Conference discusses military contributions at the University
News |
The campus may not have missile silos under the Cut, but Carnegie Mellon may be more like a military base than commonly thought.
Concern is growing among Pittsburgh residents and Carnegie Mellon students about the extent of research funded at the University through military, defense, and security contracts. The funding is leading to new research in almost every department and acheiving advancements in robotics and software engineering.
On Saturday, the Pittsburgh Organizing Group and the Progressive Student Alliance held a Counter-Recruitment Conference at Carnegie Mellon. In a talk titled “The Military Industrial-Academic Complex and its Discontents,” David Meieran, a member of the Pittsburgh Organizing Group in the Thomas Merton Center, also included the National Science Foundation among the list of military researchers.
According to Meieran, Carnegie Mellon is a central part of the academic-industrial military complex.
Research performed at Carnegie Mellon is funded by such government departments as the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security, and corporations like Boeing and Lockheed Martin.
Carnegie Mellon President Jared Cohon lauded a new project funded by a $25 million National Science Foundation grant in this year’s Annual Report, which outlines the University’s budget. The grant funds a joint project with the University of Pittsburgh to create the Pittsburgh Science of Learning Center.
Last July, the Air Force awarded a cost reimbursement contract worth over $411 million to the Software Engineering Institute. The contract specifies that it will “provide for research and development, pertinent to national defense.”
Additionally, last August, Carnegie Mellon unveiled “Gladiator,” a remote-controlled, unmanned ground vehicle. The Navy awarded the University a contract worth over $26 million to produce six prototypes like Gladiator for expected production in 2007.
“A significant portion of students’ and faculty’s workload is devoted to the academic-industrial military complex,” Meieran said. “It pushes CMU deeper and deeper into normalizing military research.”
Much of the research at Carnegie Mellon indirectly ties the school and the students to the military. The Department of Defense’s website shows that the Robotics Institue has been contracting with the military for years. The Department of Defense funded several projects, including one that led to the invention of soccer-playing robots.
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) also funds the Robotics Institute and Software Engineering Institute. Carnegie Mellon was awarded $1.5 million in 2001 for the Perception of Off-Road Vehicles program.
General Dynamics Robotic Systems, Inc., which collaborated with the Robotics Institute at Carnegie Mellon, received a grant for $1.49 million. PerceptOR, as the project was called for short, funded several groups that went on to participate in the DARPA Grand Challenge.
Daniel Papasian, a senior in social and decision sciences and member of the Progressive Student Alliance, spoke at Saturday’s Counter-Recruitment Conference. He outlined a plan to help students avoid participating in research against which they might have moral issues.
The plan begins with exposure, he said, finding information about what groups fund each department or program at the University.
Papasian also spoke on the idea of dual use. The research, though funded by the military, may also have potential for humanitarian purposes as well.
According to their website, the Software Engineering Institute is developing new systems for network security, online safety, and software development models. Likewise, projects to develop robots that do everything from mow the lawn to shake your hand are occurring at the Robotics Institute.
“You have to appropriate what you can,” Papasian said, “use [new technology] for any good you can.”
I wish I had read this article when it came out, because I would have written a letter to the editor. This article completely misrepresents my statements about dual-use.
Namely, I rejected then and still reject the idea that the existence of a non-military use makes these "dual-use projects" somehow moral. The use that these technologies are being developed for is the use that pleases the military, and that's where the moral responsibility comes into play. I believe I specifically cited the example of the knifemaker when I spoke at this conference -- that is, if you make a knife for hunting or for cooking and it gets used by a madman to stab a human instead, that's a tragedy. But when you consult with the madman about how to make a knife for the purpose of stabbing a person, and then give them that knife and they stab a person, you're complicit.
I did state that people should appropriate what's been developed, but that was in response to the straw man of "if you don't like all of the technology built by the military, you're a hypocrite if you use the internet." To elaborate, I think there are moral and ethical reasons to oppose military projects and the development of new technology for the military, but once that technology has been developed I believe that civil society and social movements should use what they can.
In 1969 I would have opposed DARPA's ARPANet research, but now that the Internet is here I think it would be foolish to think we could make it go away by ignoring it, or not using it.
I think that projects like Carnegie Mellon's "red team racing" are developing technology to advance the US military, and as someone who oppose the US military I therefore think that form of research is objectionable.

Comment guidelines
If you provide an email address, it will be displayed. This may make you more vulnerable to spammers.
HTML is not allowed. Paragraphs are automatically created by leaving a blank line. Links are created from URLs automatically.
Off-topic or inappropriate (e.g. obscene, libelous) comments are not permitted and will be removed.