I am a graduate student at UCSB, and much of my funding comes from the ICB. In my four years here, I have not made any weapons. I have been working with other researchers to develop tools to help with the long-term goals of understanding, diagnosing, preventing and curing diseases. The army seems to think that this is important--and, even though I am staunchly anti-war, I agree.
I would rather not work for the military. I wish that there were *no* military. However, research funding in the US is pathetic. Funding for the NSF and the NIH is meager and in constant jeopardy. Meanwhile, our population is expanding and aging and our health and environment are deteriorating. Until taxpayers are willing to pay directly for the basic scientific research needed to keep this country alive and healthy, researchers are going to be forced to look to the DOD, DOE and industrial partners for funding.
Remember that as university researchers, we are continually encouraged to publish *all* of our work. Academics rate themselves according to the length of their publications lists. If mine is bigger than yours, I'll get tenure and you will not. When UCSB (or another university) gets research funds from the military, the entire world *may* benefit from that research. I wish that every researcher could say as much--you don't see drug or weapon manufacturers lining up to disclose their findings.
I feel that protesters are wrong to demand that UCSB relinquish its research funding. Instead, they should seek to understand and help *guide* the research efforts at UCSB for the good of the world. They should demand that *more* US research funding be allocated to universities where the public can enforce some degree of oversight and *less* funding should be given to secretive multinational cooperations. In this manner the protesters may find that they can have far more input in the direction this country will take in its scientific progress.
Previous Month
Posted on February 14 at 4:48 p.m.
I am a graduate student at UCSB, and much of my funding comes from the ICB. In my four years here, I have not made any weapons. I have been working with other researchers to develop tools to help with the long-term goals of understanding, diagnosing, preventing and curing diseases. The army seems to think that this is important--and, even though I am staunchly anti-war, I agree.
I would rather not work for the military. I wish that there were *no* military. However, research funding in the US is pathetic. Funding for the NSF and the NIH is meager and in constant jeopardy. Meanwhile, our population is expanding and aging and our health and environment are deteriorating. Until taxpayers are willing to pay directly for the basic scientific research needed to keep this country alive and healthy, researchers are going to be forced to look to the DOD, DOE and industrial partners for funding.
Remember that as university researchers, we are continually encouraged to publish *all* of our work. Academics rate themselves according to the length of their publications lists. If mine is bigger than yours, I'll get tenure and you will not. When UCSB (or another university) gets research funds from the military, the entire world *may* benefit from that research. I wish that every researcher could say as much--you don't see drug or weapon manufacturers lining up to disclose their findings.
I feel that protesters are wrong to demand that UCSB relinquish its research funding. Instead, they should seek to understand and help *guide* the research efforts at UCSB for the good of the world. They should demand that *more* US research funding be allocated to universities where the public can enforce some degree of oversight and *less* funding should be given to secretive multinational cooperations. In this manner the protesters may find that they can have far more input in the direction this country will take in its scientific progress.
On Military Conference Sparks UCSB Protest