[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.