January 2008
On May 24,
2007, Western News (the official weekly of the University of Western Ontario)
reported a recommendation by the University Research Board that the
Vice-President for Research “raise awareness of issues” arising from
“military-related” research “with his counterparts in Ontario and the G-13 group
of universities.” This action came in response to pressure from a member of the
University Senate, who argued explicitly that “limitations on academic freedom
could be warranted” in order to curtail such research. He explained that “the
military are authorized to use deadly force which brings up ethical issues,” in
particular the prospect that research might contribute to “the killing of
someone.”
The fact that
the persons killed (except in cases of accident) would presumably be enemies
trying to kill Canadians or their allies in war was a consideration that the
senator seemed to regard as irrelevant. His concern was evidently to protect
enemy lives, not the lives of Canadian and allied personnel — the latter
objective being one that might well be served by killing the enemy before he
could kill somebody fighting on our side.
If the senator
had his way, one group of taxpayer-funded institutions, the universities, would
restrict individual faculty members’ academic freedom — their freedom of choice
in research — in order to enforce a policy of denying (or at least limiting)
assistance to another taxpayer-funded institution, the armed forces. Whatever
effect such a policy might have on taxpayers’ perceptions of the academic
community, it could easily result in a much broader threat to academic freedom
than may be apparent at first sight.
In 2001, on a
visit to the University of Texas in Austin, I noticed an item posted on a
bulletin board about a scientist who was studying the ability of certain snakes
to detect prey at night by sensing tiny differences in temperature. It was
explained that if more could be learned about the snakes’ temperature sensors,
it might be possible to apply the knowledge in developing technology for
distinguishing between decoys and real missile warheads in space, thus opening
the door to more effective anti-missile defence. To judge from the material on
the bulletin board, the University of Texas had no qualms about the research —
rather the reverse — but it could easily appear “unethical” in the eyes of
those hostile to the armed forces, on the ground that effective anti-missile
defence would tend to neutralize a potential enemy’s deterrent, giving the
United States and its allies more freedom of military action.
This example
suggests how extensive the obstacles to scientific investigation might become if
universities established procedures (as the UWO senator advocated) for screening
research with “potential military application” — to quote the report in Western
News — for its “ethical” acceptability. A great deal of research primarily
intended just to expand knowledge, or to serve civilian purposes, may have
results with “potential” uses in war.
Though radar
began as a military project, it could equally well have been civilian in origin.
The fate of the Titanic in 1912 had shown the need for it, and with the rise of
air travel the need increased; but the potential military value (such as the
detection of approaching bombers) would have been obvious from the start. Would
it have been “unethical” for a university scientist to contribute to radar’s
development? In the eyes of the apparently pacifist senator at Western, the
answer might be “yes,” since success could lead (as it did) to the killing of
enemy bomber crews.
If the senator
had his way, vast areas of study would become “ethical” minefields. Anything
related to metallurgy, fuels, lasers or electronics — especially if it could be
applied to communications, computers, reconnaissance (and thus identification of
targets), guidance and propulsion systems, protective armour, etc. — would be
vulnerable to obstruction by an “ethics” review board, especially if its members
were politically hostile to the armed forces or to the policies of the
government controlling them. At best, researchers seeking approval for their
plans would have to put up with paperwork, delays and uncertainty. They might
feel under pressure to avoid possibly controversial projects, even at the cost
of sacrificing their own priorities.
The
recommendation by Western’s University Research Board that an effort be made to
“raise awareness” at other institutions about “issues” connected with research
of potential military valuenow seems unlikely to produce any imminent
reprehensible result.Western News (November 1) quoted a statement by President
Paul Davenport in defence of academic freedom, explicitly including the freedom
of faculty members to undertake research of a “controversial” nature.At that
time, however, University policy did not appearaltogether consistent with Dr.
Davenport’s words. Western Newsreported also that at a Senate meeting in late
October, where arriving members encountered anti-military campaigners handing
out leaflets, the campaigners “received the answers they wanted to hear — the
university is taking steps to address their concerns” through the activities of
the Vice-President for Research, who indeed had been trying to “raise awareness”
elsewhere.
One can hope
thatthese activitieswere never intended to be more than meaningless gestures
of symbolic appeasement to pacify the agitators,but in any case they met a cold
reception from other university administrations.On November 22 Western News
reported the Vice-President’s announcement that he had received a letter from
his G-13 counterparts rejecting the idea of setting up “ethical review” bodies
to screen military-related research. The Ontario Council on University Research
had expressed a similar view.
Though
objections to military-related researchhad been raised also on other campuses,
the G-13 explicitly recognized the difficulty of distinguishing between research
that would lead to “harm” and research that would not. On this ground the G-13
refused to endorse even an attempt to establish national guidelines. Last
spring, citing the lack of such guidelines, Western’s University Research Board
judged the creationof an “ethics” review body to be “premature,” and in
November the Vice-President reiterated this conclusion.
Such repeated
use of the term “premature” — rather than something like “bad idea in both
principle and practice” — is not entirely reassuring. Neither is the G-13’s
implied acceptance of the notion that rendering assistance through researchto
Canadian and allied armed forces may be harmful. It might better be viewed as a
service to society, which the armed forces of a democracy also serve.
For the time
being, however, the threat to academic freedom has receded. Since an attack on
free choice in research could have an adverse impact on faculty recruitment, any
one university may be deterred from adopting a restrictive policy on its
own.On the other hand, opponents of free choice will probably keep the issue
alive and try to put pressure on university administrations in the future.If a
large number of universities wereever to agree on a common standard for
“ethics” assessments, they might be emboldened to go along with the
anti-military elements likely to be present among both faculty and students on
the typical campus. Scientific progress, the usefulness of universities to
society at large, and the cause of academic freedom would all belosers.
Kenneth H.W. Hilborn is a Professor Emeritus of History and former member of Senate at the University of Western Ontario.
Help us maintain freedom in teaching, research and scholarship by joining SAFS or making a donation.
