive defense-oriented applied research program FIELD PRIMARY WORK ACTIVITY in industrial and military labs, serves the Pentagon well. all jobs all R&D a~~lied R&D The Pentagon's interest in basic research is two-fold: they're seeking new scientific all Fields of Science & Engineering 13% 19% 21% knowledge and technological spin-offs. all physical sciences 10% 14% 15% The study of the cosmic background, a subfield of astrophysics, yields technological Physics/ Astronomy 22% 31% 46% spin-offs of interest to the military (for example, infrared detectors), but the Chemistry 5% 5% 6% scientific result-whether the cosmic all Mathematical Sciences 13% 32% 42°/o background radiation follows a black­ body spectrum at 2. 78 or 2. 7 5 degrees-is Mathematics 15% 36% 49% of little military interest. For instance, in all Computer Specialists 11% 14% 15% yet another U.S.-Libyan confrontation, an air duel over the Gulf of Sidra in 1986, all Engineering 18% 24% 24% infrared detectors were used by an American F -15 fighter plane to home in on Electrical Engineering 27% 32% 32% the enemy plane's exhaust fumes and Aero/Astra Engineering 58% 66% 66% destroy it with a heat-seeking air-to-air missile. Other times, the goals of a basic research Source: National Science Foundation 1982 Postcensa/ Survey. A 1981 survey restricted to PhDs shows figures about% of the program are of direct interest to the above. Pentagon. Mathematical research into turbulent flow and nonlinear systems is

8 Science for the People fundamental to wing and rotor design of One computer science professor at the airplanes and helicopters, as well as all University of California, Berkeley, where kinds of projectiles, from bullets to rail about 80 percent of that field's funding is guns and nuclear warheads. The study of from the Defense Department, says that shock waves in supernovas has the down­ DOD project officers are "sharp" and to-earth application of nuclear explosions. "helpful. " 13 However, because the Although the Defense Department does military budget is so bloated, there is not control basic research on campuses, the bound to be excess fat that strains the Pentagon, nevertheless, stimulates certain budget belt and needs to be spent, even if it areas of basic research, particularly in the has little or no military application. John physical sciences, through research grants, Holdren and Bailey Green, of the sponsorship of conferences, and support of Federation of American Scientists, report, graduate students and postdoctoral "In some cases, perfectly sensible research fellowships. Even within the physical with little relation to strategic defense­ sciences, the areas of basic research other than having been strategically re­ sponsored by the Pentagon are not labeled-is being carried out with the random. excess funds. " 14 Despite the commonly heard rationales­ Other professors are skeptical of DOD's " My research, although paid for by the ability to pinpoint basic research that's of DOD, is completely unclassified and is not military interest. "They don't have the weapons-related," or "I am fooling the brains," said an MIT professor who has DOD by taking their money which they taken DOD money.15 laboratory experts' judgment of relevance would otherwise spend on weapons" -the Many concerned professors-perhaps must be affirmative or DOD will not fund Pentagon has an extensive and sophisticated afraid of what they might find-superficially the proposal."11 organizational structure to determine what investigate the military significance of their areas of science are of most benefit to the SO WHAT? work. A Pentagon position paper took military and which particular research note of the different emphasis of the projects will further specific military goals. civilian researcher and the military funding Although the Pentagon has built an agency: "Great differences were found in elaborate planning and review process to statements of military objectives; in many PENTAGON ORGANIZATION: utilize and stimulate science and technology BASIC RESEARCH FOR THE for military objectives, is it really getting cases the DOC (Defense Documentation Center) statement contained a highly much bang for its bucks? Or is the review MIUTARY relevant objective for each project written process just another B 1-B bomber­ by the DOD project monitor, while the The Pentagon receives top-level scientific expensive, useless, and serving no real university proposals, written by faculty advice from its science advisory committees: military purpose? researchers, largely ignored this point."16 the Defense Science Board and other Opinions differ on how "smart" DOD committees for each branch of the armed funding agencies are. Not surprisingly, a It is often difficult to know the reasons forces. They are responsible for identifying Pentagon official claims, "The Department why the military is interested in a the particular research areas that the of Defense makes a very thorough effort to particular research project, because the military will encourage. (See the accompanying insure funding only research projects information is classified and, therefore, sidebar.) directly relevant to the military's technological unavailable to the civilian researcher. Once overall priorities are established, needs ... there is a sufficiently large number Opinions clearly vary about h~w well the Pentagon must then review specific of research proposals received so that the the DOD targets funding for basic research research proposals for funding. An funding agencies can afford to choose only of military importance. Nevertheless, there exhaustive study by Stanton Glantz and those most nearly matching their goals."12 is little question that modern-day warfare Norm Albers, published in Science, analyzes the process in detail. 10 A four-step process determines military research The Militarization of R&D-Scientists and objectives based on the military requirements Engineers Working for National Defense in 1980 of each armed service. The military requirement is identified in step one: for 44 example, it is found that a foot soldier 40 cannot communicate with his or her 36 The Administration's commander. Step two: analysis shows that budget would put 73 a new piece of equipment will solve the 32 19861 (estimate) percent of federal R&D problem. Step three: the equipment will 1987 -;; 28 require micropower integrated circuitry. dollars into military Step four: present micropower techniques :!= 24 programs. In 1980, military and nonmilitary are found inadequate, and funding for this ~ 20 field is prioritized, thus defining the R&D spending were -e 1a ------military research objective. about equal. [Basic .!! Any proposal submitted to the DOD is c; 12 research funds are compared by military scientists to the Cl 8 included in the totals armed services' research objectives. Other ~~-~~i;~~~--~~~-~!~-~~ ..... ~...... ~ ...... -· for defense and other scientists from the National Academy of 4 programs.] Sciences/National Research Council judge 0 the proposal on scientific quality. "Both 1971 1975 1979 1983 1987 the National Research Council's determination Year &wn:e: Science. vot. 231. Feb 21, 1986. page 787. of scientific merit and the military

January/February 1988 9 has gone "high tech" and that without the by NSF and DOE, "with only minor basic research and training done on support from DOD," according to a 1985 campuses, the military machine would DOD report. 20 However, the report have trouble operating. continues, "Any decrease in support of these facilities by the other agencies would A ROSE BY ANY OTHER NAME severely affect the DOD materials research MAY BE DEFENSE RESEARCH program." Thus "a rose by any other name may be defense research." 21 Differences between DOD and non­ DOD funded research, while present, LENDING LEGITIMACY should not be overemphasized. In Washington, the National Science Foundation, The Pentagon has sought to enlist the Department of Energy, NASA, and DOD prestige and credibility of the academic regularly consult, coordinate, and even community. The most striking example trade and share project funding. 17 According occurred when Commander-in-Chief to a 1982 report by the Defense Science Reagan attempted to disarm SDI critics by Board, "Research and development in claiming that a majority of scientists universities is supported by many believe that SDI is feasible. Reagan's sponsors, each relying on complementary statement backfired: some 3, 700 science funding from the other sponsors to and engineering faculty members­ leverage its own expenditures."18 including a majority of the top 59 physics The X-ray laser program, for example, departments-and 2 800 graduate students was initially funded for several years by Normally, a number of military agencies signed a pledge not to accept SDI the Pentagon. In 1977, the director of simultaneously fund particular projects funding. 22 (See the article about scientific DOD's Advanced Research Projects and entire fields which have both civilian resistance to SDI, "After the Boycott," in Agency reported to Congress that he was and military applications. Lasers, computers, this issue.) terminating the program because it did not and thin-film technology are just a few of Attempts to harness the prestigious seem to have any near-term military the many specific projects funded by ivory tower image also occur on Capitol applicability, and recommended that NSF DOD, NSF, and DOE. Hill. "This office is trying to sell take over funding. 19 In the early 1980s, the The symbiotic relationships between something to Congress," said James first successful nuclear-pumped X-ray the DOD and other funding agencies is lonson, who heads the Innovative Science laser test was announced at the DOE's even more subtle: funding by one agency and Technology Office of the Strategic Lawrence Livermore Lab. (Subsequently, supports projects associated with others. Defense Initiative Office, in a 1986 Science it was learned that many of the lab's claims For example, Synchrotron radiation interview. "If we can say that this fellow at were scientifically dubious.) sources, like the one at Stanford, are funded MIT will get money to do such and such research, it's something real to sell." 23 The DOE's Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos National Labs, officially run by the University of California, also exert Science Advisory Committees influence in Washington. Designers of U.S. nuclear weapons, yet having the to the Departlllent of Defense independent and unbiased reputation associated with a university, these labs he f,.ol.lowing statistics reflect the created ro deal with general policy issues have fought most vigorously against a number of academies on military sci­ rather than scientific questions. As of comprehensive test ban treaty. In 1978, Tence advisory committees-Defense 1984, its members included the presidents President Carter was on the verge of Science Board: 2 3 academies out of 125 of Stanford, Rurgers, Cal Tech. Minnesota, signing a test ban treaty but was dissuaded members in fiscal year 1986; Air Force Georgia Tech, Columbia, and Rochester. after a meeting with then Livermore Scientific Advisory Board: 22 out of 81 (For more information about this forum, Director Roger Batzel and Los Alamos in FY 86; Army Science Board: 18 our of see the article "Swords Into Sheepskins" Director Harold Agnew. Said Agnew, 98 in FY 86; Naval Research Advisory in this issue.) "There's no question in my mind that we Committee: 13 out of 115 in FY 86; SOl A different group of Pentagon turned Carter around because we incurred Advisory Committee: 6 out of 11 in consultants, almost all from academia, is so many enemies from the other side! It 1987. the Jason group. Composed of some four was obvious we had an impact."24 The charter of the U.S. Air Force dozen of the country's most elite Back at the university's campuses, the Scientific Advisory Board describes its physicists, they work on specific Livermore and Los Alamos labs use their objectives in charting the course for technical problems of imp()rtance to the association with the University of science: "The Board reviews and DOD. In addition, Jasons often invent California to recruit and retain students evaluates long-range plans for research and promote wholly new approaches to and graduates-a benefit that lab directors and development... recommends unusually the use of science for the military. frequently note.25 All recruiting advertisements promising scientific developments for Complete membership lists for all of display the University of California name. selective Air Force emphasis and new these groups have recently been obtained At UCAL-Davis, an exchange program scientific discoveries or techniques for via the Freedom of Information Act. For for doctoral students-sometimes called practical application to weapon or a four-page listing of all the academic "Teller Tech"-allows physics and support sysrems ... and serves as a pool of members, send a stamped, self-addressed engineering students to conduct their expert advisers to various Air Force envelope to: Charles Schwartz, Physics Ph.D. work at the Livermore facility. activities." Department, University of California, Collaborative efforts, such as the The DOD-University Forum is a Berkeley, CA 94720. Institute for Geophysics and Planetary defense advisory committee recently CONTINUED ON PAGE 48

10 Science for the People High-Tech Battlegrounds on Campus

BY GREG LeROY allow fighter planes, such as the A TB military and intelligence agencies. Stealth Bomber, to hide from radar, and or the last six years, the Pentagon kinetic energy devices that will destroy MICROELECTRONICS AND has been sneaking billions of dol­ moving targets from space for the Star COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY lars in military contracts right Wars program. Research is being conducted CORPORATION into the laboratories of almost on supercomputers that can parallel every major university in the United process vital information at blinding One of the largest of these organizations FStates-often in violation of university speeds (which would allow a better­ is a cooperative research venture formed as policies, and sometimes without the coordinated nuclear strike) as well as a for-profit corporation at the University knowledge of the professors and graduate numerous other high-tech goodies, many of Texas at Austin. Called the Microelectronics students who are working on these of which the general public isn't even and Computer Technology Corporation programs. aware of. (MCC), it was organized by retired This is being done at dozens of private Some of these research centers are intelligence officer Admiral Bobby Ray research centers that have been created practically owned outright by the Defense Inman, who gathered together 20 major through the cooperative efforts of Department. Others have their own corporations and $600 million in start-up government, industry, and academia for buildings and scientists. The majority, capital. priority research and development of a however, are something entirely new: Inman asked the university to build a new breed of "smart weapons." Investigations consortiums of the nation's largest defense 200,000-square-foot building for $20 are being conducted on materials that will contractors, who simply redistribute million at their Balcones Research Center, portions of their military programs to about seven miles north of the central Greg LeRoy is the director of a nonprofit select colleges and universities across the campus. The university not only obliged, public interest group in Houston. A copy of u.s. they agreed to charge just two dollars a the book from which this article was adapted, Almost every one of these campus­ year rent for the building (with fitness including references and a bibliography, is situated organizations share one thing in rooms and jogging track included) and the available for $4 from Public Search, P. 0. Box common. Their top-level positions are 20-acre grounds. 6767, Houston, Texas 77265. filled by people from the government's Then an "anonymous Texan" donated

January/February 1988 II $3 2 million (which five Texas foundations from the Department of Defense, and HOUSTON AREA RESEARCH matched) for new faculty posts in science therefore is driven by military requirements," CENTER and engineering. Within four years, MCC says a congressional report issued in March had five different buildings, 440 people, 1986. Nearly 80 percent of all R&D in At exactly the same time that MCC was and a $7 5-million-a-year budget. some of these fields, according to this being organized, only 200 miles to the All of this money is being used "to Office of Technology Assessment report, south, a man named George Mitchell was, developed generic technology and develop­ comes from the Pentagon. as Fortune magazine put it, "laboring to ment tools," says Mary Kragie, an analyst This is substantiated by a review of the become the Bobby Inman of Houston." for the Public Affairs Office of MCC. participants in the research center. Half of Mitchell donated 100 acres from one of his Corporations pay hundreds of thousands the top ten U.S. defense contractors are real estate holdings, put up millions of of dollars to become a shareholder in the represented at MCC, and the majority of dollars in start-up capital, and convinced center, plus part of the costs for whatever the other firms involved are the largest twelve corporations and four local research programs they take part in, players in captive microelectronics universities (Rice, University of Houston, usually adding up to millions of dollars a operations that serve the military markets. Texas A&M, and the same University of year. In theory, if and when MCC produces a marketable product, those shareholders who participated in the program that produced the technology may be allowed to license it. Yet after four years and almost a billion dollars in financing, only two items (both software programs of debatable value) have ever been released on the open market. Why hasn't anything else been produced? MCC representatives insist that the center is involved in long-range research that won't show short-term dividends. But there is another reason. The majority of MCC research and development is cutting­ edge military technology-which the center will keep secret no matter what happens. Look at their research agenda: software technology, very large scale integrated Texas, Austin that is involved with MCC) circuits and computer-aided design to join in a nonprofit research consortium (VLSIICAD), advanced computer architec­ called the Houston Area Research Center tures, semiconductor packaging/interconnect, (HARC). as well as a recently initiated program into HARC differs from MCC. While the the new field of superconductivity. On the Austin-based center has its own scientists surface, these programs sound innocuous, who conduct the majority of their work in­ but they are the new developments in house, HARC spends most of its energy microelectronics that are providing a soliciting research grants for fedistribution foundation for the Pentagon's new high­ to affiliated universities. This takes place technology weapons. 20 miles outside of Houston in The Large and complex software programs, Woodlands, in a residential development for example, are needed to get Star Wars off community. the ground. Innovations in VLSIICAD By the beginning of 198 7, still without technology will help design better military even a building of its own and with only a aircraft and ballistic missiles. Pilots will be skeleton crew of about 50 full-time people, able to "talk" to their on-board computers HARC was operating on $9 million worth if the computer architecture program of contracts from government and comes up with a workable "human industry. As much as 70 percent of interface." New semiconductors (or a HARC's funding is military oriented, process to build them) could make according to their business department. computers a thousand times more powerful, • "" HARC projects include, for example, while an advance in superconductivity "Neutral Particle Beam Research," a would make it possible for all electronic "Laser Countermeasure Materials Development systems to work faster, more powerfully, Program," and "Preparation of Unsolicited Proposal to SDIO" -the Strategic Defense and in one-fourth the space. John Klossner So scientists at MCC are doing the Initiative Organization that funds Star necessary groundwork in all of these fields. Wars research. Just how much of their research is financed by the Pentagon, they won't tell. That SEMICONDUCTOR RESEARCH type of information is considered "proprietary," CENTER and being a private corporation, MCC isn't obligated to talk to anyone except their The director of public relations at stockholders. HARC says that George Mitchell met However, the source of the funding is with people in North Carolina in order to obvious. "The lion's share of direct federal learn how to set up a consortium. The support for microelectronics R&D comes Copyright for this article is held by Greg LeRoy. people Mitchell was talking with were

12 Science for the People opening their own venture at the same "formal relationships" with 24 major who want to work with these (programs)," time. SRC, or the Semiconductor Research universities and "research and technology she said. Center, was founded by industrial arrangements" with 64 corporations. SEI's It can happen like this. The Defense heavyweights-including Intel, Motorola, purpose, according to its own literature, is Department awards a contract to a Burroughs, Honeywell, and IBM-but "finding ways to move state-of-the-art company like Boeing or Rockwell. This takes contracts directly from the Department technology out of the laboratory and into private company then subcontracts out of Defense as well. military systems more quickly." parts of the program to a "private" SRC is part of the Microelectronics research center such as SEI, BIRL, SRC, or Center of North Carolina, an $80 million BASIC INDUSTRY RESEARCH HARC. The research centers, however, complex built at Research Triangle Park. lABORATORY do exactly the same thing-they subcontract Duke University, North Carolina A& T parts of the program they've just received State University, North Carolina State In the same year that SEI was formed, out to their member universities. University, University of North Carolina construction was beginning on the $26 So by the time a contract is tossed out of at Chapel Hill, and the University of million federally funded Basic Industry the Pentagon and picked up in the office of Research Laboratory (BIRL) at Northwestern a university professor, it usually does not University. This will be part of a $400 look as though it is part of a military million research park on a 26-acre site next program. The contract has been rewritten door to Northwestern's Evanston, Illinois so often, and the topic so minutely focused, campus. that many university professors and The BIRL labs will represent, says a graduate students are unaware that they are Northwestern press release, "a unique working on Pentagon-financed programs. indusrry-university-government partnership." Just two of the centers already BIRL-like the other research centers-is mentioned, SEI and SRC, sponsor research "predicated on the concept" of the at over fifty major American universities. "transfer of university research to industrial laboratories." EISENHOWER'S WARNING SUBVERTING UNIVERSITY Dwight D. Eisenhower, upon leaving. POUCIES presidential office in January 1961, gave an often quoted farewell address on the BIRL, HARC, SEI, SRC, and MCC are dangers of what he called the "military­ just a few examples of the fifty to sixty new industrial complex." He asserted that the research centers that have been created in "free university, historically the fountainhead the Reagan era. Other large, well-funded of free ideas and scientific discovery, has North Carolina at Charlotte are all institutions are now operating at MIT, experienced a revolution in the conduct of involved. Stanford, and the University of Minnesota, research. Like Houston's HARC, the North to name a few. But you won't come across "For every old blackboard there are Carolina center serves as a conduit for these centers as you stroll down the now hundreds of new electronic computers. military monies to irrigate university quadrangle of a university's main campus. The prospect of domination of the nation's campuses. "Core programs" at Stanford, All are located in secure buildings from a scholars by Federal employment, project Cornell, the University of Michigan, and few blocks to twenty miles down the road. allocations, and the power of money is ever the University of California at Berkeley There is a reason for this. These newly present-and is gravely to be regarded," he have been established, and SRC is formed research centers are churning out warned. sponsoring additional research at 3 5 other military R&D in cooperation with Could Eisenhower have conceived of universities. universities that have written policies the day in August 1982 when Pentagon Larry Sumney, the center's director, which prohibit military work from being representatives, acting under the International told Electronics magazine two years ago done on campus or a general understanding Traffic in Arms Regulations, would march that SRC is planning to add even more that classified work is prohibited. into an international symposium of the Defense Department financing in the Dr. John Margrave, who held two Society of Photo-Optical Instrumental future. Expected to join are four new positions simultaneously-vice president Engineers being held in San Diego, members: the Defense Advanced Research for Advanced Studies and Research at Rice California and demand the withdrawal of Projects Agency, the National Security University as well as director of the over 100 technical papers just before they Agency, NASA, and the Department of Material Science Research Center at were about to be delivered? Energy. These federal agencies will put in HARC, the Houston Area Research Would it have seemed likely twenty even more money than the corporate Center-explained this violation of years ago that mathematicians be required sponsors. university policies in a 1986 interview. to "voluntarily" submit their papers for University scientists can accept defense review to the National Securiry Administration SOFIWARE ENGINEERING contracts without violating Rice's written under the assumption that innovative INSTITUTE policies, he said, because "military algorithms might be a threat to national programs are first sent to HARC." There security? Over ten mathematician's papers they are restructured into two parts-one have been challenged by the agency in the In Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Carnegie­ classified, the other unclassified. "You then Mellon University beat out numerous last four years. subcontract the unclassified research back other contestants in 1985 for an initial five­ to the member university," Margrave said. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT year $103 million contract directly with INFORMATION MONOPOLY the Department of Defense to build what THE PENTAGON CLIARINGHOUSE will be the largest government-financed The military's use for high technology software research center in the U.S. An Dr. Jane Armstrong, HARC Director of was not fully apparent in the 1960s. Then additional $18 million is to be spent on a External Relations, explains it another it seemed limited to real secrets, like nuclear secure building near the CMU campus. way: "HARC will act as a clearinghouse" weapons, that had no civilian value. But Carnegie-Mellon's Software Engineering for classified research. "It will provide a now the Pentagon has identified every new Institute, or SEI, is expected to enter into good arms-length relationship for people area of computer technology as vital to the

January/February 1988 13 defense effort-even personal computers. technology that they develop. Other laws intelligence agencies-the NSA and In an action little reported by the press in gave industry incentives to form cooperative CIA-threw their weight behind the plan. September 1984, President Reagan signed research ventures. National Security Decision Directive 145, After seven years and billions of dollars THE NSA'S MUSCLI which has empowered the military to set spent, the obvious questions are finally standards for the entire U.S. data being raised. Is military money a help or a The National Security Agency, says processing industry. hindrance to universities? Are military James Bamford, whose book The Puzzle Who's behind this information control? research centers actually producing the Palace is the most authoritative unclassified It's the National Security Agency, who remarkable technological breakthroughs work on the subject, is the most well­ will provide U.S. manufacturers with all they have promised? Will military funded and secretive intelligence agency in the ciphers they will use for their technology be transfered to the civilian the U.S., and is said to have the largest semiconductor chips. Ostensibly, their sector? Are the centers essential for our collection of computers in the world. "We reason is to safeguard computers against national defense? use literally acres of computers, including unauthorized access by providing secure, hardware from every major manufacturer," tamper-proof codes. UNMRSITIES: WHAT ARE THEY a NSA advertisement in a student But there will be economic and civil GEniNG? newspaper boasts, trying to entice rights repercussions. According to a report graduating mathematicians, computer in the New York Times, NSA interventions Why are universities working with scientists, and engineers to apply for NSA will add about $1,000 to the base price of a defense contractors and the Pentagon to jobs so that they can make use of "a diverse personal computer. More importantly, as create institutions that are being used to range of leading technology." expressed by the Computer and Communica­ circumvent faculty and student opposition Computers are used to make and break tions Industry Association, this will give to military programs? Here are three codes, to intercept telecommunications, "the DOD and the intelligence community reasons: money, precedent, and pressure. and to search and digest enormous vast and largely undefined power to shape First the Big M, money: there's been less quantities of information. So advanced is national information policy." and less of it for civilian research and the NSA's leading technology that Interestingly, there are now eleven development. As a result of foundering satellites are able to read car license plates. companies which the NSA will allow to markets and the loss of capital, industry has Listening posts are said to have captured manufacture "Communications Security" cut back. Even the National Science the conversation of Soviet military officers devices under NSDD-145, known as the Foundation (the federal agency which talking in their limousine. And the acres of National Data Encryption Standard. awards the majority of R&D funds to NSA computers are thought to be capable Those companies are AT&T, GTE, academia) has, in real terms, reduced their of sifting through almost every telecommunica­ Harris, Honeywell, Hughes, IBM, Intel, spending. According to the U.S. Office of tions transmission issued. Motorola, RCA, Rockwell, and Xerox. Management and Budget (OMB), the This was Admiral Bobby Inman's All are investors (and are often cofounders) Pentagon now finances twice as much specialty when he ran the NSA, according in the research centers. All but Xerox are research and development as the civilian to Bramford: "technical" collection. Inman top defense contractors. sector. Eight years ago, funding had been felt that the U.S. computer industries were equivalent. not willing to take the necessary "risks"­ EXPOSURE • EXPULSION IN THE The OMB's Bureau of Economic that is, putting enough money into R&D 1960s Analysis reported that in 1980 civilian to insure that they would be the first to expenditures in research and development develop new and innovative computer Only a few years after Eisenhower left amounted to $17.5 billion, while military technology necessary to keep the NSA in office, newspapers and magazines began to R&D expenditures were $17.3 billion. By the forefront of the world's intelligence expose military and CIA connections at 1987, civilian R&D funds had dropped to agencies. So he took action. , American universities. Nuclear bomb $14.3 billion, and military research and The admiral lobbied behind the scenes to work, bacteriological weapons design, development expenditures had skyrocketed make it possible for collaborations of germ warfare experiments, as well as the to $31.4 billion. University administrators industry, government, and universities to more mundane military R&D, were being didn't need to be geniuses to understand form. As Washington's National Journal put done in collaborative efforts at major the situation. They either grabbed some of it, Inman was "instrumental in talking educational institutions throughout the the· available military money, or they Congress into approving a Reagan country. watched as their science departments administration backed bill to relax antitrust However, student protests against this atrophied. constraints on joint research and development collaboration, and the backlash of the Precedent was provided by the handful by U.S. firms." This was the Cooperative Vietnam War, scared the military off of other research labs that had been formed Research Act of 1984. campus. At many universities (including at major universities by the Pentagon over Columbia, Stanford, Princeton, Michigan, the last 40 years. Among the best known SPIES RUNNING THE CENTERS and MIT) entire Pentagon-financed are the University of California's Livermore laboratories were closed down. and Los Alamos National Laboratories Inman, when he founded MCC, took In order to regulate military ties to the (where nuclear weapons are designed), the with him three men to A us tin, Texas: Ted universities, Congress stepped in with the Applied Physics Labs of Johns Hopkins Ralston, another retired NSA officer; Dan Mansfield Amendment of 1970. As (which does Air Force and Navy missile Schwartz, former NSA legal counsel; and amended a year later, the act allowed research), and MIT's Lincoln Labs (a John Pinkston, deputy chief of research at military research on campus only if it had mainstay of theoretical physics research for the NSA who was appointed chief scientist "a potential relationship to a military the military). Johns Hopkins and MIT at MCC. function or operation" -which would together receive over half a billion dollars When Inman retired earlier this year, have ruled out the majority of present in DOD contracts annually. Joseph Boyd, of the Harris Corporation, DOD campus funding which is used for Economic necessity alone, however, took over in the interim. Boyd spent many pure research into new technologies. may not have been the only inducement years in military and intelligence work, The times, of course, have changed. The used by the Reagan administration to gain including a five-year stint, according to Mansfield Amendment was reinterpreted. access to "the intellectual infrastructure," Who's Who, with the NSA. Later, Grant A. Public laws were passed, allowing as one center representative described Dove became the new MCC director. A federally funded laboratories to sell the university faculty. The nation's top former Texas Instruments executive,

14 Science for the People Dove remains chairman of the board of that's the case, national security personnel Semiconductors are the chips that give trustees of the National Security Individuals would best be able to meet such objectives. computers information on how to operate. Association. It is "safe to say," concluded a report Inman was also the deputy director of SEMICONDUCTORS prepared for the U.S. Army Research the CIA for a few years under Reagan. The Office two years ago, "that there is not a man who assumed his position four years The Defense Science Board, a private single western military system that is not after he had vacated this post was Robert group of scientists and business leaders that critically dependent for its operation on M. Gates. Speaking to a New York Times advise the Pentagon, describes the loss of semiconductor integrated circuits." reporter in 1986, Gates explained that the American preeminence in semiconductor In 197 5, the United States controlled CIA was trying to accelerate a trend of technology as allowing other nations "to 100 percent of the worldwide semiconductor soliciting help from the "best minds in the dominate the world information market." market. By 1986, U.S. control had dropped to five percent. That means, said Harvard's Robert B. Reich, that Hitachi and Fujitsu now provide the "bubble" memories used primarily in fighter planes and communications satellites, while the National Security Agency is forced to "buy almost all its ceramic packages (used to house and protect the chip circuits) from one Japanese company, Kyocera." This has led the Defense Science Board to recommend that a $250 million consortium be formed immediately by private companies with the Pentagon to foot an additional $200 million in annual contracts. Their object of research, if you hadn't guessed, is semiconductors. Not to be outdone, the Semiconductor Industry Association, a private association of U.S. semiconductor manufacturers, has proposed a $500 million semiconductor country." From 1982 to 1986, Gates said research program to be called SEMA TECH that the CIA had held over 150 conferences Half or more of the funding for this with "professors and experts" outside of program is expected to be shouldered by government. This was one of Gates's the Defense Department. responsibilities. But it is not just semiconductors that are In a nomination hearing for his a matter of national security interest. All advancement within the CIA, Gates microelectronics are worthy of Pentagon acknowledged on his conflict of interest concern. The "development of increasingly form that in 1984 he had "asked to be a sophisticated weapons systems," a federal candidate for Director, Houston Area report explains, "means that virtually every Research Center." aspect of current military technology depends A similar situation exists at the on microelectronics." Semiconductor Research Corporation. The president of SRC is Larry Sumney, SUPERCOMPUTERS the first director of the Defense Department's Very High Speed Integrated Circuits Another high priority area for the Program. Vice president for research is military involves supercomputers, which Robert M. Burger, who served in the are incredibly powerful machines that can National Security Agency for four years. do more than 100 million floating point The first director of the Software Engi­ operations per second. neering Institute, John Manley, was a 21- About a third of all supercomputers in year veteran from the Air Force. Larry the United States are used by the NSA or Druffel, who took his place in 1986, had an agency in the Department of Defense. been the director of computer systems and Seventy or so other units have been placed software in the office of the Deputy Un­ in major corporations, consortiums, or dersecretary of Defense for Research and universities. These machines are perceived Advanced Technology. to be so critical to U.S. defense that Why would the nation's top Pentagon Stephen D. Bryen, of the Pentagon's and spy personnel want to run private newly formed Defense Technology research centers whose goals include Security Administration, has called them providing a "secure environment" for "targets of opportunities for our adversaries, classified and military work? who include scientists from the Warsaw It is not simply because the NSA and the Pact countries." CIA have singular expertise with leading Bryen is afraid that communist countries technology-there are many people in the will sneak access to the supercomputers civilian sector who are even more qualified. and work on codes and weapons problems, The only plausible reason must be that or that by simply using the machines they these research centers were specifically will learn how to make one. In fact, it has designed to develop technology useful to been suggested that one reason for the U.S. military and intelligence agencies. If federal emphasis upon research centers is to

January/February 1988 15 maintain government control over who is consortium has recently been created at the and capturing "unequal attention and permitted to use a supercomputer. University of Alabama at Huntsville to be support from university administrators" Military interest in computers is nothing ready to receive Pentagon research money. • increasing "differences between the new. The Army and the University of Called the Consortium for Superconducting Nation's top-tier and second-tier universities" Pennsylvania worked together in the early Materials and Instrumentation (CSMI), as "competition for industrial resources 1940s to develop EN lAC, the grandfather eight other universities and thirteen of the and partnerships increases." of computers, for use in ballistics largest defense contractors (as well as the Such concerns are valid. Employees at calculations. But the extent of the U.S. Army) have already signed on. many research centers are required to Pentagon's emphasis on computers and About $5 million in annual funding is obtain a security clearance in order to gain software over the last seven years is scheduled for CSMI, with almost half of access to classified information. Even those unprecedented. the money coming from the Star Wars who do not need a security clearance must The Defense Advanced Research program. In fact, the Pentagon's Strategic sign documents promising not to reveal Projects Agency, for example, has initiated Defense Initiative Organization is called any "proprietary information." the Strategic Computing Initiative, which the "catalyst" behind the formation of this Of greater concern, as identified in a will spend a billion dollars over the next ten consortiUm. recent Harvard University study as a years on new supercomputing technology. major "threat to academic freedom," is that (See Jonathan Tucker's article, "The COVERT ACTION the Pentagon is granted permission to read Strategic Computer Initiative," in Crmzputing Some analysts call research centers the "for review and comment" any material the Future, the March/ April 1985 special academic version of the Iran-Contra affair. before it is actually published-even after issue of SftP.) In this case, the diversion of funds is from an individual has left their classified duties. The National Security Agency has the Pentagon to university laboratories. Even corporate partners in the consortium recently opened its own "agency-run Thomond O'Brien, of the Institute for maintain rights over their university institute to perform basic research into Space and Security Studies, a think tank researchers. At Stanford's Center for parallel processing," according to the New founded by the general in charge of the Air Integrated Systems, for example, a Y IJYk Times. Located in Lanham, Maryland, Force's predecessor program to Star Wars, company can request a 90-day delay in a the Supercomputer Research Center is said speculated on the Pentagon and intelligence scientist's publication so that a patent to have a $20 million-a-year budget. agency's motives: "They can't get away application can be filed. And in July 1987, President Reagan with classified research at universities," announced that he would request an O'Brien said, "and they don't believe they AUTONOMY LOST additional $150 million for a three-year have the support and trust they need from Speaking about the Pentagon's plans for funding of research into supercomputers. Congress, so they get (private individuals restricted access to supercomputers at This is in addition to the $50 million spent and industry) to fund and promote their American universities, the council of the annually by the Office of Naval Research, programs." American Physical Society issued a the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, The issue has escaped public scrutiny statement in November of 1985. "We and the Army Research Office. It does not because the research centers give everyone believe," they said, "that restraints on the include $10 million financed under a Joint a piece of the Pentagon pie. Corporations use of unclassified facilities would be Services Electronics Program, or the tens are awarded immense contracts and can tap harmful to the quality of academic of millions of dollars spent for supercomputer into university expertise. Meanwhile, scientific research and would in the long research in other smaller programs. academics take in lucrative money as term threaten the nation's technological SUPERCONDUCTMTY consultants, researchers, or directors. leadership." Universities absorb military funds into The physicists argued that American In 1987, a Nobel prize was won by two their science departments, and newly preeminence in the sciences is a result of the scientists in Zurich who had shown that formed research centers fatten themselves open and free exchange of id~fS between new materials could reach a superconducting on their own administrative overhead. scholars, and that a campus is no place for state at temperatures much higher than security clearances and classified information. previously believed possible. POTENTIAL COSTS But at many schools today, military As much as 40 percent of electrical funded research towers over civilian R&D. In 19S5, the U.S. Congress issued a power is now lost through the resistance "There is a danger," writes Stanford report entitled Information Technology and encountered in wires and equipment used history professor R. Reinhold, "that R&D: Critical Trends and Issues. Authored to transmit electricity. So superconducting researchers will create relationships that are by the Office of Technology Assessment materials would allow electric currents to likely to influence what they study and and then reviewed by 34 leaders in all of flow virtually without resistance. A what they do not study. It's a threat to the the fields involved, the report concluded physicist with the National Security autonomy of the university." that "increased interaction among academia­ Agency told a conference of researchers Since each university is nothing more industry-government" may have "potential that, among other things, further advances than one of the dozens of shareholders in costs" which could affect the competitiveness in superconductivity could allow the most the research center's corporation, how will of industry and the freedom of open powerful computers to be packaged in a they put forth their own unique agendas? universities. These effects include: space as small as one cubic foot. It will be virtually impossible, and Already, the Pentagon's Defense • "subtle changes in the setting of research university administrators may find Advanced Research Projects Agency and goals" themselves unable to choose between the the Office of Naval Research have plans to • "industries' traditional emphasis on needs of their own faculty and students and spend $10 million over the next two to secrecy is in direct conflict with academic the separate and conflicting needs of the three years on "proposals to develop practices" Pentagon and the intelligence agencies. materials processing and fabrication • "distorting the university's traditional Personnel are already being siphoned approaches to produce high-temperature role as a developer of fundamental from the universities into the military superconductivity." In fact, overall knowledge" structure. At BIRL, professors can teach military financing for superconductor • "competition between research and part time and also work at the laboratories. research will jump from $5 million in 1987 education, draining faculty away from SEI raided Carnegie-Mellon's computer to about $50 million in 1988. teaching, and recruiting students from science department for four of its executive According to the aerospace journal other areas" posts. And HARC has a program called Aviation Week and Space Technology, a • skewing "the balance among programs" CONTINUED ON PAGE 48

16 Science for the People GOES TO WAR

BY JONATHAN KING member of the Defense Science Board and the Scowcroft Commission, has had close hould an academic biology depart­ ties to the Pentagon. So it was not ment accept money from the Navy? surprising when the administration Recently, this question confronted suggested that the program committee me and my colleagues at the Massa­ submit a Request for Proposals to the chusetts Institute of Technology. Office of Naval Research (ONR), which SThe development of a new biotechnology was seeking proposals for support of program was made to appear dependent on research and training in biotechnology. No our agreement to support a request for such details or constraints were laid out, funding. The resolution of this question although a sentence in small print highlights the current relationship and mentioned research interest in "biofouling." increasing dependence of biological However, military support for teaching research on military funding and its and training in MIT's biology department connections to biological warfare research. was such a departure from previous At the initiative of the MIT administration, practice that the chairman of the department an interdepartmental committee was called a faculty meeting to consider the formed to develop an undergraduate proposition. After an intense debate lasting program in biotechnology. After many several hours, a majority of the faculty meetings to hammer out a jointly agreed present voted against seeking such funds. upon program, the plan was presented to Advocates of naval research funding the administration. The committee was asked that the issue be reconsidered at a then told to look outside of MIT for the second meeting, so that faculty who had necessary funds to run the program. This missed the first meeting could attend. The request was somewhat unusual, since chairman opened the second meeting by financial support for new educational informing us that the administration would programs is normally provided by the not look favorably upon the department's university, especially at the undergraduate rejection of ONR funds, and tha't such a level. In this case, the committee's efforts to rejection would affect the department's find outside funding were unsuccessful. budget for the following year. We would MIT's provost, John Deutch, a former lose support for our students on the grounds that we had declined to accept a jonathan King is a professor of molecular natural source of support. This prospect of biology and director of the Biology Electron a financial cutback was important in Microscope Facility at the Massachusetts turning the tide, and the proposal to Institute of Technology. Through the request ONR funds was approved. Committee for Responsible Genetics, he helped organize the Pledge Against the BREAKING THE BIOLOGICAL Military Use of Biological Research. Copies of WEAPONS BAN this pledge, along with a special issue of the newsletter GeneW A TCH covering biological There is a direct connection between the weapons research, are available from the quandry that the MIT biology faculty Committee for Responsible Genetics, 186A found itself in and recent changes in U.S. South St., Boston, MA 02111-2701. government policy on biological weapons.

MARCHING TOWARD A BIOLOGICAL ARMS RACE

January/February 1988 17 The advent of the Reagan administration which bans the development, production, The emergence of a biological weapons led to a distinct reversal in policy with stockpiling, and useofbiological agents for (BW) program in this country was initially respect to disarmament of biological military purposes. Outlawing an entire signaled by attacks on the treaty. The State weapons. The U.S., USSR, and over 100 class of weapons, this is the strongest Department launched a public relations other nations are signatories to the multilateral weapons treaty in the modern offensive, charging the Soviet Union with Biological Weapons Convention of 1972, political world. the manufacture or use of toxin and

RESISTING BIOLOGICAL WARFARE

BY SETH SHULMAN Foundation on &onomic Trends successful­ ly brought suit against the Defense his winter, biological and biomedi­ Department, temporarily halting the cal researchers across the U.S. are WE PLEDGE construction of the proposed Dugway Tjoining together to oppose the star­ laboratory in 1985. The Army had tling increase of military-sponsored not to planned to build a mulrimillion-doltar lab research in their fields. Biologists and for aerosol testing and research on toxic chemists on university campuses and in engage knowingly biological agents at the Dugway Proving private firms are vowing to refuse funds Ground in Utah. The court ruled that, in for military research. This is their Pledge in research accordance with the Environmental Against the Military Use of Biological Protection Act, the Army must conduct Research: and teaching an extensive review of the environmental "We, the undersigned biologists and impact of the Dugway facility before chemists, oppose the use of our research that will proceeding. for military purposes. Rapid advances in The environmental impact statement biotechnology have catalyzed a growing further the was due January 19, 1988, withahearing interest by the military in many countries scheduled for 45 days after its release. But in chemical and biological weapons and development even if the impact statement is favorable in the possible development of new and ro biological warfare research, there may novel chemical and biological warfare of chemical be other ways to stop Dugway from agents. We are concerned that this may opening. Time has run out for the lead to another arms race. We believe that and biological Defense Department's allotted funding biomedical research should support for the facility. The money appropriated rather than threaten life. Therefore, WE warfare agents. in 1985 will have to be reallocated by PLEDGE not to engage knowingly in Congress this year if the environmental research and teaching that will further the impact sratement for Dugway is approved. development of chemical and biological Many members of Congress oppose warfare agents." and environmentalists fail to make our biologit:al weapons research, and they are The nationwide pledge, sponsored by voices heard on this gravest of misuses of ready to fight the Pentagon'l\.funding the Committee for Responsible Genetics our profession, the greater public will not renewal request for Dugway. (CRG) and the Coalition for Universities be prepared and will be unable to ensure. But Dugway was just the first battle. in the Public Interest, hopes to highlight the development of policies in all our The F oundarion on ·Economic Trends the dangers of the Reagan administration's interests-policies to enhance, rather won an even larger legal victory last biological arms buildup. "The pledge than hinder,life," Kingwroteinthejuly­ spring when the Defense Department campaign can help to reverse these trends October 1987isstreofCRG'sGeneWATCH. agreed to a court settlement requiring it that threaten to unleash a biological arms The Boston-based CRG has also been to conduct a 2'0-month environmental race," says CRG's director, Nachama involved in a legislative effort to make the impact study of the entire biological Wilker. "Our goal is to bring the pledge provisions of the Biological Weapons weapons research· program. The settlement, to every biological and biomedical Convention of 1972 applicable to private says Rifkin, "makes the Department of researcher in the country." Over 200 individuals and firms. Currently, it Defense a<:countable for the first time for scientists have signed and returned the applies only to the U.S. government, its expanded biological warfare research." pledge since the campaign began in which can contract irs military research When the Pentagon publishes its November. out to universities and civilian labs. evaluation, the American people will "Out of this process will come press Biological weapons legislatitm aimed have a chance to challenge the safety and conferences, letters to Congress, and at civilian research gained bipartisan goals of this mas.sive project ro rearm the actions by professional societies," says congressional backing in 1986, but never U.S. for biological war. "The public will MIT biologist Jonathan King, who made it to the floor. The legislation, H.R. be allowed to look at the DOD's helped initiate the pledge campaign. "If 90 I, "provides Congress with an environmental impact statement and we scientists, educators, health professionals opportunity to reaffirm U.S. commitment challenge irs inadequacies," says Andrew to the treaty," says Barbara Rosenberg, a Kimbrell, policy director and legal Seth Shulman is a freelance scimce writer research scientist at the Sloan-Kettering counsel for the Foundation on Economic and former editor of SftP.lnformation in this Institute, who is leading the effort. Trends. "And I can tell you, from our article comes from his story ''Pois()TlS from the The U.S. courts have proven an point of view, it will have to be pretty Pentagtm," published in the N(J'I)ember effective venue for challenging the convincing to assuage some of our 19 8 7 issue uf The Progressive. biological arms buildup. Jeremy Rifkin's concerns."

18 Science for the People biological weapons, including the production BW research has led to a more general of anthrax bacteria in Sverdlovsk and the interest in biological research by the dropping of yellow rain in Cambodia. military. Slowly but surely, the military is The yellow rain accusations were insinuating itself into this area, just as it has effectively refuted (see Robinson, Guillemin done in the past in such fields as physics. and Meselson, Foreign Policy 68, pp. 100- Taking advantage of an expanding pool of 117, 1977), and serious questions exist biological researchers and the relative about the U.S. government's version of the decrease in other federal sources of funding Sverdlovsk incident. These charges were for biology, the military is providing most likely initiated as part of a general support for universities, biotechnology strategy of opposing negotiated disarmament companies, and individual scientists treaties and to justify renewed support for receptive to their proposals. The response BW research. of the MIT administration and some MIT Subsequent to the treaty violation faculty illustrates the attractiveness of charges made against the Soviet Union, military funds for biology research. expenditures for U.S. biological weapons Some of the funding goes directly to programs began to increase, more than research related to biological weapons quadrupling from 1981 to the present. The programs. However, much of it goes to hiring of senior biotechnology researchers projects either apparently or truly by the Department of Defense and the unrelated to BW research. Military support issuing of requests for research grant for biotechnology programs at Cornell, proposals in areas of biotechnology Caltech, and other universities, along with relevant to biological weapons clearly funding of numerous individual research signaled a developing BW research programs, have created a significant program. These programs threaten to military presence in academic biological launch a biological arms race, with the research. attendant dangers to human and animal Funding of biological research by the populations in many nations. military serves several purposes. It Any doubts about Reagan's plans for contributes to the increasing incorporation biological weapons development were put of the university into the military­ to rest when the Defense Department industrial complex. It provides a veneer of obtained long-term authorization for over respectability to cover the support of the $300 million to reopen the Army's military for its more destructive projects. It Dugway Proving Ground as a BW testing increasingly focuses academic research on facility. Furthermore, the Undersecretary problems of concern to the military. And it of Defense testified before Congress that provides direct and indirect support for the the United States must immediately build resurgence of BW research. up its BW capacity. According to him, this In discussing this serious and disturbing was necessary since genetic engineering development, I have frequently been and other forms of technology were asked, "Who would consciouslv work on rapidly being developed for military the development of biological ~·capons'" purposes in the USSR. The answer is, of course, hardly anvonc. Of course, since the U.S. is party to the That is not how recruitment pr~ocecds. biological weapons treaty, members of the Scientific personnel are inducted into these administration cannot call for an offensive programs indirectly. BW program. Biological weapons research For instance, if the biotechnology is always presented as "defensive," just as program at MIT agrees to do naval first-strike nuclear weapons are always research, a substantial number of students described as defensive in nature. However, and faculty will be financially supported biological agents are fundamentally by military funds. It is unlikely that they different from all other weapons. will become militarists or actively support Organisms reproduce themselves; BW. They will honestly feel that it is better chemicals, radioactive compounds, and that they, who arc only interested in basic explosives do not. Because of the research, usc the military funds, than to let reproducing character of BW agents, plans it go to some real militarists. to develop an offensive capacity first However, as they continue in their require the ability to defend one's own careers and quest to find further support, population, crops, and domestic animals. some of them will find a convenient source The spread of disease is so unpredictable of ongoing funding through their Defense and the range of biological agents that Department conduits. No doubt, a number could be used is so large that the very Glenn Wolff of these scientists will establish laboratories concept of defending against biological using military funding. Although the warfare is misleading. process may be quite subtle, the choice of As a result, offensive and defensive BW Weapons Today, edited by E. Geissler, research will be influenced explicitly or programs have the same components. The Oxford University Press, 1986.) implicitly by the source of funding. data gained from "defensive" BW testing is This process establishes a pool of the same information needed to develop THE MIUTARIZATION OF scientists who can become dependent on offensive capability. (See Strauss and BIOLOGY the military for realizing their professional King, "The Fallacy of Defensive Biological ambitions and for making a living. Out of Weapons Research," in Biological and Toxin The go-ahead for increased funding of this pool, the military will be able to draw

January/February 1988 19 upon groups of scientific workers who use would have to be developed secretly, scientific meetings, on bulletin boards, in actually organize and carry out research since it would be useless if the adversary classrooms and journals. However, this relevant to military programs. knew of its existence. Vaccine development battle cannot be fought under the banners The argument that military funds for is, in fact, most important for vaccinating of narrow morality. It must be coupled biomedical research, such as vaccines, are troops in advance of an offensive BW with a fight to redirect public resources to beneficial is fallacious. Increased vaccine attack. support needed civilian programs. If we research is desperately needed and should That the science whose origin was the want vaccine development, and if only the be funded by the National Institutes of prevention of disease and the alleviation of military is funding it, then we have to fight Health. Military-funded vaccine research human suffering should be transformed for tax dollars to be shifted into civilian has military goals, whether the individual into a new technology of human destruction vaccine research. Clearly, such research investigators can perceive them or not. is a tragedy of historic import. It needs to will have a different character than that Furthermore, a vaccine for truly defensive be resisted at every step of the way-at funded by military programs.

THE RENEWED THREAT OF BIOLOGICAL WARFARE

BY SUSAN WIIGHI addition, funding for basic research in biological warfare? Why pursue a these areas, much of which is carried out program that will certainly raise he threat of biological w\lrfare in universities and private labs, increased questions for other nations about should have been eliminated as are­ 60 fold between 198) and 1986. American intentions? Why risk damage Tsult of the 1972 Biological Wea~ Many of these new military research to civilian populations or to domestic pons Convention, which prohibits dollars are being used to support a rapidly agriculture through a program of inquiry development, production, and stockpiling expanding program of biological research, into the properties of novel pathogens? of biological and toxin weapons. with a heavy emphasis on biotechnology. There is at present no formal policy However, since 1980, there have been Eighteen government laboratories and requiring all biological warfare research renewed grounds for concern. over 100 university and corporate labs to be undassified, and it is known that Biotechnology provides the means not are involved in this work. In I 984, there some parts of the Biological Defense only for enhanced control over the were over l 00 projects in biotechnology Program are classified. This too is a behavior of living things, but also the sponsored by the chemical warfare and destabilizing policy. Secrecy in military ability to construct novel organisms and biological defense program. research (even if these activities are substances. Like virrually all teChnological The Department of Defense plans to entirely legitimate) tends to exacerbate advances, it could provide temptations construct a new high-containment fears on the part of other nations and for military application. A Pentagon facility at its chemical and biological plays into the scenarios of worst-case report released in 1986, pointing to these warfare test site at Dugway Proving planners in military establishments. characteristics, claimed that exotic new Grounds, Utah, for the purpose of Openness, on the other hand, defuses bioweapons are now within reach of testing aerosol~ of lethal pathogens and suspicion and reduces military interest in industrialized nations and even of those toxins. For the immediate future, the gaining advantage through technological that are less developed. While informed DOD intendS to use this facility to test surprise. "- scientists dismiss the Pentagon's scary "conventional" biological warfare agents The presidential administration needs vision, concerted efforts over many years such as anthrax, but the overall rationale. to be much more careful with respect to might eventually produce some innovation for this facility suggests that the allegations of noncompliance with the at the margin of the field that would be Pentagon anticipates testing genetically Biological Weapons Convention. Charges attractive ro military establishments. altered engineered pathogens as well. of violations, such as the "yellow rain" Since 1980, there have been steep There is a serious danger that if this allegations, that ignore a whole body of increases in spending on the Pentagon's facility is built and used,. the United scientific evidenee supporting an alternative chemical warfare and biological defense States will proceed by incremental steps explanation in terms of natural causes can programs. The requesrfor fundS in these into research, development, and finally only serve to lower the credibility of the programs rose to $1.44 billion in 1987- production of novel biological agents. United Stares government. an increase in real terms of 554percentof The line between defensive and offensive The Reagan administration claimed the federal budget for these chemical and activity would be crossed. that the Soviet Union was producing biological weapons programs in fiscal The biological warfare program toxin weapons for use by the Vietnamese year 1980. Support for research and proposed for Dugway Proving Ground in Southeast Asia. But this "yellow rain" development for these programs is now is 1.llllleCfSSal'y, provocative, and destabilizing. turned out to be nothing other than the projected at $220.4million-400percent If pursued, this · program will almost . feceS.. of Southeast Asian honeybees. Yet higher than in fiscal year 1980. Spending certainly stimulate neutraltzing measures the U.S. government has used these false on research and development is now on the part of adversary nations, and a charges to cast doubt on the effectiveness exceeding the highest levels of the 1960s, spiraling interaction of research and of the Biological Weapons Convention when an active chemical and biological counter-research is likely ro foUow, and to persuade members of Congress to warfare program was being porsued. In eroding the Biological Weapons Convenrion vote increasing appropriations for to the point where it is no longer chemical and biological warfare programs. Sustm Wright is " leaurer itt the hut(l'fy qf effective. Instead, serious concerns of. treary science Itt the Uniwrsity of Miehigtm tmd en­ Congress should initiate a derailed violations shou)d be pursued through the chair rJ/ the Crmt111ittee on the Mi/itllry Use investigation of the BioiGgical. Defense formal mech-anisms ·provided by the of BiDlogical Research of the Cl'fllttnittee for Program. Why is it expandin:g when terms of the Biological Weapo,ns RespmtsibJe Genetics. there is a comprehensive treaty banning . Convention,

20 Science for the People A F T E R T H E

BYSTM NADIS rendering these (nuclear) weapons impotent new. It had been going on quietly for and obsolete." The "Star Wars" program, decades. What was new, however, was the n March 23, 1983, President officially known as the Strategic Defense crash effort to deploy such a system. To Reagan called on the nation's Initiative, or SOl, was to be the centerpiece this end, research and development grew scientists and engineers to of the Reagan military buildup-the from 50 to 72 percent of total U.S. devise a defensive shield that largest peacetime effort in the nation's scientific research. The Star Wars budget O would "give us the means of history. SOl, in turn, would be the most correspondingly grew from $980 million expensive military project in U.S. history, in 1983 to a proposed $5.7 billion in 1988, Writer Steve Nadis specializes in astrophysics with a $26-billion, five-year budget and an making it the largest federal research and nuclear war. His report on astronomy's overall price tag estimated between 100 program-exceeding the proposed research anti-star warriors appeared in the September I billion and a trillion dollars. budgets of NASA ($4. 7 billion), the October 1987 issue of SftP. Star Wars research, of course, was not National Science Foundation ($ 1. 7

HOW SCIENTISTS ARE STOPPING SDI

January/February 1988 21 billion), or federal energy research ($2. 9 such a massive outpouring of concern from boycott? More than two years after its billion). the nation's scientists and engineers at all inception, what effect, if any, has it had on "People go where the bucks are. There levels as did SDI," commented Senator J. the SDI program? Has it impeded SDI is a lot of money involved here," said James Bennett Johnston of Louisiana. These research? Has it mobilized protest against Ionson, director of SOl's Office of scientists, he added, "tore the veil of hype" space-based warfare? Innovative Science and Technology from the program. "Washington must "There has been absolutely no impact," (IST), set up in the fall of 1984 to lure periodically be reminded that political a spokesman from the SDI office claimed universities and small businesses with Star rhetoric, even if employed by the most on October 29, 1987. "We have a large and Wars research grants. skillful of communicators, has no dominion capable group of people working on SDI, "The response from the academic, over the laws of physics." so we just haven't felt any impact." When business, and government laboratory One feature that distinguished the asked whether the fact that so many of the communities was immediate and overwhelm­ boycott from other protests, says Ann nation's top scientists refuse to participate ing as everyone tried to find out... how Krumboltz of the Union of Concerned in the program has forced the SDI they could become involved in the research Scientists, was that it developed as a Organization to rely on other, perhaps less programs of this new office," IST boasted "totally spontaneous grassroots movement, capable researchers, he said, "Now we're in a briefing document distributed in 1985 not sponsored or organized by arms getting into the realm of hypothetics. The to potential SDI researchers. control groups. That was part of its bottom line is that there's been absolutely The response from scientists was indeed strength. It was started by a handful of no impact." "immediate and overwhelming," but not scientists at a few universities, and it spread Available evidence, however, contradicts exactly what IST had hoped for. In the like wildfire." this assertion. "Support for SDI in summer of 1985, physicists John Kogut "What we are witnessing is the third Congress is now very thin, and there is no and Michael Weissman from the University major uprising of the nation's scientists support for Reagan's Star Wars budget," of Illinois and Lisbeth Gronlund and against an element of U.S. weapons claimed a congressional aide involved in David Wright from Cornell University policy," said California Representative SDI issues on Capitol Hill. To what degree began circulating a petition against George Brown. The other precedents he the boycott alone was responsible for this soliciting or accepting money for Star cited were scientists' opposition to shift, he could not determine, "but it all Wars research. Since then, more than 7,000 atmospheric nuclear tests in the late 1950s, adds up," he said. "One after the other, U.S. scientists and engineers have signed which led to the Limited Test Ban Treaty, there has been an unrelenting stream of the "pledge." Over 12,000 scientists have and opposition to antiballistic missiles ten scientific groups raising serious questions signed it worldwide, including more than years later, which led to the ABM treaty of about the Star Wars program. That 3, 000 from Japan, 1, 3 00 from Canada, and 1972. influences both Congress and the public." 7 50 from England. Perhaps an even closer parallel occurred "SDI is in real trouble," said former U.S. signers include 57 percent of the in postwar West Germany in 1957, when Undersecretary of Defense Richard Perle. faculties at the 20 highest-rated physics 18 of that nation's most prominent Not only did Congress try to cut $2 bil­ departments in the country, 50 percent or scientists signed a public declaration lion from Reagan's 1988 Star Wars budget, more of the faculty in each of 112 physical refusing to participate in the government­ it is also pushing for restrictions on science and engineering departments at 71 proposed atomic bomb project. The Star Wars testing. If this continues, Perle schools, and 19 Nobel laureates in physics protest completely killed the program. added, "they will have effectively killed and chemistry (23 internationally). The the program." pledge has been endorsed throughout the DID THE BOYCOn WORK? Even IST director Ion son would have to U.S. by scientists and engineers at more concede that the boycott has interfered than 110 research institutions in 41 states. What happened to the Star Wars with his original "marching order" to "get TEARING AWAY THE VEIL OF HYPE lll~JY:t// J ltOf ~ J::')(lRA GllAI{f~ -w~ \\Ay Many signed the petition because they ? doubted the technical feasibility of the kind of leakproof defense advertised by President Reagan. These scientists did not want to be used by the administration to enhance the credibility of the new system. They also believed the Star Wars program would accelerate the arms race, jeopardize arms treaties, and lead to a less stable nuclear balance. Some, such as MIT physicist Vera Kistiakowsky (who circulated the pledge in her department), feared the Star Wars program would distort national R&D priorities away from basic research. Another concern, expressed in the pledge, was "the likelihood that SDI funding will restrict academic freedom and blur the distinction between classified and unclassified research." For whatever reasons, scientists signed up in record numbers, making the Star Wars boycott one of the largest mass movements by scientists in history. "I know of no recent program that evoked

22 Science for the People the most brilliant minds in our country involved in this program." However, when many of the best and brightest refused to cooperate, lonson adopted a convenient fall-back position, stating that "two second-rate scientists are as good as one first-rate one." Air Force Lieutenant General James Abrahamson, who directs SDIO, has also felt the effects of the boycott. In the fall of 1985, Abrahamson claimed there were "only a few diehards left, sincere diehards, but only a very few" who opposed the SDI program. Interviewed a year later, he said, "Well, I'm disappointed .... We're losing a little bit." He continued, "What we're seeing is an intensive campaign on the part of the opponent. They're going out there and they're signing up people. The U.S. government doesn't do that. We don't go out there and sign people up. So that's having a lot of impact. A lot of these people are people that I would like very much to have in favor of what we're doing." Clearly there has been an impact, but spelling out its precise nature or magnitude is a difficult, perhaps impossible, task. Some congressional aides have said, for example, that the boycott has been the biggest thing so far in the anti-Star Wars debate. "But it's hard to measure these things exactly," commented Union of Concerned Scientists lobbyist Robert Herman. "At the very least, it means there's that much more ammunition opponents can bring to the debate." MIT professor James Melcher, who distributed the pledge in the university's engineering departments, claimed that "there definitely was some influence, at least in academia. But if there is an impact," he added, "you don't go crowing about it, because you might kill it." BLOWS AGAINST THE EMPIRE

The boycott was but one of a series of crippling blows to the credibility of the Star Wars program. In March of 1986, for example, a letter expressing concern about SDI was sent to Congress by present and former research heads of government and Artlsfs concept of the Army Homing Overlay Experiment homing-and-kill vehicle on track industry labs (see the accompanying to Intercept an Inert ICBM reentry vehicle. sidebar, "Since the Pledge"). The letter was signed by over 2, I 00 scientists and senators J. Bennett Johnston (D-LA) and could ever provide an effective defense. engineers from more than 130 labs. William Proxmire (D-WI), based on "You have to look at the sum total of In October of 1986, a poll found that 98 interviews with over 60 SDI research scientific statements," said a senate aide percent of the members of the National scientists, found that any near-term involved in the Star Wars debate. "Some Academy of Sciences in fields most defense would be leaky, destroying only said, 'We won't work on it.' Others said, relevant to SDI research believed that SDI 16 percent of incoming Soviet warheads, at 'We work on it, but we're very concerned.' could not provide an effective defense of best. Reports a few months later by SDI That leads to a sense in Congress that all is the U.S. civilian population. researchers at Livermore Lab and the not well, that the program has been In March of 1987, former Secretary of Defense Science Board-the nation's own oversold, overhyped." Defense Harold Brown and the associate scientific advisory group-reached similar According to Lisbeth Gronlund, "All director of defense programs at Livermore conclusions. this negative publicity combined with the National Laboratory, George Miller, Finally, an April 1987 study by the boycott made it easier for critics in testified before Congress that the Soviets American Physical Society concluded that Congress to make their case." Moreover, could easily defeat any strategic defense it would take at least a decade of intensive "The boycott helped raise the consciousness that the U.S. could deploy by the end of research just to determine whether of people who don't ordinarily think about the century. Also in March, a report by directed-energy weapons such as lasers this kind of thing," Gronlund said. "It got

January/February 1988 23 people talking about Star Wars and discussing some of the implications of their ' work." "One thing we found at Cornell," said SCIENTISTS WHd l David Wright, "was that you'd go into the j computer room, and for weeks and weeks people would be talking about Star Wars. HARRISON BARRETT: a University of way to make nuclear weapons impotent The pledge forced people to look not only Arizona physicist who specializes in the and obsolete, there's nothing I would at technical issues, but also political issues." fields of optical computing and medical rather work on." Some Cornell graduate students recently imaging. The areas of optical computing, Parnas's experience with computer­ formed a group to talk about the role of he found, had become "very politicized," controlled weapons systems, however, science in society and to see whether it is receiving lots of interest from the made him question "whether any such possible to work in science without military. "I don't feel comfortable system could meet the requirements set working for the military. The boycott also continuing there, even though I've been forth by President Reagan." He quickly spawned another group called FREE­ doing it for 20 years," Barrett said. concluded that "SDI endangers the Forum for Responsible Ethics in Engineering­ Instead, he is concentrating his efforts on security of the U.S. and the safety of the which provides information to graduating medical imaging. "My research had been world. By working on SDI these seniors on companies with which they plan supported by the Air Force, not SDIO. I scientists allow themselves to be counted to interview. suppose I could have drawn a fine line by among those who believe that the In MIT's engineering departments, Star saying, 'I'll take Air Force money, but program can succeed. If they are truly Wars became a sticky subject. "This is a not Star Wars money.' I chose not to." professional, they must make it very clear place where ideas and applications are that an effective shield is unlikely and a being discussed all the time," said James ROBERT BOWMAN: head of ballistic trustworthy one impossible. Melcher. "That's what we do. The missile defense research for the Air Force "My decision not to participate in SOl in the Ford and Carter administrations, exchange goes on all the time-in will not stop this misguided program," who is now a leading Star Wars critic. classrooms, hallways, and parking lots. Parnas wrote in "Why I Quit Star Wars," But with Star Wars, you sense that people What caused his change of heart? "I in the May /june 1986 issue of Common didn't change," Bowman said. "The don't want to talk about it-in the same Cause magazine. ''However, if everyone government changed. Before Reagan way you don't want to talk about things who knows that the program will not that disgust you. came in, it had been a research program­ lead to a trustworthy shield against run in accordance with the ABM treaty­ "Ten years ago," Melcher continued, nuclear weapons refuses to participate, "when people were looking for alternative to prevent the possibility of technical there will be no program. Every energy sources, it was very different. surprise. We never recommended that the individual's decision makes a difference." U.S. deploy a system. The policy, in fact, There were all kinds of animated was to seek a ban on space weapons. All discussions. Trying to find clever ANDY RUINA: a professor of theoretical solutions to real human problems-that's that totally reversed with Reagan. The and applied mechanics at Cornell. "The aim of the new program was to regain what makes engineering exciting. But I value of the Star Wars boycott was in don't see people talking about Star Wars in military superiority with offensive advertising the idea that scientists can the same way, like 'Gee, here's how we're weapons disguised as defense." refuse to work on things, that scientists going to fix up SDI!' It's not going to After leaving the Air Force, Bowman can be conscientious objectors," Ruina took a job in the aerospace industry. "I motivate anyone. All you get is a sick said. "I hope consciousness has been had to leave industry as well," he said. "I feeling in the bottom of your stomach." raised by the boycott so that scientists found I had less freedom of speech in will look at other kinds of ~search MAINTAINING MOMENTUM industry than in the military." In 1982, critically. One of the objections to Star Bowman started the Institute for Space Wars is that it won't work; therefore it's One challenge for the boycott organizers and Security Studies, which lobbies stupid. But lots of weapons will work, against Star Wars. He lectured on behalf is finding a way to keep interest alive after which is all the more reason not ro work of the Star Wars boycott and continues to their initial success. "Most scientists, while on them. they're concerned about these issues, tend speak our on the subject. "I don't take money from the to fall back into equilibrium and focus TOM EISNER: a Cornell biology professor Department of Defense, because I don't mainly on their research," said Cornell's who, along with graduate student Ian want to be in the killing business," Ruina David Wright. "The SDI boycott came Baldwin, refused a grant from the continued. "But, of course, you're in it. along and pulled them out. But after the university's Biotech Center because the You can't be a scientist at a major immediacy is gone, they tend to go back to money had come from the Army. "The university and not be mixed up in it, their classes or research. It's difficult to research itself had no military applications, somehow. I teach ROTC students and sustain a high level of activism." but it was an issue of principle here," students who someday will take jobs at Michael Weissman of the University of Eisner said. "I feel that military money GE, General Dynamics, and Boeing. Illinois agrees. "People tend to get burned has no place in the university. The fact "I have chosen to take this one step-to out," he said. "Then it's hard to get others that it had 'no strings attached' doesn't not accept defense money and try not to to take over, especially when you seem to change anything." talk to people about military research­ have accomplished your goal." and I hope others will too. My little DAVID PARNAS: a professor of computer Barring a crisis, MIT professor Vera challenge, however, has showed the science at the University of Victoria in Kistiakowsky doesn't see much value in possibility of having severe career continuing to push the pledge. "You don't British Columbia, who resigned from a consequences. I'm not a real radical. A want to harass people who didn't sign the $1,000...a-day SOlO advisory panel in little step off the path and you really rub first time. Besides, the number of new 1985. Since then he has become an active the grain.'' opponent of the Star Wars program. people is rather small, making it not a RICHARD RUQUIST: a physicist who, in terribly useful thing to do." "Like President Reagan, I consider the 1987, left a lucrative position with Michael Weissman and John Kogut use of nuclear weapons as a deterrent to Sparta, Inc., a defense contractor heavily continue to speak out against SDI at be dangerous and immoral. If there is a

24 Science for the People lectures and on television stations around rhe country. Weissman recently spoke at Eureka College, President Reagan's alma mater. In a poll taken afterwards, two­ HAVE SAID NO thirds of the students in rhe senior class came our against Star Wars. involved in SDI research. Ruquist that is taking away from the civilian side Kogut is generally pleased with the resigned because of his belief that SDI of science R&D," Warhaft said. "Instead impact they've had so far. The pledge was will be ineffective, dangerous, and of allowing scientists to suggest interesting read into the Con?;ressional Record, and expensive. "We could spend money on it projects to work on, the feder~l organizers of the drive regularly brief until we were bankrupt, and it still government is saying, 'You won't get senators and representatives on the subject. wouldn't protect us," he said. funding unless you do this.' That's "I think we made a lot of progress last Prior to his resignation, Ruquist had unfortunate because it limits the possibility year," Kogut commented. "Ordinary done defense-related research for 27 of new discoveries. magazines like Time and Newsweek began years. "For morethanrwodecadesofmy "I'm particularly against Star Wars, to catch on. journalists began to sec that professional life, I saw Star Wars as a way which is a folly as well as a danger. Nor Star Wars could be used for offensive to get rid of nuclear weapons. I was afraid only is money being wasted, it's being purposes, and that would be a bad thing." of nuclear weapons, so I was a big wasted at the expense of other more Both Kogut and Weissman believe that a promoter of this." important work. I won't take defense long-term impact on opinion makers-like However, in the summer of 1986, money because I choose to work on columnists and editorial board members­ Ruquist performed calculations which things which will lead ro the betterment may gradually sway public opinion. showed that a defensive system would be of society." "We've raised the consciousness of our inherently vulnerable. "At that point, colleagues, and also the media," Kogut ROY WOODRUFF: former associate Star Wars was a research project that said. "and eventually the public, although director for defense systems at the would· be going on for decades. It that's where I'm a bit frustrated. It's hard Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, represented no immediate danger, so I to reach the average fellow. Most people who had managed the X-ray laser continued working on it, even though it tend to believe President Reagan. We come research program. In October 1985, was somewhat dishonest. along with our sober, sensible arguments Woodruff left his post because of "overly "The thing that really did it to me was and that doesn't compete so well." optimistic, technically incorrect statements when Weinberger announced an early­ Kogut claims, "The Administration can regarding this research" made by deployment system in five to ren years. It do tricks on a regular basis, touring physicist Edward Teller and his associate was a first-strike system-there could be successes where there are none. They'll get Lowell Wood to top policy makers, no other purpose-and very risky. Now the front page, of course. When we debunk including President Reagan and members it was not only a matter of honesty, but them, we'll get page 270." of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Reported one of real danger. So I got out. I'm still "It's hard to know what the public breakthroughs in X-ray laser research doing Star Wars research, bur now I'm thinks," said Lisbeth Gronlund. Speaking have been used to win more federal doing research against Star Wars," said at a conference in Austin, Texas attended funding for the Livermore Lab. Ruquist, a visiting scientist at MIT. by almost 300 peace activists, she found "For us to be potentially basing that less than half of them had heard about SARAH TASKER: In the spring of 1985, at national policy on the speculations of Dr. the Star Wars boycott. "Unlike the Freeze the time an MIT undergraduate physics Wood, advanced through Dr. Teller, is or comprehensive test ban, public opinion, major, Tasker quit her research project at totally inappropriate," Woodruff said. so far, hasn't played a big role," she said. the plasma physics lab when she realized "The representations by Dr. Teller were "Maybe it will in the future." the military applications of her research not in keeping with the laborarory's David Wright gave a talk in Philadelphia, on free-electron lasers. "People in the Jab position. They were much more optimistic, and afterward a man came up and said, were starting to talk about making really and I don't believe they were founded on "When I heard about the pledge, and the high-powered devices to attract military actual results. scientists who refused to take money, that interest," she said. "The only reason for "I resigned my post out of principle. I really convinced me." "I don't know how making very high-powered lasers is to liked the job, and it was a very difficult many people feel that way," Wright said, blow holes in something." decision." However, Woodruff added, "I "but at least for this one man, it made the was placed in an untenable position JOHN TRUMP: an MIT professor of difference." electrical engineering and developer of where continuing as associate director the high-voltage laboratory. "john, over lent my personal technical credibility to THE BIGGER PICTURE a period of three decades, would be Dr. Teller and Dr. Wood's statements. In essence I was ... demoted since I was left approached by people of all sorts because Recently, organizers have begun to with no other ethical choice." he could make megavolt beams of ions move the debate to a broader examination Woodruff maintains that he was and electrons-death rays," said James of military research. "How many times can "unilaterally downgraded" to an entry­ Melcher, who directed the lab where you say Star Wars is bad?" asks Rich level "analyst" position, where he was to Trump worked. "What did he do with it? Cowan of MIT's Science Action Coordinating receive no assignments which would give Cancer research, sterilizing sludge out in Committee (SACC), which distributed him visibility. He still supportS X-ray Deer lsland,"-a waste disposal facility­ the SOl pledge among MIT students. research, but believes "it has to be "all sorts of wondrous things. He didn't "Once you've distributed 3,000 leaflets touch the weapons stuff." Trump died in responsibly portrayed to the nation's senior policy makers." on how bad Star Wars is, you face the law 1985. of diminishing returns." Despite his commitment to an "appropri­ At MIT, two committees arc now ZB.LMAN WARHAFJ: a Cornell engineering ate research program," Woodruff says investigating the question of military professor who has refused to take "we don't know at this dare whether we research on campus. SACC wants MIT to military research money throughout his can make a weapon and, if we can, how give students the freedom to reject projects professional career. "I feel there is too effective it would be. At this juncture, we that are not ethically acceptable to them. much defense work going on at universities can't even say it's possible.'' "We want MIT to guarantee that no

January/February 1988 25 student will be denied funding because he working in the military," said their like to see a lot of universities do," says or she refuses to work on military-related executive director, April Moore. In terms Chris Moore, one of the group's founders. research," said Cowan. of weapons research on campus, Moore They're sponsoring a panel discussion by United Campuses to Prevent Nuclear said, "we feel students have a right to know Cornell faculty who refuse to take military War shares these goals. In addition to its where the money is coming from, and we funding. Another symposium will look at arms control efforts, this national organiza­ encourage them to find out." military and industrial collaboration on tion helps establish student internship A student group at Cornell is doing just campus to see whether it poses a threat to programs with peace groups. "We want that-preparing a report on university academic freedom. students to know there are alternatives to research funding. "That's something I'd "We're trying to widen the debate that started with the Star Wars boycott and move on up to more basic issues, questioning the partnership between scientists and the military," Chris Moore explained. "The boycott set a precedent, SINCE but it was a boycott of very specific kinds of research. Regardless of what you do with Star Wars money, even if your THE PLEDGE research is harmless, by taking the money you're endorsing Star Wars. That OPEN LETTER TO CONGRESS: 2, I 00 Responsible Genetics. At a meeting with argument extends to DOD money in scientists from more than t 30 government the Star Wars pledge sponsors last year, general. It shouldn't surprise scientists that and industry labs signed a letter Minsky mentioned the idea of a similar the defense budget is skyrocketing under expressing their concerns about SDI. pledge on biological and chemical Reagan. By taking money, they're The letter claimed that the stated goal of warfare. "We agreed it would help raise endorsing it." rendering nuclear weapons obsolete is the issue of the appropriations of military As a follow-up to the Star Wars boycott, not realizable and urged Congress instead research on campus," he said. (See the Chris Moore suggests circulating a less to "limit the SOl program to a scale article about biological warfare in this specific pledge about military funding in appropriate to exploratory research." issue.) general. "Who knows," he said, "you Among the signers were five Nobel AAAS REPORT: An internal report by the might get a surprising number of people to laureates and present or former directors AAAS Committee on Scientific Freedom sign." of Argonne, Brookhaven, Fermi. Lawrence and Responsibility, scheduled for University of California-Berkeley Berkeley, and Los Alamos laboratories. completion in 1988, is examining the SDI physicist Charles Schwartz thinks boycotts The letter began circulating in the funding and decision-making process to and petitions are a fine place to start, "but spring of 1986, one year after the Star see whether it might circumvent the signing a petition is relatively easy. For Wars pledge made the rounds at normal peer-review system. The report, most people, it doesn't cause too much universities. "We felt the pledge would which may or may nor be released to the discomfort, and it doesn't solve the basic not be meaningful for people who work public, will also determine what kind of problem." To avoid training potential in government and industry labs," restrictions, if any, are placed on SOl weapons makers, Schwartz has decided not explained Pierre Hohenberg of A T&T's grant recipients. "This is an initial effort to teach physics to engineering or physics Bell Laboratories, one of the original to find out whether we should be majors. He has called on other physicists to signers. "A pledge not ro solicit funds is concerned," said Mark Frankel, head of do the same, generating a worldwide strike meaningless, because most people in the AAAS Office of Scientific Freedom that would involve a "collective and these labs don't have to solicit funds. A and Responsibility. gradual withdrawal of our services in all pledge not to work on it is the same as ways that contribute to the arms race." saying you want to quit your job." UNIVERSITY RESOLUTIONS AGAINST SDI Herbert Bernstein, a theoretical physicist An accompanying letter sent to all RESEARCH: In October 1985, a large teaching at Hampshire College, is taking a senators from Senators Daniel Evans (O­ majority of the Tufts University faculty different tack. Rather than merely W A) and j. Bennett Johnston (D-LA) passed a nonbinding resolution that Star challenging the applications of science­ stated, "Such a spontaneous outpouring Wars research should not be conducted whether for Star Wars or other military of concern directed to the Congress from on the campus. The University of New projects-he is examining the nature of scientists within our most respected Mexico passed a similar measure in t 986. science itself. "Instead of refusing to apply government and industrial laboratories is Despite reservations about SDI, the your science, I'm asking if you can change rare indeed. It would have been far easier administration at Tufts chose not to abide what science is so that it is possible to be for them to sign nothing, to say by the resolution,· stating rhat it wasn't both smart and good," said Bernstein. "In nothing." university policy to prohibit faculty other words, can you reconstruct science research of any kind. A year latet; the so that it combines disciplinary excellence BIOLOGICAL a CHEMICAL WEAPONS faculty decided to have all research with social good?" BOYCOU: A pledge not to participate in projects listed in the Tufts monthly MIT mechanical engineering professor biological and chemical weapons research journal, indicating which proposals Donald Probstein would rather use science began circulating in September 198 7 and involve SDI funding. The listing has and engineering to advance social well­ received several hundred signatures in the appeared in one issue. "We're asking the being. Probstein, a missile expert, was first two months. administration to make that information reluctant to turn down Star Wars funding, "We were inspired by the success of available on a regular baSis," said physics because of the scarcity of other funding the Star Wars boycott," said Leonard professor Gary Goldstein, who sponsored sources. But he did refuse the SDI money. Minsky, executive director of the the SOl research ban resolution, along "There are many important problems I can National Coalition for Universities in the with professor Sheldon Krimsky of the contribute to, especially in areas of Public Interest, which is distributing the Department of Urban and Environmental environment and energy," he said, petition along with the Committee for Policy. "problems I think require solving for the benefit of mankind. I'd like to spend my lifetime working on those problems."

26 Science for the People POLITICAL CONSTRAINTS Military Funding & AcadeiDic FreedoiD

BY GARY MARCHANT In recent years, growing concern and attention has focused on encroachments of t is by the goodness of God that in the academic freedom of scientists doing our country we have those three research funded by, or of interest to, the unspeakably precious things: freedom military. Recent incidents have helped of speech, freedom of conscience, spark these concerns. The forced withdrawal and the prudence never to practice of papers that were to be presented at eitherI of them." Mark Twain wasn't scientific conferences, increasing classifica­ addressing scientists when he wrote those tion of basic research (including some words, but the sentiment suits them. "retroactive" classification), and pre­ publication review clauses in research contracts are examples of scientific censorship. Other restraints include the use of export control legislation to restrict

Gary Marchant holds a Ph. D. in genetics and is currently studying law and science policy. He is a member of SjtP's editorial committee.

John Klossner

January/February 1988 27 basic scientific information and restrictions on foreign scholars. While these infringements on scientific freedom have generally received the serious attention they deserve, there has by comparison been relatively little attention given to restrictions on the political freedom of scientists working for or funded by the military. There is mounting evidence to support the common-sense assumption that accepting military funding seriously impairs the freedom or willingness of scientists to speak out politically on controversial issues such as arms control and Star Wars. This restriction on the political freedom of scientists is especially prevalent and pronounced in periods where the military dominates research funding. For example, in 1968, several mathematics professors who had contracts with the military for support of basic research signed an advertisement in a professional newsletter urging their colleagues not to do research that contributed to the Vietnam War. Soon after, the professors received letters from the military branch that sponsored their research notifying them that the termination of their contracts was being considered. A letter from the Army to one of the John Klossner professors stated: "While you as individuals have every right to your own opinions and convictions, your present position vis-a­ vis that of the Department of Defense must and the Civil Service Commission for is cmng dissatisfaction with DeWitt's place you in a most uncomfortable, and wrongful dismissal. 2 scientific progress, despite his outstanding perhaps untenable, situation; continuance In 1985, the director of the Army Corps reputation in the physics community, as its of this relationship could well serve as a of Engineers' Construction Engineering justification for trying to remove its most source of embarrassment to you. In view of Research Laboratory (CERL) at the prominent internal critic. (See the article this unfortunate circumstance, a mutually University of Illinois sent out a memo about Hugh DeWitt on page 39 in this acceptable decision to terminate our ordering an end to all collaboration with issue.) present association when your present scientists who had publicly opposed the In the spring of 1986, Undersocretary support expires appears to be consistent Star Wars program. The action was of Defense for Research and Engineering with both of our positions." After prompted by the publicity and success of Donald Hicks attempted to politically considerable outcry and pressure from the ami-Star Wars research pledge at the censor and intimidate scientists supported other scientists, the military relented and university. by military funding. Hicks, who is in agreed to renew the professors' conrracts.1 The memo, by director Colonel Paul charge of all Pentagon research contracts, Also in the 1960s, a physicist named Theuer, "stated: "I want the word put out said in an interview that if scientists "want Kenneth S. Cook, working as a weapons 'loud and clear' that NO USA-CERL to get out and use their roles as professors analyst for the Air Force, sent a projects or official relationships will be to make statements, that's fine, it's a free confidential letter to a top Pentagon official continued or conducted with those country." But, he continued, "freedom claiming that the Air Force was manipulating aspiring to separate themselves with the works both ways. They're free to keep information and exaggerating the effective­ 'star wars' program-an Administration their mouths shut .. .l'm also free not to give ness of ballistic missile defenses. Three program. As part of the Executive Branch, the money." When asked if he really meant weeks later, Cook was called into the office we have to support the President." After that only those who agreed with the of his commanding officer, who had heavy criticism, Theuer withdrew his policies of the Pentagon should receive its somehow received a copy of the "confidential" order, claiming that the memo was based funds, Hicks replied, "Absolutely."4 letter. on "incomplete" newspaper reports about Although the Department of Defense, Cook's top-secret security clearance was the opposition to Star Wars. 3 facing sharp criticism, issued a statement summarily removed without explanation, For the past decade, physicist Hugh claiming that Hicks was speaking "hypo­ and he was ordered to submit to a physical DeWitt of the Lawrence Livermore thetically" and was not representing and psychiatric exam by military medical Laboratory has been speaking out against official departmental policy,5 Hicks struck personnel. Cook was dismissed after being the lab's role in promoting the arms race. a sympathetic chord with some-both found physically and mentally incapable of After an attempt to remove DeWitt for his inside and outside the Pentagon. Physics performing further service with the Air political activities failed several years ago Today reported that Hicks's immediate Force, and was not permitted to produce because of strong support from scientists boss, Deputy Secretary William Taft IV, evidence from his own doctor that and congressmen who came to DeWitt's agreed with Hicks. Secretary of Defense contradicted the military's medical defense, Livermore Lab is once again Weinberger sent a letter to Senator evaluation. Cook later sued the Air Force trying to force him out. This time, the lab Proxmire about the incident in which he

28 Science for the People J;f expressed a personal view "that there are involved with antiwar organizations "was some significant ethical considerations not consistent with being a researcher at involved" for grantholders who bite the SRI. " 8 hand that feeds them.6 Since much of the research funded by the The Wall Street journal printed an military requires a security clearance, the editorial strong) y supporting Hicks. awarding and revoking of such clearances Referring to scientists who "stick their * is a powerful mechanism for political heads in the sand" by signing the anti-SOl control. The application process for a pledge: "Perhaps they really are holier security clearance screens out applicants than the rest of us. But we don't think the with undesirable political backgrounds. rest of the country should have to subsidize For example, a scientist applying for a their virtue. "7 security clearance must give details of all These examples are certainly just the tip organizational memberships ever held, and of the iceberg. The threat of sanctions a separate, more detailed account must be against a scientist who speaks out on provided if he or she has ever been a political issues will, if successful, probably member of any of over 300 organizations never become public. Scientists who are r.f . . fr on a list compiled by the U.S. Attorney deterred from speaking out on political I1 sczentzsts want General in the 19 50s.9 issues will also be deterred from revealing Once a scientist has succeeded in the mechanisms used to enforce their to use their roles obtaining a security clearance, he or she silence. faces the constant threat of having the As most of the examples cited demonstrate, as professors to clearance revoked in response to any those attempts at intimidation or coercion disapproved political activity. Robert that are publicized arc often withdrawn or make statements, Oppenheimer's career ended when his rescinded in the face of heavy criticism. security clearance was withdrawn as a The threats that are most effective are those that's fine. It's result of his opposition to the hydrogen that never become public knowledge, and bomb. Similar actions against lesser­ therefore it is very difficult to get an a free country. known scientists are not an infrequent accurate measure of the extent of political occurence today. censorship that exists among military­ But freedom works For example, a senior engineer with a supported scientists. leading defense contractor was recently According to Allan Adler of the both ways. They're informed that his security clearance was American Civil Liberties Union, the being "reinvcstigatcd" after he publicly possibility of sanctions is real enough that free to keep questioned the ethics of military work. He "any scientist trying to get, for example, an was told, "You've made certain statements SDI grant is likely to cease any activities their mouths shut. in public and we want to know if you are they were previously involved in that were someone who will safeguard secrets. " 10 critical of the administration's military I'm also free not The usc of more devious and sinister policy. Any scientist that accepts such a means to intimidate and discredit dissident grant knows that they will have less to give them money. scientists is not without precedent. Such discretion-both scientifically and politically." tactics were used in the early 1980s against Hugh Kaufman, an Environmental Protection MECHANISMS FOR PUNISHING Agency scientist who opposed the Reagan DISSENT administration's cutbacks in hazardous waste enforcement projects. Kaufman was There are a variety of mechanisms that followed, photographed, and had his are available to Pentagon grant officers, phone tapped by EPA investigators when nuclear weapons laboratories, and military he started making speeches about hazardous contractors to control the political waste to citizens' groups. In one incident, activities of the scientists that rely on them the investigators fed information to the for funding. In his case studies of scientists media that Kaufman was seen entering a working for military contractors during motel with a "brunette." The woman the Vietnam War, Jeffrey Schevitz found turned out to be Kaufman's wife. that the responses military research Documents released under the Freedom establishments took towards dissident of Information Act revealed that the scientists "ran the gamut from cooption director of the Superfund program, Rita into advisory committees, to drawing the Lavelle, had ordered the investigation, in limits of tolerated activity, to verbal the words of a department report, in "an threats, to the scare tactics of security apparent attempt to discredit" Kaufman checks, to termination." and "silence the communication of his For example, one researcher at the ideas."11 Given the past practices of the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) who national security apparatus in this country, spoke at a management-sponsored staff it is certainly not unthinkable that similar meeting in support of student antiwar tactics are used against scientists who speak demonstrations was later grilled by out on military issues. security officers from the Office of Naval These more blatant methods of intimidating Intelligence and then terminated. Another and coercing dissident scientists run the scientist whose name appeared on a student risk of public exposure and triggering a leaflet was called onto the carpet in the public outcry. Also, the First Amendment president's office and told that being protects free speech from government

January/February 1988 29 interference, even though private employers conservative Representative Roudebush are usually not bound by it. Therefore, from Indiana. An aide to Roudebush was more subtle means of punishing outspoken reported to have said that "the Congressman scientists are common. looked into Smale's background and he's Richard Ruquist, who worked for about as pink as they come.... We have military contractors for over twenty years already been in touch with Senator before quitting in protest over the Strategic Gordon Allott and he has agreed to veto Defense Initiative, says that "people who the grant." Shortly thereafter, the National aren't willing to keep their mouths shut get Science Foundation tried to cut his put in a corner somewhere where they are funding, accusing Smale of mismanaging harmless." Career stagnation is the usual his grant. Smale's funding was restored reward for "troublemakers," who are after publicity and controversy about the denied promotions and usually assigned to situation revealed that there was no the least interesting projects. Hugh De Witt substance to the NSF's allegations.13 of Livermore Lab has not received the A more recent proposal by ultra­ normal pay raises that other less­ conservative Indiana Congressman Dan outspoken scientists of his calibre and Burton would defund entire universities, seniority regularly receive. not just individual researchers and Tom Grissom is a physicist who professors. An article in the June 1987 worked for fifteen years at Sandia Labs, a newsletter of the right-wing organization nuclear weapons design facility. In 1986, Accuracy in Academia reported that he quit his job at Sandia in opposition to Burton will soon be introducing a bill to nuclear weapons. According to Grissom, cut funding to universities where professors "no meaningful or effective dissent is Indiana Congressman refuse to do SOl research. Burton was tolerated at the Sandia Labs. No one would quoted as saying, "if they're not willing to be fired, you would just find yourself in a Dan Burton's bill do their part to help defend America, I hostile and alienated environment." The don't see why they should receive our tax managers of any military contractor have will cut funding to money." the power to make a dissident scientist's Steve Baldwin, executive director of work environment so difficult and universities where Young Americans for Freedom, who is miserable that the scientist would be forced helping to draft the bill, said that "the bill is to leave "voluntarily," as did Grissom. professors refuse in the same vein as the Solomon If a direct attempt is made to terminate a Amendment that cut off federal aid to scientist's job or grant for political reasons, to do SDI research. students that refused to register for the it is usually done under the guise of some draft .... If given more support and a bigger other excuse. Thus, Livermore Lab is "If they're not lobbying effort, it could have a good currently trying to remove Hugh DeWitt chance of passing."14 The bill would cut from his position by citing unsatisfactory willing to do their off all federal aid to public universities scientific progress, even though DeWitt is which have banned SOl research. one of the best in his field. part to defend When contacted, an aide to Representative The control of scientists' political Burton expressed regret that there was no activities can extend beyond the period America, I don't see legal mechanism for attacking individual that they are actually funded or employed. scientists. "We don't want to seem anti­ It was reported at a conference on why they should education and punish whole schools, but whistleblowing organized by Ralph just the troublemakers," said aide Kevin Nader that Dupont's pension plan allows receive our tax Frankovich. In a telephone interview, the company to cancel a retired employee's Baldwin said that no university department right to receive benefits if he or she money, " says Burton. has yet formally banned SOl research, but becomes involved in "any activity harmful he hoped "that word leaking out about the to the interest of the company."12 impending bill would deter any schools The federal government has recently from doing so." required 3. 6 million employees with access to classified information to sign Standard SELF-CENSORSHIP Form 189. These forms bind the signatories never to divulge in a "direct or indirect" Although the mechanisms outlined fashion "classified or classifiable" information. above are effective for punishing dissident The forms will remain on file for 50 years, scientists who do speak out, the mere hint and failure to sign will result in automatic of sanctions is enough to deter many loss of security clearance and hence scientists from ever criticizing military employment. Because the form applies to policy in the first place. Threats such as information that can be classified by the those from Under Secretary of Defense government after it is divulged by a former Hicks, even if they never become official employee, it gives the government much policy, send a clear signal to scientists and broader power to punish the .disclosure of have a chilling effect on political activity. politically embarassing information. In a speech to the Senate in December Congress members also have the power to 196 7, Senator William Fulbright called punish scientists who take politically attention to this danger of self-censorship controversial positions. In 196 7, mathematician when he warned, "The corrupting process Stephen Smale was attacked for his is a subtle one: no one needs to censor, opposition to U.S. policy in Vietnam by threaten or give orders to contract scholars;

30 Science for the People without a word of warning or advice being of New York, and author of To Win A their standing with university administrators, uttered, it is simply understood that Nuclear War, tells of a colleague at another as lots of pressure was being applied by lucrative contracts are awarded not to university whose contract was not administrators at some universities for those who question their government's renewed. The friend had been very scientists to apply for SDI funding." She policies, but to those who provide the politically active during the Vietnam War, also found that reluctance to sign the government with the tools and techniques and continued to hold strong political pledge because of fear of political it desires. " 15 views. However, after his university repercussions was most prevalent "at Once a scientist has become established contract ended, the only job he was offered universities which were not in the top I 0 or and comfortable working for a government was at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. 20." Well-known professors at prestigious laboratory or private company, or has He phoned Kaku after deciding to accept universities arc more tmmune tram grown dependent on research grants from the Livermore position and, in Kaku's political pressure because they would have the Pentagon, there is a strong incentive words, "he was very honest about it. He fewer problems finding alternative sources not to take any risks that might jeopardize said he felt sheepish, but that he would of funding than would scientists at second­ one's situation. Dorothy Nelkin, a have to keep his mouth shut and end any rung universities. professor of science, technology and political involvement. The bottom line, he Likewise, Weissman's experiences with society at Cornell, believes that it is almost said, was his wife and two kids." the pledge suggested that the chilling effect impossible to document concretely the A !974 study of the participation of was largest "in fields such as electrical extent of self-censorship among scientists scientists in the antiballistic missile engineering, where military funding who receive military funding. controversy of the late 1960s and early saturates the field." W cissman said he "Ir is very hard to know what people 1970s concluded that the source of a "really saw fear in people's eyes." would have done if they were in different scientist's funding played a key role in circumstances-would they have been determining their political activity. "Many CARROTS AS WELL AS STICKS politically active if they weren't so industrial and government scientists do not constrained?," Nelkin asks. "What we can feel that they possess the same freedom and As well as using threats and sanctions to do is infer from common sense and security to become publicly identified in a punish scientists who engage in uncondoned sociological knowledge about how people controversial issue," the study found. activities, the military also uses rewards respond to incentives and penalties that "Whether, in fact, that is illusion or reality and incentives to induce political acquiescence. people just don't jeopardize their source of is immaterial. It is the scientists' perceptions One obvious inducement is the generous funding. Since military funding sets up the of constraints upon their outside-work salaries and grants available from the structural conditions for reducing dissent, activities which serve as inhibitors upon military, which usually exceed the funding activism isn't going to be a factor with their participation in issues like ABM. " 16 available from nonmilitary sources for these people." A good example of self-censorship was comparable work. An article in New Tom Grissom, the scientist who left the reluctance of many scientists to sign the Scientist entitled "Star Wars-An Astronomical Sandia Labs for political reasons after anti-SDI pledge. Two oftheoriginators of Bribe for Scientists" concluded, "One fifteen years, recalls that many scientists at the pledge campaign-Lisbcth Gronlund thing is clear: money is a powerful lure for the lab were very troubled by President of Cornell and Michael Weissman of the grant-hungry scientists. Some of those Reagan's announcement of the Star Wars University of Illinois-knew of scientists who initially sneered at the (SDI) program in 1983. "Although they talked who opposed SDI, but refused to sign the programme have begun to change their quietly to others in the corridors about pledge because either they were receiving tune, publicly at least. " 17 their concerns, they did not want to be too military funding then, or hoped to in the David Parnas, a computer scientist who open or identified about it," said Grissom. future. Weissman talked to several people was appointed to Reagan's SDI advisory "There was an underlying fear that the lab who explicitly said that they feared panel dealing with computer aspects of management had ways of punishing offending their military grant officers and space-based ballistic missile defenses and them-in ways that may not be overt, but so would not sign. who later resigned because he believed the nevertheless effective." Gronlund noted that some scientists program was unfeasible and ill-advised, Physicist Michio Kaku of City University "were also hesitant about jeopardizing observed that many of his colleagues were

John Klossner

January/February 1988 31 prepared to set aside their scientific doubts themselves to the highest bidder-only pro-military views, must ask, how could in order to feed at the pork barrel trough. they are selling their brain instead of their all these people be wrong?" Parnas observes that for these scientists, body." Many young scientists who get involved "the project offers a source of funding, Finally, political opposition by scientists in military research often become fascinated funding that will enrich some personally .... funded by the military is curtailed by the with the technical aspects of their research During the first sittings of our panel, I inevitable socialization pressures and and gradually forget about moral qualms. could see the dollar figures dazzling processes that often produce more pro­ A good example is Peter Hagelstein, the everyone involved. Almost everyone that military views. Perhaps the most powerful young scientist who developed the concept I know within the military industrial of these influences is the scientist's own of the X-Ray Laser for Star Wars. For his complex sees in the SDI a new 'pot of gold' internal rationalizations for accepting book Star Warriors, William Broad went to just waiting to be tapped."18 military funds. Other more subtle Livermore Lab in 1984 and was told by The same type of bribery occurs at the influences might come from pro-military Hagelstein, "My view of weapons has international level, where most NATO assumptions and biases embedded in changed. Until 1980 or so I didn't want to allies have suddenly muted their once­ specialized information sources that many have anything to do with nuclear vocal criticisms of SDI now that they are military researchers are likely to read, such anything. Back in those days I thought receiving SDI contracts. as aerospace publications. there was something fundamentally evil A similar type of enticement occurs with Hugh DeWitt has described how many about weapons. Now I see it as an graduate students through funding of the scientists working on Star Wars at interesting physics problem."22 programs such as the Hertz Foundation Livermore Lab have grown more and One longtime participant in military Fellowships. The Hertz Fellowships, more isolated from the outside world. research has succinctly described the lure which offer one of the highest stipends "They don't bother to read newspapers," of such research to many scientists: available to some 120 graduate students said DeWitt. "They get teletype messages from the CIA off the computer. They have "They are inspired by ingenious and clever every year, are administered through an ideas, challenged by bold sraremenrs of real office in Livermore, California and are a skewed view of the world, very and imaginary military requirements, 21 closely associated with the Livermore Lab. skewed." stimulated to march or exceed technological Two of the directors of the fellowships Also, the acceptance of military funding progress by rhe other side or even by a rival include H-bomb developer Edward Teller by a scientist is liable to cause tension in military service here at home... They derive and Lowell Wood, head of the Livermore relationships with friends and colleagues either their incomes, their profits, or their Lab's 0-Group working on SDI. who politically oppose such work. The consultant fees from ir. But much more The fellowship rule for eligibility military-funded scientist is thus more important than money as a motivating force are the individuals' own psychic and "requires all Fellows to morally commit likely to seek out friends who will be more spiritual needs; the majority of the key themselves to make their skills and abilities accepting of Pentagon funding, and who individual promoters of the arms race derive available for the common defense, in the are likely to be more conservative. a very large part of their self-esteem from event of national emergency." According In government or industry labs doing their participation in what they believe to be to Michio Kaku, who was one of the first military research, the socialization pressures an essential~even a holy~cause." 23 recipients of a Hertz Undergraduate are most pronounced. Tom Grissom says Fellowship, the purpose of the fellowships that military research labs such as Sandia is "to create a cadre core of anticommunist are "awash in a sea of constant reinforcement" THE IMPORTANCE OF scientists." The fellowships, also known of the lab's official ideology. "Since there is POLITICAL CONTROL OVER informally as "Star Wars scholarships" no dissent, employees only get exposed to MIUTARY SCIENTISTS because of the large number of recipients one side of the issue-that of the lab's who end up at the Livermore Lab, were management. There is no discussion of the We have seen how the military endowed by Hertz Rent-A-Car founder other side, except in a disparaging way. establishment, through the use of both John Hertz, following World War II, to Any scientist surrounded by 8,000 other sticks such as threats and sanctions, and attract young scientists into military employees, all apparently holding the same carrots such as bribes, cooptation, and research. 19 Another effective means for limiting political opposition by scientists is co­ optation-either through appointments to advisory committees or lucrative consulting arrangements. Scientists who are given an opportunity to offer their opinions and views within the system are less likely to publicly air their concerns and risk the access, prestige, and benefits they receive from their participation on committees or as consultants. For example, one academic who is a former member of the Defense Science Board was approached by Chemical & Engineering News as a test case. The scientist refused to discuss his experiences or feelings about his work, because any direct or indirect attribution of anything he said would preclude further work for him as a consultant. 20 Michio Kaku says he knows scientists who double their salaries by consulting for the Pentagon. In Kaku's view, these scientists are "like prostitutes who sell

32 Science for the People socialization influences, is able to control waged by military managers. Thus the the political activities and dissent of most enormous investments in military research scientists funded by the military. Of not only contribute to the arms race course, there are some individual scientists materially, by providing a never-ending who have the courage to resist this control; series of new weapons, but also politically, and there are many others who need no by silencing many of the most effective threats or encouragement to become avid potential critics of the arms race. supporters of the military. There is no doubt, however, that these control mechanisms constrain the activities NOTF.S of many scientists who would otherwise he I. Serge Lang, "The DOD, Government, and politically active, and slowly convert other Universities," in The Social Responsibility of the scientists who are at best ambivalent about Scientist, edited by Martin Brown. London: military programs into enthusiasts. Collier-Macmillan, 1971, pp. 53-55. While almost any source of research 2. ArthurS. Miller, "Whistle Blowing and the funding has the potential to he used as an "My view of weapons Law," in Whistle Blowing, edited by Ralph instrument of political control, the Nader, Peter J. Peticas & Kate Blackwell. New problem is much more common and severe has changed. Until York: Grossman, 1972, pp. 169-170. for military funding sources. According to 3. Colin Norman, "Lab Chiers Memo Stirs Tom Grissom, it is more acceptable to 1980 or so I didn't Unease at Illinois," Science, August 16, 198.1', p. 634. speak our at federal labs that do a lot of 4. R. Jeffrey Smith, "Hicks Attacks SDI nonmilitary research, such as Oak Ridge, want to have anything Critics," Science, April 25, 1986, p. 444. than at a lab like Sandia which does almost 5. R. Jeffrey Smith, "DOD Backtracks on exclusively military work. Similarly, to do with nuclear Grants to SDI Critics," Science, May 2 3, 1986, within the Oak Ridge lab, there is much p. 929. greater tolerance in sections that do only anything. Back in 6. Irwin Goodwin, "Pentagon's R&D Chief nonmilitary work than those sections Blasts Science Critics of DOD Policies," Physics doing weapons research. From Grissom's those days I thought Today, July 1986, pp. 48-49. experience at different federal labs, "the 7. Editorial, "Intellectuals in Isolation," Wall there was something Street Journal, May 16, 1986, p. 22. proportion of work funded by the military 8. Jeffrey M. Schevitz, The Weapon.rmakers. or related to nuclear weapons directly Cambridge: Schenkman, 1979. determines whether dissenting views are fundamentally evil 9. Warren F. Davis, "The Pentagon and the tolerated." Scientist," in The Militarization of High The Pentagon recognizes that military about weapons. Now Technology, edited by John Tirman. Cambridge: research is critical for the development of Ballinger, 1984, p. 157. new weapons. Military research has often I see it as 10. Bob Davis, "Work on Weapons Pains the been called the oxygen which fuels the Conscience of Some Engineers," Wall Street arms race. Therefore the "political purity" an interesting Journal, July 5, 1983, p. I. II. Eve Pell, The Big Chill. Boston: Beacon of the military research establishment must Press, 1984, p. 81. he protected at all costs, even if it means physics problem." 12. ArthurS. Miller, op. cit., p. 186. squashing the political rights and freedoms 13. Serge Lang, op. cit., pp. 69-70. of individual scientists. A participant at a 14. Accuracy in Academia, "Federal Funding recent conference on scientists and the arms Threatened," Campus Report, June 1987.- race summed up the situation this way: 15. Senator J. William Fulbright, U.S. Senate, December 13, 1967, quoted in Serge Lang, op. "Military R&D is well shielded, sustained cit., p. 59. and bolstered by this (military-industrial) 16. Anne Hessing Cahn, "American complex as one of its most sensitive links. Scientists and the ABM: A Case Study in This also has organizational consequences. Controversy," in Scientists and Public Affairs, The scientific staff is subjected to stringent edited by Albert H. Teich. Cambridge, MA: discipline and control. Purely organizational MIT Press, 1974, p. 92. measures are reinforced by economic 17. Jeff Hecht, "Star Wars-An Astronomical attractions and political arguments. As a Bribe for Scientists," New Scientist, June 20, result, scientists and engineers employed by 1985, p. 14. military R&D have shown astounding 18. David Parnas, quoted in Lord Solly resistance to appeals calling their attention to Zuckerman, Star Wars in a Nuclear World. social and moral responsibility. The London: William Kimber, 1986, p. 83. challenge is all the greater to try to bring 19. For further information about the Hertz military R&D under some social and Fellowships, see William J. Broad, Star Warriors. political control, and to halt its devastating New York: Simon and Schuster, 1985. impact on the arms race and society."24 20. Wil Lepkowski, "Scientists Ponder Role Scientists have enormous credibility to in National Security," Chemical & Engineerinf{ the public and politicians on techno­ Xews, October S, i 98 I. p. 22. political issues such as Star Wars and the 21. Hugh DeWitt, "A Scientist Reflects arms race-setting aside the question of Upon Star Wars," Arena, No. 7 S, 1986, p. 134. whether such influence is deserved and 22. William J. Broad, op. cit., p. 117. desired or not. As both the quantity and 23. Herbert York, Race to Oblivion: A Participant's View of the Arms Race. New York: relative proportion of military-funded Simon and Schuster, 1970, pp. 234-235. research grows, more and more scientists 24. Marek Thee, "The Race in Military who might object to at least some of the Technology," in Scientists, the Arms Race and Pentagon's goals and objectives fall victim Disarmament, edited by Joseph Rotblat. to the sticks and carrots of political control London: Taylor & Francis, 1982, pp. B-S4.

January/February 1988 33 AROUND THE

their own projects, are willing to suppress they re-enter the atmosphere just before negative results, broadcast positive results, impact. The company was writing a BUYER and sometimes "leak" sensitive material. proposal to build small radars that would What follows is a perception of the irradiate the plasma wake with microwaves­ military-industrial complex derived from which are quite similar to those used in BEWARE all of the stories I've heard, along with a microwave range for cooking. reporting in newspaper and magazine After joining the proposal team, I first articles. In 25 years of work on Pentagon calculated the path of the radar waves in research programs for industry and that plasma. To the surprise of everybody SCIENCE university laboratories, I must honestly on the proposal team, the theory predicted say from my own experience that such that these radar waves would rapidly BY RICHARD RUQUIST unethical behavior is rather infrequent. diverge out of the plasma within a few Moreover, the most serious incidents in meters behind the warhead. Therefore, the cientific information flowing from my personal experience, which I discuss radar experiment proposed by my theoretical analysis and experiment below, are all borderline cases that an company looked like a complete waste of is essential to the U.S. weapons idealist might consider to be dishonest, but time. To my dismay, I was told by my industry. But this information that I suspect a pragmatic businessman company's marketing people to ke!;:p these is not always free-flowing. If it would regard as fair game. results quiet, and my memo describing the is critical of an ongoing weapons research Still, these are clear examples of a buyer analyses was suppressed. program, it may not flow at all. In the beware ethic in science, and if my If the information had been released, I interests of preserving jobs, profits, and experience were multiplied throughout the am sure that it would have caused some even of saving reputations, negative results entire industry, the perception of dishonesty consternation in the government and derived from military research are often and resistance to criticism in military industrial organizations that conceived and covered up by the organizations operating research would be warranted. In my last designed these experiments. At the very the programs. example, derived from my experience least, other theorists and outside consultants It then becomes the responsibility of the working on the Star Wars program, I would have been brought in to determine "buyer," usually the Pentagon, to uncover discuss how suppression of the complete whether or not the theory was correct. the flaws. As such, much of the U.S. flow of information may become a Perhaps some inexpensive laboratory military-industrial complex operates on a dangerous game. experiment would have been performed to "buyer beware" basis. The operation is In the summer of 1965, I was working confirm it. But this was a multimillion further complicated by the fact that some for a large East Coast weapons contractor dollar project already in the procurement government officials, in order to benefit on ballistic missile defense. The marketing stage. In short, to introduce critical office of this company asked me to analyze information at this stage would have Richard Ruquist is a visiting scientist at the the propagation of electromagnetic radar rocked the boat. Program in Science and Technology for waves in the very long plasma wake that Still, I thought it was dishonest to International Security at the Massachusetts forms behind intercontinental ballistic suppress such critical information, and Institute of Technology. missile (ICBM) nuclear warheads when soon thereafter I left to join a university Ill

34 Science for the People I

I

January/ February l988 35 laboratory. Subsequently, my former In contrast, in the 1980s, while working company won the contract and my on a Star Wars project for the Army, I calculations were later confirmed, albeit decided to publish some of the theory after several years of experiments and underlying those results in an unclassified many dollars had been unnecessarily journal. A group of civilian Army officials expended. then apparently decided that the sensitivity The university laboratory where I next of the analysis made the whole laser worked was a so-called national laboratory. defense system seem fragile. They agreed It derived most of its funding from that the analysis was unclassified, but Congress. Perhaps as a result, it did not would not release it because in their have the "always please the customer" opinion it was "critical military technology." attitude that I found in corporations. As This new category now allows the such, national labs are more likely to government to suppress information, deliver an honest assessment of a weapons including scientific theory, without even system. However, even these laboratories having to classify it. may have some difficulty releasing critical The above examples of the tendencies of or pejorative information once they have corporations and the government to put their reputations behind a concept and suppress undesired scientific information are involved in its development. (or to leak beneficial information) are by The closest I came to personally themselves relatively harmless. The total experiencing such difficulty was one time cost to the nation would only be significant when I was given responsibility for if my experiences were multiplied collecting and correlating the ground­ throughout the entire U.S. weapons based radar data from test-warhead plasma industry. I cannot judge if this is so, but wakes. The laboratory had already recent revelations in the media, supported endorsed a particular solution to the BMD by a few outright catastrophes, suggest discrimination problem which was in the that it may be true. In contrast to these so­ form of a particular mathematical correlation. called harmless cases, the last example I When I first came into this project, data wish to discuss involves the most was just becoming available from a variety expensive, and I believe dangerous, of new warheads. As a result, when I defense project ever proposed. plotted all the data on a single piece of Early in the Strategic Defense Initiative graph paper, the correlation disappeared. (SOl) program, more popularly known as At the in-house presentation of this Star Wars, the last company I had worked result, the top management of the for used a computer code to do an laboratory was very unhappy. To the engagement analysis of the entire space­ credit of my immediate supervisor, he based strategic defense system, including allowed me to present the new data at the exotic laser and particle beam weapons, following Pentagon briefing. But I and very sophisticated sensors. The perceived that the incident jeopardized my success of this computer analysis made us opportunity for advancement and I left. the leading SOl systems analysis company More than 10 years after this incident, I in the nation. was denied employment on a contract with The program used reasonable, 'illbeit this laboratory because their top management optimistic, approximations and assumptions considered me to be "unreliable." about how all these space-based devices Apparently my earlier perception was would eventually work, and it included all accurate. likely USSR countermeasures (CM) to the Recently, both leaks and the classification defense system. The difficulties came of pejorative information have been when the CM involved a Soviet attack on popular news items. Two incidents in my an unlimited amount of power could be the defense system just before launching a personal experience are interesting, transmitted. I expected that this result full attack on the U.S. As programmed in because essentially the same information probably was classified, but my top the analysis, the USSR hypothetically first was at first leaked, and then later on management suggested that I check with launched a great number of antisatellite suppressed, dependent on the perception of the official in Washington who had the (ASA T) missiles against the space defense different Pentagon officials as to whether final authority to decide if it was classified. system, just before it hypothetically the information helped or hurt their Since release of such information at that launched its ICBMs against the U.S. The project. time was beneficial to his project, I was results were that all of the U.S. defense In the late 1970s, I was working for an allowed to publish it at an unclassified satellites over the USSR were shot down industrial laboratory that invented and international meeting of a professional by the ASA Ts, creating a large hole in the sold very high-powered lasers. On a society. As a result, I received national system's satellite constellation. classified project, I calculated the amount acclaim for this work, including a report However, with the passage of (computer) of power that these lasers could propagate about it in Aviation Week, a well-read time, when the ICBMs were launched, the from the ground to space, and found that aerospace magazme. hole had partially closed as other satellites II

36 Science for the People orbited into position, thus providing some was truly dangerous. In January of 1987, of funds, and obfuscating stated objectives, defense capability over the USSR during Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger the military has concealed much of that ICBM boost-phase. In addition, the endorsed deployment of a partial system of part of its mission which had become defense system outside the USSR was space-based missiles within a decade. Star politically controversial. sufficiently effective in the midcourse and Wars then became an immediate threat, For politically progressive science terminal phases that by the time the rather than a long-term research program. workers who wish to avoid or oppose warheads reached the U.S., only one in In February 198 7, I resigned in order to be research directed against humanity, we can 1,000 survived to impact. Thus, the free to criticize this Department of Defense offer no clear-cut guidelines. Rather, we system successfully met the SDI criterion policy. must all question our work and attempt to for acceptable warhead leakage in spite of analyze what is acceptable within our own the very significant initial loss of defense political and moral views. satellites. In this article, we have attempted to However, the success of the full Star outline some of the observations, ideas, Wars system in this computer analysis was MILITARY conflicts, and questions that arose for us based on the assumption of a simultaneous and our friends during work on projects launch of all ASA T missiles. It was argued funded in part by the military. With the that this was the most stressing case increasing commoditization of science and because battle management for the FUNDING the reduced availability of nonmilitary engagement would be saturated. I, for one, government or foundation support, these was suspicious of this result, because if the issues are being faced by more and more Soviets could create a hole in the system OF PUBLIC research workers at all levels. It is before launching their ICBMs, why could important that we continually ask they not also shoot down the remaining ourselves if, when, how, and why we satellites as they filled in the hole? RESEARCH should participate in military-funded Furthermore, battle management was not research. even modelled in the code at that time. I smelled a snooker. BY SHEILA RISE & YEWELL C. HOWE TYPES OF MIUTARY This is a case where, instead of INVOLVEMENT IN SCIENCE suppressing critical information, the data hen we first began to ex­ was just never calculated because the press our feelings about sci­ Fundamentally, we consider there to be outcome was known in advance. It is left ence in a political frame­ three types of problems involving the up to the customer to recognize that the work, we tended to oversim­ financial support for the research and the system's success was conditioned by plify. Our early training application of the knowledge gained from assumptions in the attack scenario: a clear l'ltaught us to reduce complexity, to that research. Stated simply, there are case of buyer beware science. discourage analysis. As children, we were military-funded projects with obviously At first I reasoned that the concept of a presented with an idealized, organized, and destructive applications, publicly or formidable Star Wars system could bring simplified view of social relations: every privately funded nonmilitary research the superpowers to the arms control table, cowboy and Indian movie made it quite with potential military uses, and projects where the system could be used as a evident who were the good guys and who that are funded by the Department of bargaining chip by the U.S. And were the bad. Defense, but which have no obvious use in subsequently the threat to develop it could But now we realize that life rarely achieving military objectives. be used to ensure treaty compliance. But operates that way. Like politics, life is For most of us, the decision of whether President Reagan seemingly destroyed inherently complex and full of contradictions. or not to participate in research funded by this rationale in the November 1986 Even when an issue permits us to choose and for the military is straightforward. We superpower meeting in Iceland when he sides, putting our views into practice can can rule out military-funded research that refused to even discuss bargaining over be an excruciating struggle. Translating is unambiguously oriented toward destruction SDI. even the most thoroughly reasoned of either human life or the ability to sustain Thereafter my work became much more political position into action has never been or reproduce it. difficult, and I began to think of the easy. The second domain, involving projects possibility of retiring. On the other hand, I In the case of military-funded research, which might be of interest to the military stood to make a great deal of money in the what you see is rarely what you get, and but which are funded by agencies other next few years. And after all, Star Wars what you get may be many other things as than the Department of Defense or Central was just a very expensive research project well. Military strategists, largely in Intelligence Agency, presents a somewhat that seemed to be decades away from response to criticisms from peace activists, more difficult dilemma. To begin with, the deployment, so this time I stayed on. Over have developed increasingly sophisticated DOD may be involved in the research even the years, my original idealism had waned, methods for achieving their research goals. when it does not appear to be. Private and I had grown accustomed to the buyer By changing the sites of laboratories, research establishments (whether for­ beware mentality of U.S. weapons disguising project titles, renaming sources profit or not) may not disclose their DOD programs. research funds. And support from the What finally moved me to quit the Sheila Rise and Yewe/1 C. Howe are DOD which may be earmarked for other system, and protest against it, was the pseudonyms for the two authors, who are projects nevertheless contributes to the perception that deployment of missiles in presently doing research in Minneapolis, overall functioning of the institution. space, constituting a first-strike capability, Minnesota. Furthermore, nonmilitary funding II

January/February 1988 37 agencies (whether governmental or interested in this type of research, and what private) often share fundamental ideological are the risks in working on such military­ or practical objectives with the military. funded projects? To understand the Federal agencies such as the National potential benefits and drawbacks, we must Science Foundation, Department of consider the objectives and operating Energy, Health and Human Services, or mechanisms of scientific research agencies National Institutes for Health are nominally of the military. charged with encouraging research designed to improve the "quality of life." MIUTARY FUNDS AND PUBUC However, this usually means the lives of RESEARCH certain groups of people in particular rountries. The ideology of the administrators Beyond the superficial differences like who decide where funds are sent and on dress or bureaucratic procedures, most what they are spent subtly permeates the scientists employed by the military are funding process. similar to those working for public or Scientific inquiry that is explicitly private agencies. Military researchers, like intended to address technical needs abroad all other scientific workers, regularly study usually serve the goals of U.S. policy and apply published results, new techniques, makers, who typically hold views that are and ideas that are publicly available in inconsistent with the desires of the journals, laboratory reports, and books. working classes of these countries. Thus, Whether the work was funded by the the lack of obvious military support does Department of Defense or the National not guarantee that one's research will not Science Foundation, the research results be consistent, ultimately, with military are the same. On the surface, there would objectives. seem to be little difference between DOD­ We would like to focus on military­ supported and publicly financed "basic funded research that has no well-defined research" which seems to have no direct direct or indirect miltary application. We military application, as long as all the hope that our observations will be useful to research is unclassified and the results are those wondering what to do when faced freely distributed. with research projects that are funded by However, the relationship between the DOD, yet seem to have no direct sponsor and investigator is much more relevance, short- or long-term, to military complex, involving publicity, ideology, objectives. and influence over the direction of For example, suppose you are given the research. Slowly and subtly-through chance to work on an interesting problem interactions over progress reports, contract in the population dynamics of marine meetings, and research planning sessions­ crustacea off the coast of Argentina~you the problems and goals that the funding love the ocean and it also represents an agency has on its agenda become those of important nutritional resource for the the "independent" researcher. Surely, this people of the region. What do you do when process by which investigators adopt the you learn that the project is funded by the priorities and topics of the granting agency Office of Naval Research? occurs with all funding agencies, military Or you have acquired the technical skills or otherwise. and intellectual curiosity for studying the At a time of intense competition for physiology of vision under low light­ research funds, the piper listens carefully, if many automobile accidents occur at dusk not always consciously, for the requested and dawn, and chronic eye disorders may tune. For military-sponsored projects, develop among children who frequently there is the risk of drifting away from one's read without adequate illumination. How original intentions toward more applied do you respond when, after accepting a results that the military is seeking. We may new position at another university in this CIA be supporting research in the become accepting and complacent and field, you discover that the research is psychology of decision-making? What thereby, perhaps, unintential cooperators. supported by a contract for the U.S. Air interest could the Army have in research But cooperators at what? Why would the Force? on the mathematical properties of specific military fund apparently benign projects Or perhaps you wish to apply your types of nonlinear differential equations? unrelated to military missions? We see fascination with chemistry to improving The list seems endless. three reasons. the durability and energy efficiency of One characteristic of these projects is First, military research administrators simple tools used in Third World that each could just as easily be funded by have large budgets and considerable agriculture. Should you accept a postdoc to other publicly supported agencies such as latitude in determining what research is study the physics of high-stress polymers, NIH, NSF, and the DOE, or by private appropriate to the needs of the armed knowing that your stipend will be paid foundations such as Ford, Mellon, or forces. These administrators who make from a U.S. Army grant? Why might the Kellogg. So why is the Pentagon recommendations for funding of external II II

38 Science for the People research projects are mostly people who military, who do not support these out. According to DeWitt, "the way it is were trained side-by-side their counterparts objectives are faced with difficult analyses working is that the lab does not attack me in academia or industry; they now attend and even more problematic choices. for my political activities or writing and the same meetings and conferences. For Because research funds and positions are speaking. Rather, the lab claims that my some, their incentives for military increasingly difficult to find, saying no to scientific work is irrelevant, inadequate, involvement stem from good salaries and military-funded research is hard to do and nonprogrammatic." benefits, greater assurance of logistical when alternatives are few. The Livermore Laboratory, which is support for their studies, and job security. Yet in other ways, deciding to say yes is managed by the University of California, Despite the mandate of their employer, even more difficult. The simple solution of cannot fire DeWitt outright unless he their personal biases seep into their views never working on any project that is commits some act of gross misconduct. of what fundamental studies are likely to supported by military funds is, in our However, if a researcher gets unsatisfactory produce "interesting" results. view, politically naive and unrealistic for performance ratings in two successive Second, while military research must be those of us who want to do serious science periods, the lab can then initiate dismissal justifiable in terms of the missions of the and pay the rent. Whether working on proceedings. A year ago De Witt received a DOD, the applications can be many steps such projects ultimately contributes to the lower-than-expected performance rating, removed. Fundamental research is needed effectiveness of the armed forces or can be and this year's rating "from all indications, to build up the "technology base" in used to oppose military objectives will is going to be as bad as they can make it." academic areas of future interest to the depend on how one works with the DeWitt believes that the lab is trying to armed forces. And finally, a certain amount military. make things so unpleasant and difficult for of b:jsic research that holds no promise for him that he will leave "voluntarily." eventual military application may actually This is not the first time the lab has tried be useful in countering negative publicity to remove DeWitt from his position. In that periodicallly arises over chemical or 1979, DeWitt wrote an affidavit and biological warfare research, for example. became an expert wimess for the Progresswe The leap from research on beneficial SCAPE· magazine and the American Civil Liberties antibiotics to its application in the Union when the government unsuccessfully production and distribution of antibiotic­ tried to supress an article about the resistant pathogens for biological warfare GOAliNG hydrogen bomb. DeWitt's affidavit is just a small step. How do we know when demonstrated that the information in the such a step is likely to be taken, and how article had come from open sources, much might we prevent or counteract it? THE of it from an encyclopedia article written Ironically, one of the best ways to do this by Edward Teller. may be to become a participant. Those After losing its case, the government scientists who are in contact with Pentagon singled out DeWitt as a scapegoat against research are in a better position to learn SCIENTIST which to retaliate. He received a letter of about the underlying premises of certain reprimand, which is the first step in being research interests. Some of this knowledge FROM AN INTERVIEW WITH fired, and an effort was made to start may be useful in analyzing what they are HUGH DeWm proceedings to remove his security up to. Of course, as one's politically BY GARY MARCHANT clearance. He was formally charged with progressive views become known, that mishandling classified information, and possibility is reduced. he Lawrence livermore National Labo­ faced the possibility of not only losing his While certain research topics are less ratory is one of two federal labs job but also being sent to prison. DeWitt likely than others to lead to materiel for responsible for designing all U.S. believes that the only thing that saved him war, there are no completely "safe" nuclear warheads, and one of the was the large number of individual projects. That is true even for non-DOD largest institutional recipients scientists, scientific associations, and projects. This neither means that we of Star Wars contracts. It is not the kind of Congressmen who came to his defense. should abandon all research, nor that a place in which you would expect to find After about a year, all the charges against grant funded by the Pentagon is equivalent one of the nation's foremost critics of the him were dropped and no further job to a similar grant funded by another arms race. Yet, for more than a decade, action was taken against him. source. Livermore physicist Hugh DeWitt has This first attempt to remove DeWitt One must never forget that, as a whole, been speaking out against new weapons from his position at Livermore was very the principal mission of the U.S. armed technologies and the Livermore Lab's role traumatic and harrowing. After some forces is aggressive; they have served, and in promoting new weapons. serious soul-searching, De Witt resolved will continue to serve, as the strength Now, after being employed for thirty­ that he would not be intimidated from behind the rise of the U.S. to its present one years at the Livermore Lab, Hugh speaking out against dangerous new position as the preeminent political and DeWitt's job is in jeopardy. The lab is developments in the arms race. "I decided economic force in the world. Their modus trying to force its main internal dissident to be extremely active and go very public," operandi is war, the physical destruction of says DeWitt. Only by keeping a visible lives and property. It follows, therefore, Hugh De Witt is a physicist at the Lawrence public profile would DeWitt be protected that most of the research which they Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, from further efforts to remove him from undertake or fund should ultimately serve California. Gary Marchant is studying law and his job. De Witt began accepting invitations these needs. science policy at Harvard and is a member of to speak, and started writing articles in a Science workers, both in and out of the SftP's editorial committee. variety of publications. IIIII

January/February 1988 39 DeWitt became an avid proponent of a the same as companies such as Boeing, comprehensive test ban, and helped to TRW, and Martin Marietta that promote reveal that the Livermore Lab designed new weapons for self-serving reasons. The nuclear weapons on the assumption that only difference is that the labs' motive is nuclear testing would always be possible. funding and jobs rather than profits." This policy was used by the lab as a Given DeWitt's high profile and powerful argument against a nuclear test reputation, it would be very difficult, if not ban, but it has recently been shown that impossible, for Livermore Lab to get rid of U.S. nuclear weapons can be maintained DeWitt for his political views and reliably without further nuclear testing. activities. Therefore, lab management has DeWitt attended the much-publicized resorted to attacking DeWitt for his demonstration at the Nevada Test Site scientific work. They have a problem here against the first nuclear test of 198 7, and as well, however, because DeWitt has recently visited the Soviet Union to discuss consistently produced quality scientific a test ban with Soviet officials and work and publications that are highly scientists. He returned to the U.S. regarded in the physics community. So lab impressed with the sincerity of the Soviets' management does not say that the quality understanding of the extreme danger posed of DeWitt's scientific work is substandard, by nuclear weapons and convinced of their but rather that it is inappropriate and genuine interest in a test ban. Lately, irrelevant for the lab's program. DeWitt has given some of his attention to DeWitt is a theoretical physicist, and has Star Wars, and has emerged as an effective been the leader of a group at the lab that and leading critic of the program. does work on strongly coupled plasma As DeWitt's political activities have physics. DeWitt's group is part of a broadened and received more attention, he shrinking minority of scientists at has become a major embarrassment for the Livermore Lab who are doing basic Livermore Lab management. The top research rather than classified weapons managers of the lab frequently go to work. Although he has been doing such Washington to testify to Congress and sell work at Livermore for many years, lab new ideas to the Pentagon and administration management is now saying that DeWitt is officials. According to DeWitt, these not doing enough "programmatic" work, officials "speak with great authority, and in a thinly disguised attempt to remove him Congress listens with deference and for his political beliefs. DeWitt believes respect. The arguments of the weapons-lab that he may be forced out within a few people are couched in very technical months. language that goes over the head of most DeWitt suspects that the relatively small politicians. amount of basic research conducted at "Thus," DeWitt continues, "the lab Livermore Lab performs a very useful officials have a great influence in deciding function for the lab administrators. It U.S. weapons and arms control policies, serves to attract bright young scientists to unless countered by scientifically trained the lab who can then be slowly edged into experts holding other opinions." When military work. Once young scientists start Hugh DeWitt testifies in opposition to top working in the lab, they become isolated lab officials from the same Lawrence from much of the outside world and Livermore Lab, the credibility and conditioned to the lab's dominant ideology authority of those officials is greatly that "we can never have enough deterrence." diminished. For example, DeWitt points out that the DeWitt's activities not only challenge program to bring in outside speakers to the the policies promoted by the lab, but they lab only invites individuals who reinforce also pose ethical and even legal questions the dominant political ideology of the lab, about the lab's lobbying and advocacy often disguised under the cover of activities. DeWitt has helped expose the attributes part of the motivation behind the "technical" presentations. role of the lab in direct lobbying against labs' efforts to an ideological fear of the DeWitt says there are a few scientists at arms control measures such as a comprehensive Soviets and a desire to stay number one in the lab who share his concerns about the test ban, possibly in violation of the lab's weapons technology. arms race, but most keep quiet. "They are permitted activities. However, DeWitt thinks that weapons afraid of getting crossed wires with the lab Dewitt believes that the weapons labs labs have more crass motives as well. The managers," he says. "They know the are a major force in driving and perpetuating continuing arms race provides the managers have subtle ways of affecting the arms race, through constantly producing contracts and jobs on which the labs thrive, their careers if they want, through an endless series of new and ever more and thus any attempt to restrict the arms blocking promotions and pay raises, for dangerous nuclear weapons, while lobbying race is seen by the labs' managers as a threat example." DeWitt himself has been denied against arms control measures that could to the power and vitality of the labs. In this the usual salary increases that are normal restrict the labs' activities. DeWitt sense, DeWitt thinks the weapons labs "are for someone at the lab with his experience

40 Science for the People and seniority, although DeWitt claims that university departments in the country, she where someone came to her and said, this does not bother him much and just refuses to accept military funding for her "Why does it matter? It's a lousy program treats it as one price he has to pay for his research. Above all, Vera Kistiakowsky is and the thing will never work, but it's outspokenness. an outspoken critic of the arms race, and money that I could use for my research." DeWitt is also critical of the relationship devotes considerable time and energy to In Kistiakowsky's view, such cynical Livermore has with the University of grassroots peace efforts. excuses for accepting military funding "are California, which manages the lab for the In her twenty-five years at M.l. T. as a rather remarkably immoral, but scientists federal government and provides "an researcher in experimental nuclear physics, do it." academic cover of respectability for its Kistiakowsky has never accepted support Kistiakowsk y has been active in the last weapons work." The university exerts from the military. She did have a brief few years trying to bring attention to the very little control over the lab, essentially experience working with the military damaging and distoning effects military letting it do what it wants, while collecting earlier in her career, when she accepted a funding can have on science. Three years the generous checks the government pays job at the U.S. Naval Academy Radiological ago, she circulated a letter at M.I.T. UCAL to manage the lab. As well as Defense Laboratory in San Fransisco. requesting an investigation of the impact of giving the lab academic respectibility that Although hired for a specific project the military at the university. This letter helps attract new scientists, the arrangement involving basic research, she was soon resulted in the formation of the Kaysen with the university frees the lab from direct called upon to do less interesting and more Committee, on which Kistiakowsky government supervision and civil service applied work for the Navy. When she served. regulations. DeWitt believes that this protested that this wasn't what she was One question that the committee mut•Jally convenient relationship between hired for, she was told, "You're in the examined was how military funding affects the lab and the university has greatly Navy now." Kistiakowsky left soon after the direction of research. Kistiakowsky contributed to the continuing escalation of seeing first-hand how little independence a recalled that one materials scientist who the arms race through the rapid and steady scientist can have when employed by the was receiving SD I funding came to the development of new types of warheads. military. committee and testified that his source of When asked if, taking into account only Today, when asked if she would ever funding was indeed influencing decisions, considerations about his scientific career, consider accepting military funding, even both on what research he would do and DeWitt ever wished he had spent his career for basic research, Kistiakowsky replied, how he should do it. His research became at a university rather than the Livermore "I wouldn't, simply because I think the much more demonstration oriented, rather lab, he replied emphatically, "Yes, in fact I shift of support of research from the than exploring basic properties of materials wish I had gone back years ago." civilian sector to the military sector is very as he wished. However, he quickly added that "the work bad for the health of science in this country, Kistiakowsky has also called attention to I do inside the lab as a critic and active and therefore I wouldn't do it." other hazards of military research, proponent of arms control is immensely Working in a university that has including the danger of classification and more important than any of my scientific received over $300 million worth of SDI other restrictions on research and scientific work. Of course, this is why I'm in contracts alone, more than three times that openness, the distortion of national trouble. If I get fired tomorrow, frankly of any other university,1 Kistiakowsky is research priorities, and the possibility that it's been wonh it." very aware of the pressures on scientists, acceptance of military funding by especially younger researchers, to accept universities could lend political legitimacy military funding. "I know that in to defense programs such as the Strategic connection with SDI that there are people Definse Initiative. Kistiakowsky is also who are taking SDI funds because they say concerned that military funding will make COMMITTING they have no choice," said Kistiakowsky. many scientists reticent to criticize ill­ "I believe in all of those cases it was a considered military programs: "It may .not question of receiving money from some be so much from a fear of retaliation, other branch of the military or the although that is a clear possibility, as it is a SCIENCE intelligence agencies, and then the contract feeling that it isn't really gentlemanly to was shifted to SDI when SDI came into take money and then say bad things." existence. And even though the researcher A number of imponant factors have TO PEACE involved was opposed to SDI, it was 'take helped shaped Kistiakowsky's strong it or don't get funded.' " views on military research and the arms According to Kistiakowsky, most race. One very important influence was her FROM AN INTERVIEW WITH scientists who accept military funding do father, George Kistiakowsky, a former VERA KISTIAKOWSKY not justify it as necessary for national chief science advisor to the president and BY GARY MARCHANT defense or security. Rather, most scientists member of many key governmental offer one of a series of rationalizations to advisory groups, who became very critical era Kistiakowsky is in many defend their decision to accept military of the arms race later in his life. Through ways atypical of most of her col­ support. Kistiakowsky cites an example her father, Kistiakowsky had an early leagues in the physics depart­ connection "with people who were very ment of the Massachusetts Insti­ Vera Kistiakowsky is a physicist at the concerned about what the outcome of tute of Technology. She is a Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Gary many of the new weapons would be. So, woman and a feminist in a heavily male­ Marchant is studying law and science policy at intellectually, I was always keyed into this dominated profession. Although a faculty Harvard and is a member of SftP's editorial kind of thing." member of one of the most militarized committee. Another important influence in the I I

January/February 1988 41 development of Kistiakowsky's concerns peace organizations, such as the United considers impressive, given the amount was her participation in the women's Campuses to Prevent Nuclear War. and history of military funding in the movement in the sixties and seventies. This Through these national organizations and department. Kistiakowsky said some involvement provided the transition from several local peace groups in the Boston scientists refused to sign because they said just thinking and talking about social issues area, Kistiakowsky keeps very busy they might someday get SDI funding. to actually trying to do something about organizing and participating in meetings, "Others said no for a variety of reasons, them through activism and organizing. In conferences, and campaigns. including several who thought all funding the women's movement, Kistiakowsky Kistiakowsky is very aware of how the could come from SDI in the future because found a lot of shared interest and concern structure of science and university that was the way to get rid of dissidents, about military issues. "Women at large departments discourages political activity. and therefore they wouldn't sign it. A tend-and this is a terrible generalization "To be successful as a scientist, at least in couple of people who said they were to make because I know some very my field, you have to be very aggressive, foreign nationals were afraid they would committed, self-sacrificing men who work assertive, as well as intelligent, hard get into trouble if they signed it." on these issues-but I think that as a group working, and of course lucky. People Kistiakowsky believes that efforts such women are much more responsive to social usually sum all these things up with the as the SDI pledge are very important, issues." word committed. So, if you look as though "because it is clear that numbers count in During this period, Kistiakowsky was you're not committed, it does tend to be Congress. Five eminent, very knowledgeable elected president of the Association for held against you. Working on arms scientists testifying that something won't Women in Science. There, she met some control, which has been something work is always offset by five eminent, opposition to her views about the military physicists have participated in over the maybe not very truthful, scientists on the and scimce. 1be board rejected Kistiakowsky's years, is probably less of a handicap than a other side saying it will work. But if you attempt to have the association consider lot of other things that you can do. But any have nearly 7,000 scientists pledging not military issues, and decided that the scientist who devotes large chunks of their to take the money because they oppose the Association for Women in Science should time to something else is not optimizing project, and you only have some eighty­ be a single-issue organization and stick to their chances, especially earlier in their odd scientists forming a group that increasing participation of women in careers." supports it-that's a statement that sc1ence. Despite the pressures and obstacles that Congress can understand." Kisriakowsky continued to give speeches make it very difficult for a working "The thing that is very sad," says on the issue of military funding of research, scientist to be active on social issues such as Kistiakowsky, "is that it doesn't seem to and encountered some women who were the arms race, Kistiakowsky has managed have convinced Congress that they hostile to her views. "They said there were to strike a balance whereby she can succeed shouldn't be spending any money on this. all kinds of good jobs in the military, and in her academic pursuits while at the same It has stopped the continuing increase of this was a place where women scientists time acting upon her political beliefs and funding levels for SDI, but it hasn't could really advance, and one shouldn't concerns. While winning widespread decreased it." Kistiakowsky believes that oppose it." She didn't meet this opposition recognition and admiration in the peace people such as SDI director James from many women, but was sympathetic community, Kistiakowsky has authored Abrahamson probably feel that they have to the lack of opportunities for women more than one hundred scientific papers succeeded in getting SDI so entrenched scientists. "That's where all the jobs are," and has received a number of professional that it will not disappear, even with a she acknowledged. "People do get awards and appointments. change in administrations. "I don't know if threatened if you imply that they should Surprisingly, Kistiakowsky receives they are right in their assessment, but it not be taking military funding." very little criticism from fellow scientists certainly has gone from something that has The final factor that pushed Kistiakowsky about her outside activities. "I would not been viewed as very realistic into into full-fledged peace activism was accept them giving me a hard time, but a lot something that is absorbing an enoqnous President Carter's 1979 decision to require of colleagues instead walk circles around amount of R&D funding." draft registration. Kistiakowsky remembers me because I'm fairly outspoken. Others When asked to summarize her feelings how that decision brought the issue home think it's a good idea." She did receive some and thoughts about her own efforts to try to her own life. "Both my kids would have flak when she was very involved with to do something about military research to register, and there is nothing like self­ women's issues, and some people said that and the arms race, Kistiakowsky said, interest to bring you awake. In any case, I she was wasting her time. "However, "The dilemma I face now is how to do realized that the arms race was really working on arms control is a proper male something that is effective. I do what I can, heating up in no uncertain fashion, and I endeavor and therefore I have never been but it doesn't seem to be making a very big started concentrating on what I could do to criticized," says Kistiakowsky with an difference. I'm sure it's just hubris to want help stop the arms race." ironic smile. "I don't think they know to make a big difference, but it would be The most unique quality about Vera quite all of the things I do, but certainly the nice to have an impact on these issues Kistiakowsky is not just that she speaks reading, speaking, and writing is perfectly because I think they are very important. It out against the arms race, but unlike many acceptable. Running local organizations isn't selfish. It's just that it would be of her academic colleagues who share her probably isn't." important to help turn around what concerns, she follows up her words with One of Kistiakowsky's most recent appears to me to be a very great stupidity action. Kistiakowsky is a member of the undertakings was circulating the scientists' on the part of our leaders. But one certainly board of directors of the Council for a pledge against accepting SDI funding in can't have an impact unless one tries." Livable World and has worked on a the Physics Department at MIT. About 40 number of projects with that group. She is percent of the scientists in the department 1. John Pike, "Corporate Interest in the SDI," also involved with a number of grassroots signed the pledge, which Kistiakowsky F.A.S. Public Interest Repurt, April 1987, page 9.

42 Science for the People ECONOMIC CONVERSION

An Alternative to Academic Dependency on the Military

BY JONATHAN FELDMAN reflection of military-sponsored university Economic conversion planning can research, then this is bound to affect the provide students and faculty with such rofessors teach what they know," career choices of students after they leave alternatives. Economic conversion is a says Carl Barns, professor emeri­ the university: "they will find themselves planning process for the orderly transfer of tus of engineering at Swarthmore drawn into careers in military work, not capital, labor, and other resources from College. "They write textbooks just dissertations, because the narrow and military to civilian uses. Successful ~bout what they teach. What they highly applied character of their graduate conversion planning in universities and at Pknow that IS new comes mainly from their own work leaves them few other choices," warn the national level would protect researchers researc~ .. It is hardly surprising, then, John Holdren and F. Bailey Green. 1 The from the dislocation that comes when that mthtary research in the university narrowing of the scope of scientific inquiry defense funding is cut. leads to military-centered undergraduate inherent in the militarization of science can The demilitarization of universities curricula." be seen in the decreasing applicability of following the Vietnam War was clearly a If professors teach what they know, and Pentagon-funded science to civilian needs. victory, because scientists were freer to what they know becomes more and more a The economic dependency of scientists express their political views and apply their on the Pentagon weakens the resistance of knowledge to peaceful purposes. But the This article was excerpted from aforthcoming the academic community to the military, regional military labs and high-tech book on U.S. university links to the warfare and channels labor towards service of the ·companies with defense contracts which state and intervention in Central America, to warfare state. By providing students and now surround technical universities across be published by South End Press later this faculty with economic alternatives to the the country are a serious reminder that a year. Jonathan Feldman is co-director of the military, scientists will be freer to address broader strategy is needed to confront the National Commission for Economic Conversion pressing social problems through their Pentagon, involving not only students, but and Disarmament in Washington, D. C., work as researchers and as actors in the faculty, community supporters, and telephone (202) 462-1261. public realm. perhaps administrators on campus as well.

January/February 1988 43 Such broad coalitions are increasingly resources devoted to military production possible, with large defense budget cuts on can be found in the expansion of research in the horizon. The December 1987 summit renewable energy resources such as solar bringing together U.S. President Reagan power, hydroelectricity, co-generation, and USSR General Secretary Gorbachev and alcohol fuels from biomass sources. for the signing of the INF treaty Such energy research, together with symbolized the growing commitment of alternative research in other fields such as politicians in the United States and Soviet medicine and agriculture, can then be Union to cut national defense spending as a shared with third world nations seeking way to cope with domestic economic solutions to their own scientific problems. problems. A further warning that more For example, Japan is developing a cuts could be in the making was U.S. comprehensive alternative to SOl, America's Secretary of Defense Frank C. Carlucci's major high-technology program, through announcement at the close of 1987 that the the Human Frontiers Science Program. military services were instructed to cut $3 3 While the program relies on "big science," billion from the coming year's budget, it plans to study "energy conversion from representing real cuts of five percent. 2 light (photosynthesis) and other sources, Such defense cuts, together with to electrical, chemical and kineticenergy."5 growing budget deficits, threaten the The conversion of universities depends Strategic Defense Initiative (SOl) and on the growth of broad-based coalitions of other large-scale programs which have constituencies who would benefit from a pumped millions of dollars into science stronger civilian-based economy. The departments across the U.S.3 The articulation decline of nonmilitary sectors in the U.S. of alternatives to such defense research economy, as witnessed by a decaying programs through conversion plans would infrastructure and productive base, has provide universities with options other made whole classes of professions and than ·scrambling over a shrinking pool of social groups potential beneficiaries of a Pentagon funding. national economic program to rebuild The successful conversion of university decaying civilian industries and convert defense-dependent laboratories and the military facilities to nonmilitary uses. provision of civilian alternatives for The lack of competence or "competitiveness" scientists depends on a three-tiered of U.S. industry is partially rooted in the strategy, with political participation at the diversion of scientific and engineering university, regional, and national levels. At talents to the military. University scientists the university level, past efforts have and engineers can play a pivotal role in included the documentation of work rebuilding the U.S. economy in projects as opportunities in alternative energy diverse as pre-manufactured housing for production. the homeless and high-speed, energy­ In 1978, the University of California efficient mass transit. They can also help Nuclear Weapons Labs Conversion retrain their counterparts in the defense Project studied the possibility of converting sector whose socialization to the patterns the Lawrence Livermore National Lab to of military-serving research impedes their alternative research in the energy field. own conversion to alternative civilian The project requested and received a work.6 detailed computer print-out of every People who are excluded from academic The articulation employee's job category and salary at the resources or marginalized by university laboratory. After drawing up an inventory programs would also benefit from a of alternatives of skills and research expertise among program of economic revitalization and university scientists, conversion planners conversion. Peace, environmental, labor, to military matched them with an alternative agenda and women's groups, the working class, for peaceful research. In future projects, the poor, and people of color all have a stake in research programs criteria for such research could be what universities do and the organization developed in consultation with progressive of U.S. research and development through conversion science groups, peace organizations, and programs. These groups can apply professional groups.• pressure (and have often done so) on plans would The formal organization of such universities to expand such programs as conversion planning requires the creation women's studies and Afro-American provide universities of alternative use committees in defense­ studies and research which makes disarmament dependent universities throughout the a central concern. Coalitions can begin to with options U.S. Such committees could draw on the push universities to develop an alternative technical knowledge of scientific laborers budget which gives less support for other than and the managerial skills and political military research and more funding for connections of administrators. These such peaceful programs. 7 scrambling over a committees would be divided evenly The conversion of universities also between administrators and researchers. depends on the participation of such shrinking pool of These two groups would negotiate and campus-based and progressive coalitions in plan the development of alternative local and national efforts to convert the Pentagon funding. research programs in science departments economy. If industries make more civilian throughout the nation. products and less for the military, there will An alternative to scientific and engineering be a greater demand for civilian research

44 Science for the People and development. Markets will emerge to university claims that they cannot afford support civilian R&D and professional conversion planning, the Weiss Bill associations, and some business interests permits a process whereby university SHEEPSKINS tied to an alternative R&D policy could be conversion would be self-financing CONTINUED FROM PAGE 5 part of university, local, or national through defense contracts. conversion movements. 8 Basic research, even science designed for NOTES 6. Suttle, op. cit., p. 24. peaceful uses, can also be exploited by the 7. Ibid. I. John P. Holdren and F. Bailey Green, "Military 8. Suttle, op. cit., p. 14. military. (See "Not Without Us," by Spending, the SOl, and Government Support of 9. Computed from data in DOD, op. cit. 113, pp. 10, Joseph Weizenbaum, and "Ethical Dilemmas: Research and Development: Effects on the Economy 14. Between a Rock and a Hard Place," by and the Health of American Science," Federation of 10. Computed from data in DOD, op. cit. 113, pp. 7, Aristov, Regen & Smith, in the November/ American Scientists F.A.S. Public Interest Reprm, \'ol. 10. 39, :->o. 7, September 1986, p. 14. 11. DOD, op. cit. 113, p. 17. December 1986 issue of SftP.) However, 2. On defense cuts, sec Richard Halloran, "Carlucci 12. Computed from data provided by the Strategic the conversion of the local and national Orders S33 Billion Cuts for Armed Forces," Xeu· l'ork Defense Initiative Office of Innovative Science and economy will create barriers for such Times, Dec. 5, 1987; Creg Bischak, "Pentagon Technology, the Pentagon, Washington, D.C.; and the technology transfer. The demand for Legerdemain," letter to the Xeu· l'ork Times. Dec. 22, Federation of American Scientists, Public Interest 1987; and Collen Cordes, "Manv Scientists Welcome Report, September 1986, \'. 39, N. 7. Deflators from: military applications will decrease as the the Reluctance of Congress to Ba~k Large I ncr cases for U.S. Department of Commerce, Survey of Current economy contracts through conversion. 'Star Wars' Research," The Chronicle of Higher Business, May 1987, \'ol. 67, No.5. But statewide and national conversion Education, Dec. 16, 1987, p. A 17-A 18. Bischak reports 13. Edward Markey, "Markey Releases Analysis of legislation will also make it more difficult that the $33 billion "is largely the difference between Reagan Energy Budget: The Militarization of Energy former Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger's Department Budget Marches On." Press release from for faculty researchers to close down their bloated request and the more modest proposal of Frank the office of lJ.S. Congressman Edward Markey, military research labs and reopen them off C. Carlucci." However, fiscal restraints and a January 12, 1987. campus. Democratic presidential victory in 1988 may bring 14. See for instance: Federation of American substantial defense decreases. Scientists, Public Interest Report, Sept. 1986, \'.39, N. Many universities, like prime military 3. On SOl's impact on the universities, see Chapter 6 7; communication by author with Jonathan Reichert, contractors, will resist conversion unless in Star Wars: The Ecrmomic Fall Out. Rosy Nimroody, Department of Physics, State Cniversity of :->ew they are forced by legal and political Sr. Project Director. Cambridge, :\lA: Ballinger York-Buffalo, July 1987. 9 Publishing Co., 1988. 15. Mark Zieman, "Growing Militarization of the means. Steps toward a legal mechanism to 4. A description of the lJniversity of California Space Program Worries C.S. Scientists," The Wall prohibit certain military research has been conversion project and an outline on conversion Street Journal, Jan. 15, 1986, p. I. developed in the city of Berkeley, planning basics is found in Randy Schutt, "Economic 16. Ibid. California. In November 1986, Berkeley Conversion Planning," Chapter 9 in The .\lilitary in 17. Eric Bloch, testimony before the L'.S. Senate voters overwhelmingly passed the Nuclear Your Backyard. Palo Alto, CA: Center for Economic Armed Service Committee, Subcommittee on Defense Conversion, May 1984. Greg Bischak, an economist Industry and Technology, March 9, 1987. Free Berkeley Act. A specific clause in the with Employment Research Associates in Lansing, 18. Federation of American Scientists, Public Interest act mentions legal constraints on universities: }vlichigan has proposed the development of a Report, Sept. 1986, \'. 39, :->. 7, p. 14. "No person, corporation, university, "portfolio" of alternative research and development 19. Computed from data in DOD, op. cit. 113, p. 7. laboratory, institution or other entity shall, work, with an emphasis on basic research. The ideas 20. Suttle, op. cit., p. 25. presented here build on this suggestion. 21. Howard Ehrlich, "The L'nivcrsity-Military within the City of Berkeley, knowingly S. Mario Pianta, "High Technology Programmes: Research Connection," Thought & Actirm, Fall 1984, engage in work for nuclear weapons." The For the Military or for the Economy?," Bulletin of Peare \'. 1, :-.1. 1, p. 118. act requires the cessation of nuclear Proposals, No. 1, 1988, forthcoming. 22. Suttle, op. cit., p. 25. weapons work within city limits, the 6. For an elaboration of the argument that the 23. DOD, op. cit. 113, p. 7. military coopts needed scientific talent, sec Lloyd 24. L' .S. Department of Defense, Office of the lJnder divestment of city funds from businesses Jeffry Dumas, The Owrburdened Economy. Berkeley, Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering. that engage in nuclear weapons work, and CA: Cniversitv of California Press, 1986. On the Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on involvement of the city in the promotion of problems of e~ginecrs in military-serving firms, sec University Responsiveness to Xational Security "educational activities ... to advance public Seymour Melman, Profits Without Production. Requirements. Washington, D.C.: The Pent'!,gon, Philadelphia, PA: L'nivcrsitv of Pennsylvania Press. January 1982. awareness and understanding" about the 1987. 25. Ibid. dangers of nuclear weapons.10 7. An article bv Robert Krinskv in the Bulletin of 26. Communication by author with John C. Peace Proposals. a'p. cit., describes' the work of the Crowley, July 1987. The necessary planning for economic :->ational Coalition for L'niversities in the Public 27. lJ .S. Department of Defense, Office of the L'nder conversion is defined by a 1987 bill now Interest, which is attempting to make university Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, before Congress, introduced into the resources available to a larger public. Report of the DOD-L'niwrsity Forum: Calandar Year House of Representatives by Ted Weiss 8. Pianta, op. cit. 1984. Washington, D.C.: The Pentagon, p. 2. 9. For an explanation of why economic incentives 28. DOD, op. cit. 113, p. 7; and lJ.S. Department of (D-NY) and supported by 50 more House will not lead to conversion among prime contractors, Defense, The Department of Defense L'niversity Research sponsors. The Economic Adjustment Act see Sevmour :\Ieiman, The l'ermanem War /Oronomv. Initiative Research Program Summaries. June 1987, would establish "alternative use" or New 'i' ork: Simon & Schuster, 1974; Jacques Gansl~r. Washington, D.C.: The Pentagon, p. 2. planning committees at every military base The Defense Industry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 29. U.S. Department of Defense, The Department of 1980; Fred Kaplan, "Defense Profits Arc Double Defense Statemmt on the Science and Technology Program and military industrial facility in the U.S., Commercial Profits, Studv Says," Boston Globe, Mav by the Deputy L'nder Secretary of Defense for Research and including university research laboratories 13, 1987. Advanced Technology to the IOOth Congress, 1st Session, and "think tanks" which receive defense 10. On the Berke lev law, sec :-.:ancv Skinner, City March 1987, p. 8. contracts. Such committees would be Councilor, memo on ;,lmplementatio~ of Measure K, 30. DOD, op. cit. 1128, URI Summaries, p. 3. the Nuclear Free Berkeley Act," Jan. 12, 1987; 31. DOD, op. cit. 1129, p. 48. comprised of management and labor Ordinance No. 5784-N.S., "The Nuclear Free 32. DOD, op. cit. 1129, pp. 49-50. representatives and act as the primary Berkeley Act," Citv of Berkeley. For a discussion of 33. Quoted in op. cit. 1118, p. 16. agency for developing plans to convert the prospects for economic conversion on the regional 34. Sec especially Seymour Melman, Profits Without military facilities to civilian-oriented level, see Jonathan Feldman, "Converting the Military Production. New York: Knopf, 1984. Economy through the Local State: Prospects for 35. Communication by the author with James acttvtty. Economic Conversion in Massachusetts," Bulletin of Melcher, June 1987. The Weiss Bill would require universities l'eare Proposal.<, op. cit. 36. Ibid. 11. The bill also requires a one-year prenotification 37. DOD, op. cit. 113, p. 9. and other contractors (as a condition for of plans to cut back or terminate a defense contract or 38. DOD, op. cit. 113, p. 27. receiving defense funds) to pay an amount military base. Planning assistance is provided, together 39. Ibid. into an economic adjustment fund equal to with income support and retraining programs for 40. U.S. Department of Defense, The Departmmt of one and one-fourth percent per year of the communities and workers, while a conversion is Defense Report on the .Herit Revieu• Process for underwav. Sec Defense Economic Adjustment Act: Competitive Selectirm of L'niversity ReseJrch Projects and value of the contractor's gross revenue on H.R. 813, toOth Congress, 1st Session, January 28, an Analysis of the Potential for Expanding the Geographic defense sales. 11 Thus, in response to 1987. Distributirm of Research, April 1987, p. 3.

January/February 1988 45 JAN/FEB 1987, Vol. 19 No. 1 NOV/DEC 1983, Vol. 15 No. 6 Science & Argentina's Disappeared SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY IN NICAAAGUA OUB AIDS in Aftiea & EL SALVADOR Ecology & Immunology Agricultural Research in Nicaragua EPA's Environmental Mismanagement Integrated Pest Management Revolution Nicaragua's Health Care Brigadistas SEPT/DEC 1986, Vol. 18 Nos. 5&6 The Innovators Movement in Nicaragua ISSUBS DOUBLE ISSUE: SCIENCE CAREERS Sandinistas' Enerw Development Ethical Career Options Health Care in Guazapa, El Salvador Kicking the MilitRacism in the Medical Profession Selling Science in the Media Agriculture: Ice Minus and Beyond Infant Mortality in the u.s. Feminist Health Activism Surrogate Mothering Genetic Engineering & Human Embryos Scientists' Corpofate Affiliations JAN/FEB 1984, Vof. 16 No. I SEPT/OCT 1982, Vol. 14 No.5 MAR/APRIL 1987, Vol. 19 No.2 Safety & Health Issues ReviSited Nudear Power's Financial Meltdown Ecomomics of the MX Missile Regulating BiotechnofO!:r{ Setting Priorities in Biotechnofow Sociobiology and Rape Women & the Scientific Establishment Plutonium Plant Cleanup SftP and rONA Knowing About Workplace Risks Asbestos in the Classroom A Psychiatric Holocaust OrganiZations Concerned with Biotech Teaching Peace: Arms Race Curricula Uranium Mining & Native Americans

46 Science for the People JULY/AUG 1982, Vol. 14 No.4 MAY/JUNE 1979, Vol. 11 No.3 WOMEN AND SCIENCE ISSUE FOOD, AGRICULTURE & AGRIBUSINESS Critique of Scientit!c Objectivity Migrant Workers & Mechanization of A Woman's Health Collective Agrirulture Pink-Collar Automation Food as a Weapon Two Women Fight Cancer Food Producers Speak Del Monte-Move Over NOV/DEC 1981, VoL 13 No.6 Food and Agrirulture in China COMPUTERS & WORKPLACE AUTOMATION MAR/APRIL1979, Vol. 1f No.2 Robots at G.E. Here Comes the Sun Computers for left Magazines Is Sodety Dangerous to Your Health? The Tenninal Secretary Sociobiology The Pentagon's Computer Game JAN/FEB 1979, Vol. 11 No. I JAN/FEB 1981, Vol. 13 No. I SftP: A Ten-Year Retrospective AgriruIt ural Research AAAS Deceived by Argentine Junta SEPT/OCT 1978, Vol. 10 No. 5 NOV/DEC 1976, Vol. 8 No. 6 Technology and ProductiVity Changing U.S. Contraceptive Policy SPECIAL ANTI-NUKE ISSUE Drug Companies and Doctors Bottle Babies & Managed Mothers SftP China Trip: An Jtineral)' Report Anti-Nuke Movement in Europe Economics and Population Control Twilig1t of Nukes in Japan Worker Demands at lucas Aerospace NOV/DEC 1980, Vol. 12 No. 6 Dollars & Cents of Nuclear Power Rghting People's Art in NYC Black HillS Survival Gathering Farmers vs. Tokyo Airport Politics of Female Genital Mutilation SEPT/OCT 1976, Vol. 8 No. 5 Is a Fetus a Person 7 JULY/AUG 1978, Vol. 10 No.4 3 Perspectives on Alternative Technology Star Wars: Mirror of Reality How Scholars Play With the Poor Women and Health Agricultural Research in Colombia Sexism at Cancer lab SEPT/OCT 1980, Vol. 12 No.5 New McCarthyism in England Nuclear Power Hazards ToxiC Waste ExportS to Third World Professionalism in Nursing, Part II Jungle law: Stealing the Double Helix Agent Orange: Vietnam War legacy Perspectives on Biotechnology MAY/JUNE 1978, Vol. 10 No.3 MAY/JUNE 1976, Vol. 8 No.3 Epoxy Boycott in Denmark Professionalism in Nursing, Part I Nuclear Power: Who Needs It? Biotechnology Becomes Big Business Issues in lesbian Health Care MassCOSH and Health Seabrook & the Clamshell Alliance Organizing JULY/AUG 1980, Vol. 12 No.4 NOV/DEC 1978, Vol. tO No.6 Science Teaching Conference AAAS Reports Your Body or Your Job SPECIAL ISSUE ON HEALTH CARE ScientifiC Conceptualization The Pesticide Connection Feminists Fight Institutional Violence SEPT/OCT 1977, Vol. 9 No. 5 Organizing for Job Safety Medical Care & Socialism in Tanzania Carter's Energy Plan: Cloudy Future JAN/FEB 1976, Vol. 8 No. 1 The Antinudear Movement Chicago Organizes tor Community Health The Great DNA Debate Business-Government-University Network From Eugenics to Population Control A Marxist View of Medical Care Controlling Hyperactive Kids Silcon Valley Technical Workers Organize Conference on Biological Determinism MAY/JUNE 1980, Vol. 12 No.3 \ '... Critique of Hardin's LifebOat Ethics SPECIAL ISSUE ON CANCER \ Discontent Stalks the National labs Cancer: Some Notes for Activists The Risk of Cost/Benefit Analysis NOV/DEC 1975, Vol. 7 No. 6 Coke Oven Cancer Vietnam Re bu lids The Panties of Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Why There is No Cancer Prevention Sociobiology MAR/APR1l1980, Vol. 12 No. 2 JULY/AUG 1975, Vol. 7 No.4 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH Imperialism: The Common Enemy Danger: Woman's Work Women's Work in Vietnam Dying for a Job Science vs. Ethics Mass Psychogenic Illness The XYY Controversy Molly Coye. Health Activist for OCAW Black Workers & Occupational Hazards Plus available Issues through Nonionizing Radiation Volume S, 1973. JAN/FEB 1980, Vol. 12 No. I Reclaiming Reproductive Control Is There a Gay Gene? ~------Textbook Sexism 1 I Nukes in the Philippines Mailing Lists and Technophobia I ORDER FORM POSTAGE I NOV/DEC 1979, Vol. 11 No.6 I Quantity/Volume & No./Price: Please add postage of S. 70 for I SCIENCE AND EDUCATION ISSUE I orders of 1-3 copies. Add S.JO for 1 Education and Capitalism I each additional copy. I Testing: The Competency Controversy Teaching Children to Read 1 SPECIAL OFFERI I Sharing Science in the Classroom I 0 Send a complete set of back J How to Challenge the School System J Total Price of Magazines: issues for only S40 per set postage I HistOI)' of Women in Science 1 Postage Enclosed: and handling included. t SEPT/OCT 1979, Vol. 11 No. 5 Political Gynecology I Total Payment: I Doing Science for the People I Name I FactO!)' Workers of Zhu Zhou I Addr-s I Changing Health Care in Mozambique 1m~ ~ 1 Organizing Miners in Mexico 1 Vols. 5-8: $50; Vols. 9-11: Sl.OO City, State & Zip I JULY/AUG 1979, Vol. 11 No.4 1 Vols. 12-13: SI.SO; Vols. 14-15: S2.00 I Love Canal: Chemical Wastes Back Up I Vols. 16-19: S2.50 1 Three Mile Island & Nudear Power Science Research & Education in Vietnam I Send with payment to Science for the People, 897 Main St .. Cambridge, MA 02139 I Food and Agrirulture in China L------

January/February J988 47 PUBLISH • PERISH WARU CONTINUED FROM PAGE 10 CONTINUED FROM PAGE 16

Physics and the Center for Non-Linear Air Force contract monitor; Elliot Weinberg, "Summer Internship for University Studies, establish lab contacts with campus Director of Scientific Research for the Office of Students," which plans to induct both researchers and students. The University Naval Research; and Edward Reilley, Assistant undergraduates and graduate students into of California's association with weapons Director of Defense Research and Engineering. its structure. 13. Public forum, Computer Science The real irony is that these research labs is not unique. Six other universities Department, University of California, January centers (and "priority" R&D for defense have similar relationships with major 1985. weapons labs.26 14. John P. Holdren and F. Bailey Green, technologies) may be unnecessary. The A 1985 DOD report for Congress, journal of the Federation of American Scientists: U.S. is already "superior" to the Soviets in entitled "The Technology Base and Public Interest Report, vol. 39, no. 7, September 14 of the 20 "most important basic Support of University Research," sums up 1986. Holdren & Green's study concludes that technological areas," as explained by the the rationale for a military-university the military buildup under Reagan has produced Pentagon in a 1986 report. In the partnership: "DOD reaps several benefits serious imbalances in the nation's research and remaining six technological areas, both from its supplemental support of science development efforts, with particularly damaging countries are considered relatively equal. consequences for the economy and the health of There is also evidence that the centers and engineering education. First, the the universities. A rebuttal issued by University programs attract highly qualified students of California officials (see NOTICE, published accomplish exactly the opposite of what and support their training in areas of by the Academic Senate, UCAL, April 1987) Congress was told they would do. The interest to DOD. Second, fellowship asserts that DOD ·accounts for only about II billions of dollars spent do not appear to be support increases the number of doctoral percent of all federal awards to the university, helping America remain technologically students who then have the potential to and that this figure has not grown significantly strong, or to successfully compete against train other students. Third, training under Reagan. Japanese imports. Rather, federal funding programs provide a pool of recruits for the 15. Phone interview, October 2, 1987. provides defense contractors with incentives various DOD RDT&E (Research, Develop­ 16. Department of Defense, "Analysis of the to spend less in R&D, while the Pentagon Origin of 'A Rose by Any Other Name May Be subsidizes their research centers. ment, Testing and Evaluation) programs. Defense Research."' Position paper on "DOD­ Finally, the programs provide a variety of sponsored Research at Stanford," unpublished, Heavy Pentagon financing of military intangible benefits, ranging from the September 7, 1971. See also Glantz and Albers, research may also reduce American expansion of professional contacts and op. cit. competitiveness in the international rapport with the various DOD laboratories 17. Glantz and Albers, op. cit. marketplace. One explanation for the to the generation of interest and excitement 18. Committee on Armed Services, "Hearings emergence of Japan and Germany as in science and mathematics at the On Military Posture .... " Report to U.S. House technological leaders is that neither elementary and secondary school levels. " 27 of Representatives, 97th Congress, second country is burdened with large defense session, Part 5, March 2-30, 1982. Washington, budgets like that of the U.S. In 1981, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, pp. America spent about 30 percent of its R&D NOTES 83-85. See also Physics Today, October 1984, expenditures on defense and space projects page 9. I. DOD Report to Congress, "Selected 19. George H. Heilmeier, Defense Advanced (as a percentage of Gross National University Laboratory Needs in Support of Research Projects Agency (DARPA) FY 78 Product). Germany spent only 5.6 National Security," April 29, 1985. Published Research and Development Programs. Testimony percent, and Japan 2.5 percent-leaving with hearings before the U.S. House of before the Subcommittee on Research and them more money to allocate tQ.Wards Representatives, 99th Congress, Subcommittee Development of the House Armed Services marketable civilian goods. on the Department of Defense, Part 8. Committees, February 1977, page III-19. Giant U.S. defense and communications Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing 20. DOD Report to Congress, "Selected contractors are combining their research Office, 1985, pp. 771-966. University Laboratory Needs ... ," op. cit. facilities and capital, homogenizing their 2. Paul Gray, quoted in article by Daniel S. 21. Department of Defense, "Analysis of the Greenberg, Discover, January 1987. Origin of 'A Rose by Any Other Name... ," op. research agendas, and getting ready to live 3. Robert Rosenzweig, "Department of cit. off whatever technology comes from these Defense Appropriations for 1986." From 22. Holdren and Green, op. cit. large and uncompetitive federally funded testimony in hearings before a subcommittee of 23. Ibid. centers. This puts smaller companies at a the Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House 24. Harold Agnew, Los Alamos Science, disadvantage-if not out of business. And of Representatives, 99th Congress, first session, Summer-Fall 1981, page 154. military secrecy at the research institutions Subcommittee on the Department of Defense, 25. Rita Arditti, Pat Brennan, Steve Cavrak, makes it very unlikely that whatever Part 8. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Science and Liberation. Boston: South End Press, technology is developed will be rapidly Printing Office, 1985, pp. 771-966. 1980, page 99. transferred to the civilian sector. 4. Ibid. 26. Other schools have similar relationships 5. John Rigden, quoted in Physics Today,June with DOD facilities: Lincoln Laboratory The bottom line is that research centers, 1986, page 62. (affiliated with MIT), the Johns Hopkins through disproportionate funding of 6. Susanne Ellis, Physics Today, June 1986, University Applied Physics Laboratory, the military R&D, seem to be making private page 84. Applied Physics Laboratory of the University industry even less competitive, while 7. R.K. Weatherall, director of MIT's Office of Washington, the Applied Physics Laboratories simultaneously cloaking universities in of Career Services, 1986. Personal communication. of the University of Texas, the Applied secrecy. Maybe this was the design for 8. Barton Lane, quoted in Greenberg, op. cit., Research Laboratory of Pennsylvania State these centers: to make higher profits with January 1987. University, and the Marine Physical Laboratory, less investment and competition, to give 9. DOD Report to Congress, "Selected affiliated with Scripps Institute of Oceanography, the Pentagon more intellectual bang for its University Laboratory Needs ... ," op. cit. University of Califorinia, San Diego. buck, and to keep the military's hand in the 10. Stanton A. Glantz and Norm V. Albers, 27. DOD Report to Congress, "The Science, vol. 186, 1974, page 706. Technology Base and Support of University shadows. As for students and faculty­ II. Ibid. Research ... ," contained in "Department of they were meant to be kept ignorant of the 12. Stanton A. Glantz and Norm V. Albers, Defense Appropriations for 1986" hearings, op. fact that as much as 70 to 80 percent of their op. cit., interview with Marshal Harrington, an cit. programs are financed by the Pentagon.

48 Science for the People TOXICOLOGIST Public Interest WASHINGTON: Phil Bereano, 13B Loew The Center for Science in the Public Hall, FH-40, University of Washington. Interest. a nationally respected watchdog Seattle, WA 98195. (206) 543-9037 of the food, chemical, and liquor industries, is seeking a scientist to evaluate the safety AUSTRALIA: Brian Martin, STS, Wollongong of and write articles about food additives, University, Wollongong NSW 2500, pesticides, and pathogenic bacteria. Work Australia. Telephone (042) 27076. Lesley also involves helping prepare regulatory Rogers, Physiology Dept., U. of New petitions and advising journalists. Advanced England, Armidale NSW 2351, Australia. degree, writing skills, and demonstrated Janna Thompson, Philosophy Dept., Trobe La interest in consumer advocacy required. University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia. Salary. S30,000 plus. Send resume, popular Tony Dolk, 17 Hampden St., Ashfield NSW, writing samples, and salary history to Australia. Dennis Bass-SF, CSPI, 150116th St., NW, BELGIUM: Gerard Valenduc. Cahiers Galilee, Washington, DC 20036. CONTAOS Place Galilee 6-7, B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium NATIONAL OFFICE: Science for the People, BELIZE: lng. Wilfredo Guerrero, Ministry of OIL-AGE ENDING 897 Main St., Cambridge, MA 92139. (617) Public Works. Belmopan, Belize, Central 547-0370 ;s New Technology emerging; Stay America ~ ) infonned on New Products;Explore CALIFORNIA: Science for Nicaragua, cjo CANADA: Ontario: Science for the People, "VORTEXIAN MECHANICS" in Robert Van Buskirk, 1627 Euclid St., Berkeley, ~ Box 25. Station A. Scarborough. Ontario, "CAUSES" Newsletter;Free info: CA 94709. (415) 549-1233. Bay Area Canada MIK 5B9. Quebec: Bob Cedegren. Chapter. Dave Kadlecek, Box 390871, BOX 311 0-D ; Laredo, TX 78044 Dept. of Biochemistry, University of Montreal. Mountain View, CA 94039. (415) 960-3639 Montreal 101, Quebec, Canada. British DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Miriam Struck Columbia: Jim Fraser. 848 East 11th Ave., HUIIUBI Biglatll and Scott Schneider, 9311 Sudbury Road, Vancouver, British Columbia V5T 2B6, VWIBtWJul Silver Spring, MD 20901. (301) 585-1513. Canada Wanda Katz Fishman, 6617 Millwood Rd. in Malagsia DENMARK: Susse Georg and Jorgen Bethesda, MD 20817. (301) 320-4034. Bansler, Stigardsvej 2, DK-2000. Since October 27, 1987, Malaysia has R.ORIDA: Bob Broedel, Progressive Copenhagen, Daneland 01-629945 imprisoned dozens of social activists and Technology, Box 20049, Tallahassee, FL environmentalists, along with politicians EL SALVADOR: Ricardo A. Navarro. Centro They 32316. (904) 576-4906 criticizing the government. may be Salvadoreno de Tecnologia Apropriada, Apdo held for years without formal charges IOWA: Paul C. Nelson. 604 Hodge, Ames, 1892. San Salvador, El Salvador, Central and without trial. Those arrested include lA 50010. (515) 232-2527 America Heng Leng Chee and Cecilia Ng, MARYLAND: Pat Loy, 3553 Chesterfield ENGLAND: British Society for Social women's rights advocates; Tanka Kheng, Ave .. Baltimore, MD 21213 Responsibility in Science, 25 Horsell Rd., vice president of the Environmental London N5 1XL, England. Tel. 01-607-9615 Protection Society of Malaysia; and MASSACHUSETTS: Boston Chapter, 897 Nashir Hashim. chair of the Institute for Main St .• Cambridge, MA 02139. (617) 547- INDIA: M.P. Parameswaran, Parishad Social Analysis. Please help by writing to 0370 Bhavan, Trivandrum 695-001, Kerala, India the address below and urging the MICHIGAN: Ann Arbor Chapter. 4318 IRELAND: Hugh Dobbs, 28 Viewmont Park, government to release these and other Michigan Union, Ann Arbor, Ml 48109. (313) Waterford, Eire. 051-75757 political prisoners, or to grant them a fair 761-7960. Alan Maki, 1693 Leonard St. N.W., trial. Write to: Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir ISRAEL: Dr. Najwa Makhoul, Jerusalem Grand Rapids, Ml 49504 Mohamed, Prime Minister's Dept.. Jalan Institute for the Study of Science. 6 Bnai Dato Onn, Kuala Lumpur 50502, Malaysia. MISSOURI: Peter Downs, 4201 A Russell, St. Brith St., Jerusalem 95146, Israel Louis. MO 63110 ITALY: Michelangelo DeMaria. Via Giannutri NEW HAMPSHIRE: Val Dusek, Box 133, 2. 00141, Rome, Italy SCIENCE for the Durham, NH 03824. (603) 868-5153 JAPAN: Genda GUutsu-Shi Kenkyo-Kai, 2-26 PEOPLE NEW YORK: Red Schiller, 382 Third St., Apt. Kand-Jinbo Cho, Chiyoda-Ky, Tokyo 101. 3, Brooklyn, NY 11215. (212) 788-6996. Stony Japan on.~ IUUI the Brook Chapter, Box 435, E. Setauket. NY MEXICO: Salvador Jara-Guerro, Privada 11733. (516) 246-5053 milibuv Tepeyac-12Q-INT, Col. Ventura Puente. Pollution and the Pentagon, May/June NORTH CAROLINA: Douglas Bell, 2402 Morelia, Mexico Glendale Ave., Durham. NC 27704. (919) 1987 NICARAGUA: Science for Nicaragua. De los 471-9729 Science careers Defense Dollars, Ranchos, 6V2 Cuadras al Sur, Managua, a OREGON: Sheila Smith. 925 NW Merrie Dr., Nicaragua. Tel. 660502 Sept/Dec 1986 CaNalis. OR 97330 ]The Star Wars BoycoH, Jan/Feb 1986 SWITZERLAND: Bruno Vitale, 8 Rue Des RHODE ISLAND: Carolyn Accola. 245 Bugnons, CH-1217, Meyrin, Switzerland. Tel. !Unmasking Chemical Warfare, May/ President Ave., Providence. Rl 02906. (40.1) (022) 82-5Q-18 .June 1984 272-6959 WEST INDIES: Noel Thomas, Mt. Moritz, 1MIIItary History of the Space ShuHie, TEXAS: Ed CeNenka, 3506 Manchaca #211. Grenada Nov/Dec 1983 Austin, TX 78704. (512) 447-9481 WEST GERMANY: Forum fur Medizin Und $2.50 each. Or all five Issues for $10! VERMONT: Steve Cavrak, Academic Gesundheitpolitik, Gneisenaustr., 2 send check payable to: Computing Center, University of Vermont, Mehnighof. 100 Berlin 61, West Germany. SCIENCE RESOURCE CENTER Burlington. VT 05405. (802) 658-2387; 656- Wechsel Wirkung, Gr:leisenaustr., D-1000 897 Main Street 3190 Berlin 61. West Germany Cambridge, MA 02139 Science Resource Cen.ter NonproC!t, Org. 897 Main Sl!eet U.S. PosiOQfl! Cambridge. MA ~139 PAID Boston] MA PermH No1·52696 Science