Our university newspaper has uncovered the fact that a group in the AI department here has been funded by the American, British and Australian militaries under the Freedom of Information Act. The group developed planning software for an unspecified task for these clients and received quite substantial funding for it.
Tonight saw a vote in the Student Association general meeting to force onto the College of Science and Engineering an ethics committee in order to ensure that such a thing never happens again, citing such funding and research as being unethical.
My question is, is it unethical for a university, or in fact anyone, to be contributing to military research programmes?
It can be argued either way. Right now, any technology the military gets will likely be misused. However, getting rid of the military is impractical, so it is neccesary work. Largely, it would depend on whether or not you believe the political climate about military uses and behavior is likely to improve morally in this country or not.
If the project is AI for sentient Nazi robots that carry out a racist agenda, then it is unethical.
On the other hand, if the AI is intended to be used for robotic drones to provide automated medical care to helpless bunnies in war zones, is it ethical to try to stop such research?
Who says I think it’s unethical? I’m not in the least bit concerned where the money came from to fund these projects, but it’s become patently obvious that quite a substantial proportion of the student population here is.
I should have made this clear in the OP. I’m concerned with what [sane] arguments could be made for saying it is.
There is none. The only arguments against are based on an irrational distaste for the military or misplaced idealism.
If anything, the students protesting are advocating an unethical position. Military reasearch by the university will presumably result in better weapons and equipment saving soldiers lives and shortening the conflict.
The Department of Defense spends a lot of money, and I do mean a lot, on cancer research.
Now, their interest is in based on the possibility that radiological weapons will be used on our troops (or that we might use them!), but the peaceful civillian applications of any discoveries they make are obvious and inarguably ethical (assuming the research itself is ethical, of course, but the DoD doesn’t pressure you experiment on kidnapped orphans or anything).
There could be an argument that directly researching new weapons is unethical, but the military funds research on many other things than bigger and better methods of killing. Some of this research will become part of new weapons or tactics, but they may also have benefit to civillians.
I agree completely. The students don’t seem to even have enough information to make any kind of judgement and yet they don’t seem to have a problem rushing to all kinds of conclusions and forcing decisions based on ignorance and irrational bias.
Unfortunately, you usually can’t fight irrational, emotional ignorance directly with rational thought and reason. Fortunately, the vast majority of them will grow out of this type of thinking in a few years (new ones will replace them and the cycle continues).
It is a story older than Birkenstocks and one not likely to change anytime soon.
Sure, but the reason you’re not getting any specific responses is that it’s rather difficult to show that something doesn’t violate an ethical code when we have no idea what ethical code is being discussed (or for that matter, even what research is being performed). If your college paper is simply claiming that accepting any military money is prima facie unethical, then I really don’t think that that’s an argument worthy of the name, or worthy of refutation. If, on the other hand, they can show what ethic they believe is being violated and how, then a discussion can be initiated.
FWIW, I’m an AI researcher myself, and am currently trying to decide whether to move to a project funded under the aegis of a rather large military contract (I wouldn’t be surprised if it was the same one your university is involved with). I believe there are indeed aspects of military research that I would find unethical (according to my own personal beliefs); I would find it impossible to accept being asked to design a bullet for better organ damage, for example, or a more malicious landmine. Whether a meaningful distinction can be drawn between that sort of thing and what I’m involved with (collaborative AI architectures) is an interesting question, but it doesn’t sound like your university paper is bothering with that sort of subtletly at all. At the moment I’m taking the view that the research isn’t intrinsically militaristic, and that I’d be doing the same thing with other funding, and that if I’m successful, it’ll get picked up and used in contexts I might not be happy with anyway. Therefore, it doesn’t make much practical difference whether I get funded by the military or not. It might make a difference to how I feel about myself; I haven’t decided yet.
This sounds absurdly naive. At least in the US, a * huge * proportion of research funding comes from the military. Half the AI research in the US is probably funded by DARPA or some other government agency associated with the military. Much more so since a shift in the early 90’s that moved away from basic research and towards a much more short term “payoff” in terms of deliverables.
The real ethical question is whether grad students should be producing deliverable software while working for starvling wages. If the government wants production-level software, they should pay going rates for it.
BTW, I’m surprised that the newspaper had to “uncover” it and even more astonished that it was news to your student council. As far as I know (at least in the US), source of funds are public information. Not only that, but every paper published by the lab will contain a footnote on the first page saying something like, “Funds for this research were provided under DARPA grant 05-351A”
Now there may be more here that you’re not telling us. If, for example, the research is classified and will not result in publications and open disclosure, that is much less ethical (as well as being a disservice to the publication-hungry academics involved).
I don’t know about you, but I like the idea of college educated people being the ones to build advanced weapons (and other military stuff). Also if a university accepts government money it would be unethical to refuse such a request when they could contrubute (within their capabilities).
It depends on the current ethical state of the particular military requesting assistance, and the particular nature of the assignment.
Would it be unethical to assist a despotic third world nation’s military in researching technology designed to prevent floods (to be used both to raise the dictator’s prestige back home by reducing catastrophies,) even though this would prop up the regime?
Would it be unethical to assist the US to develop technologies used to end World War II early, even though the attendant loss of lives is arguably unethical?
Not to be flippant about it, but where exactly do you think the Internet came from?
It was begun as a project of the Advanced Research Project Agency (ARPA), an arm of the US DoD, in an effort to ensure that should the Cold War doomsday ever happen, and the Soviets launch against targets in the US, missile silos here still be capable of firing and the military retaining the ability to communicate.
Officially launched in 1969, ARPANET through the DoD and research of universities like Stanford comprised the first ever long distance, large scale computer network. Stanford’s AI Laboratory was one of the first 64 nodes to exist on what would eventually become the Internet we know.
The first paper on packet switching was written in 1961 at MIT, and it was incorporated into the ARPANET scheme in order to add fault tolerance such that if one node were completely obliterated by the soviets, the others could continue communication.
It was after joining with the NSFNET (National Science Foundation Network) in the 80s that the Internet started to take shape. Eventually because of the number of universities (and foreign universities) involved in the project, the military split off from the network to form their own MILNET, and further development of what we now call the Internet occurred.
There are many ways in which universities do military research and development, and the results of that eventually benefit everyone. RFID tagging for military equipment (done in conjunction with at least one professor from Pitt University) is another area in which military research was done at a university. RFID tagging is now not only used to ensure that equipment doesn’t leave a base without notice, but in anti-theft devices on products in stores all over the place. Dr. Marlin Mickle’s “Smart Dust” is all over the place now, but at the time I knew the man, he was working on a military funded research project to create it.
catsix, did you read the thread? I know exactly where the Internet and the computer came from and have absolutely no qualms whatsoever over universities accepting grants from the military to carry out research.
From what further I have read, it seems the enraged believe that any funding by the US military as it wages a war in Iraq is unethical. Thankfully the vote appears to have been defeated (until next time!). There is no reasoning with these idiots (probably the same set who continually want to ban drinking Coke and Nestle products on campus) and they are best ignored.
It’s not at all unusual for universities have established ethics policies that prohibit accepting research sponsorship specifically concerning the development of weapons. Here’s a typical example from Ohio University:
(Emphasis added.) I presume that the students mentioned in the OP are just taking this position a step further to argue that any military-sponsored research, not just weapons development, has the purpose of supporting military operations. And that this is bad because military operations generally involve violence and destruction and other Bad Stuff that goes against the university’s mission of enriching human life and contributing to the welfare of humankind and all that Good Stuff.
I don’t know that I’d agree with that reasoning, but it doesn’t seem to me inherently irrational or senseless.
