Since the mission of the Department of Defense (DoD) and the purposes of the universities do not coincide, the question whether this is pragmatically important is examined. Relevant events in recent history are mentioned, and the reasons given in support of DoD funding of university research are summarized. Five consequences of such support are then discussed: distortion of the balance between research fields, change of emphasis within research fields, classification and other restrictions, consequences for graduate students, and political consequences. Social responsibility for the end use of research is then considered, and it is suggested that social responsibility should become an important university criterion of excellence. The article concludes that the negative consequences of DoD funding far outweigh its perceived benefits, and suggests that the universities should work to establish a strong civilian base of research funding instead of lobbying for DoD support.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. Between fiscal years 1979 and 1986 there was a 48 percent increase in the fraction of federal funding of university research and development that came from DoD. In this period, the fraction of federal funding of all research and development from DoD grew from 49 percent to 69 percent. U.S. Department of Defense, Report on the University Role in Defense Research and Development (hereafter referred to as URDRD), prepared for U.S. Congress, Committees on Appropriations, Apr. 1987, tab. 4, p. 16.
2.
2. “In particular, the DoD award process must take into account considerations of both technical quality and relevance to well-defined missions of the Services.”U.S. Department of Defense, The Merit Review Process for Competitive Selection of University Research Projects (hereafter referred to as DDRMRP), prepared for U.S. Congress, Committees on Appropriations, Apr. 1987, p. 6.
3.
3. Stanton, A. Glantz and Norm V. Albers, “Department of Defense R&D in the University,”Science, 22 Nov. 1974, p. 706.
4.
4. The maximum in current dollars was $0.295 billion, in 1966; in constant (FY 1987) dollars, $1.063 billion, in 1964; and in percentage of RDT&E funding to academic institutions, 4.5 percent, in 1965. URDRD, tab. 1, p. 7.
5.
5. The minimum in current dollars was $0.197 billion, in 1974; in constant (FY 1987) dollars, $0.451 billion, in FY 1974; and in percentage of RDT&E funding, 2.4 percent, in FY 1974 and FY 1975. Ibid.
6.
6. The number of doctorates awarded in mathematics, the physical sciences, and engineering reached a maximum of 9237 in FY 1971 and then decreased to 6696 in 1981. Peter D. Syverson, Summary Report 1981: Doctorate Recipients from United States Universities (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1982), p. 6.
7.
7. DDRMRP, p. 5.
8.
8. In FY 1984 existing RDT&E programs with a combined budget of $0.9 billion were taken from other branches of DoD and placed under the authority of SDI. The budgets for successive years were $1.4 billion in FY 1985, $2.8 billion in FY 1986, $3.2 billion in FY 1987, and $3.6 billion in FY 1988. Since FY 1987 Congress has approved substantially less than the amount requested in the president's budget. “The Strategic Initiative” (Briefing paper, Union of Concerned Scientists, June 1987); “News & Comment,”Science, 26 Feb. 1988, p. 967.
9.
9. The signatories were faculty at 110 colleges and universities that received 75 percent of all academic physical science and engineering funding by DoD and the National Science Foundation in 1985. Lisbeth Gronlundet al., “A Status Report on the Boycott of Star Wars Research by Academic Scientists and Engineers” (May 1986), p. 6.
10.
10. A statement in support of SDI by the Science and Engineering Committee for a Secure World was placed in the Congressional Record by the House Defense Subcommittee. There were 80 members listed, of whom 46 were possibly senior academic scientists and engineers. One was a Massachusetts Institute of Technology graduate student, incorrectly listed as “Research Assistant, High Energy Physics, Fermi National Laboratory.”“Testimony of Dr. Martin J. Hoffert on SDI,”Congressional Record, 15 May 1986.
11.
11. Willie Sutton, renowned as a bank robber, when asked why he robbed banks, replied, “That's where the money is.”
12.
12. In FY 1986, DoD supplied 16.4 percent of basic, 12.0 percent of basic and applied, and 16.4 percent of all research support from the federal government. URDRD, tab. 4, p. 16.
13.
13. Policies and Procedures (Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sept. 1985), p. 17.
14.
14. URDRD, tab. 4, p. 16.
15.
15. U.S. Department of Defense, The Strategic Defense Initiative Organization/Innovative Science and Technology Office, Mar. 1985, p. 3.
16.
16. DDRMRP, p. 5.
17.
17. Glantz and Albers, “Department of Defense R&D in the University,” p. 706.
18.
18. Simon Ramo, America's Technological Slip (New York: John Wiley, 1980).
19.
19. Of all scientists and engineers, 228, 506, or 13 percent, were employed in national defense work in 1982. U.S. National Science Foundation, The 1982 Postcensal Survey of Scientists and Engineers, 1984, tabs. B-12 and B-27.
20.
20. James A. Ionson, “SDIO/IST Memo” (Department of Defense, 8 Aug. 1985).
21.
21. National Policy on the Transfer of Scientific, Technical and Engineering Information, National Security Decision Directive 189, 21 Sept. 1985.
22.
22. Colin Norman, “Security Problems Plague Scientific Meetings,”Science, 26 Apr. 1985, p. 471.
23.
23. R. Jeffrey Smith, “White House Issues Secrecy Guideline,”Science, 11 Oct. 1985, p. 152.
24.
24. Ibid.
25.
25. “Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Military Presence at MIT” (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Apr. 1986), app. A, p. 6.
26.
26. Ibid., app. B, p. 5.
27.
27. Department of Defense Appropriations for 1986, Hearings before the Subcommittee on the Department of Defense of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, 99th Congress, First Session (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1985), pt. 8, p. 771.
28.
28. “1,600 Scientists Tell Congress That SDI Carries Funding Risk,”Los Alamos Monitor, 19 June 1986.
29.
29. 1982 Postcensal Survey, tabs. B-12 and B-27.
30.
30. R. Jeffrey Smith, “Hicks Attacks SDI Critics,”Science, 25 Apr. 1986, p. 443.
31.
31. Sidney D. Drell, “Disloyalty and DoD Funding,”Science, 6 June 1986, p. 1183.
32.
32. “Comings and Goings,”Science, 31 Oct. 1986, p. 540.
33.
33. R. Jeffrey Smith, “Star Wars Grants Attract Universities,”Science, 19 Apr. 1985, p. 302.
34.
34. “The Review Panel on Special Laboratories: Final Report” (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Oct. 1969), p. 4.
35.
35. Arthur W. Gallstone, “The Education of an Innocent” (Report, Hastings Center, Sept. 1971).
36.
36. “Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Military Presence at MIT,” app. A, pp. 7-8.
