Academic journal article The Hastings Center Report

Science and the Military: An Ethical Spin

Academic journal article The Hastings Center Report

Science and the Military: An Ethical Spin

Article excerpt

Science and the Military: An Ethical Spin

The Second World War brought unprecedented military funding to U.S. science and technology. Aware of the distorting influences inherent in such largess, the scientific and technological community strongly supported the post-war creation of the National Science Foundation as an alternative source of governmental money.

Four decades after its founding, however, NSF remains, in comparison with the Department of Defense, a minor source of scientific research funds. DOD continues to control close to 70 percent of governmental funds directed to research and development, NSF less than 5 percent. During the last forty years the scientific community has continued to raise ethical and policy issues about the military funding of a number of specific projects, from thermonuclear, biological, and chemical weapons to the ABM and SDI.

In the belief that it was appropriate to reconsider the issue of the military funding of science, the Philosophy and Technology Studies Center of Brooklyn Polytechnic University (represented by philosopher Carl Mitcham) and the New York Academy of Sciences (represented by neuro-biologist Philip Siekevitz) recently conducted a three-day conference on "Ethical Issues Associated with Scientific Research for the Military." The intention was to steer away from more common science policy discussions in the interest of bringing together working scientists-engineers and philosophers-ethicists.

The conference opened with general ethical arguments for and against the military support of science. Robert Dinegar, an ordinance chemist from Los Alamos National Laboratory, gave not a utilitarian but a much stronger deontological-religious argument for the inherent rightness of the connection between science and the military. By contrast, Bernard Roth, a mechanical engineer at Stanford, developed a rather subjectivist position on the basis of a personal dislike of the military. Commentaries by Douglas Maclean (Maryland Center for Philosophy and Public Policy), Roger Shinn (Union Theological Seminary), and Paul Durbin (University of Delaware), sought to relate these and other possible arguments to traditions of secular ethics, religious ethics, and the philosophy of science and technology, respectively. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.