Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!columbia!rutgers!ll-xn!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!ucbvax!cartan!brahms!larsen
From: larsen@brahms (Michael Larsen)
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: military funding in mathematics
Message-ID: <49@cartan.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Wed, 22-Oct-86 20:12:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: cartan.49
Posted: Wed Oct 22 20:12:53 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 23-Oct-86 07:19:38 EDT
References: <2055@princeton.UUCP> <9600044@uiucdcsp>
Sender: daemon@cartan.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: larsen@brahms (Michael Larsen)
Organization: Math Dept. UC Berkeley
Lines: 61

In article <9600044@uiucdcsp> ashby@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>
>/* Written  7:58 pm  Oct 16, 1986 by wpt@princeton.UUCP in uiucdcsp:net.math *
>/* ---------- "military funding in mathematics" ---------- */
>  There has been a rapid increase in military funding in mathematics
>  recently.  Many mathematicians are disturbed by this trend,
>  as unhealthy for the discipline and unhealthy and dangerous
>  for society at large.  
>/* End of text excerpt from uiucdcsp:net.math */
>
>Why, pray tell, is this trend so "unhealthy and dangerous" for math
>and society.  It really irritates me when people make such outrageous
>and unsubstantiated claims.  The least you could do is provide *some*
>thread of evidence - if such exists.
>
>-Steven Ashby
> Dept. of Computer Science
> Univ. of Illinois

Well, we can speculate about some of the possible unhealthy and dangerous con-
sequences of the trend:

1)	Pure mathematics.  The purer it is, the less it is apt to be
funded by the military.  Since most people prefer to work on problems for which 
they can get funding, this introduces the risk of systematic distortion of the 
subject over time.

2)	Secrecy.  The applied problems of greatest interest to the military
are precisely those where classification is most likely to become a problem.
Science thrives on free exchange of information.  Moreover, certain important
problems, like program verification and computer security, have industrial
as well as military application.  It would be nice for the literature on these
subjects to remain in the public domain.

3)	Control of universities.  He who pays the piper calls the tune.
Eisenhower warned of the dangers of the military-industrial complex.  In his
day, the specter of a military-industrial-educational complex had not yet
appeared.

4)	Reduced international ties.  Collaborations between scientists
from different countries are more frequent in mathematics than in any other
subject.  Security considerations could destroy this state of affairs.
A distinguished mathematician of my acquaintance was once dissuaded by
the State Department from attending a conference in Eastern Europe.  He
had done secret work on cryptography during World War II.

5)	Guilt by association.  Some people don't like doing research for
an organization involved in figuring out ways of killing people, even if
their own work has no such application.  This would not matter so much except
that these people are often the leaders in their fields.  Thurston, who
posted the first letter on this subject, won a Fields Medal for his work on
3-manifolds.  Other world class mathematicians who are on record for their
opposition to military funding of research include Tate and Rapaport.  The
subject cannot afford to lose its best people because they are boycotting
the military.

6)	Gresham's Law.  Bad money drives out good.  We should not think
of military funding as an addition to existing sources of money, but as
a replacement.  To expect private philanthropy and NSF support to remain
constant in the face of rising military support of science is to live in
a dream world.