Friday, January 21, 2005
Scientists for Global Responsibility - Index Page New report on military involvement in S&T.
Excerpt:
"Principal conclusions
There are seven main conclusions which have arisen as a
result of the research undertaken for this Report concerning
the military influences on SET. These can be summarised as:
1. The military sector, especially in the UK and USA, has
a very large and disproportionate effect on science,
engineering and technology. The UK-US ‘special
relationship’ (largely based on a 1958 treaty, which
was renewed in 2004) further drives military R&D
which has profound social and ethical implications.
2. Current military thinking is based predominantly upon
the idea of security through the superiority of military
force, and marginalises broader concepts of security
based on social justice and environmental sustainability.
This affects which areas in SET are funded by the
military.
3. The UK government policies which have shaped SET
over recent decades have moved commercial priorities
centre stage, and military corporations have played
a large part in this process.
4. Military and commercial pressures compromise openness
and accountability in SET, for example, through the
use and overuse of commercial confidentially and national
security arguments. This can stifle debate and dissent
over ethical issues in SET. In general, public scrutiny
of SET in the UK, including its funding and direction,
is weak.
5. Military support of emerging technologies such as the
nanotechnologies is high (especially in the USA). This
imposes barriers to full public scrutiny of these technologies
and colours the public perception of the potential
usefulness of such technologies.
6. Technology transfer from military-supported R&D
to civilian use is a complex and expensive route which
has, to a large extent, been disappointing in view of the
massive investments involved.
7. Areas such as peace-building and sustainable development
are currently underfunded, and would benefit substantially
from an expansion of SET expertise paid for
by a reallocation of proportions of military budgets.
Furthermore, we make eight additional conclusions:
8. Global security today faces more challenges from
terrorist groups than from nation states.However, the use
of essentially Cold War-type strategies and technologies
(and the R&D that supports them) in the industrialised
countries does not significantly address these needs.
9. Globally, military spending on equipment procurement
and R&D not only can divert resources from, for example,
health or poverty alleviation programmes, but can also
contribute to arms proliferation and refugee crises globally.
10. A broader interpretation of security is called for which
takes account of global issues such as climate change,
resource depletion, loss of biodiversity and an array
of human health problems. Some redirection of the
global ‘defence’ burden to underfunded areas (many with
a SET component) such as renewable energy and climate
change mitigation would significantly assist in the
development of these areas.
11. The development of a new generation of nuclear
weapons, by US and probably UK weapons laboratories,
is likely to compromise security through the undermining
of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Nuclear weapons
create a climate of fear and send a strong message to other
countries who do not yet have them that possession of
nuclear weapons is a desirable and acceptable security
objective. Furthermore, new, so-called ‘bunker-buster’,
low-yield nuclear weapons are likely to blur the distinction
between conventional and nuclear war.
12. Areas such as space science and the biosciences have
become ‘militarised’ in the USA. This has influenced,
and potentially downgraded, the priority given to other
areas such as research to produce low cost therapeutic
agents, energy efficiency and strategies for urgent climate
change amelioration. These effects originating within the
USA ramify across the world essentially because of the
country’s pivotal role in SET.
13. A number of consortia have been launched over the past
three years in the UK which involve the military corporations,
government departments and the universities.
These forms of collaboration have a largely military
agenda for research. Such an agenda has not been sufficiently
scrutinised for its social and ethical implications."
"
"The world today faces a range of social and environmental
problems, many of which have an impact on security.
Poverty, lack of access to basic resources such as clean water
and sanitation, and global climate change represent urgent
problems. Furthermore, unsustainable levels of resource
consumption by the industrialised world can contribute to a
range of international problems, at times including conflict.
Our investigations show that SET programmes in conflict
prevention, poverty alleviation, and environmental protection
often yield clear benefits for relatively little cost, yet these
areas get a fraction of the budget allocated to military technology.
Disarmament and peacebuilding initiatives also tend
to be smaller scale. Equally, R&D budgets for renewable
energy technologies, essential to tackle the threat of climate
change, are dwarfed by budgets for the development of
weapons technology."
Excerpt:
"Principal conclusions
There are seven main conclusions which have arisen as a
result of the research undertaken for this Report concerning
the military influences on SET. These can be summarised as:
1. The military sector, especially in the UK and USA, has
a very large and disproportionate effect on science,
engineering and technology. The UK-US ‘special
relationship’ (largely based on a 1958 treaty, which
was renewed in 2004) further drives military R&D
which has profound social and ethical implications.
2. Current military thinking is based predominantly upon
the idea of security through the superiority of military
force, and marginalises broader concepts of security
based on social justice and environmental sustainability.
This affects which areas in SET are funded by the
military.
3. The UK government policies which have shaped SET
over recent decades have moved commercial priorities
centre stage, and military corporations have played
a large part in this process.
4. Military and commercial pressures compromise openness
and accountability in SET, for example, through the
use and overuse of commercial confidentially and national
security arguments. This can stifle debate and dissent
over ethical issues in SET. In general, public scrutiny
of SET in the UK, including its funding and direction,
is weak.
5. Military support of emerging technologies such as the
nanotechnologies is high (especially in the USA). This
imposes barriers to full public scrutiny of these technologies
and colours the public perception of the potential
usefulness of such technologies.
6. Technology transfer from military-supported R&D
to civilian use is a complex and expensive route which
has, to a large extent, been disappointing in view of the
massive investments involved.
7. Areas such as peace-building and sustainable development
are currently underfunded, and would benefit substantially
from an expansion of SET expertise paid for
by a reallocation of proportions of military budgets.
Furthermore, we make eight additional conclusions:
8. Global security today faces more challenges from
terrorist groups than from nation states.However, the use
of essentially Cold War-type strategies and technologies
(and the R&D that supports them) in the industrialised
countries does not significantly address these needs.
9. Globally, military spending on equipment procurement
and R&D not only can divert resources from, for example,
health or poverty alleviation programmes, but can also
contribute to arms proliferation and refugee crises globally.
10. A broader interpretation of security is called for which
takes account of global issues such as climate change,
resource depletion, loss of biodiversity and an array
of human health problems. Some redirection of the
global ‘defence’ burden to underfunded areas (many with
a SET component) such as renewable energy and climate
change mitigation would significantly assist in the
development of these areas.
11. The development of a new generation of nuclear
weapons, by US and probably UK weapons laboratories,
is likely to compromise security through the undermining
of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Nuclear weapons
create a climate of fear and send a strong message to other
countries who do not yet have them that possession of
nuclear weapons is a desirable and acceptable security
objective. Furthermore, new, so-called ‘bunker-buster’,
low-yield nuclear weapons are likely to blur the distinction
between conventional and nuclear war.
12. Areas such as space science and the biosciences have
become ‘militarised’ in the USA. This has influenced,
and potentially downgraded, the priority given to other
areas such as research to produce low cost therapeutic
agents, energy efficiency and strategies for urgent climate
change amelioration. These effects originating within the
USA ramify across the world essentially because of the
country’s pivotal role in SET.
13. A number of consortia have been launched over the past
three years in the UK which involve the military corporations,
government departments and the universities.
These forms of collaboration have a largely military
agenda for research. Such an agenda has not been sufficiently
scrutinised for its social and ethical implications."
"
"The world today faces a range of social and environmental
problems, many of which have an impact on security.
Poverty, lack of access to basic resources such as clean water
and sanitation, and global climate change represent urgent
problems. Furthermore, unsustainable levels of resource
consumption by the industrialised world can contribute to a
range of international problems, at times including conflict.
Our investigations show that SET programmes in conflict
prevention, poverty alleviation, and environmental protection
often yield clear benefits for relatively little cost, yet these
areas get a fraction of the budget allocated to military technology.
Disarmament and peacebuilding initiatives also tend
to be smaller scale. Equally, R&D budgets for renewable
energy technologies, essential to tackle the threat of climate
change, are dwarfed by budgets for the development of
weapons technology."
Comments:
Post a Comment
