|
|
The economic standing and the output from expertise residing in the science and engineering bases largely determines the military advantage of nations. Such military power also plays an important part in engendering social and economic inequalities across the world - factors which imperil peace and security. Currently science and technology play a major role in framing notions of a narrowly defined form of security, one which depends upon high-technology, weapons-based approaches. This view marginalises broader, more inclusive notions of how to build security. Given the kinds of global conflict which have marked the early 21st Century, it is surely time to review the scientific, ethical, political and strategic impact of relying so heavily on narrowly technological means of safeguarding peace?
Drawing on the Report Soldiers in the laboratory some examples of recent science and engineering programmes in place in the UK , involving military-university partnerships, will be examined. Such partnerships it is contended, help drive a high technology, weapons-dominated agenda which attempts to provide the military capacity necessary to win conflicts decisively. But is such an approach appropriate to building and maintaining peace and stability?
The current security agenda in many G8 countries, including the UK, which places a major reliance upon technology in preference to political and other means needs to be challenged and far more effort and funding given to broader approaches to security. Such approaches need to address in radical ways the various global drivers of conflict and the many environmental crises which we all face.
I should like to thank the organisers of this seminar, especially John Stone and Fleur Adolphe, for inviting me here to speak about some of the issues thrown up by the involvement of science and technology in national security and to pose some, I trust, interesting questions.
I'll draw upon the Report Soldiers in the laboratory which I wrote for Scientists for Global Responsibility, which is a membership supported group of scientists, architects and engineers and those who wish to see science and technology contribute better to peace, social justice and environmental sustainability. Copies of the Report's Executive Summary are available for anyone who is interested.
I wish to examine, rather briefly in the time available, some of the ways in which science, engineering and technology interact with military needs. And to ask a number of questions which address pressing problems which are also related to global security - these include global climate change, water and other resource depletion, political violence and terrorism and global health inequalities.
This is a very complex and multilayered area and so it may be helpful to provide a sort of A to Z to help identify some of the landmarks, and these handful of overheads might put my presentation into context.
A project of the Scientists for Global Responsibility to understand the military influence on science, engineering and technology in the UK
Chris Langley
ScienceSources Consultancy
What is ScienceSources?
A freelance scientific consultancy which works to broaden the public accountability of science, technology & medicine and its products
Available only to non-profit organisations in Europe and the USA
Scope of the project:
The situation in the UK during the past 20 years. Comparisons made with other EU countries & the USA. First broad-based study of the UK situation
Primary focus - research & development but also other areas within SET across public institutions
Literature-based survey of the military sector involvement with SET - research, teaching and PR. Some interviews & discussions also undertaken. Web material also used
The military is: government departments, corporations and others!
The focus of the project:
Histories over the last two decades of the three major players
the universities
the military industry
the government - various departments
The socioeconomic backdrop against which these three players interact
The products of the interplay:
partnerships & other collaborations
the military presence & its impact on research & funding culture
the military agenda & broadly defined security concerns
SET & its research landscape
Major questions which the project posed:
Where in SET is the military sector to be found? Locations described in the Report.
What role does the military play in the UK & its impact on SET in practical and ethical ways? IPR, openness & lock-in.
What return does the taxpayer obtain for military funding of R&D? Spin-out and spin-in.
How well does the military serve security needs? Contrast between narrow power-based version and more inclusive security needs for the world.
What role does technology serve in security debates?
Some of the findings:
The scale of the military machine
Global military burden is currently US$1trillion.
In the EU military R&D budgets are largely represented by small number of nations:
UK Spain
Germany France
In 2000 these 4 countries represented 97% of the total EU countries' defence budget (almost 9 billion Euros)
The UK spends 30% of all government R&D on military objectives
In the UK the military industry has a yearly turnover of over £15 billion
The USA spends more than 50% of its total government R&D budget on military objectives.
75% of the increase in US government R&D spending in the period 2001 to 2005 is attributable to 'defence'.
The US 2004-9 Defence Plan budget will increase by around $40 billion dollars yearly to well over US$400 billion per year
Post September 11th vast increase in funding of military research in areas such as bioterrorism, bioengineering, nanotechnology and surveillance - coupled with often severe cuts in fundamental & health research.
Homeland security has a weapons-based portfolio
What the USA does impacts on research process & open nature of science across the world
Ministry of Defence puts almost £3 billion into SET R&D per year - contrast with many non-military SET areas
Military corporations in the UK add a further £100 million into SET R&D
There are additional non-research funding by the military - corporations plus the MoD, DTI and the FO - education, PR, and image creation
Military spending in UK is ahead of all areas save health, social services and education. Research areas which do not have military interest are often the orphans
In the last 3 years new consortia announced comprising universities, military corporations & government departments
Military corporations include the largest commercial enterprises on the planet - Boeing in 2002 had revenues of $54 billion - BAE Systems has yearly sales in 130 countries to the tune of more than £12 billion
Military funds = weapons-based objectives in context of commercialisation of universities & the research process
During the last 15 years: military corporations are now in: government, local agencies, universities & lobby via special interest groups
Military research interests now found across SET especially the physical & engineering sciences
A consolidation of military funding of SET within universities in consortia:
Defence & Aerospace Research Partnerships - 6 up & running at present
Towers of Excellence - currently 5
Defence Technology Centres - at present 4
- Rolls Royce UTCs began in 1990s;
- manufacturing initiatives;
- BAE & Boeing;
- QinetiQ-university partnerships
Military funding of staff & students. From military corporations & ex-DERA laboratories - QinetiQ. Include: professorships, lectureships, student bursaries, curriculum tools plus public relations
Joint Grant Scheme with 'defence' objectives - MoD/Research Councils
Defence & Aerospace Research Partnerships - 6 active
Rolls Royce & BAE major players
Areas: design; simulation; modelling; materials; data handling
Universities involved include: Bristol, Cambridge, Cranfield, Glasgow, Imperial, Leicester, Loughborough, Southampton, Surrey, Sussex, Swansea & York
Funders: MoD, EPSRC, DTI. Total value of DARPS £18 million in 2002-03
Towers of Excellence - 5
Involves research groups in former DERA laboratories, military corporations & universities. Funders are MoD, QinetiQ & DTI
Areas of research at sub-system level: guided weapons; radar; synthetic environments; underwater sensors & electro-optic sensors
Plans for 25 Towers - with research student training
The Intellectual Property Rights issue not clear - civilian utility?
Universities currently: Birmingham, Cranfield, Sheffield, Surrey & Imperial College
Defence Technology Centres - 4
Areas at present covered: Data & Information Fusion; Human Factors Integration; Electromagnetic Remote Sensing; autonomous systems engineering
Consortia comprise MoD, military corporation and university partner. Funding is 50:50 MoD and industrial partner - £10 million each year for 3 to 5 years
Student training a key element
BAE is a major player
Security issues transformed in last ten years - whereas current military support drives weapons- based approach
Lack of transparency, public accountability & discussion.
Lock-in of military support for new technologiesThe predominance of one or two very powerful corporations throughout the agenda-setting process in SET
Conflict resolution takes the back seat - arms escalation fuelled by SET expertise
Intellectual Property Rights issues leavened by secrecy - National Security!
Highly commercial agenda for science & little room for alternate voices
Science, engineering and technology have a vital role to play in addressing pressing needs - many are poorly funded in comparison to military objectives:
climate change amelioration, clean energy technologies, biodiversity decline, poverty elimination, supply of clean water & proper sanitation - all have a part to play in ensuring peace & security
Technological imperative in security agenda sets unreasonable expectations in conflict - clean solutions to complex multidimensional issues
The good news
Ordinary people have power - use boycotts, demonstrations & pressure on government to seek change
Obtain a copy of the SGR Report or the Executive Summary which has key points & recommendations - read, discuss and then circulate! Check out the website at www.sgr.org.uk
Question where, how & why research programmes are being set up with military funding
Open up debate & lobby suitable people. We have produced an ethical briefing on career choice in areas that attract military funding
It is often slow, but change can occur - there are examples of change from military to security-based objectives
There is a broad-based movement to build an ethical science & this discussion today is part of a growing process
Chris Langley holds degrees in neuroscience from University College, London and the University of Cambridge. After post-doctoral research in neurobiology at Cambridge he has spent more than twenty years in science policy and the communication of science and medicine. He is author of the Report Soldiers in the laboratory: Military involvement in science & technology - and some alternatives written for Scientists for Global Responsibility and has spoken widely on the question of military involvement in science and technology. At present he runs a global consultancy ScienceSources which facilitates a more open and ethical science.
 |
 |
 |
 |
Military Influence SectionFor further information contact Dr Chris Langley Send
correspondence about
the web-site to webmanager@sgr.org.uk |
|||