[jasode]

>, after completing my PhD thesis on cognitive maps, I found that the only funding agency that was interested in supporting my research wanted to build smart cruise missiles that could find their way to their targets. This was not what I wanted my life's work to support.

But if the military really really wanted to, couldn't it just "launder" their funding via "worthy humanitarian" causes?

The government could find a more socially palatable institution (or possibly create one from scratch) and funnels the research money through that. The unknowing scientist then thinks his cognitive maps is fighting cancer cells or detecting crime but in reality, it's going to ultimately end up in a cruise missile. Like a lot of basic research, the knowledge can be legitimately applied to humanitarian purposes so those laundering schemes are not a total fiction in terms of beneficial results for society. It's impossible to disentangle good-vs-evil uses of knowledge or technology.

I'm not trying to dissuade anyone from abandoning their principles but I think the government can invent clever ways of disguising their goals. E.g. A mechanical engineer that wouldn't work on exoskeletons for Army soldiers to help kill people but would feel ethically ok with funding from a charity[0] to help paraplegics gain freedom of movement. Since the scientist can't know the provenance of all funds, maybe he's still helping the Army after all.

[0] e.g.: https://www.unitedspinal.org/

[evrydayhustling]

Military and intelligence agencies have a stake (and funding) in plenty of humanitarian causes -- weather prediction, food security, space exploration, etc. But as a way of bypassing researchers' beliefs, it simply isn't necessary: plenty of smart people will take military or intelligence money directly. I remember being told that Carnegie Mellon's school of computer science had over 70% of its total funding from military and intelligence contracts.

I don't think most pacifists believe their convictions will directly prevent war, or even make it significantly harder to prosecute. But demonstrating convictions can force people to hold a mirror up to their own, and can change what people accept in ways that add up to big implications. I'm not a pacifist, but I'm grateful to Dr. Kulpers for demonstrating that it is possible to make a CS career outside of the military industrial complex. Anyone who participates in the business of war should at the very least consider their rationale beyond "how else am I supposed to find work?"

[YeGoblynQueenne]

>> Since the scientist can't know the provenance of all funds, maybe he's still helping the Army after all.

But that's entirely speculative and it's not really something you can know, or control. What you can know, what you can control, is whether you follow your principles or not. So it's really of no consequence what the government "might" do, or what they "can" do, etc. What is important is what you do.

[mcguire]

They've done that before. It usually results in some blow-back, when the researchers discover the game.

https://read.dukeupress.edu/books/book/70/chapter-abstract/1...

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2016/07/19/book-revi...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Camelot

(I had a sociology class in the late 80s whose professor was a bit bitter about Project Camelot, judging by her comments.) https://www.jstor.org/stable/41303322?seq=1#page_scan_tab_co...

[ynx]

If they go to that lengths then they're laundering responsibility away from the researcher, which seems to be his main thrust - the affirmative decision to do research for the military puts the responsibility on the researcher; doing it for a worthy cause and acknowledging the potential for good or bad puts that ball in the "worthy cause"'s court.

[astura]

And the civilian world can do the same, fund research with a presumably benign purpose, turn around and sell it to the military.

[peterlk]

I think this is too cynical; to the point of being harmful. This argument resonates with me like the argument to not vote because your individual vote doesn't matter. You say that you're not trying to dissuade people from their principles, but the implication of your argument is that Dr. Kuipers' approach is too naive. We do what we can with the knowledge and resources we have. And if people are inspired to action (or inaction in this case, perhaps), then the world changes, even if slowly.

If the military is creating organizations to "launder" money to make it look like it's not going to the military, then it seems to me that Dr. Kuipers has been successful in shifting the culture around military research. And that is no small feat. It may also bring about constructive conversations about the balance between hard power and soft power in international (and human) relationships.

[jasode]

>You say that you're not trying to dissuade people from their principles, but the implication of your argument is that Dr. Kuipers' approach is too naive.

No, you misunderstand. I don't think his approach is naive. My response was about consequences that take on a life of its own regardless of principled intentions. We have to separate the intentions vs consequences. Let me emphasize:

1) if one's moral principle is to not help the military, then one can stick with that principle

2) if one feels morally consistent by not accept funding from the military even if it causes some financial hardship or sacrifices, that's fine too

People have to do (or not do) things that keep them from losing sleep at night. If one has good intentions, then personal actions have to be consistent with that to maintain a clear conscience.

My entire comment has to do with consequences highlighted in this statement: "This was not what I wanted my life's work to support."

My point is that if the work has wide ranging applications, it _will_ support agendas you disagree with even if you don't take funding from the groups you oppose.

I was sensitive to that "life's work support" sentence because I'm working on a tool to let people anonymously match private data with others that have the same private data. The original motivation was letting people like-minded people discover each other without having public knowledge of it be used against them in denying future employment or denying health insurance.

However, one of my dilemmas was that it could also by used by the government and terrorist organizations. Even if I don't accept a check directly from the Department of Defense, it is inevitable they will (mis)-use the technology for purposes I don't agree with.

I think it's responsible for people to know that not accepting money from a group you oppose may not accomplish what you hope. If you think it's better to not know that, please explain why.

[bwood]

The author addressed this from a slightly different perspective under the question "The military can use your research anyway, from the open literature. Why not have them pay for it?".

His thoughts basically boil down to a combination of not working on overtly militaristic applications, not approaching the research from the angle of how it can help the military, and certainly not accepting military money even if it seems unrelated.

He acknowledges that his work may be beneficial to the military:

> Do work that makes the world a better place. The fact that the military becomes better too is not a problem.

By my reading, he is satisfied that he is not responsible for the militarization of his research. His research may indeed be misused, but that's an unavoidable in virtually every field and the buck stops at whoever weaponizes it.

[SilasX]

Isn’t that what the space program was? “We’re going reach for the heavens and put a man on the moon [necessitating technology that can also drop a nuke anywhere on earth]!”

[nradov]

It was really the other way around. Early manned spaceflight programs were mainly based on military missile technology. Later civilian developments of heavy lift liquid fueled rockets were useless for delivering nuclear weapons.

[nickpsecurity]

They already do that for black programs with cover stories and front organizations for spy agencies. So, there's certainly precedent.