Anger over universities’ links to military firms Report says institutions should be open about military contracts SCOTTISH UNIVERSITIES should be more transparent about the military research carried out for arms companies, a new report says.
The study says that Edinburgh and Glasgow universities received £7 million and £5.2m respectively from 2001 to 2006 for military-related research, with funding from major defence companies such as BAE Systems and QinetiQ, as well as government funding.
Peace activists the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) and the Fellowship of Reconciliation (FoR) jointly published Study War No More, a report that reveals the names of 26 UK universities that have received contracts worth around £725m for 1900 military projects over the six-year period.
Martha Beale, FoR's education and campaigns officer and co-author of the report, said it took two years to compile the information, mostly through Freedom of Information requests. The report recommends that universities make such contracts publicly available for discussion to stop the "culture of secrecy".
She said: "I think that universities shouldn't hide their relationships with these companies, and if they aren't ashamed of it then make it more transparent."
The report also calls for universities to establish ethics committees in which university managers, academics, students and representatives from industry should review research with military applications.
The two organisations claim that Glasgow University has undertaken 82 projects with companies such as QinetiQ, an international defence and security company that in 2000 gave £18,290 to the university's department of aerospace engineering to look at the potential for the application of "smart" materials on helicopter rotor blades.
Other project titles are more ambiguous, such as Edinburgh University's CoAX-Coalition Agents eXperiment, where Lockheed Martin, Boeing and QinetiQ were among the sponsors.
Beale said the titles of these projects made it very difficult to determine the focus of the research. She also questioned some of the universities' appointments, such as Glasgow University's programme manager for a Defence Sector Initiative Programme.
"The university is hiring someone to have a direct relationship with a number of military organisations and to increase their participation in military research and development, so they will develop relationships which will grow over a number of years and will become a reliable source of income for them."
Beale also said she suspected Edinburgh University of having a "pre-established relationship" with US military organisations because they have "so many contracts with them". She said questions had to be raised over the independence of these universities.
"Universities are telling students these departments are great places to learn, get qualifications and experience, but they're not telling them your course is being influenced by these companies. For true transparency and independence in education these influences should be acknowledged."
Mike Gonzalez, Professor of Latin American Studies and a member of Glasgow University's Stop the War Coalition, said: "Universities are obsessed about the search for external funding for everything. It becomes the measure of whether you survive or not.
"If universities require government funding then let it come from the Ministry of Education and not the Ministry of Defence."
The university's Stop the War Coalition said it would be pursuing the establishment of an ethics committee next semester.
Jennifer Stout, a member of Edinburgh University's Stop the War Coalition, said it had twice unsuccessfully tried to pass a motion to introduce a research ethics oversight committee, with the latest attempt last month.
Stout said students had expressed concern about what research was being carried out at the university.
She said: "People don't know what's going on, but next semester we will make sure that research being undertaken at Edinburgh University is common knowledge, and if they want to object to it then there should be clearer ways to do that."
A spokesman for Edinburgh University said it was "transparent in its financial dealings" and that "students and staff have the right to raise issues of concern through the appropriate channels".
A spokesman for Glasgow University said: "There is no weapons research being carried out at the University of Glasgow.
"Defence and security-related research - which can have both defence and civilian applications - is ongoing at the university in conjunction with government bodies and industry."
|
|
Posted by: Mike on 3:57am Sun 9 Dec 07
Yeah - Jeanette FIndlay of the Celtc Untrust supporter of the military wing of the IRA is funded by taxpayers at the Economics Dept of Glasgow University.
Yeah - Jeanette FIndlay of the Celtc Untrust supporter of the military wing of the IRA is funded by taxpayers at the Economics Dept of Glasgow University.
Posted by: Donald Anderson, glasgow on 6:16am Sun 9 Dec 07
What about the MI5/MI6/CIA links. The Labour and Brit "left" support group Uni clubs are famous for their secret service and career ladders.
What about the MI5/MI6/CIA links. The Labour and Brit "left" support group Uni clubs are famous for their secret service and career ladders.
Posted by: Donald Anderson, glasgow on 6:16am Sun 9 Dec 07
What about the MI5/MI6/CIA links. The Labour and Brit "left" support group Uni clubs are famous for their secret service and career ladders.
What about the MI5/MI6/CIA links. The Labour and Brit "left" support group Uni clubs are famous for their secret service and career ladders.
Posted by: Donald Anderson, glasgow on 6:16am Sun 9 Dec 07
What about the MI5/MI6/CIA links. The Labour and Brit "left" support group Uni clubs are famous for their secret service and career ladders.
What about the MI5/MI6/CIA links. The Labour and Brit "left" support group Uni clubs are famous for their secret service and career ladders.
Posted by: Concerned, 502-917 on 9:01am Sun 9 Dec 07
What is wrong with MOD or defence research? There is absolutely nothing unethical about it. The MOD is the defence department belonging to our democracy, the same democracy that is funding the Ministry of Education. The MOD is a perfectly legal body, and these defence companies are perfectly legal and acting within the confines of any law. What is most annoying are left wing professors who put the phone down on military researchers, are rude to them, and most of these professors are not even British citizens, they maybe Scandinavians, Dutch or other left wing Europeans who are getting their professorial salaries from the tax proceeds of this nation. Instead of supporting our forces and the defence of our democracy they dare to attack it or to question it? They are the unethical persons!
What is wrong with MOD or defence research? There is absolutely nothing unethical about it. The MOD is the defence department belonging to our democracy, the same democracy that is funding the Ministry of Education. The MOD is a perfectly legal body, and these defence companies are perfectly legal and acting within the confines of any law. What is most annoying are left wing professors who put the phone down on military researchers, are rude to them, and most of these professors are not even British citizens, they maybe Scandinavians, Dutch or other left wing Europeans who are getting their professorial salaries from the tax proceeds of this nation. Instead of supporting our forces and the defence of our democracy they dare to attack it or to question it? They are the unethical persons!
Posted by: A Priestly on 9:09am Sun 9 Dec 07
In fact, I would go as far to argue that all professors owe it to the Crown to do military research at discounted rates when required (as a form of conscription and devotion to this nation). The title "Anger over university links to military firms" is therefore in my view outrageous.
In fact, I would go as far to argue that all professors owe it to the Crown to do military research at discounted rates when required (as a form of conscription and devotion to this nation). The title "Anger over university links to military firms" is therefore in my view outrageous.
Posted by: Colin B, Bearsden on 11:26am Sun 9 Dec 07
Yes Universities should be doing more work with the Defence Industry adn Armed foreces -afar too often trendy, lazy left wing academics spents fortunes researching pantomime/employing bigots eg Glasgow Univesity
The USA became a super power on the back of advances by Universities and academics during engaged on military work in WOrld WAr 2-
Jet aircraft, helicopters, rockets, nuclear bombs, sonar, radar etc owe their existence to miltiary research
It seems left wing, often foreign zealots still domninate our higher education bodies masquerading as peace protesters - are they doing their day job?
Yes Universities should be doing more work with the Defence Industry adn Armed foreces -afar too often trendy, lazy left wing academics spents fortunes researching pantomime/employing bigots eg Glasgow Univesity
The USA became a super power on the back of advances by Universities and academics during engaged on military work in WOrld WAr 2-
Jet aircraft, helicopters, rockets, nuclear bombs, sonar, radar etc owe their existence to miltiary research
It seems left wing, often foreign zealots still domninate our higher education bodies masquerading as peace protesters - are they doing their day job?
Posted by: zombie, Birmingham on 2:45am Mon 10 Dec 07
Support of insurgents can be expressed as reluctance to participate in defence research. However, the article goes further in trying to stop others from participating in such research. The FOR wants to single them out to intimidate them from doing their duty to this nation. They ask for transparency to intimidate these individuals. Universities are filled with confused youngsters and so they want the research out in the open so that these youngsters will attack these researchers (throwing eggs at them or worse). The FOR are advocating a form of cruel intimidation of people who feel pleasure in a sense of civic duty at doing something for their country.
Support of insurgents can be expressed as reluctance to participate in defence research. However, the article goes further in trying to stop others from participating in such research. The FOR wants to single them out to intimidate them from doing their duty to this nation. They ask for transparency to intimidate these individuals. Universities are filled with confused youngsters and so they want the research out in the open so that these youngsters will attack these researchers (throwing eggs at them or worse). The FOR are advocating a form of cruel intimidation of people who feel pleasure in a sense of civic duty at doing something for their country.
Posted by: Austin Tate, Edinburgh on 10:08am Mon 10 Dec 07
We should differentiate between open research that involves sponsors in military government agencies and companies involved in this area, and "secret" research which the participants may be embarrassed to publicise. The FoI can rightly be used to get basic information on the latter if there are suspicions. We should have a clearer, and hence possibly more productive, debate focused on the cases where secrecy or lack of disclosure can lead to suspicions.
As an example, the article mentions Edinburgh University's work in the CoAX (Coalition Agents eXperiment)... this involved collaborative research on agent systems for multi-national operations involving a mix of civilian and military teams... an essential feature of large scale helpful responses to natural and humanitarian disasters around the world. For Edinburgh's involvement, this was part of our work for over 2 decades on search and rescue, emergency response and teamwork. much of it with real responders. This work is widely published, accessible on a web page, and accessible to all. For those interested in our work, and CoAX specifically, you can find all the links via http://www.aiai.ed.a
c.uk/project/plan/
If you are interested in my own prospectus for a more "helpful environment" of the future and that puts the work on CoAX into this perspective, please see
Tate, A. (2006) The Helpful Environment: Geographically Dispersed Intelligent Agents That Collaborate, Special Issue on "The Future of AI", IEEE Intelligent Systems, May-June 2006, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp 57-61. IEEE Computer Society.
http://www.aiai.ed.a
c.uk/project/ix/docu
ments/2006/2006-ieee
-is-tate-helpful-env
-as-published.pdf
We should differentiate between open research that involves sponsors in military government agencies and companies involved in this area, and "secret" research which the participants may be embarrassed to publicise. The FoI can rightly be used to get basic information on the latter if there are suspicions. We should have a clearer, and hence possibly more productive, debate focused on the cases where secrecy or lack of disclosure can lead to suspicions.
As an example, the article mentions Edinburgh University's work in the CoAX (Coalition Agents eXperiment)... this involved collaborative research on agent systems for multi-national operations involving a mix of civilian and military teams... an essential feature of large scale helpful responses to natural and humanitarian disasters around the world. For Edinburgh's involvement, this was part of our work for over 2 decades on search and rescue, emergency response and teamwork. much of it with real responders. This work is widely published, accessible on a web page, and accessible to all. For those interested in our work, and CoAX specifically, you can find all the links via http://www.aiai.ed.a
c.uk/project/plan/
If you are interested in my own prospectus for a more "helpful environment" of the future and that puts the work on CoAX into this perspective, please see
Tate, A. (2006) The Helpful Environment: Geographically Dispersed Intelligent Agents That Collaborate, Special Issue on "The Future of AI", IEEE Intelligent Systems, May-June 2006, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp 57-61. IEEE Computer Society.
http://www.aiai.ed.a
c.uk/project/ix/docu
ments/2006/2006-ieee
-is-tate-helpful-env
-as-published.pdf
Posted by: actvj, Glasgow on 10:35am Mon 10 Dec 07
Interesting to note that the data was obtained via the FoI. A channel for information that is no doubt only found in the more democratic countries. Democratic countries that often need military research to stay in the game against the less democratic, so that we can have things like the FoI. There's the real world , the conspiracy world, the real conspiracy world and then there is the Real World!
Interesting to note that the data was obtained via the FoI. A channel for information that is no doubt only found in the more democratic countries. Democratic countries that often need military research to stay in the game against the less democratic, so that we can have things like the FoI. There's the real world , the conspiracy world, the real conspiracy world and then there is the Real World!
Comment | Read Comments (10)
Print this story
Email to a friend
