Military research pops onto UO radar.

Byline: Greg Bolt The Register-Guard

As a high-tech worker in the Silicon Valley, Brian Bogart said he turned down three chances at promotion because he refused to seek the security clearance required to work on Pentagon weapons projects.

Now Bogart, the University of Oregon's first graduate student in peace studies, is camped out across from the university administration building in a kind of daylight strike against the UO's involvement with defense research. It's part of a budding national effort to get universities to stop accepting money from defense-related agencies and to raise awareness about the vast amount the nation is spending on the military instead of other priorities.

"I'm just trying to point out a few things and ask if we are not accepting these funds too readily and not asking what is the end result of this research," Bogart said from the nylon shelter he mans from noon to dusk each weekday. "Should we not step back from the microscope and get a macro view of what we're doing here?"

That's a question that echoes back more than 30 years to the tumultuous days of the late 1960s and early 1970s, when the university saw more than its share of protest and violence over another military program, the ROTC. But Bogart is waging a much more low-key campaign, and support from peace activists both on and off campus has prompted others to wonder if it's in the university's best interest to accept money from the Pentagon.

"The Department of Defense funds those projects where they recognize the potential for application to their war-fighting capacity. That's why they fund them," said biology professor Frank Stahl, a longtime peace advocate. "Should we collaborate in the DOD's effort to make our fighters more effective? I think we shouldn't unless we as a university, after a full discussion, adopt the foreign policy concepts that are championed by our (federal) administration."

Although the issue hasn't surfaced on many other campuses, it's got the attention of faculty at the UO. The University Senate has put the question of military research funding on a short list of issues it plans to tackle during the coming year.

Rich Linton, the university's vice president for research, doesn't object to the discussion, but he questions whether anything is gained by barring unclassified research simply because of the funding source, and he's concerned about the implications of such a move on academic freedom.

He said the UO already bars research on weapons development or delivery systems and does not allow participation in classified projects, and he thinks that's as far as it should go.

"If the argument is that it's tainted because it has a defense label on it, I certainly strongly feel differently than that," Linton said. "And if we can use federal dollars to help our research mission, I'm all for that."

Defense research brings federal tax dollars back to Oregon, helps the university attract faculty, boosts the overall economy and enhances the basic research done at the UO, Linton said. Banning military funding would have little practical effect, he added, because any research funded by any source could potentially end up in a weapons system.

"We're in the business of doing science and technology," Linton said. "It's conceivable most all of that work in some sense can serve a military purpose."

But peace advocates say the argument that any science could conceivably end up in weapons is misleading.

"I think it's a smoke screen to say that if we're going to cut out DOD research then we have to cut out all research because you never know what will get used for military purposes," Stahl said. "The DOD funds the research they fund because they recognize its capability of improving their weaponry."

But some researchers think that defense research not only is appropriate but laudable. Chemistry professor Michael Kellman, who's received defense funding in the past, said the university shouldn't hesitate to do research that could improve national security.

"I believe the United States should have a strong military, and I believe that the military needs the best research available," Kellman said. "I think it's fine to be helping the U.S. military, and it's fine for the University of Oregon to be doing that, and I think 80 percent of the people of Oregon would agree."

A ban on Pentagon funding also raises the issue of academic freedom, a concern cited by the Washington, D.C.-based American Association of University Professors, a national advocacy group that supports faculty. Jonathan Knight, who directs academic freedom and tenure programs for the organization, said research shouldn't be blocked because of who funds it.

"Our concern is we're hard pressed to identify a general principle which would identify those funders that are seen as legitimate and those that are seen as illegitimate," he said, pointing out that the AAUP defended professors seeking to do research funded by tobacco companies. "Funding of research is not in itself an attempt to control the content of the research."

Knight said he's not aware of any other campuses that are raising questions about Pentagon-funded research. Although Bogart said a few schools, including Southern Oregon University and The Evergreen State College in Washington, have pledged not to accept defense department funding, Linton said "virtually all" larger research universities in the country do.

If they didn't, some faculty almost certainly would see that as an intrusion on their academic freedom and would seek positions on less restrictive campuses.

"If the university ever tried to tell me I couldn't apply for (unclassified research) grants from the military, I'd be out of here and so would a lot of other people, I would think," Kellman said. "I wouldn't stay at a place like that."

Those opposed to defense funding argue that the UO could become a rallying point and inspire other universities and other researchers to join the effort to slow the development of high-tech battle systems.

"I think if a lot of American universities recognize the wisdom of this stand, it could have an impact," Stahl said. "It could retard the rate at which the Department of Defense becomes so high-tech and so effective that a small group of very rich people could control the world."

Linton acknowledged that military funding makes up only a relatively small slice of the UO's research budget, averaging about 5 percent a year during the past decade. Given the relatively modest amount at stake, Bogart said the university would gain more by taking a stand against defense spending than by taking the money.

"I don't believe the Department of Defense has any role, any purpose, any right to be on our campus," he said. "I don't think weapons and books mix. It sends a bad message and it certainly has destroyed our educational system."

Bogart said his goal is to raise awareness about defense department funding and spark a national debate over domestic spending priorities. He said far too much of the country's economic strength is being poured into war and weapons at the expense of domestic needs, citing as evidence the poor response to hurricanes Katrina and Rita and the decline in American education and human service programs.

He's organized the CampU.S. Strike for Peace campaign (www.strikeforpeace.org) and aligned with the national anti-war movement in an effort to draw more attention to how the nation spends its money. He doesn't oppose military spending but said it should be drastically scaled back from the current $455 billion a year and that the military should focus on search and rescue and disaster relief missions.

Bogart said the country's leaders decided to create a military-based economy in 1950 without ever debating the question in public and added that decision is at the root of almost every domestic and international problem the nation faces.

He acknowledged that military research has had huge domestic benefits, producing such innovations as the Internet. But he said much more could be done if less of the nation's wealth went into weapons and more into pure research aimed at improving the quality of life for all.

"The intention should be people first, and the trickle-down should be reasonable defense," he said. "We need a people-first economy, not a military-first economy."

Also, Bogart said he's not asking the UO to go cold turkey. He said for now the university simply should not increase the amount of money it receives from defense agencies until the campus community has a chance to debate the issue and consider banning any new contracts.

That debate should include discussion of the possible downstream uses of the advances made at the UO, Bogart said.

Much of the work done in UO labs probes basic questions in science, looking at new materials and processes that could be applied in many ways. But Bogart said many of the 19 current defense research programs fall broadly into the Pentagon's Future Combat Systems project, an effort to create a "Future Force" in which soldiers are connected to a new generation of weapons and vehicles through super-fast computer platforms.

It's those ultimate uses that Bogart said should be taken into account.

`I'd like to stop future funding (from the Pentagon) until we recognize what the end results are going to be," he said. "I don't think there should be a 20th (defense research grant) until we have discussed the consequences of what that research could be."

As for advocating for a smaller military at a time of war and heightened worries over terrorism, Bogart said changing America's image as the world's leading war industry supplier and financier can only improve our security. And he said it's a citizen's duty to work for positive change.

"I think it's very American to speak out about these issues," he said. "I think it's very American to want more of our resources dedicated to domestic prosperity."

DEFENSE RESEARCH FUNDING AT THE UO

Year Total Research Spending Total DOD Spending Percent of Total

1994-95 $49,413,114 $2,869,898 5.8

1995-96 $46,193,068 $2,471,347 5.4

1996-97 $54,762,524 $3,118,662 5.7

1997-98 $45,583,399 $2,541,753 5.6

1998-99 $58,616,598 $1,895,669 3.2

1999-00 $62,146,230 $2,525,723 4.1

2000-01 $57,778,019 $2,153,495 3.7

2001-02 $75,055,860 $5,114,343 6.8

2002-03 $77,763,176 $2,290,112 2.9

2003-04 $90,189,991 $8,210,756 9.1

2004-05 $83,796,740 $1,489,451 1.8