A panel discussion pertaining to university research ethics – specifically related to military funding – rekindled the academic spirit within me today. For someone generally quite averse to conflict, I definitely had my moments of wanting to throw down the gauntlet and join the fray of debate. Or else have my head explode.
Organized by a group calling itself
Counter-Stryker, the event featured academics from
Huron University College,The University of
Western Ontario,
York University and the University of
Toronto. Regardless of where your personal politics lay, such discussions and debates are central to the whole nature of academia.
The main source of protest is focused on an engineering professor’s work toward developing lighter and stronger metals in partnership with General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada. Metals that may eventually be used on military vehicles, notably the Stryker Light Armoured Vehicle. Three of the panelists were staunchly against the research on the principle that it advances the war effort in Iraq; the fourth, Western’s Vice-President (Research & International Relations), obviously strongly supported the work on grounds of academic freedom. GDLS-C declined to participate which, given the attacks that would follow, was likely a wise decision.
I was already firmly entrenched (sure, let’s continue to use military-type words) in my personal stance on the issue, but I found I was nonetheless disappointed the ‘con’ speakers – despite the obviously imbalanced panel – couldn’t muster compelling-enough arguments to make me even think about individual aspects differently. I
wanted to have my beliefs challenged. Instead, one speaker was abundantly arrogant, rude, offensive and generally disappointing for such a noted scholar. Academic snobbery. And intolerance. Sitting there with his hands over his ears while others spoke and calling the Vice-President “a liar”. Repeatedly. While fine, the other two came across as milquetoasts with insubstantially convincing arguments. I expected more.
Too often, the discussion was reduced to “the war in Iraq is bad and these machines are used in the war; therefore, the research should not be conducted.” A bit simple an argument for my tastes. Of course, much of the same was uttered on campuses during the Vietnam War. Yes, I get it – war is ugly and should be avoided. After thousands of years, however, we still haven’t managed to figure that out. In the meantime, let’s keep our soldiers safe.
One of the speakers said “modern war wouldn’t be possible without university campuses,” which is no doubt true. Should we instead still be digging trenches that scar the landscape the way mustard gas singed soldiers’ lungs? Or impaling opponents’ heads on pikes? History is written by the victors. Some research at the university may have military implications and, frankly, I would rather our soldiers have the best opportunity for coming out ahead. Or of coming home. Then we can put these metals to more quotidian use.
Another key beef related to an apparent lack of transparency, both before the agreement was signed, and after. The research has been widely publicized – in fact,
Counter-Stryker organizers had, without my permission, been so ‘kind’ as to use one of my photographs from the original announcement in their literature. Er, propaganda. Someone questioned why we hadn’t been able to have a similar type discussion prior to signing the contract with GDLS-C, which sounds logical enough until you consider this university alone has more than 4,000 active research projects. Already, its researchers are loathe to accept further delays to ethics approval. Never mind the practicality of deciding who sits on the panels and makes decisions for each project deemed controversial. Who becomes the gatekeeper to decide which projects undergo extra scrutiny? We all have our buttons. And this would grind the whole research enterprise to a standstill. People were calling to see what is in the contracts as though Intellectual Property (let alone privacy) isn't important. It's naive to think we don't have to protect IP; to think someone with fewer scruples wouldn't take the next great idea if it were exposed to the world. It has happened, time and time again; there has to be some balance.
There is a slippery slope, though. It can present problems when researchers are in bed with corporations – checks and balances must be maintained to limit how much industry drives the research agenda. At the same time, where is research funding going to come from? Universities are increasingly being pushed into commercial partnerships by the ever-increasing costs of research infrastructure and by governments who demand industry collaboration. As is, at $9.4 million, contract research is still a relatively small piece of the $221 million research pie at Western. Four per cent.
But the need for money is still there and only industry has the cash – it may not be ideal, but it’s a reality. A notable example: a researcher at Western will likely know within three years if he has a successful vaccine for HIV/AIDS, but could not have undergone necessary clinical trials without financial backing from a company (in this case, a foreign one, no less). The university couldn’t foot the bill. Nor could the government. Is he supposed to drop 20 years of work toward eradicating the pandemic that has plagued our generation just because he has to partner with a company? Personally, I don’t think so.
Our lives are filled with discoveries that have been made as a result of the military complex. Microwaves, Teflon, the Internet. Sure, I’d rather we develop things outside of such arenas, though it’s more common discoveries are made when you’re looking for something else. To muddy the
Counter-Stryker
argument further, there’s also a GDLS-C-funded researcher who is developing artificial joints for knees and ankles. It’s still military-based funding, but is it wrong?
As one questioner put it at the panel, we are trying to treat the symptom (military equipment), not the illness (war). I’m not in agreement with the war in Iraq either, but the decision to participate in this war is one made by our elected officials (or a decision they were bullied into, but that’s a different story). Make a difference: vote, write to your members of parliament, join an NGO, express your displeasure. In the meantime, it befits us to support those who are putting their lives on the line for our country.
Should we be careful? Yes. Should we ensure there are checks and balances are in place, even while respecting academic freedom? Most certainly. And more importantly, we should continue to engage in discussion and to effectuate change to improve our world.
