Archive | funding

UMass Lowell Kuwait campus will be built to reward Raytheon weapon sales to Kuwait

Screenshot 2017 05 22 09 15 16

Screenshot 2017 06 06 15 59 16

This story- that Raytheon would build a campus in Kuwait for Mass-Lowell  – is over 2 years old. But it is just as shocking as it was then, and makes more sense in light of the recent news that Qatar is being squeezed by 5 other Arab states  and is undoubtedly being pushed by the USA alliance with Saudi Arabia . Buried within that article is the interesting statement “Qutar has also built deep ties to American academia, providing funding and real estate to build Middle Eastern campuses for six major universities, including Cornell, Georgetown and Northwestern.”

Sounds innocent, right? Building universities is a win-win for all, it might seem, a way to bring people together from around the world, sharing expertise. Ah, but what expertise- and who is funding these universities? This is not easy information to find.

But sometimes, a window opens, and you can see all the way back in a dark, foul, smelly cave of vested interests.

The Mass Lowell campus is being funded by defense contractor Raytheon. It is being funded by a defense offset, a bribe that defense contractors use to convince a country to buy their weapons. So, in order to sell their weapons to Kuwait, Raytheon agreed to build a campus for Kuwait. And it is building in in partnership with the Lowell campus of the University of Massachusetts, with which it already has a close relationship. So the campus will be funded by the sale of weapons. Overtly, clearly, UMass Lowell is being built on the bloodshed of Yemen.

The Mass/Lowell campus doesn’t shirk from protest. The UMass system, including Lowell, was the first public university to divest from fossil fuels . They protested the visit of Donald Trump . Adjunct faculty protested their pay inequities and the high pay given to an outgoing president. But there hasn’t been a remark against this weapon-funded campus that I could find. I contacted reporter Rick Sobey, who writes about the deal for the Lowell Sun, and he has not heard of any protests. I also contacted the UMass Lowell Undergraduate Society of Science Students (USSS) , as several members were involved in the Trump protest, but received no answer. I am not surprised- it seems everything is fair game for protest except war and militarism. I would expect the same lack of response in dealing with Boeing- University of Washington relationships here in Seattle, for the same reason- defense contractors are a great source of funding.

It is not clear who, besides the Qatar Foundation for Education, Science and Community Development  is funding the Cornell, Georgetown, Texas A&M, Virginia Commonwealth, Northwestern, and Carnegie Mellon Qatar campuses . We know the NYU- Abu Dhabi campus in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is funded by multiple UAE groups, and this includes The Innovation Institute (which does scientific research in collaboration with aerospace defense contractors who have sold weapons to the UAE): The Innovation Institute then grants funds to NYU research scientists for university research with military applications (Archer, John M, NYU in Abu Dhabi: The Future is Upon Us. The Chronicle of Higher Education, June 27, 2012. Letter to the Editor).  Though defense offsets must be reported to the Bureau of Industry and Security, part of the Department of Commerce, they do not have to be publicized and are difficult to find- for example, in the NYU example given above, Archer found out about the defense offset through the minutes of the NYU Faculty Senate. Undoubtedly, more are out there, with USA universities, contractors, and organizations.  The relentless and  cheerful championing of Saudi Arabia by the AAAS  sure is suggestive of, at least, a state department link.

I expect to read more about science, academia, and scientists profiting from defense offsets for weapons sales. And I am hoping for some protest against the increasing amount of military funding of academic research on campuses all over the country….

0

Censorship and denial in the March for Science

The March for Science may herald a new activism on the part of scientists, and that is tremendous. People are marching for a variety of reasons (for science, for funding and their jobs, against Trump, for more inclusion of scientists in the political process, to demonstrate a love for science, to change the culture of science away from sexism and racism, etc), and are not marching for a smaller variety of reasons (science shouldn’t be political, marching will send the wrong message and alienate people, scientists are partnering with the wrong people), all of which is typical of the beginning of a movement.

(Some of the many articles about the March for Science are curated at the end of the article, in categories according to approval or disapproval of the march and of activism among scientists.)

One of the most encouraging aspects of the march is that many of the organizers and participants are non-scientists who cherish the wonders of science. A world in which science is integrated with the humanities, social sciences, and other creative pursuits sounds pretty wonderful, and the partnerships being made through the march can bring new understanding and potential into all our endeavors.

But somehow, what the march isn’t is troubling. It isn’t honest. It rebrands itself constantly, to retain the good graces of…hard to say what- the public?

Shouldn’t scientists be more honest about their culture and enterprise to be sure the trust they are requesting from the public is earned? Shouldn’t discussions of the march be deep and provocative and brutally honest?

Instead, there is quiet, disapproval, censorship, in contradiction to the march motto, “Science, not silence.”

The D.C. March organizers deleted tweets about the massive bomb in Afghanistan, chemical weapons, and scientist involvement in weapons. Mention of that disappeared everywhere but in the right- wing press, where it was heralded as a typical anti- patriot left-wing statement, and is still getting air time a week later  (Here is a link to a April 19 National Review article.). This deletion is straight-forward censorship. Diversity may, shamefully, be controversial as a topic, but war is forbidden.

March organizers are deciding what is political, and what isn’t. We mustn’t offend anyone! Don’t mention conflicts of interest, weapons research, the harsh penalties for environmental activism or whistleblowing, the pervasive influence of sexism and racism on individuals and kind of science done…. Instead, the march is a pep rally, a Super Bowl extravaganza, an orchestrated national political convention. A look at the National Review article linked in the above paragraph suggests how effective tip-toeing around is in trying to change minds.

Nature just published a quick summary of the march, attributing the initial enthusiasm to post-Trump anger and fear, and then describing the insistence of organizers and supporters that the march is not political.

This decision to placate Republican politicians may be more than inexperience, or cowardice.

It might also be that scientists have great power in the United States, and they don’t want to perturb that power. While individuals are disposable, science in integrally associated with the military, with the government and regulatory agencies, with academia and with corporations. Perhaps they don’t want to challenge the status quo too much. A good summary of the funding for science that influences research can be found in the SGR statement for the March of Science issued by the UK Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR), which supports the march but calls for scientists to stand up for society.

Perhaps the majority make-up of the march -white, educated, perhaps mostly liberal- is not yet ready to be straightforward or to make sacrifices needed for real change in science and for science, for all (if, indeed, that is what they even want). A reminder from friend Jesse White pointed me to Martin Luther King, Jr.’s 1963 “Letter from a Birmingham jail”  which King addressed to clergyman who objected to his activist stance.

It seems the March for Science is accepting a negative peace, not yet ready to spend their social capital. But individuals will march for what they believe, and may be able to leverage this opportunity to use science to better the world.

________________________________________________________

Support the march.

The Editors of a Major Scientific Publication Are Urging Readers to Attend the March for Science.” April 12, 2017. Time magazine write Charlotte Alter slightly implies it is okay to march as Nature says it is okay.

What Exactly are People Marching for When They March for Science? March 7, 2017. Science writer Ed Long for The Atlantic. There is confusion because of multiple goals of the march, but that’s okay.

Analyzing the March for Science Diversity Discourse. April 11, 2017. Applied sociologist and blogger Zuleyka Zevallos. People either approved or disapproved of discussion of diversity in science- interesting discussion why! March will be good to develop these issues.

I’m going to #sciencemarch in Washington. Here’s why. January 30, 2017. Scientist Sara Whitlock in STAT. Straightforward reasons for herself- marching against Trump-targetted scientists and policies, marching for open access to science and data.

Is #ScienceMarch Really Against Science? January 30, 2017. Medical and academic book editor Laurie Endicott Thomas, on her blog Not Trivial. As opposed to Steven Pinker, she emphasizes the use of science for bad purposes (each as war and genocide), and that scientists have often been complicit in racial and gender-bases oppression, and believes the march is a great way to stand against Trump, bad science, sexism and racism.

Q&Q: Marching for Science in Memphis: A conversation with activist and undergraduate student Sydney Bryant. March 22, 2017. Marine Biology student Sydney Bryant wants to bridge the gap between scientists, activists, and non-scientists. Celebrates connection of science with social justice.

Marchers around the World Tell Us Why They Are Taking to The Streets for science. April 13, 2017. By the Science News Staff. Scientists have a variety of reasons why they are marching: Egage public opinion, agitate vs Trump’s policies, protecting science from attack.

Putting Science into Practice: Why We Need To Play Our Part. March 8, 2017. Environmental sociologist Angie Carter for Union of Concerned Scientists.

Reasons to march for science in Seattle. Or not. April 17, 2017. David Hyde for KUOW, Seattle. Though several scientists give their reservations, more coverage is given to those who don’t mind that the march may appear to be political.

Science March: Above Politics? or Partisan for Humanity? April 18, 2017. Refuse Racism website. Defense of science should be non-partisan but should be political, and that is fine.

Scientists and Activists Look Beyond the March for Science. April 17, 2017. Nicholas St. Fleur for the New York Times. In looking toward the time post march, and how activism will continue, the article is very pro-march. Politics and diversity are worthwhile issues for science, and the march is likely to encourage more scientists to enter politics.

Should Scientists Engage in Activism? March 26, 2017. Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus, for  theConversation.com. The answer is yes. Pinker and Young are the unbelievable antagonists in this story: Many other scientists give good reasons to mix politics and science.

The March for Science is Political, and That’s a Good Thing. February 25, 2017. Miriam Kramer for Mashable. Science is and always was political. And to save it, you gotta be political now.

We Are the Scientists Against a Fascist Government. February 2, 2017. Scientists Chanda Pressed-Weinstein, Sarah Tuttle, and Joseph Osmundson in The Establishment. Very strong statement about failures of scientists to stand up against oppression, and the need to do so now.

When I March for Science, I’ll March for Equity, Inclusion, and Access. March 22, 2017. Gretchen Goldman, Center for Science and Democracy at Union of Concerned Scientists. Science is driven by values and politics, and hasn’t always been used for good. March for diversity and inclusion.

Why are Scientists So Averse to Public Engagement? It’s time to confront our demons. March 8, 2017. March 8, 2017. Climate science ph.D. student Ply Achakulwisut on the Scientific American blog. Anti-science forces were in play before Trump, and scientists feared losing their credibility by speaking up. March for Science is one of the hopeful signs that scientists are finally pushing themselves.

Support the march with qualifications

To March for Science, D.C. Satellite Marches in US and Around the World. April 18, 2017. Indigenous Scientists support the march, but urges acknowledgement of the contributions of indigenous scientists, and acceptance of multiple kinds of science and ways of knowing.

An Open Letter to the Center for Biological Diversity-re: March for Science. March 17, 2017. Stephan Neidenbach, middle school teacher posted to The Medium. Neidenback was worried when anti-GMO group Center for Biological Diversity was announced as a partner in March, but feels better because Cornell Alliance for Science partnership with the march was also announced.

March shouldn’t be political

Science march planners, here’s some unsolicited advice. January 27, 2017.  Science writer Jeffrey Mervis relies heavily on opinion of physics professor Michael Lobell, who was also head of the D.C. office of the American Physical Society until he pledged to work with Trump and society members objected and says to make it a march about science, not scientists.

The Science of Science Advocacy: Should researchers advocate for the inclusion of science in public policymaking? March 5, 2017. Joshua A. Krisch editor at The Scientist.  No, they shouldn’t = the bottom line.

Opinion: Let’s march to stress the value of science for the public good, not to engage in partisan politics. March 24, 2017. Catherine Rudder for Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences.  Scientific method minimizes intrusion of politics and partisanship?!

Will a March Hurt Science?  As scientists and science advocates plan demonstrations in Washington, D.C., and around the world, some question the ability of such activism to enact change.  February 2, 2017. Diana Kwon for The Scientist. February 2, 2017.

Do not support the march.

A Scientists’ March on Washington is a Bad Idea. January 31, 2017. Scientist Robert Young said march would trivialize and politicize the science.

Why I Won’t Be Participating in the March for Science. March 19, 2017.  The Mad Virologist blog. The march is disorganized, co-opted by believers in pseudo-science, and I don’t want to give them any credibility. I believe in speaking out, but I won’t go.

March for Science: How Democracy Kills Expertise. March 20, 2017. Alex Berezow for American Council on Science and Health (ACSH). Corporate ACSH pats itself on the back for being an early hater of the march and lover of privately -funded research  and repeats idea that the march is political and unscientific with its support of social issues.

March for Science: Why scientists say this isn’t a political protest. February 3, 2017.  The Christian Science Monitor staff writer Ellen Powell. Federal scientists don’t support, others do.

March for ‘Science’ Say We Shouldn’t Bomb Isis…Because They’re “Marginalized”!? April 14, 2017, in response to March for Science tweet about bombing Afghanistan. Proud white idiot male Steven Crowder’s blog, anti-muslim, anti-feminist, etc etc.

March for Science blows it again: defends ISIS as “marginalized people.” 4/14, 2017 Scientist Jerry Coyne’s website Evolution is True. (for records of those tweets. See also Jerry Coyne’s “about” Coyne seems to dislike any mixing of social interests and science.

Do not support the march, with qualifications

Scientists’ march on Washington is a bad idea- here’s why. March 8, 2017.  Andrea Saltelli from the Centro for the Study of the Sciences and the Humanities in The Conversation uses logic of scientist and philosopher Micheal Polanyi to say in presenting a united front, scientists are being dishonest and should clean up its own house .” Trump is not science’s main problem today- science is.”

NPR style of false equivalence.

Is the March for Science Bad for Scientists? March 1, 2017. Emily Atkin, staff writer at New Republic. Quotes scientist Jerry Coyne “Science cannot adjudicate issues of morality” and science writer Miriam Kramer, who “called ‘bullshit on the notion that scientists should avoid political action.”’

March for Science: Why scientists say this isn’t a political protest. February 3, 2017.  The Christian Science Monitor staff writer Ellen Powell. Federal scientists don’t support, others do.

The March for Science: Why Some Are Going, and Some Will Sit Out. April 17, 2017.  NY Times writer Michael Roston. Some like politics, some don’t. Some what to address diversity issues, some don’t. Some want to debate the public role of science. Others don’t.

Marching for Science: Effort gains backers and appears to build momentum, but some scientists worry that political fallout may not be what organizers want. March 8, 2017. Andrew Kreighbaum, federal policy reporter for Inside Higher Ed. Scientists should communicate with politicians, but not too much. Coyne and Young vs Rush Holt.

Don’t think scientists should be activists

Crossing the Imaginary Line. September 2, 2016. David Sediak, Chemist and Editor-in-chief of Environmental Science and Technology. Bottom line: could lose social support and financial backing.

Thinks scientists should be activists

Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public- but not if it threatens our funding?  October 10, 2016. Marc A. Edwards, Amy Pruden, Siddhartha Roy, and William J. Rhoads in Flint Water Study Updates. Unapologetic argument for engineers to speak out when people’s lives are threatened. Response to Sediak.

We Need Decolonial Scientists. November 10, 2016  Sociologist and Biological Anthropologist, Shay Akil Mclean. Scientists have been silent too long. Speak out on out structural and political problems!

Beyond the march

Opinion: Scientists Must Think Beyond Science: If we are to defend science, we must stand together with the other truth-tellers, including our non-scientist colleagues.  March 23, 2017. Evolutionary biologist Jon F. Wilkins, in The Scientist. Our defense of science should extend beyond ourselves.

 

0

Japanese scientists are leading a path to peace- and see dual use research as an obstacle.

Screenshot 2017 04 07 17 09 32

April 10, 2017

The Science Council of Japan (the equivalent of the National Academies of Science in the USA) has released a statement that calls for academic scientists to refuse funding for military research.

They have done this not for a political reason, but for a deeply ethical and philosophical one- to avoid war.

The Japanese scientists on the Science Council understand that they, as scientists, bear responsibility in the effort to avoid war. Scientists are very much part of the technological part of waging war, and must look to themselves as one of the forces that must police itself. But few scientists across the world are willing to risk they power they hold as advisors to the military, or the money they receive from the government, to speak against war.

Some scientists simply haven’t questioned the effectiveness or morality of war. This is particularly easy to do in the USA, which has not had a massive war in its borders since the civil war in the 1860’s, and which hides its huge and expensive militarism (with the largest military in the world) behind a facade of consumerism. Although WW2 was over half a century ago, the atomic bomb devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the firebombing of Tokyo and other large cities have left psychological scars that have helped support a culture of pacifism.

Not all people in Japan are determined not to go to war. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, citing concerns about North Korea and China (and supported in this by the United States ), has been trying to justify a polity of re-militarization. He has arrested activists still protesting the many military installations the US military has in Japan, particularly the ones in Okinawa . In 2015, Abe’s governing legislative coalition made changes to the pacifist post WW2 constitution to allow it to rearm and fight beside allies. Geochemist Morihisa Hamada has noted that these changes to the constitution also permit the manufacture and sale of weapons, sales that can bring lots of money into the country.

Abe  has tried to re-introduce military research on university campuses in Japan through funding for dual use projects. Curiously to Americans (who seldom question funding from the military), it was the concept of funding dual-use research in academia that caused such agitation among Japanese scientists. Dual use research is constantly being redefined: it originally meant research that brought benefit to both the military and to civilians , but has come to mean in the USA and Europe the hostile use of a biological agent that is usually used to promote health.  It is the first, pure definition- research that can benefit the military as well as civilians- that is the subject of the Japanese scientists’ proposed boycott.

So the funding for research that has military as well as civilian application has been offered since 2015 to scientists in Japan through the government’s Acquisition & Logistics Agency, and the money was increased dramatically this year. Each university must decide whether or not to accept funds: so far, 10 universities allow researchers to accept defense grants, and 15 do not allow it. The temptation to take the money will be strong, and so the Science Council of Japan has called upon academics to decide for themselves whether it is moral to accept the money, a step they believe will bring closer the likelihood  of war.

Imagine the National Academies of Science doing the same!

0

Japanese academics say no to military research. Please sign their letter!

banner only

There are academics over the world who don’t believe that militarism and war serve humanity, and do not want their institutions or their own work to be guided by military needs or funding.

War is absolutely not inevitable. As with climate change activism, with calls for divestment of university funds from fossil fuel companies, and increased collaborations between scientists and other citizens, scientists can speak out and act on their abhorrence of being part of killing others. We can change the culture of militarism by not participating in it.

This campaign is an effort by Japanese academics, who have noted increased military involvement in universities, to bring awareness of this issue to other academics and scientists. The website, given here in English, gives their rationale. If you agree, please sign.

PREFACE-THE GOAL OF THIS ONLINE CAMPAIGN

Ever since the end of the World War II, Japanese academics have renounced military research. This is consistent with the peaceful principles of the Constitution of Japan, in which Article 9 renounces both war as a sovereign right of the nation and the maintenance of military forces that could be used for the purpose of war. Recently, however, the Japanese Ministry of Defense has been eager to involve academics in joint research and to fund civil scientists to develop dual-use technologies that can be used in military equipment. Such a trend violates academic freedom and Japanese scientists’ vows not to take part in any research tied to war again. The goal of this online campaign is to help scientists and other people become aware of this issue so they may join us in putting a stop to military-academia joint research. Thank you for visiting our website, and we sincerely welcome your signatures to approve our appeal.
APPEAL AGAINST MILITARY RESEARCH IN ACADEMIA

Military research includes the development of arms and technologies that can be used as military equipment and strategic research to gain military supremacy, linking directly and indirectly to war. During World War II, many scientists in Japan were involved in military research to a greater or lesser extent and took part in a war of aggression. College students were conscripted into the army against their will, and many of them lost their young lives. These experiences were matters of deep regret for many scientists at that time. Soon after World War II, scientists made vows to promote science for peace, never for war. For example, the Science Council of Japan, which officially represents the collective will of scientists in Japan, made the decisions to ban military research in 1949 and renewed this commitment in 1950 and 1967. Development of anti-nuclear and peace movements in Japan encouraged scientists and students to establish their own peace declarations at universities and national research institutes. Peace declarations were finally resolved at five universities (Otaru University of Commerce, Nagoya University, Yamanashi University, Ibaraki University and Niigata University) and at 19 national research institutes in the 1980s.

Especially under the hawkish Abe administration, the peaceful principle of the Constitution of Japan has been severely violated. For example, although the export of arms and the related technologies had long been strictly restricted, Abe administration removed this ban in 2014. The Japanese government and various industries have been promoting military-academia joint research for the production of dual-use technologies. In total, as of 2014, more than 20 joint research projects have been initiated since the early 2000s between the Technical Research and Development Institute, the Ministry of Defense, and academia. The Abe administration approved the National Defense Program Guidelines for FY2014 and beyond in December 2013 to further develop dual-use technologies by funding research projects to be conducted in universities and research institutes. This trend should be viewed as governmental counterattack against scientists’ vows not to take part in military research again after World War II.

It is highly inevitable that the achievements of military-funded research will not be open to the public without the permission of the military. The Act on the Protection of Specially Designated Secrets, which was forced through the Diet in 2013 and came into effect in 2014, will strengthen control of academia by the military and state power. In addition, scientists who speak of their research may now be accused of leaking confidential information because of this new law.

What are the consequences of military-academia joint research? It is evident that academic freedom will be severely violated. One must only refer to the case of the United States, where the military-industrial-academic complex is already firmly established. In addition, graduate and undergraduate students’ right and conscience will be violated by being forced to take part in military-academia joint research in their university education program, and given their lack of experience, may be accepted without criticism. Is it ethical for professors and principle scientists to involve their students in military-academia joint research? Such research is linking to war, destruction, and murder, and will inevitably result in the devastation of higher education.

Universities should deal with universal values, such as the development of democracy, the welfare of human beings, nuclear disarmament, the abolition of poverty, and the realization of a peaceful and sustainable world. In order to ensure such activities, universities, including national universities, of course, should be independent from any governmental or political power and authority, and they should pursue the goal of human education to encourage students to aspire to truth and peace.

We are responsible to refuse to take part in war through military-academia joint research. Such research is not consistent with the principles of higher education and the development of science and technology for a better future. We are concerned that military-academia joint research will distort the sound development of science, and that men, women, and children alike will lose their trust and faith in science. Right now, we are at the crossroads for the reputation of science in Japan.

We sincerely appeal to all the members of universities and research institutes, including undergraduate and graduate students, and to citizens, not to take part in joint research with military personnel, to refuse funding from the military, and to refrain from educating military personnel.

Organizers

Satoru Ikeuchi, Professor Emeritus of Astrophysics, Nagoya University,

Shoji Sawada, Professor Emeritus of Physics, Nagoya University,

Makoto Ajisaka, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, Kansai University,

Junji Akai, Professor Emeritus of Mineralogy, Niigata University,

Minoru Kitamura, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, Waseda University,

Tatsuyoshi Morita, Professor Emeritus of Botany, Niigata University,

Ken Yamazaki, Professor of Exercise Physiology, Niigata University,

Teruo Asami, Professor Emeritus of Soil Science, Ibaraki University,

Hikaru Shioya, Communication Engineering and Reliability Engineering,

Kunio Fukuda, Professor Emeritus of International Trade Theory, Meiji University,

Kunie Nonaka, Professor of Accoundancy, Meiji University,

and other 47 scientists.

0

The House Armed Forces Services Committee debates blocks protection for ….the Sage Grouse.

The House Armed Forces Committee blocks protection for the Sage Grouse.

Aagrouse

How is it that the military, through Congress, is deciding on the future of the Greater Sage Grouse, which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service believes warrants protection under the Endangered Species Act?

This is how.

Congress is currently hammering out the fiscal 2016 National Defense Authorization Act. There is a provision recommended by the chair of the House Armed Services committee that prohibits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from actually putting the Greater Sage Grouse, which suffers from loss of habitat, on the endangered list. This was a recommendation from the Army.

When Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Mass)  proposed to strip that provision, there was a contentious debate that ended in a vote to not protect the sage grouse. Democrats argued that the provision not only had no place in a defense bill, and that the provision was an attack on science and federal conservation areas.

Rep. Rob Bishop (Utah) (who actually heads the House Natural Resources Committee- isn’t that consoling?) was one of the Republican members who argued that the bird’s large population hampers military facilities throughout the USA.  The example he gave is that the Army at the Yakima Training Center in Washington spends around $1.5 million a year to manage (only) 250 birds.

Yakima is one of only 4 sage grouse populations in the state, but giving the Greater Sage Grouse protection under the Endangered Species Act (EPA) as an endangered species would restrict gunnery ranges part of the year.

Scientists have spoken out on the dangers of oil and gas projects to the Greater Sage Grouse breeding sites, as well.

The sage grouse has also become a pawn in the Republican move to reduce federal power: The U.S. House Armed Services Committee is considering a proposal to delay an Endangered Species Act listing for the Greater Sage Grouse for 10 years, as well as to transfer the management of millions of acres of federal lands to states in the west. Democrats countered that the provision has no place in the defense bill, seeing it as an attack on science and federal conservation efforts.

The militarization of science and nature marches on.

—-

Update

June 8, 2015  In an editorial, “G.O.P. Assault on Environmental Laws,” the New York Times blames republicans only for the disinterest in saving the habitat of the Great Sage Grouse. The editorial made no mention of the influence of the military, which (along with fossil fuel companies) rules both Democrats and Republicans in Congress.

0

Military recruiting at the 2015 Experimental Biology convention

Photo

Military recruiting at the 2015 Experimental Biology convention.

Curiously placed among the “Publishers” in the Exhibition Hall at the 2015 Experimental Biology Convention in Boston was the Army Medical Recruiting table.

Military recruiters are ubiquitous in high schools (the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 section 9528 stated that military recruiters must be allowed in high schools and must be given student home contact information or the school could lose federal funding.) They are present in colleges and universities, where the targets’ brains are closer to maturity, and where  there is still occasionally protest about their presence.

During and for several decades after the Vietnam War, many scientists refused to take military money for research, but no dissent was shown at this conference. Most passing scientists didn’t seem to notice the table or the 2 soldiers staffing it. But really, how could they miss the incongruity of a gigantic photo of a soldier with gun among the books and journals?

The Army section that was recruiting was the U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine, in nearby Natick. Its mission is to “Provide solutions to optimize Warfighter health and performance through medical research,” and the vision is “Recognized by the Department of Defense as the trusted leader in medical research for Warfighter health and performance optimization.”

Many partners are listed, from military, universities, and companies. For some, helping with the US’s constant wars might be deliberate and idealogical, but money is probably the main motivator: over half of the discretionary US budget goes to war, even as the NIH and NSF budgets barely move. This ready money has blinded scientists to the implications of taking Department of Defense (DoD) money for their research.

15p R D Pie

 

There are 4 research divisions in USARIEM, and glossy pamphlets were available for each: Biophysics & Biomedical Modeling, Military Nutrition, Military Performance, and Thermal & Mountain Medicine. From traumatic brain injury to improving soldier’s running styles (!), the projects range from the mundane to the tragic, with a presumptive trickle-down benefit to civilians. Or not- do civilians even matter, these days?

We need to think more about war, and science’s (and our own) place in that war. We might have a range of opinions, but we need to be thoughtful and deliberate about participation in something as devastating and all-encompassing as war.

 

 

 

 

 

0

Scientists for Global Responsibility- YES!

Scientists for global responsibility

How could one not be thrilled to find (via a message from activist and friend Linda Jansen) to find the UK- based group Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR), whose priorities are so relevant to the needs of world citizens, and so on target with the protests going on all over the earth?

Here is a list of project categories from the website:

Corporate Influence on Science and Technology

Military Influence on Science and Technology

Nuclear Weapons Threat

Ethical Careers

Other projects- Population, Climate, Peace, etc.

What’s not to love?

There are currently about 900 members in SGR, and though the organization is UK centered, international members are welcome, according to Stuart Parkinson, Executive Director since 2003. Parkinson earned his bachelors’ degree in physics and engineering, but so many applications were military, with deep ethical implications, and he did his PhD work in climate change modeling. Even here there were ethical problems for Parkinson, as much funding for environmental work was from corporations, and their need to turn a profit was in conflict with preservation of the environment. SGR was a place where he could discuss these ethical issues with other scientists, something that unfortunately doesn’t occur in most scientific workplaces or training grounds.

To demonstrate the various pathways a scientist could choose to imbue life and work with ethical integrity, SGR put out a booklet, “Critical Paths: 12 inspiring cases of ethical careers in science and technology.”  The booklet can be downloaded as a pdf, or purchased as hard copy. Below is the list of scientists in the booklet, which the varied issues they’ve embedded in their life’s work. It would be great to have this booklet distributed in undergraduate, graduate, and post-graduate programs, to be used for inspiration and discussion of options.

Critical paths

Contents

Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 3

Elizabeth Martin………………………………………………………………………………………. 4

Discipline: geography
Issues: sustainable development; politics; corporations

Annie Brown……………………………………………………………………………………………. 6

Disciplines: mechanical and civil engineering
Issues: sustainable building; sustainable energy; corporations

Laurence Kenney …………………………………………………………………………………….. 8

Disciplines: mechanical engineering; biology Issues: the military; health

Dave Harper ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 10

Discipline: psychology
Issues: mental health; social justice; the military

Emily Heath …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 12

Disciplines: environmental and geo-sciences
Issues: environmental protection; politics; social justice

Caroline Smith…………………………………………………………………………………………. 14

Disciplines: chemistry; plant biology Issue: sustainable agriculture

Yacob Mulugetta……………………………………………………………………………………… 16

Disciplines: environmental sciences; environmental management Issues: international development; sustainable energy; corporations

Birgit Völlm ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 18

Discipline: medicine
Issues: animal experiments; health

Karl Brazier……………………………………………………………………………………………… 20

Disciplines: mathematics; IT; physics
Issues: the military; sustainable energy; social justice; corporations

Steve Dealler …………………………………………………………………………………………… 22

Discipline: microbiology Issues: food safety; politics

Wendy Maria Phelps………………………………………………………………………………… 24

Discipline: electrical engineering
Issues: the military; sustainable energy; social justice

Sue Mayer……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 26

Disciplines: biological and veterinary sciences Issues: the military; genetics; politics 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

GMO labeled food, AAAS, Big corporations, and Citizens United

final gmox

“Two States Reject GMO Labeling. Voters in two U.S. states rejected referenda that would have made it mandatory to label genetically modified foods. Measure 92 was narrowly defeated by Oregon voters, while Colorado’s Proposition 105  was rejected by roughly two thirds of voters.”  This is what the 11/12/14 AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) Policy Alert newsletter.  That’s it. 

We know AAAS does not believe GMO foods should be labeled. (See “Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors on Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods “, October 20, 2012.) Their reason is that GMO foods are safe, that FDA policy says labeling is only required if the absence of the information poses a special health or environmental risk, and that is that.

But his issue is not just about risk, and it is disingenuous of AAAS to pretend it is all risk and science. This is a political and ideological issue, and the AAAS’ political and idealogical statement puts in squarely in the camp with Big Food Companies.

The 2010 Supreme Court Citizen’s United decision allowed corporations and labor unions to spend unlimited funds in elections. The effect of this on spending can be seen in the chart, below, in a January 2014 article  in the Washington Post. City and state campaigns are targets of out-of-state organizations and individuals seeking to influence the vote. 

Untitledelection funding

And so food companies, worried that shoppers won’t buy GMO products, pour money into state campaigns seeking to avoid labeling of GMO foods.

In the Colorado measure, the Right to Know campaign raised less than $500,000 dollars, and had no TV or radio ads to promote the Proposition 105 campaign. Monsanto  gave more than 4.7 million dollars itself, and Pepsico and Coco-Cola and other food companies gave a total of 1.9 million. 

In Oregon, the Yes on 92 campaign argued that the public has a right to know whether food contains genetically engineered ingredients, and raised 9 million dollars. The No on 92 Coalition raised 20 million dollars with almost 6 million dollars contributed from Monsanto alone.

AAAS, you’d have a lot more credence with people if you would separate the questionable business and unethical actions of companies such as Monsanto from the science when making a statement. The murky pools of vested interests already obscure what the science is. Make clear the science – but also make clear you do not endorse the machinations of large food companies in influencing elections to maintain profits. It would also help the credibility of AAAS and scientists, in general, to address the known health risks of herbicide overuse caused by plants engineered for herbicide resistance. 

———–

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

Mission matters: DARPA’s inclusion in the BRAIN initiative is downright creepy.

12

 

On April 2, 2013, President Obama announced the BRAIN initiative (BRAIN is actually an an acronym for Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies- too cute),  a 100 million dollar investment (later increased) by 10 groups, with the 3 main US government groups being NSF, NIH, and DARPA. DARPA would be responsible for 50 million of the 100 million to be invested. Private sector partners, such as The Allen Institute for Brain Research, HHMI, Kavli Foundation, and the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, are also involved.

DARPA? That acronym stands for Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the research wing of the Department of Defense. This is their mission: Creating breakthrough technologies for national security. As it says on the DARPA website, you can read “Better Understanding of Human Brain Supports National Security: DARPA plans $50 million in 2014 investments to increase understanding of brain function and create new capabilities.”

New capabilities for what? It is pretty clear from DAPRA’s past exploits and present plans that its mission contradicts the mission of most

Xxxdarpa mission

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

scientific organizations- to do good science for mankind. Not for some, who happen to be americans. Not for war to protect US “interests.”

Jonathan Moreno has examined this intersection of neuroscience and DARPA in his 2006 book, Brain Wars: Brain Research and National Defense, and the 2012 update, Mind Wars: Brain Science and the Military in the 21st Century.

419SOtCPKoL BO2 204 203 200 PIsitb sticker v3 big TopRight 0 55 SX278 SY278 PIkin4 BottomRight 1 22 AA300 SH20 OU01

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is well worth reading for all scientists, but should be mandatory for neuroscientists, and certainly for the ones involved in this initiative. Moreno gives lists of DARPA research proposals that read like the CIA want ads. Brain control? Better warriors who can stay awake and fight without pain? Reading the minds of your enemy? Technology to predict the behavior of individuals and groups?  I don’t agree with Moreno’s pragmatic conclusion- that basic scientists and the military should work together in order to maintain openness and restrict the possible dastardly applications of DARPA’s brain research. I don’t agree that the trickle down benefits- that is, innovation for the public that may merge from a DARPA-funded discovery- are worth it. But Moreno does point out the ethical dangers of this kind of work, and encourages scientists to consider the end result of their research.

Nature Magazine blog reporter Vivien Marx, and the response of attendees at the 2013 Society for Neuroscience in San Diego to DARPA’s inclusion in the BRAIN initiative show a rather scary pragmatism. In an article reporting on a town hall meeting at the Neuroscience meeting, “Brain initiatives galore, smiles aplenty,” Marx describes with enthusiasm the different funding model of DARPA (DARPA uses contracts rather than grants, allowing it to be more nimble), and seems fine with quoting Colonel Geoffrey Ling of DARPA in saying, “Yes, we build guns and bombs, that is true.” Perhaps there was more disagreement with DARPA at the meeting than indicated.

But why would scientists think it is okay to be partners with an agency whose mission is contrary to peace and health?

Why is it okay for basic research funds to be channeled through DARPA instead of through NSF or NIH? Why on earth should the Department of Defense be dictating what research is done?

DARPA says it is committed to sharing results- does anyone really think that is going to happen?

People seem to be most enthusiastic about DARPA’s intent to “develop solutions to prevent, treat, or even reverse the harmful effects of PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) and Traumatic Brain Injury in returning war veterans.” Ah, remember tobacco companies and their interest in health issues? Stop making cigarettes. Stop sending kids to wars. PTSD cannot be cured: it is a physiological response to trauma, and the trauma of killing is overwhelming.

Gary Marcus, professor of psychology at New York University in a recent NY Times  op-ed, pointed out that there is little discussion of what we will/should do with the information collected from the BRAIN initiative. Yes, we hope results will go towards understanding the brain and helping those with mental illness and brain injury. Yes, it is complicated. But perhaps one of the reasons is that DARPA’s mission wouldn’t fit well in with what most people want from an initiative this expansive and expensive. Telling the public that their money will be put to the Department of Defense’s mind control experiments might not be as happily accepted as it is by the scientists who are part of the initiative.

The potential to understand ourselves better, to prevent and heal mental illness and brain injury for all people, is immense. The Department of Defense and DARPA do not belong in the BRAIN initiative.

Readings about DARPA and the brain-

John Horgan May 22, 2013. Crosscheck (Scientific American blog)   Why you should care about Pentagon funding of Obama’s BRAIN initiative.

Peter Freed, M.D. April 3, 2013. Eisenhower’s ghost and Obama’s brain.  Neuroself.

Peter Freed, M.D.  May 23, 2013.  Neuroself.   DARPA follow up: Where the scientific-military-industrial complex is headed. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

Battelle- military contractor and “global health organization?” Really?

Battelle

Battelle Memorial Institute? No.

Not if you believe global health is for all people. War is pretty much the opposite of global health.

The Washington Global Health Alliance (WGHA)  was formed in 2007 with money from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to connect the many organizations in Washington State that work on global health. It lists Battelle as a “Global Health Organization” in the alliance.

The mission of the Washington Global Health Alliance: “WGHA invites and activates every sector in our region to advance global health equity.” Every sector?

The core objectives:

1. Mobilizing the dynamic global health sector to increase visibility and impact

2. Advocating and educating lawmakers and business leaders about the importance of global health for our economy, international relationships and communities (Missing that serial comma….)

3. Cultivating global health champions through innovative partnerships among traditional and unexpected organizations and people to expand impact

“Unexpected organizations?”

It may sound pretty good to get all sectors of academic, business, and civil life to agree that the health of everyone across the globe is a variety.  It sounds reasonable that any participant that will help with advancing global health equity is welcome at the table. We all know that businesses and academia and civic leaders are so bound up in political and economic maneuvering as well as with each other that looking for only the purest of organizations would lead to an alliance of none.

But somewhere, you have to draw a line in order to make your mission clear, and drawing the line on organizations that profit through making weapons and advancing war seems an obvious boundary.

Battelle is the world’s largest non-profit independent research and development organization (though is also has Battelle Ventures, L.P., and its affiliate fund, Innovation Valley Partners that invest in early stage tech companies). Based in Ohio, it has 130 locations around the world.

It does everything.

Battelle has four global businesses: Health and Life Sciences, National Security, Energy Technology, and Laboratory Management. Many scientists know of them  as they oversee 7 national (USA) laboratories for the U.S. Department of Home Security and the U.S. Department of Energy and 2 overseas laboratories. They promote STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) education for K-12 schools through programs at the National Labs, and through working with groups on the next generation science standards and common core.They do public health and global health projects, have done so with CDC, NIH, running programs, coordinating data, doing epidemiologic surveilling through their 7 Centers for Public Health Research and Evaluation, one of which is located in Seattle.

So, it would seem that being in the Washington Global Health Alliance makes a lot of sense.

But there is another side to the monolithic Battelle- it is the 26th largest (in revenue) military contractor in the USA, with almost 25% of its 2013  annual revenue being for defense. It has received over 3 billion dollars from military contracts since 1990. It does projects on advanced weapons, enrgetics/expolosive operations, missile defense, and weapons development as well as  its biological and chemical defense work.

90% of people killed in war are civilians. The best thing Battelle could do for public health is to stop its defense contractor business. The best thing the Washington Global Health Alliance could do is remove Battelle from the rolls of global health organizations.

 

 

 

 

 

0