Killer robots pose moral and branding issues for University

Forum |

The Gladiator is a vehicle that looks like a miniature cross between a tank and a Jeep. It can climb over huge mounds of rock and navigate an urban jungle. It is a remote-controlled robot equipped with cameras that can see through smoke and darkness. If it seems like an awesome toy, keep in mind that as it conquers terrain both rugged and urban, the Gladiator can launch tear gas and flashbang grenades, or spray a hail of bullets from a swiveling machine gun atop the vehicle.

Robots that can kill are no longer confined to science fiction — these weapons are being produced right here at Carnegie Mellon. The Gladiator was created by the National Robotics Engineering Center (NREC), the Carnegie Mellon Robotics Institute’s commercial branch-off. In 2005, the United States Marine Corps gave NREC $26.4 million to produce Gladiator prototypes.

Last Friday, political activists from the Pittsburgh Organizing Group (POG) blocked the entrances to NREC’s facility in Lawrenceville to protest the production of weapons of war like the Gladiator. Part of POG’s complaints about the NREC and federally funded research at Carnegie Mellon is that students may not be aware of how much money governmental agencies like the Department of Defense (DoD) are pouring into our university. Carnegie Mellon students should be aware that military funding has become pervasive on campus. Beyond the School of Computer Science and its Robotic Institute, funds also find their way into departments like psychology and philosophy without students’ knowledge.

Robotics Institute affiliates like NREC and the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) were initially established with federal money. NREC received a $2.4 million grant from NASA to help get started, and the SEI is completely federally funded. The program was established in 1984 with $103 million of DoD money, and it received another $411 million contract in 2005. Carnegie Mellon is now one of the largest academic military contractors in the U.S., among universities like MIT and Johns Hopkins. The university has become such a powerhouse for military research that it even beat out advanced tech company Lockheed Martin for the multi-million dollar Gladiator contract.

NREC’s Gladiator robot is part of Congress’ National Defense Authorization Act of 2001, which seeks to convert at least one-third of the Armed Forces’ ground vehicles to being unmanned by 2015 in an attempt to save American lives in wartime. On its website, NREC says that it pursued proposals by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (a part of DoD), the Army Research Lab, and the Office of Naval Research because it was well-equipped to do so and because it was “excited about the force protection mission enabled by UGV [unmanned ground vehicle] technology.”

The move towards unmanned weapons of warfare and Carnegie Mellon’s participation in the development of this technology are not reason for celebration. While UGVs will undoubtedly save American lives in Iraq and future combat, they do not take into account the lives of “enemies.” UGVs may remove the discomfort of taking another human being’s life, but that only makes it easier to kill. Moreover, these types of weapons will change the entire cost/benefit analysis of war in an incredibly anti-humanitarian way. If loss of American life is dramatically reduced in direct combat, it will be easier for the American mindset to pursue further imperial action and force our form of government and culture on the world community.

This also contributes to an inherent branding issue at Carnegie Mellon. A recent poll in The Washington Post cites that nearly 75 percent of U.S. residents think the number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable, and nearly 60 percent think the war was not worth fighting — in fact, the number of people who negatively associate this war with Vietnam is on the rise. Meanwhile, youth voting numbers surge with each election and lean democract. One breakdown shows that students who major in subjects such as science and engineering, social sciences, and humanities and arts — three of Carnegie Mellon’s biggest attractors — were more likely to choose Kerry over Bush. The two factors youths were most concerned with? Moral values and the situation in Iraq.

The government funding of the Robotics Institute seems to be a bragging point for Carnegie Mellon, but given the political leanings of potential and current students, it’s hard to see why. Supporting the war by providing research for machines that kill is counterintuitive to attracting and keeping students — and graduating satisfied students is key to receiving donations from alumni that in turn help our endowment grow. As it stands now, we’re increasingly being branded as a tool of the U.S. government. The nickname “Carnegie Military University” has even taken over in some circles outside campus.

The university’s projected image conflicts with the real-life Carnegie Mellon. The university’s mission statement includes serving students “by teaching them … the value of a commitment to … ethical behavior, society, and respect for one another” as well as pursuing “the advantages provided by a diverse … community open to the exchange of ideas, where discovery, creativity, and personal … development can flourish,” yet it also allows ROTC, which keeps the “Don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue,” policy, to maintain their presence on campus. We would benefit from choosing a mission statement we’re willing to enforce, both through inclusion of some groups and organizations and exclusion of others.

There are ways to keep our mission statement alive and keep the government out. The NREC website states that Carnegie Mellon’s Robotics Institute is “the world’s largest robotics research and development organization.” With so many skills and capabilities available, there are as many ways to focus and develop our skills into progressive and humanitarian products. For as much as the Gladiator will destroy lives, there are ways to redirect our learning and research towards things that will enhance lives instead.

Meet Tank, the roboceptionist for the School of Computer Science, who answers questions and even tells stories. Meet Pearl, a Nursebot that resulted from a collaborative project between Carnegie Mellon and the University of Pittsburgh, and is a personal assistant for elderly people. Meet the Hug, a product of the design and human-computer interaction programs that uses sensors and wireless technology within a pillow to provide emotional support — in the form of a hug — for people whose loved ones might be too far away to provide it for them.

These are the kinds of robotics projects Carnegie Mellon should be proud to tout — those that have the bettering of people’s lives in mind. It’s time to break away from government funding, to break away from “being a cog in a war machine,” and stand up for what’s right both publicly and privately. It’s in everyone’s best interests to separate ourselves from the government, and from creating soulless killing machines.

4 comments | Post a Comment
Comment John
Mar 07, 2007 at 12:03 PM

To the author above-
"I guess I missed the memo that stated that we needed student approval to disperse funds in this manner anymore."

Umm, it has nothing to do with having to get approval to disperse funds. The point is that students working on projects should be made aware of where that money comes from and what they are working on is actually a part of. It's called informed consent... and for years students and faculty have been grumbling about the lack of it.

Staff_comment Goldfinger
Mar 06, 2007 at 08:30 PM

"Part of POG’s complaints about the NREC and federally funded research at Carnegie Mellon is that students may not be aware of how much money governmental agencies like the Department of Defense (DoD) are pouring into our university."

Wow. & all that money "pouring into the University" just can't be having a positive benefit for the student population as a whole now, can it?


"Beyond the School of Computer Science and its Robotic Institute, funds also find their way into departments like psychology and philosophy without students’ knowledge."

I guess I missed the memo that stated that we needed student approval to disperse funds in this manner anymore.


"The university has become such a powerhouse for military research that it even beat out advanced tech company Lockheed Martin for the multi-million dollar Gladiator contract."

Hmmm. I'd think this would be something to brag about myself.

"The move towards unmanned weapons of warfare and Carnegie Mellon’s participation in the development of this technology are not reason for celebration. While UGVs will undoubtedly save American lives in Iraq and future combat, they do not take into account the lives of “enemies.” UGVs may remove the discomfort of taking another human being’s life, but that only makes it easier to kill. Moreover, these types of weapons will change the entire cost/benefit analysis of war in an incredibly anti-humanitarian way. If loss of American life is dramatically reduced in direct combat, it will be easier for the American mindset to pursue further imperial action and force our form of government and culture on the world community."

Yeah. I find it very infuriating that the U.S. "forces" freedom on so many of the global population! (NOT!!!) Methinks someone has been reading that little red book far too often before his bedtime, when he should be studying his engineering & history more.


"There are ways to keep our mission statement alive and keep the government out."

Yes, there is. & the most obvious way to do so in my eyes is to INCREASE STUDENT TUITION. Someone's gotta cover the loss of Federal funding & still keep the place solvent, correct? Why not allow these "all-knowing" students to taste the reality they evidently so voraciously desire first-hand?


"Meet the Hug, a product of the design and human-computer interaction programs that uses sensors and wireless technology within a pillow to provide emotional support — in the form of a hug — for people whose loved ones might be too far away to provide it for them."

Does it surprise any of y'all that the author would use such an example? I personally noticed a distinct lack of mention of the "Joplinbot"--the robot built & programmed to sing "Kumbayah" whilst starting riots against "the man" on Federally-funded college campuses.


"It’s in everyone’s best interests to separate ourselves from the government, and from creating soulless killing machines."

Of course it is...until the next war or terrorist attack on our own soil. Maybe their next target might be the "Carnegie Military University" itself?

Staff_comment Gambit
Mar 06, 2007 at 12:43 PM

I think that the central quote in this largely misguided article follows:

"If loss of American life is dramatically reduced in direct combat, it will be easier for the American mindset to pursue further imperial action and force our form of government and culture on the world community."

The authors have obviously ignored the fact that the United States has focused its energy only on areas of the world where the citizenry lived in markedly less open communities than our own. Do we "invade" England? Germany? India? Japan? Certainly not; these areas have democratic cultures, and we as a nation respect the will of their citizens, when displayed by their elected officials in a form generally accepted by members of independent bodies such as the United Nations. In countries like Iraq, however, or perhaps North Korea, or any number of African and South American countries, the will of the people is largely ignored by the ruling group. Do the authors intend to imply that this repression is warranted, and that the United States should allow it to continue?

If the perspective is taken that these "soulless killing machines" will help to clear the world of dictators and allow true freedom for each human being on the face of our planet, then I suggest that we wholly support their creation. If, however, the authors' concern is the next step from there, where these machines may be used to perpetrate crimes by nation-states, I would encourage the authors to simply look in the mirror: with voices such as theirs, the population of the United States--rightly so--would not allow our government to pursue such goals. And if the ability to make moral choices on a national level is the result of "the American mindset pursuing further imperial action and forcing our form of government and culture on the world community" against which they rail so vehemently... well, it makes me wonder exactly whose side they are on.

Staff_comment Jean Luc Picard
Mar 06, 2007 at 01:54 AM

The writers of this article appear to have a very interesting view on the military. Apparently they feel that ROTC at CMU serves only to discriminate and should be removed from campus along with the thousands of dollars in scholarships it provides, which for some students mean the difference between going to college and not; they obviously don't place much importance on the financial diversity CMU. Of course the lack of respect these writers show to their fellow students in ROTC programs pales in comparison for their contempt of US military personal in general. For them the lives of American Soldiers are merely a bargaining chip to be used by politicians and no different than the terrorists, insurgents or enemy armies the US fights now or may fight in the future; they are all just ciphers with guns. Fortunately, though, these students were able to publish this article and will continue to be able to speak their mind, thanks to the actions of the very men and women they despise.

Important: The Tartan provides these discussion boards to encourage discussion about the topics we report. The views and opinions expressed in these comments are those of their authors, and do not reflect the opinions of The Tartan.