Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Hard choices

Hard choices EDITORIAL V ol. 2 No. 5 May 2003 www.nature.com/naturematerials Military funding is a keystone of materials science, and in the USA in particular that is likely to become increasingly true with defence spending ballooning to $355 billion under the Bush administration. How do we feel about this? For some researchers, defence-based work is a valid, indeed essential aspect of national security. Others accept military money with misgivings; some refuse to engage in defence work at all. The first and last positions have the virtue of simplicity, but between uncritical acceptance and total repudiation of military research lies a quagmire of ethical dilemmas. Many materials that have robust benefits for civilian society, such as aerospace alloys, were first developed for military use. And one might argue that there is an ethical distinction between materials used for defence—in bulletproof clothing, say— and for armaments. With the potential for unclassified information to end up in the hands of terrorists or rogue nations, the ethical responsibilities of materials researchers, discussed at a recent symposium at the Royal Society of Arts in London*, need perhaps to be addressed today more than ever. There are plenty of difficult ethical choices outside of military research. Consider, http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Nature Materials Springer Journals

Hard choices

Nature Materials , Volume 2 (5) – May 1, 2003

Hard choices

Abstract

EDITORIAL V ol. 2 No. 5 May 2003 www.nature.com/naturematerials Military funding is a keystone of materials science, and in the USA in particular that is likely to become increasingly true with defence spending ballooning to $355 billion under the Bush administration. How do we feel about this? For some researchers, defence-based work is a valid, indeed essential aspect of national security. Others accept military money with misgivings; some refuse to engage in defence work at all. The first...
Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/hard-choices-kOZfzTT1jZ

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2003 by Nature Publishing Group
Subject
Materials Science; Materials Science, general; Optical and Electronic Materials; Biomaterials; Nanotechnology; Condensed Matter Physics
ISSN
1476-1122
eISSN
1476-4660
DOI
10.1038/nmat894
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

EDITORIAL V ol. 2 No. 5 May 2003 www.nature.com/naturematerials Military funding is a keystone of materials science, and in the USA in particular that is likely to become increasingly true with defence spending ballooning to $355 billion under the Bush administration. How do we feel about this? For some researchers, defence-based work is a valid, indeed essential aspect of national security. Others accept military money with misgivings; some refuse to engage in defence work at all. The first and last positions have the virtue of simplicity, but between uncritical acceptance and total repudiation of military research lies a quagmire of ethical dilemmas. Many materials that have robust benefits for civilian society, such as aerospace alloys, were first developed for military use. And one might argue that there is an ethical distinction between materials used for defence—in bulletproof clothing, say— and for armaments. With the potential for unclassified information to end up in the hands of terrorists or rogue nations, the ethical responsibilities of materials researchers, discussed at a recent symposium at the Royal Society of Arts in London*, need perhaps to be addressed today more than ever. There are plenty of difficult ethical choices outside of military research. Consider,

Journal

Nature MaterialsSpringer Journals

Published: May 1, 2003

There are no references for this article.