Funding wars should not be the price of progress
Disappointment with Department’s research for United States military and the Ministry of Defence
In October 2005, Nouse started the debate about the University of York’s investment in the arms trade. Discovering that the University had over 100 000 shares in the world’s fourth largest arms manufacturer, BAE Systems, the paper called for a reassessment of the ethical policy. Despite the University’s attempts to atone for its unethical dealings in the past, the Computer Science Department has accepted a £2.6 million pound grant from the United States Army and the Ministry of Defence to fund research into security systems.
Obviously, such an amount of money would be highly attractive to such a cash-craving University (especially given the recent speculation about their spiralling debt). However, the Computer Science Department is clearly not in dire need of money, as it receives more industrial funding for academic research than any other department in the UK. It was this high level of industrial funding which persuaded me to pick York as my first choice university, as I believed it would help me realise my goal of doing a PhD once I finish my degree.
If I had known my education would be supported, albeit indirectly, by funding for military research, I cannot honestly say that York would still have been my first choice. Whilst I am aware that I have particularly serious objections to investment and involvement in armed conflict, I am also sure that many students are unhappy about the University’s apparent disregard for a serious ethical investment policy.
Although it is claimed that the research funded by the US Army and Ministry of Defence will be predominantly into increasing the security and safety of the Armed Forces in conflict zones, it has been suggested that the networks of sensors being developed could be used to create something called ‘magic dust’. Thousands of sensors are dropped in a network which then tracks the movement of people and vehicles within the area without the need for soldiers on the ground or surveillance aircraft above.
Given that recent military tactics have involved too many air strikes and too few ground forces, one would be wise to worry about what the US and UK military services will use the the wireless sensor networks developed here for. I am deeply concerned that the work my department will be undertaking should not be used to plan military offensives. It is, however, apparent that the University has little regard for the the opinions of myself and many of my fellow students.
With medical issues such as AIDS and malaria needing such urgent attention, the fact that the Computer Science Department has chosen to research military strategy makes me ashamed to be in the department. I understand that the department needs funding, but involvement with the arms trade and the military is patently at variance with what a considerable proportion of the student body wants.
The York student-run “No Share in Killing” Campaign was set up to raise awareness about the University’s unethical investment policy, opposing its not inconsideable involvement in the arms trade. The news that the Computer Science Department has been awarded such a substantial grant for research into advanced technology for use in future coalition operations has been met with much opposition from this and other groups representing the views of many students within the University.
Campus groups like “No Share in the Killing” and Amnesty International do a brilliant job at raising the profile of ethical issues, but it is still of paramount importance that we all take our University’s unethical investment policy seriously. It is the responsibility of us all to arm ourselves with all the information possible to make an informed decision about our stance on the University’s involvement in armed conflict. Whilst I have nothing but respect for societies as worthwhile as ‘The Neighbours Appreciation Society’ and ‘Tea Soc’ (I am proud to be a fully paid up member of both), do stop by at some of the campaign groups’ stalls at the Freshers’ Fair and find out what they’re all about.
Thanks to a petition signed by more than 1000 students and a highly publicised ‘die in’, the University has agreed to sell its shares in BAE and form an ethical investment working group. It is, therefore, extremely concerning that the University has so readily accepted a grant for such an objectionable area of research.
The success of the campaign to end the University’s involvement with BAE gives hope to those of us who oppose this recent decision to accept the grant. It is the duty of all those with a conscience to keep abreast of decisions made on our behalf and demand an ethical policy which places concern for human welfare above financial gain.
Loading ...