Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 18 June 2008 | Nature | doi:10.1038/453967a
UK universities in bed with the military
Ethics campaigners highlight extent of research funded by defence agencies.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email webadmin@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
Chris Langley and SGR ought to get THEIR priorities straight. Without the best brains overseeing technological improvements and innovation for the military, there won't be anything to defend or protect. Lucille Stanziale - New York
The US Army funds several initiatives in cancer research throughout the world which bear no relation to defence issues, which are stringently regulated from an ethical perspective and which should be applauded.
Many advances have come from our profane interest in developing more ingenious ways to kill each other. However, I can't help but wonder how much more advanced we would be as a race had we invested the same amount of money in developing more ingenious ways to live with each other.
The report is not against military spending but points out some major imbalance in spending which doesn't best serve better security. For example, SGR point out that military R&D gets 85 times more money than vital technologies such as renewables. There is also an overemphasis on high tech "fixes" and weaponry rather than seeking genuine solutions to the causes of conflict.
There is a saying: The technology we enjoy today is often a product of the technology developed for warfare yesterday.
This huge amount of military research carried out in Universities is disgraceful. The argument that there are frequent spin-offs for civilian use is just not true - these technologies could have been developed independently, and at much cheaper cost. Any scientist with a sense of morals should refuse to take money from the military.