May 27, 2008

Anthropology Association Urges Government to Tread Cautiously With 'Minerva' Project

In the latest sign of scholars’ anxiety about Pentagon-financed social-science research, the president of the American Anthropological Association has sent a letter to the White House’s Office of Management and Budget expressing concern about the “Minerva consortium,” a program announced last month by Robert M. Gates, the secretary of defense.

The Minerva program, which will offer grants to universities to study topics of interest to the Pentagon, has been condemned by some scholars and praised by others.

In her letter, the association’s president, Setha M. Low, writes that “it is of paramount importance for anthropologists to study the roots of terrorism and other forms of violence.” But Ms. Low, who is a professor of environmental psychology at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, argues that it would be better for such research to be financed by the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Endowment for the Humanities because, she says, those agencies are more familiar with anthropology and have established structures for peer review.

At a Congressional hearing last month, Mark L. Weiss, director of the National Science Foundation’s division of behavioral and cognitive sciences, testified that his agency was willing to work with the Department of Defense, and cited a recent joint research project titled “Explosives and Related Threats: Frontiers in Prediction and Detection.” The foundation’s social-science advisory committee will discuss potential future linkages with the Pentagon at a meeting next week. —David Glenn

Comments

1. I have no trouble with this research as long as the findings – regardless of what they are – are allowed to see the light of day.

   My concern is with research similar to what Philip Morris recently negotiated with VCU. To wit, VCU was given money to perform pulmonary disease research, but Philip Morris reserved the right to vet the outcomes and even to prohibit scientists talking to each other about the research.

   Similarly, I believe we want and need studies on terrorism, but with no prohibition on publishing outcomes – regardless of whose noses are bent out of shape by the findings.

   — Dr. J    May 28, 11:05 AM    #

2. Professional anthropologists should be free to work for whomever they choose without recrimination from left-wing bullies. Would these bullies say that doctors who serve the military are somehow betraying their professional standards?

   — marcii    May 28, 12:21 PM    #

3. People like Marci miss the point. University research sponsored by the Department of Defense usually ends up being used for propaganda purposes, and, if left to its own devices, the Department of Defense has no qualms in rewriting and revising research results which conflict with its goals—examples of such have happened over and over again in the recent past. I also find it disturbing that the Department of Defense would be interested in only an examination of the relation between Islam and terrorism. Historically, Christian nations have been international aggressors since the times of the first Crusades, and it continues true to form today, the United States replacing Britian, France, Spain, Beguim and other European Christian nations as the world’s chief aggressor. My two questions to the Department of Defense and to those Americans who support American aggression around the world are the following: When will the United States stop fantasizing that it is coming to the rescue of the rest of the world, when the rest of the world sees most clearly that the United States is an aggressive power that intervenes militarily around the world to serve its own political interests? When will this self-deception in the service of power recognize itself for what it is?

   — Dr. Dennis Ryan    May 28, 01:33 PM    #

4. Yes, yes we bullies would say that doctors in the military sometimes betray their professional standards.

   Look at the Winter Soldier testimony by the Iraq Veterans Against the War. In particular the part entitled “Dehumanization of the Enemy.”

   — K    May 28, 01:43 PM    #

5. Dr. Ryan, I believe it is you who have missed the point – exactly how is your rant relevant to the topic at hand? Marcii is correct; this is merely the latest case of leftist radicals trying to maintain their stranglehold on research funding, and therefore strangle independent thought.

   — TRB    May 28, 02:00 PM    #

6. Dr. Ryan, Keep slanting your view of history. Yes, there were all of those Christian nations who have been aggressive, but what about the Muslim nations, the Ottoman Empire for example was very powerful and very aggressive. If we want to talk 20th century, we need not look further than the Middle East for many examples of hostile Muslim nations against one another and against “Christian” nations. I see no problem with the pentagon spending money on research that is relevant to Muslim terrorism rather than blowing up some Muslims.

   — Roasted Quail    May 28, 02:53 PM    #

7. Many of you have missed the point in this short Chronicle news brief. Please read Dr. Low’s letter and then read AAA’s Commission on the Engagement of Anthropology with the US Security and Intelligence Communities Final Report Issued 4 Nov 2007.

   As stated on page 20 of the report “Because of the established past historical actions of specific intelligence agencies, anthropological engagements with these agencies may carry potential perils for anthropology’s disciplinary reputation.”

   Also on page 20:
   “Anthropologists’ engagements with the military or intelligence communities risk transforming the discipline into a tool of oppression. Given anthropology’s historical roots as a stepchild of colonialism and more recent uses of fieldwork as a front for conducting espionage, the precedence of these risks is well established. Engagement risks the recurrence of such unethical behavior. Moreover, were anthropologists to be perceived as aiding and abetting U.S. military aggression or (even) information collection, that perception might well inhibit other and future anthropologists from establishing relationships of hospitality or trust with study populations or colleagues who are not U.S. nationals.”
   “Lastly, with increased media attention devoted to anthropologists’ roles in military and intelligence settings, non-military/intelligence anthropologists may face increased accusations of being agents of military or intelligence organizations. Such accusations may place non-military/non-intelligence anthropologists’ personal safety at risk.”

   These quotes only hint at a long, dark history in anthropology that many of us, including me at nearly 50, know little about. Dr. Low’s letter, while not specifically addressing the issues in the report, does, I believe, allude to this past history and seeks the use of the peer process, through NIH, NSF, and NEH, to ensure that (to paraphase Dr. Low’s letter) funding such research through the Pentagon does not “…pose a potentiial conflict of interest and and undermine the practices of peer review that play such a vital role in maintaining the integrity of research in the social science disciplines.”

   — Ph.D. Anthropologist    May 28, 04:15 PM    #

8. I can’t get from the cab to the curb without some little jerk on my back….
   ——Chrissie Hynde, “Middle of the Road”

   — marcii    May 28, 05:16 PM    #

9. Amen to Ph.D. Anthropologist. I share the same concern that anthropology as an academic discipline not be compromised by U.S.government meddling with research and research outcomes,
   the integrity of which is based on peer review. The same holds true in my own discipline. The truth matters. Discipinary standards matter. The U.S. goverment is not interested in the truth nor disciplinary standards. It is interested in perpetuating self-serving patriotic fantasies many American are only too ready to buy in to because they lack empathy, experience and engagement with the world’s problems. Reread comment by Ph.D. Anthropologist before throwing out empty-headed, biased comments.

   — Dr. Dennis Ryan    May 28, 05:32 PM    #

10. It may indeed be “better” in terms of appearance for the research to be funded by one of the organizations mentioned by Dr. Low. But I think a partnership between anthropologists and the DoD may be much more rewarding for both the anthropologists and the DoD—as they probably have lots to learn from each other—than for the anthropologists and the other organizations. As Dr Low alluded, the other organizations already know what they know.

    I think I do understand why the current arrangement makes some anthropologists nervous. In part, they fear that anthropology will be used as a tool to oppress others (see post #8). Ironically, anthropologists working with the DoD may be in the best position to ensure that doesn’t happen. The military could otherwise apply anthropological research as it sees fit, and hand-wringing from the side never seems to really be effective at preventing the misapplication of research—or at stopping oppression.

    I would definitely advise anthropologists to be mindful of how the research is used. A former Army general and president of the United States (Eisenhower) warned us to be suspicious of the military industrial complex. But I would also like to caution you about basing your opinion of the military on what you have heard about it from people who have never been in, or worked with, the military—whose members may often be more open-minded than the people you have been listening to. Even if the military is suspicious or hostile toward what it doesn’t understand, anthropologists certainly shouldn’t be, lest there be no hope for any of us.

    — Tracy G.    May 28, 05:56 PM    #

11. As I mentioned in my previous post (#8) please read AAA’s Commission on the Engagement of Anthropology with the US Security and Intelligence Communities Final Report Issued 4 Nov 2007. Within the report, which I quoted very select passages to make my point that Dr. Low’s letter alluded to a difficult time in anthropology and difficult, troubling relationships with US intelligence and security agencies, guidelines and suggested practices are provided for anthropologists who work with these communities (and, yes, many do). The report also includes the AAA’s Code of Ethics, the basic tenet being to do no harm to those one studies or those one works with in an applied setting.

    I also suggest folks examine the American Anthropological Association Executive Board Statement on the Human Terrain System Project (October 31, 2007), which outlines very succinctly, the ethical concerns raised by, “the U.S. military’s HTS project placement of anthropologists, as contractors with the U.S. military, in settings of war, for the purpose of collecting cultural and social data for use by the U.S. military.”

    — Ph.D. Anthropologist    May 30, 06:18 PM    #

Previous: Britain to Deport Scholar Who Downloaded Al Qaeda Guide at U.S. Government Web Site
Next: Retired Professor Pleads Not Guilty to Sharing Secret Technology