Social Responsibility

"We've come this far because, in 1980, you gave me a mandate to rebuild our military. I've done that. Today, we're seeing the results. The Soviets are now negotiating with us because we're negotiating from strength."

- President Ronald Reagan, Address to the American People, NYT 8/13/87
 
 

"The ancients said, Si vis pacem, para bellum. [If you want peace, prepare for war.] But can our age still really believe that the breathtaking spiral of armaments is at the service of world peace? In alleging this threat of a potential enemy, is it really not rather the intention to keep for oneself a means of threat in order to get the upper hand with the aid of one's own arsenal of destruction? Here, too, it is the human dimension of peace that tends to vanish in favor of ever new possible forms of imperialism."

- Pope John Paul II, Address to the United Nations, NYT 10/3/79
 
 

"If they [ graduate students] are engaged early in work that is intellectually stimulating to them and that has some promise for the future and is supported by the DoD, it seems to me you are well on the way to having them hooked into that enterprise for a long time."

- from Congressional testimony of Dr. Robert Rosenzweig, President of the Association of American Universities (see inside)
 
 

"I pledge to thoroughly investigate and take into account the social and environmental consequences of any job offer I consider."

- Graduation Pledge circulated at universities and colleges since 1987
 

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY is an evolving series of booklets by
Charles Schwartz, Professor of Physics
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720
 

Volume 1 (1987) was titled, "Career Information for the Socially Responsible Physics Student"

Volume 2 (1989) is published in six numbers, tailored for students in the fields of:
Physics (#1)           Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (#4)
Mathematics (#2)   Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering (#5)
Chemistry (#3)      Materials Science and Engineering (#6)

Copyright September 1989 by Charles Schwartz
Permission is hereby granted for nonprofit reproduction and distribution of this booklet in its entirety.
 
 

This booklet is intended for students at an early stage in their career: primarily undergraduates in college, just beginning to develop the specialized skills and outlooks that will play a dominant role in their later professional work. There is also much of interest here to beginning graduate students, who will enter specialized areas of research, and to the teachers and counselors who guide and advise all these students.

Over 2000 copies of the first volume have been distributed, mostly at Berkeley and at M.I.T. The main new feature of this second volume is the detailed statistical information on the job market, which I have derived from NSF survey data. I have also updated the research areas list (page 12), shortened the excerpts from Congressional hearings, and added the section on responses from some distinguished physicists.

While I have tried to collect and present the most relevant information in an objective manner, some of my personal biases doubtless remain. The issues raised here are necessarily controversial and I encourage readers to find others with whom they can discuss and explore these matters further.
 
 

I.    Introduction
II.  The Job Market
III. The Integration of University Science with the Pentagon
      (excerpts from government documents)
IV.  Picking a Research Specialty
V.   Some General Advice for Students
VI.  Response to the First Edition

[See the NOTES added at the end of this text for advice on UPDATING the DATA in the original (1989) booklet.]

Chemistry students can always get a job in the large chemical industry, electrical engineers have the electronics industry to employ them, for physicists there is the Pentagon. -- anon.

Most students who enter physics do so because of the excitement and the challenge of the subject. There is the drawing power of the great names of the past -- like Galileo, Newton, Einstein -- and the dream that we may also make some great discoveries.

We hope that our achievements, won through hard work and creative thinking, will enlarge the scope of our fundamental understanding about the universe and everything in it, contribute in practical ways to better lives for all humanity, and lead to a rewarding career for ourselves.

But there is another side to this picture. It has to do with weapons of war, with death and destruction. The period since World War II has seen the greatest expansion of the profession of physics and the greatest proliferation of new discoveries. This period has also produced, largely resulting from the achievements of physicists, the greatest threat to human survival: the multinational race of armaments, both nuclear and conventional.

While the formal control over these weapons lies with the political and military leaders, we physicists cannot deny our portion of responsibility for this arms race. When one knowingly participates in preparations for war, especially nuclear war, it is morally inadequate to offer the defense, "I am just a technician; I am only following orders."

This is where the concept of SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY IN SCIENCE comes in. It means that we scientists must consider, as best we can, the likely ways in which our work (research and teaching) may lead to practical developments that might bring harm as well as benefit to humanity. Knowing that we cannot with certainty predict the future, we must nevertheless make the best assessment we can, weighing the potential for good and the potential for harm in any scientific undertaking. After such consideration, we then have the obligation to make a choice: whether we shall contribute our talents to that particular effort, or not.

The purpose of this booklet is to provide some information and some advice that may be helpful, both for undergraduates and for graduate students, in addressing this difficult responsibility. The earlier you start learning about this issue, the better off you will be later on.

Most campuses have career counseling centers, where you can find people with some experience at helping students plan their futures. Don't wait until you are about to leave school before you get acquainted with these resources.

One common piece of advice is to get the broadest possible education while you are still in school. This is difficult, since most major programs in science and engineering tend to be crammed with narrow required courses, but it will give you flexibility when you have to face the job market.

Let's start by looking at some data on priorities in national R&D funding, and on the job market.
 
 

The graph above shows the fraction of all U. S. federal funds for Research and Development in physical science and engineering which are devoted to military programs: since 1970 the military portion has reached a minimum of 57%, and a maximum of 79%. Federal funds account for about half of the nation's entire R&D budget. [Source: Data on federal R&D budgets is pubished by NSF and AAAS. I ignored R&D funding for Health and Agriculture in order to get these figures.]
 

The table below gives a summary view of the job market for physics graduates, according to the social purpose of the work they are engaged in. Here we see that about 48% of recent physics Bachelors working in jobs related to science or engineering are working for National Defense, while only 2% of them got jobs working for the Environment. Data are also shown for recent physics Masters degree graduates, and also for physics Doctors degree recipients over the past 42 years.
 
 

PHYSICS Graduates working at a job related to science & engineering:
To which area of national interest do you devote the most professional time ?

	Bachelors*	Masters*	Doctors**
Energy & Fuel	3%	3%	8%
Health	-	4%	3%
Environment	2%	-	1%
Education	10%	16%	27%
National Defense	48%	22%	32%
Agriculture	-	-	-
Mineral Resources	-	-	-
Community Devel. & Serv.	-	-	-
Housing	6%	-	-
Transportation	5%	3%	-
Communications	2%	7%	-
Technological Development	17%	25%	3%
Space	2%	8%	6%
Other	2%	5%	18%
No Answer	2%	7%	2%

*Data from NSF 1986 survey of graduates from 1983-85.
**Data from NSF 1987 survey of graduates from 1944-86.
 

The diagrams that follow, entitled "Career Paths of Recent Physics Graduates," show in more detail where physics graduates are going to work. The first diagram shows the status - as surveyed in early 1986 - of 8,600 people who received physics Bachelors degrees during the 1983-84 and 1984-85 academic years.

We see that 4500 of these physics Bachelors degree holders were in graduate school, while 3300 of them were out of school, working for various types of employers: 400 in Educational Institutions, from elementary schools to universities; 2100 in Business and Industry, including self-employed; 600 in the U.S. Government, civilian or military service; and 200 in Other, including hospitals, non-profits, state and local government, etc.

The lowest row of the diagram shows a further breakdown of those working for Business and Industry, according to the primary work activity: Research (basic and applied), Development and Design, Production (including quality control, testing and other operations), Computer Applications, and Other.

The second diagram shows the same information for Masters degree recipients. The third diagram shows results from a 1987 survey of those who received their physics Doctorate degree over the period 1944-1986, with similar, but slightly different, categories.

These diagrams also show the fraction of people, in each category, who were working for military programs. Each star counts for 10%. Thus, in 1986, 27% of all recent physics bachelors degree holders worked on military projects; 45% of all those employed worked for the military; 75% of all working for the federal government did so; and for those working in industry at research, development or production jobs, the fraction working on military projects was 60% to 75%.

The following table summarizes the data for many fields of science and engineering. The table entries, for each field and degree level, give the percentage of graduates, employed in a science or engineering job, whose work is devoted primarily to national defense.
 
 

The Military Presence in the Job Market for Scientists and Engineers

Field of Degree	Bachelors*	Masters*	Doctors**
Physics	48%	22%	32%
Astronomy	34%	19%
Chemistry	10%	14%	8%
Geology & Earth Science	9%	7%	9%
Atmospheric Science	58%	27%	27%
Oceanography	15%	17%	35%
Mathematics & Applied Math	28%	19%	13%
Statistics	10%	16%
Computer Science	23%	23%	23%
Aero/Astro Engineering	64%	69%	66%
Chemical Engineering	17%	16%	7%
Civil Engineering	12%	20%	11%
Electrical Engineering	43%	37%	37%
Materials Science & Engineering	34%	29%	31%
Mechanical Engineering	36%	39%	26%
Nuclear Engineering	24%	14%	32%
Industrial Engineering	29%	29%
Systems Design Engineering			49%
Other Engineering			23%
Life Sciences	4%	4%	3%
Psychology	4%	0%	4%
Social Sciences	10%	9%	5%

*Data from NSF 1986 survey of graduates from 1983-85.
**Data from NSF 1987 survey of graduates from 1944-86.
 
 

If you are in physics...you may have started out dreaming only of contributing your bit to the stock of human knowledge. Later, with the PhD under your belt, you may decide to leave the academic life for industry and then you discover that many of the most exciting places to apply your background in lasers, or cryogenics, or computer modelling are in the defense sector. - R.K.Weatherall, Director of M.I.T.'s Office of Career Services, 1986

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Too many physics students find out about the military dominance of the job market only when they have finished their academic years and actually start looking for a job in the real world. In recent years I have heard many anguished reports from individual physics students in their senior year who have made their first visit to the campus placement center; and I have heard, as well, from a number of bitter post-docs: many have been unable to find any job using their skills which was not involved with some weapons program.

Some physicists are positively proud to work for their government's military enterprise; others are determined to avoid such work; others don't care much, one way or the other; and many have not thought much about it.

In order to deal intelligently with this problem, you should not wait until the end of your schooling. Choices you make, both in undergraduate and in graduate school, will have profound effects in channeling your talents and limiting the options which will later be available to you. Thus, it is essential to become aware of the ways in which military priorities are already built into the universities in this country. This is a subtle business. Most professors prefer to think that their work is pure and insulated from the influences of the Pentagon. The best way to clear up these delusions is to get to the source - see what the people in Washington have to say about the role of university research and teaching in the overall military program. Some prime material follows.
 

["Department of Defense Appropriations for 1986", Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, 99th Congress, first session; Subcommittee on the Department of Defense; Part 8; U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington 1985; pages 771-966.]

Mr. Rosenzweig. I am appearing today on behalf of the 50 research universities that comprise [the A. A. U.] as well as the other associations and colleges and universities that are listed in my formal statement.

On behalf of us all, I want to express appreciation to the committee for the opportunity to speak to you about the aspects of fiscal year 1986 DoD [Department of Defense] budget that bear on research and research training, and therefore that affect universities....

This is an encouraging budget that builds on initiatives begun in the last several years, and by carrying them forward, it gives promise of raising the 40-year-old association between the defense establishment and America's universities to a higher and more productive level.

That association was born in World War II, was nurtured after the war by some of the most enlightened and skillfully managed programs of research support on record. It fell on bad times during the Viet Nam war as the Department, under the Congressional injunction of the Mansfield amendment, found it easier to avoid support of fundamental research than to explain its connection to specific security objectives.

[ED. NOTE. The Mansfield Amendment, passed by Congress in 1970, restricted DoD funding of research to those projects or studies which have "a direct and apparent relationship to a specific military function or operation"; later, this wording was modified to, ", in the opinion of the Secretary of Defense, a potential relationship to a military function or operation."]

It has taken a long time, far too long, to begin to rebuild the relationship of mutual confidence that marked that early period. I would like to explain why I like to view this budget as an important step in that direction....

One, an insufficient number of talented U.S. students are being attracted into Ph.D. programs in the sciences and engineering. Contributing to this problem is the continuing failure to attract women and minorities into the field in anything like adequate numbers.

Faculty shortages in this field of engineering and science are hampering research in graduate programs, therefore also limiting opportunities for collaborative research initiatives with DoD labs.

Third, obsolete research instrumentation is seriously restricting the development of competitive research and training programs.

And finally, outdated research labs are affecting research. They need to be modernized and in some cases replaced....

Mr. Wilson [Congressman on the Subcommittee] ... Is there difficulty in qualifying efforts supporting graduate students ... as to whether or not it is actually defense oriented or not ?

Mr. Rosenzweig. I don't think so, because at the level at which students are brought into training, their interests are not so specifically focused on a particular area of application that that needs to be of great concern.

I think it ... would be helpful to the Department of Defense to enlist the loyalty of a group of students with funds that it awards, to enable students to pursue their graduate studies with the sense that they are beginning an engagement in work that is of interest, that will ultimately be of interest to the Department of Defense and related agencies.

So I think from that point of view, to the extent that the Defense Department supports graduate students in the sciences and engineering, it is beginning to build a cadre of scientists and engineers who will be participants in its programs in the future.

Mr. Wilson. Could you give a short example of the best case where the money is applied and where the Defense Department reached the rewards of starting with a student that is maybe a senior in undergraduate school?

Mr. Rosenzweig. Yes ... - let's take an institution that I know something about because I spent 20 years there, Stanford University, which has a good engineering school and is heavily involved in DoD-sponsored research.

A student coming into a program, say, in electrical engineering, with the assistance of a Department of Defense fellowship, would, I believe, be identified by faculty who are themselves engaged in DoD-sponsored research as somebody that they ought to look at ...

The point at which career decisions, career directions, begin to be set for graduate students is the point at which they decide what direction they are going to go on their dissertation. If they are engaged early in work that is intellectually stimulating to them and that has some promise for the future and is supported by the DoD, it seems to me you are well on the way to having them hooked into that enterprise for a long time.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From "The Technology Base and Support of University Research", DOD Report for Congress, 1 March 1985 [Published with the Hearings cited above.]

DoD reaps several benefits from its supplemental support of science and engineering education. First, the programs attract highly-qualified students and support their training in areas of interest to DOD. Second, fellowship support increases the number of doctoral students who then have the potential to train other students. Third, training programs provide a pool of recruits for the various DOD RDT&E [Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation] programs. Finally, the programs provide a variety of intangible benefits ranging from the expansion of professional contacts and rapport with the various DOD laboratories to the generation of interest and excitement in science and mathematics at the elementary and secondary school levels.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From "Selected University Laboratory Needs in Support of National Security", DOD Report for Congress, 29 April 1985 [Published with the Hearings cited above.]

The DOD has recognized that technological superiority is essential to military superiority, and it has played an important role in maintaining the strength of the US science and technology base. Since DOD was among the first federal agencies to recognize the essential role that the academic community plays in the maintenance of U.S. technological leadership, it has maintained a strong relationship with U.S. universities since before World War II....

Emerging from the wartime era were two lasting methodologies for defense involvement in university laboratory facilities. First, the institute concept became well established, wherein non-profit university affiliated laboratories conduct applied research, primarily under DOD support. Products of this era which make major contributions today are Lincoln Laboratories (MIT), the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, the Applied Physics Laboratory of the University of Washington, the Applied Physics Laboratories of the University of Texas, the Applied Research Laboratory of Pennsylvania State University, and the Marine Physical Laboratory, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego. [Ed. Note. This list does not include the Department of Energy's two nuclear weapons laboratories, at Livermore and Los Alamos, run by the University of California.] Second...[is] the framework that operates today for support of research at universities through the Army Research Office [ARO], the Office of Naval Research [ONR], the Air Force Office of Scientific Research [AFOSR], and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. This partnership has been substantial over the years: seventeen institutions of higher education are among the 595 contractors that received awards of 10 million dollars or more from DOD in FY 83.

U. S. universities are a major factor in current DOD activities affecting the U. S. technology base. Approximately half of all DOD basic research [called "6.1"] funds are expended at universities ($405 million in contract dollars with research budgets totaling $840 million in FY 84), plus a smaller amount of applied research [called "6.2"] funds (approximately $115 million in FY 84). During the past decade, DOD has made a major effort to reverse the effects of the relative neglect of university research that occurred during the Vietnam war..... During the period FY 75 to FY 84, DOD spending for 6.1 Basic Research at universities grew at a real annual rate of 9 percent -- far higher than the national growth of DOD Research (6.1) funds as a whole.

Selected research laboratory needs among universities active in Department of Defense (DOD) competitive research programs are addressed in this report for the following five disciplines and constituent thrust areas:

CHEMISTRY
- Laser Chemistry
- Polymeric Materials
ELECTRONICS
- Microelectronic Fabrication and Reliability
- System Robustness and Survivability
ENGINEERING
- Combustion
- Composite Structures
- Energetic Materials
- Fluid Mechanics and Acoustics
- Manufacturing, Design, and Reliability
- Soil Mechanics
MATERIALS
-Optical and Magnetic Materials
-Silicon and Compound Semiconductor Growth
-Structural Ceramics
-Structural Composites
PHYSICS
-Astrophysics
-Coherent Radiation Sources
-Directed Energy Devices
-Optical Communications and Spectroscopy

The foregoing disciplines do not represent the breadth of DOD research. In particular, biological and biomedical sciences are not included in anticipation of a comprehensive survey of laboratory needs by the National Institutes of Health. Computer resources not dedicated to experimental research facilities are also excluded on the basis that they are the object of considerable study and/or aggressive enhancement programs by the National Science Foundation [NSF] and the Department of Energy [DOE]....

It should be noted that a segment of the materials research community is dependent upon support from very large research facilities, such as synchrotron and neutron sources. None of these facilities are included in this report. The predominant funding of these national facilities comes from NSF and DOE, with only minor support from DOD. Any decrease in support of these facilities by the other agencies would severely affect the DOD Materials research program.

Thrust Area: Coherent Radiation Sources
National Security Consequences:
Coherent radiation research is critical to a variety of DOD R&D missions, including the design of directed energy weapons, propagation (e.g. "channeling") of charged particle beams, improvement of high power radar technology and electronic countermeasures, advances in ultra-small electronic devices, optical storage and switching aspects of ultra-fast optical computers, etc. High average moderate power tunable lasers are expected to have important implications for tactical applications related to electronic warfare.

Thrust Area: Directed Energy Devices
National Security Consequences:
Compact high current, high energy accelerators are key components in charged and neutral particle beam weapons concepts. Thermionic radiation sources are essential components of and/or have implications for fusion power sources, directed energy weapons, and spacecraft vulnerability questions associated with ion clouds in space. High voltage and high current switches, regulators, and storage devices are required to operate directed energy weapons. The development of repetitive and reliable opening switches would remove significant impediments to the practical implementation of all directed energy devices.

Thrust Area: Optical Communications and Spectroscopy
National Security Consequences:
A wide variety of defense-related technology improvements are based on progress in the development of extremely fast and compact electron devices for digital and analog applications. These include smart weapons and surveillance systems. In addition, secure optical communications have important applications to C3 [Command, Control, Communications].

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From "Critical Technologies Plan," DOD Report for Congress, 15 March 1989.
This report designates 22 technologies as critical for ensuring the long-term superiority of United States weapons systems, as follows:

• Microelectronic circuits and their fabrication.
• Preparation of gallium arsenide and other compound semiconductors.
• Software producibility.
• Parallel computer architecture.
• Machine intelligence/robotics.
• Simulation and modeling.
• Integrated optics.
• Fiber optics.
• Sensitive radars.
• Passive sensors.
• Automatic target recognition.
• Phased arrays.
• Data fusion.
• Signature control.
• Computational fluid dynamics.
• Air breathing propulsion.
• High power microwaves.
• Pulsed power.
• Hypervelocity projectiles.
• High-temperature/ high-strength/ light-weight composite materials.
• Superconductivity.
• Biotechnology materials and processing.

As a graduate student, and sometimes even as an undergraduate, you will pick some area in which to specialize your study and your research work. This is an extremely important choice since it is likely that you will continue to work in this chosen area for the rest of your professional life.

If you are concerned about potential military aspects of your work, then you will first need to see which particular areas of research in your field are of current interest to the military funding agencies. The following table was compiled from current program announcements issued to universities by the Army Research Office, the Office of Naval Research, and the Air Force Office of Scientific Research.

Atoms & Molecules: electronic structure, spectra, interactions with photons, collisions, studies of special atoms and molecules; collisions in laser fields and static fields, transient phenomena in gaseous discharges, fast optical diagnostics, control of atoms and ions with fields, cooling and trapping; moments; theories and methods of calculation; symmetries; nonequilibrium reactions and selective feedback of energy.

Condensed Matter: structure of solids, mechanical properties, lattice dynamics, phase interfaces, thin films; electronic structure of solids,surfaces, interfaces and thin films; electronic transport; electrical, magnetic and optical properties; dielectrics; spectroscopy and interaction with particles and radiation; superconductivity, especially Josephson junction devices and questions of noise, chaos, high temperature, small area, and high frequency limits; macroperiodic electronic structures; interaction of matter at a solid/fluid interface, energy transfer, physiosorption, chemisorption, nucleation/growth.

Optics & Lasers: nonlinear optics; EM wave reconstruction, phase conjugation, spectral upconversion, optical bistability; use of superlattices and polymers; X-ray lasers, excimer lasers, diode laser arrays, spectroscopic diagnostics, squeezed states, mid-infrared lasers; coherent sources from x-ray to millimeter regions; free-electron lasers; novel laser sources and techniques; ultrashort, optical, pulse interactions; interactions at interfaces; spectroscopy and reaction dynamics; electro-optical techniques, millimeter waves, wafer scale union.

Plasma Physics: high current accelerators, intense relativistic beams, coherent microwave to IR radiation sources, millimeter free electron lasers, quasi-optical masers, ionospheric and magnetospheric plasmas, instabilities and nonlinear waves; mm and sub-mm radiation sources, plasma turbulence, computer simulation, atmospheric plasma, channeling radiation, plasma- like effects in semiconductors, thrusters, intense charged particle beam accelerators, diagnostics.

Space Physics: solar activity and outbursts travelling to Earth; particles and fields in the magnetosphere, plasma transport; wave modes from beam injections into space plasmas; infrared celestial background and techniques for space-based IR observations.

Nonlinear Phenomena: chaos, in plasmas, hydrodynamics, superconductivity, electronics, lasers; questions of coherent, deterministic, predictable, and quantum aspects of chaos; fractals involved in scattering, conductivity, diffusion, vibration, turbulence, temporal processes, transport through interfaces, and growth.

Acoustics: linear and nonlinear phenomena in scattering, reflection and transmission of sound; optical and acoustical holographic methods; theory, computation and experiment.

Earth Physics: geodesy, gravity, seismology; satellite altimetry, accelerometers; siesmic and acoustic waves; accurate measurement and analysis of Earth's size, shape and dynamics.

Miscellaneous: infrared imaging, sputtering films, phase diagrams of certain materials; near millimeter waves, source, component, detector, and signal processing; optical processing of data; ultrasmall electronics, electron transport theory; reactive ion etching; structure and dynamics of atomic and molecular clusters, energy and particle accommodation, fractal concepts, nanocrystals; production and propagation of neutral particle beams, high current ion sources, physics of gases and surface interactions; pulsed power switches, solid state devices; potential use of antimatter, cooling, storage and conversion; sources and storage devices for prime electric power in space; thermal waste management.

Other: physics-related topics are found under Mathematical, Geophysical, Ocean, Materials, Information, Engineering, Chemical, and Biological Sciences.
 
 

This extensive list of research areas of keen interest to the Pentagon leave one with a pretty depressing view of the possibilities for humane applications of the work of modern physicists. It seems as if almost every area of physics is on the Pentagon's priority list. What is one to do if one is determined to stay in physics but not contribute to the military, or to try to find "acceptable" research areas with minimal likelihood of leading to weapons applications ?

If you are interested in some particular research group, and their area of specialty is listed above, then that means you need to make thorough inquiries in order to find out why the Pentagon is interested in promoting that research. Much of this research also takes place in the civilian sector. If the people already engaged in the project do not have sufficient information to answer your queries, then you can contact the project officer in the Pentagon who is responsible for the research funding in this area and ask for the internal DoD documents which justify the Pentagon's funding of this research in terms of specific military objectives. [For an instructive background on this kind of inquiry, see S.A.Glantz and N.V.Albers, SCIENCE, 11/22/74, page 706.] You may also wish to look in some of the trade magazines (Aviation Week & Space Technology, Laser Focus, Microwave Journal, etc.) to learn more about how your prospective research field ties in with military plans.

And that is not all. Just because some research is funded by a federal agency other than DOD, does not mean that you can assume it is free of military applications. DOD and NSF have coordinated their research programs in radioastronomy, synchrotron radiation, and computer science, for example. Some further comments on this collaboration follow.

From a report by the Defense Science Board in 1982: Research and development in universities is supported by many sponsors, each relying on complementary funding from the other sponsors to leverage its own expenditures.

In 1977 the Director of DOD's Advanced Research Projects Agency reported to Congress that he was terminating their program for X-Ray laser research, because it did not seem to have any near term military applicability, and he recommended that further support of this research be transferred to the National Science Foundation.

Dr. George A. Keyworth, science advisor to President Reagan, described the importance of nondefense, basic research as integrated into a larger picture in three ways: 1) "research grants to universities ... permit the training of tens of thousands of graduate students. ... This new talent will be responsible for maintaining American technological leadership." 2) "basic research ... provides the new knowledge that drives our economic growth, improves our quality of life, and underlies our national defense." 3) "well-chosen basic research projects can stimulate productive partnerships ...that will ... speed the application of new knowledge to our increasingly technological defense needs." [Science, 4/6/84]

From a story in the New York Times, March 17, 1989: The Government has designated 22 technologies as critical to national security and "the long-term qualitative superiority of U. S. weapons systems."...The Defense and Energy Departments will now plan special efforts to finance research and development of the technologies....Senator Jeff Bingaman [chairman of the Armed Services subcommittee on the military industry] said, "I am hopeful that this plan will not only force us, as a nation, to think strategically about how we spend billions of research dollars every year, but will also strengthen coordination among agencies toward achieving that goal."
 

The information presented above is meant to let you see what the Pentagon, and its friends in academia, have in mind for scientist and engineers. What you also need, and I have not tried to present it here, is a well rounded understanding of how the government's overall military-technology program impacts on humanity. Every student should take at least one course on the general topic of science and society. For some basic reading on the nuclear arms race, I recommend:

"Effects of Nuclear Weapons," by Leo Sartori, and "The Nuclear Arsenals of the U. S. and U. S. S. R.," by Barbara G. Levi, both in Physics Today, March 1983;

"Living With Nuclear Weapons," by The Harvard Study Group (Bantam Books 1983) represents the "things are basically ok, just leave it to us experts to manage this complex business" school;

"To Win A Nuclear War - the Pentagon's Secret War Plans," by Michio Kaku and Daniel Axelrod (South End Press 1987) represents the "things are unstable and getting worse, people had better get activated" school.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Watch out for misleading statistics.

Recently one physics senior showed me a sheet of data from the American Institute of Physics, titled, "Major Sectors of Employment for New Physics Bachelors, 1984", in which the "Military" category was listed as accounting for only 18% of the jobs. She was not informed that many of the jobs for physicists in "Industry" or in "Civilian Government", the other major categories on that list, were also involved with weapons development. She only found that out when she went job hunting.

M.I.T. 's vice president for research, Kenneth A. Smith, recently wrote to the New York Times (8/6/87) asserting that only 17% of the research "on the M.I.T. campus" is sponsored by the Defense Department. By this careful choice of words he was able to avoid counting MIT's Lincoln Laboratory, whose Defense research budget would change that 17% figure to something over 50%.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Watch out for projects that are not what they first appear to be.

Many of the young scientists and engineers entering ICF [Inertial Confinement Fusion] research in the weapons laboratories [Livermore and Los Alamos] are attracted to the field, not so much because of weapons applications, but because, like magnetic fusion, they view ICF as a possible candidate for commercial power. In any case, the ICF program does attract very talented researchers into the weapons laboratories and they become an important part of the weapons laboratories' technical base. - Ronald C. Davidson, Director of the Plasma Fusion Center, M.I.T., in a 1986 paper on the Department of Energy's ICF program.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some people who are involved in military related projects have carefully thought through the implications of their work and found it to be consistent with their ethical and political values. Many others, however, often give only superficial replies when asked how they justify their work. One of the best ways to develop a deeper understanding of the problem of science and the military is to study (i.e., analyse for yourself, and then discuss with friends) the following list of arguments which are commonly used. Each of these statements has a core of truth, but also a serious blind spot.
 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

Think of ways to promote more attention to these questions on your campus. Ask faculty to organize seminars on social responsibility issues in your department. Get some friends together and conduct a poll of your fellow students to find out what they think about these issues.
 

Here are some results from a poll of science and engineering undergraduates at Cornell, conducted by some students there in 1988: [there were 546 respondents]

Scientists and engineers have a responsibility to be aware and informed about the arms race.
86% Agreed      4% Disagreed      6% Neutral

Would you be willing to work on a project with specifically military applications ?
5% Prefer      37% Willing      28% Reluctant      22% Not willing      8% Didn't matter

Are you currently informed as well as you would like to be on...
military/defense issues ? 33% Yes      67% No
environmental issues ?    26% Yes      74% No
energy/resource issues ? 26% Yes      74% No
biotechnology issues ?    21% Yes      79% No
the economic and social effects of technology ? 28% Yes      72% No

Dear Buford;

I wish to propose, formally, that the Physics Department adopt the enclosed booklet, "Career Information for the Socially Responsible Physics Student", as part of its official literature to be distributed to our students. I wish to propose, in addition, that the Department faculty establish some sort of regular seminar, required of all our students, in which the issues raised in connection with Social Responsibility in Science may be explored and discussed.

These proposals will doubtless have to come before the full department faculty for action; but I shall also be happy to meet with you to discuss the proposals informally in advance of such a meeting.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charlie Schwartz and I have talked at length about his booklet, "Career Information for the Socially Responsible Physics Student." In my opinion it presents a one-sided view of job opportunities in physics, with the intent of discouraging students from entering physics as a profession. He has distributed this booklet to prospective physics majors and would like to continue to distribute it, if possible with Departmental endorsement. The Policy Committee and I opposed this request.

Charlie is not opposed to modifications of his booklet in which other sides of the issues he presents are discussed, but he would like help in obtaining information about job opportunities not in the military sector and help in rewriting the booklet from a balanced view.

I encourage any of you who are interested to discuss with Charlie ways to improve the contents of the booklet and to volunteer to do the rewriting. I have enclosed a copy of his booklet.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Dr. Price:

I thoroughly agree with your assessment that Charles Schwartz' booklet "Career Information for the Socially Responsible Physics Student" presents a one-sided view of job opportunities in physics.

It is hard to imagine how any booklet (or academic course) that claims "social responsibility" exclusively for its political position can present a balanced view. Rewriting to make the text more balanced could be accomplished only if the purpose of the booklet, which is to promote the opinion that the application of physics to the interests of national security is morally wrong and that everyone so doing is socially irresponsible, were omitted.

Since Dr. Schwartz is currently producing and distributing the tract at his own expense, asking him to stop is likely to lead to complaint that his freedom of speech is being infringed. That would not be the case. The university is both demeaned and endangered by faculty who proselytize their students on political issues. (I have recently written an article on this topic and have enclosed excerpts for your interest.)

While asking Schwartz to desist in the interests of academic freedom would not be inappropriate, another course of action might be less troublesome and equally effective. In the interests of providing students with a balanced view of the issues, Dr. Schwartz might be required to distribute materials, simultaneously with his own, presenting a more balanced review of employment opportunities and calling attention to the limited nature of Schwartz' point of view.

If the latter course of action should be your choice, I would be willing to submit a short statement that could be included with others that would be circulated simultaneously with Schwartz' booklet.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Edward Teller
Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace
Stanford, CA 94305-6010

Dear Dr. Teller;

Dr. Buford Price, the Chairman of our Department, distributed copies of your June 10, 1988, letter at yesterday's Physics faculty meeting. I was overjoyed at this breakthrough.

For some time I have been trying to get my colleagues to join in a collective and broadly based effort to provide our students with information and analysis that will help them develop as socially responsible scientists - particularly relating to the dominant question of military applications of physics. Last year, after finding nobody else willing to work at this task, I wrote the booklet, "Career Information for the Socially Responsible Physics Student." Several people have said that it is "unbalanced" or "one-sided" but have not shown me how they would do it better. Although I have repeatedly asked my colleagues for their criticisms and suggestions on how the booklet might be improved, I received no response of any constructive sort - until your letter.

If you will undertake to write something of your own on this subject - as you offered to do in your letter to Dr. Price - I propose to publish a second edition of the booklet which will include your contribution in some manner that is agreeable to both of us.

I am certain that a booklet on Social Responsibility in Science containing writings by two engaged physicists as different as you and I will be most valuable to students; and I look forward to our cooperation to reach this goal.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Despite repeated invitations, no further response has been received from these distinguished colleagues.

While most of what is contained in the 1989 booklet, above, remains pertinent today, some of the numerical data and technical details could be updated.  The following information provides some advice on that task. -- C.S.

Section I:
In the proposed federal budget for FY 2002, military programs account for 69% of all physical sciences and engineering  R&D funds. The federal R&D expenditures account for about 1/3 of the total national (including industry's) amount for 2001.
For further current data on R&D Budgets, see the website  http://www.aaas.org/spp/ dspp/rd/rdwwwpg.htm

Section II:
I have not been able to find current data on the military portion of the job market, similar to what is contained in the 1989 version of the booklet.  This is because the NSF's biennial surveys of scientists and engineers, after 1995, dropped the critical question:

To which area did you devote the MOST hours during a typical week on your job?

Energy or Fuel

Environment

Food or Agriculture

Health or Safety

National Defense

Transportation

None of the above

Section IV:
To find current and detailed information on the "Research Interests" of the U. S. military agencies, see the following websites for their "Broad Agency Announcements":

http://www.aro.army.mil/research/arlbaa00/baa.htm
http://www.onr.navy.mil/02/baa/
http://afosr.sciencewise.com/oppts/afrfund.htm
http://www.darpa.mil/baa/