Minutes of the Special University Senate Meeting March 1, 2006

 

 

Present: D. Close, S. Cohen, M. Dennis, A. Emami, S. Holmberg, H. Lin, R. Irvin, P. Keyes, C. McNelly, C. Minson, L. Moses, L. Nelson, V. Ostrik, M. Pangburn, G. Psaki, P. Rounds, E. Singer, J. Sneirson, J. Stolet,

 

Excused: A. Hornof, L. LaTour

 

Absent: J. Axelrod, D. Brown, S. Brownmiller, E. Chan, C. Cherry, A. Djiffack, A. DuFour, C. Ellis, L. Feldman, M. Filippelli, L. Freinkel, N. Fujii, S. Gary, J. Hurwit, J. Jablonski, L. Karim, P. Lu, S. Maier, A. Mathas, K. McPherson, J. Newton, L. Richardson, G. Sayre, E. Scott, K. Sheehan, P. Swangard, N. Tublitz, J. Wagenknecht, K. Wagle

 

A special meeting of the senate to discuss the topic of Department of Defense (DoD) funded research on the UO campus, as required by Motion US05/06-2, was held on March 1, 2006 in room 180 PLC. University Senate President Peter Keyes invited panelists from different perspectives on the issue to make short opening remarks prior to opening the floor for discussion. In addition, Vice President for Research Rich Linton was asked to offer a brief history and current status of Department of Defense funding at the UO and Peter Gilkey, president of the UO chapter of AAUP, was asked to comment on the topic as it relates to academic freedom issues.

 

Members of the panel included Jim Hutchinson, professor of chemistry and researcher with on of the Oregon Nanoscience and Microtechnologies Institute (ONAMI) projects, Helen Neville, professor of psychology and researcher with the Brain, Biology, and Machine Initiative (BBMI), Brian Bogart, graduate student in Peace Studies, and Louise Westling, professor of English. Ms. Westling was not in attendance, so Frank Stahl, professor emeritus of biology and researcher with the American Cancer Institute, offered to replace Ms, Westling on the panel.

 

Vice President Linton opened his remarks expressing his belief that free speech and interchange across disciplines is at the core of academic freedom. He noted that the focus of the forum should be on the UO’s sponsored projects and the policies that apply to its conduct. Consequently, his comments were primarily directed to provide information about the realities of the UO research efforts, especially related to DoD support. Mr. Linton explained that the UO’s formal association with DoD research dates to the 1950s; however, our best records date since 1990 and show the annual DoD sponsored funding to the UO has ranged from $1.4 million to $8.2 million, with and the corresponding annual percentage of UO’s competitive grant funding varying between 1.8% and 9.1% of the total. DoD funding at the UO has been routine for decades, and has been a significant contributor to research at an average of about 5% (plus or minus a few percentage points) of the total grant dollars per year. Mr. Linton noted that the UO prohibits classified research, thus the research results are in the public domain with the associated freedoms to publish and disseminate the information; the research is not “secret”. By banning classified research, the UO in essence prohibits activities relevant to direct weapons development.

 

Regarding current DoD funded projects on campus, Mr. Linton noted that funding for basic research is pursued by researchers in the same manner as with other federal agencies: it is the faculty members’ choice, and they are never required to accept such funds in support of their individual projects. Currently there are 18 active UO projects with about $14 million in funds received from DoD entities, such as the Office of Naval Research, the Air Force Research Laboratory, and the Army’s Advanced Technology and Telemedicine Center (TATRC). These programs focus extensively on the ONAMI and BBMI initiatives, but there are significant fundamental research programs in areas such as surface chemistry, optics and photonics, electronic materials, and computer network security. He noted, too, that there are eight additional projects with about $1.5 million in funds received from subcontracts from non-DoD sources, but the original source of funds is the DoD. (One example is the new Chinese K-16 immersion program, supported by DoD, but with funds administered through the Academy for Educational Development to UO’s Center for Applied Second Language Studies.)

 

Mr. Linton summarized why the UO pursues DoD funding by listing a number reasons: it (a) supports the UO’s basic research mission, primarily in science and technology, (b) contributes to graduate education, (c) complements other funding sources for research, consistent with all UO policies, (d) stimulates collaborative research and outreach, (e) supports applications that have broader benefits to society, e.g., health care, (f) helps provide seed funds for new research areas that can then attract additional research support, and (g) focuses on basic research (in which we cannot control the ultimate societal applications or ultimate relevance to weapons systems (which can also be said for NIH, NSF, DOE funded projects). Mr. Linton noted that the Oregon Congressional Delegation is helpful in securing earmarked, targeted research investments that bring federal tax dollars back to Oregon’s universities.

 

Mr. Linton concluded his remarks by commenting that research funding at the UO is faculty-driven, the work is not classified, and results are in the public domain; thus DoD funding is not an inherent threat to basic academic freedoms. He suggested that if we eliminate the UO’s academic freedom to pursue DoD funding, what would be the next agencies to be questioned and what would be the political agendas behind such issues?

 

Panelist Frank Stahl spoke first in response to the point made that the UO does not conduct classified research. He said that the US spends more on defense (than other budget areas), using it for offense, not defense, than any other area of the budget. (Mr. Stahl provided handouts showing the military spending proportions of the US budget.) He opined that the US goal is world dominance and that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not making us more secure, but are instead raiding the US treasury. He further stated that our economy is a war-based economy driven by the military-industrial complex, and thus he questioned if it is ethical to serve the Pentagon. Mr. Stahl indicated that the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s (DARPA) goal is to fund high tech programs designed to give the US military an advantage in its roles and missions. On the issue of whether NSF and HIH funding is “cleaner” than DoD funded research, Mr. Stahl indicated that both NSF and NIH’s stated objectives are in line with university’s goals. He concluded his remarks by saying that neither the Congress nor the courts are doing anything to oppose the military-industrial complex mentality of spending, and thus it is up to individuals to speak out about it; indifference to the current situation, he opined, is not an ethical option. (Other materials in the handout included the UO mission statement, an article from the Defense Sciences Office indicating that DARPA is really about brain research, a listing of BBMI’s defense-related applications, a lobbying letter from the AAU to the Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, signed by the executive committee of the AAU, of which President Frohnmayer is a member, and an edited email exchange between Mr. Stahl and a former UO professor of history on the meeting’s topic.)

 

Jim Hutchinson, who is a faculty project manager for one of the ONAMI projects funded by the US Air Force, was the next panelist to speak. He began his comments indicating that ONAMI projects are not related to weapons research or classified research; rather, it is faculty driven research doing the same kind of research as that funded by NSF, DOE, and NIH. Mr. Hutchinson said that DoD funded research projects serve several functions: to broaden the resource base to support faculty scholarship during a very difficult funding period, invest in young faculty’s start up resources, support graduate students, and build state-of-the-art research infrastructure (like the CAMCOR facilities) that benefits the entire campus research community.

 

Mr. Hutchinson then provided descriptions regarding the positive outcomes of his safer nanomaterials and nanomanufacturing initiative, such as applying green chemistry principles to nanotechnology, discovering production techniques that do not generate waste and pollution. He noted that DoD funding allows him to lead and influence efforts that are focusing only on problems, not solutions, and which support interdisciplinary programs that are so broad ranging they fall between the cracks with traditional funding sources. Mr. Hutchinson listed a broad array of the types of science the DoD funds support which have wide-ranging benefits for both the DoD and societal interests in fields such as communications, medicine, and electronics. He re-empathized that the projects are faculty driven in the same way that other faculty research funding is pursued. Mr. Hutchison concluded his remarks by saying that DoD research funds provide seed funding to make researchers more competitive for other funding, allow for basic research discoveries that enhance economic development in Oregon and spur other research activities, and provide critical additional resources in a diverse funding portfolio during times of decreased support for research.

 

Peter Gilkey spoke next representing the view of the AAUP on academic freedom. In the interest of brevity and cutting right to the heart of the matter, Mr. Gilkey conveyed the notion that freedom of speech and freedom of inquiry are at the very core of a university. He stated that freedom of speech and freedom of inquiry (including pursuing research inquiry interests) are not relative “goods” to be balanced against other competing “goods”; rather, they are absolutes. Mr. Gilkey noted that classified research, by its very definition of not sharing results, is antithetical to university research. Mr. Gilkey concluded his remarks citing his belief that professors should be free to pursue research ideas and funding for them, and that absent freedom of speech and freedom of inquiry, one does not have a university.

 

The next panelist to speak was graduate student Brian Bogart. Mr. Bogart began his remarks by saying that the meeting was really about democracy, and went on to talk about the US and USSR Cold War experiences, suggesting that the men who control national policy have kept the US in a war mentality. Mr. Bogart clarified that he is not against the military, science, or defense, but that he is against the increasing dependence on, and the growth of, the military complex. He stated that the US defense policy is unilateral and that the government is pursuing a policy of manipulating the people to its own goals. Mr. Bogart pointed out that while military funding is growing to ever higher new levels, basic needs such as funding for schools and infrastructures, such as roads, go wanting. He suggested that we have been asleep at the wheel, and that militarism is evil. By refusing DoD funding, the UO is expressing the freedom to choose other means to gain knowledge.

 

Helen Neville was the final panelist of the afternoon. She provided a brief history of the BBMI at the UO, noting that the overarching goals are to foster the understanding of the biological basis of cognition, action, and complex behavior in general. She commented that the involved UO researchers sought and received funding for BBMI from NSF, NIH, private foundations, and donors, and then members of the congressional delegation on a visit to the UO offered to help obtain further funding for the BBMI from Congress. Ms. Neville indicated current research occurs in three primary directions: (a) basic research, to discover the infrastructure for genomics and proteomics, mammalian genetics, neuroinformatics, and magnetic resonance imaging so that we could study, in animals and humans, the biological mechanisms of different cognitive processes, such as attention; (b) clinical neuroscience, which uses the results from the basic research to characterize how these systems are affected after different types of brain damage; and (c) brain development and education, which characterizes how the systems important for cognition and action develop, the degree to which they are genetically constrained, and the role of input from the environment in shaping their development and function. She stated the her research looks at how to fix deficiencies in brain function, and that the real goal is to disseminate information via scientific journals, provide information to parents and teachers (through workshops), physicians and policy makers (such as those in the Head Start program) in order to make a difference in human society.

 

With the panel presentations concluded, a motion was made and passed to suspend the rules of the senate in order to open the floor for discussion among everyone in attendance (students, community members, etc.). The floor was open for a question and answer period. (Note: some speakers identified themselves, but many others did not and are identified as audience members.)

 

Mike Posner, psychology, asked Mr. Stahl if he though the UO should eliminate all government agency funding. Mr. Stahl replied that the DoD controls such a large amount of UO funding it must be brought under control. If the UO starts denying DoD funding, that would let the government know that we are not interested in world dominance. Another faculty member asked if eliminating the research that is beneficial is better than not doing the beneficial research at all. Mr. Stahl replied that we need to find other funding sources. He acknowledged that if it is only the UO that makes a statement to deny DoD funding, it would be futile; but if all US universities deny the DoD funding, it would make a powerful statement. Another audience member supported this notion, saying that there is a point in not going along with accepting funding from the DoD; our Congressional representatives would then need to lobby other sources to receive funding. Mr. Bogart commented that there are more than 300 universities with DoD funding. He asked rhetorically, if we do not stand up now (and say no to DoD funded research), when should we? Mr. Bogart noted that UC Berkeley is interested in collaborating against DoD research funding.

 

The discussion moved to the issue of whether DoD research funding was ethical. Individuals spoke on both sides of the topic, some saying the work they were doing was not war related, and had a positive societal impact, others suggesting that individual faculty researchers could (and should) have the freedom to make their own choices regarding what type of research they pursue and by whom it is funded. Others made the point that all DoD funding is ultimately interested in making individual soldiers better warriors as well as the military, in general, more lethal in its activities; accepting funding from the DoD was tantamount to supporting war efforts. Some individuals noted that although they disagreed with the DoD’s aggressive war postures, they felt each faculty member ought to be able to decide what kind of funding to pursue. Still others believed that the only way to get control of the out-of-control DoD spending going on, was to make our own statement in opposition to DoD research funding, to not do the research, and to encourage all other research universities to take a similar stance that would send an undeniable message to the government.

 

An audience member asked at what level the ethical decision applies: for individuals, or for the entire university. For example, basic research ultimately may be applied in ways some would consider ethically “good” while others would consider it ethically “bad”. And where does one draw the line? If the UO denies DoD funding now, in the future would we deny funding from another government agency that is funding research in other ethically questionable areas, or even political areas? Proponents of rejecting DoD funding said that they felt the reach of the DoD (through the military industrial complex) is so far out-of-balance, and our control lacking, that a stand against receiving DoD funding was the most powerful statement that could and should be made by the university. Individual researchers could seek funding through other sources.

 

Regarding attempts to find other funding sources, Mr. Linton indicated that DoD funding accounts for about 5% of the UO research funding. He noted that success rate to obtain NSF funding is down to about 20%. Because DoD funding is specifically earmarked for certain projects, the UO strategically looks at what projects faculty members are interested in pursuing to see if there is a fit. Mr. Bogart remarked that he did not trust how the DoD spent its research funding. Mr. Stahl added that he will introduce legislation in the April senate meeting to require President Frohnmayer to lobby the AAU not to lobby for DoD research funding. Mr. Stahl also reiterated his position that the goal of the DoD is to make the US the best fighting force in the world, and the UO needs to ask itself it subscribes to this goal.

 

Mr. Bogart and Ms. Neville exchanged opposing views on whether the type of research done via the BBMI was tied to supporting weapons based research (as outlined in the DoD funding application description), or was used for positive societal outcomes, as explained earlier by Ms. Neville. A member of the audience commented that the afternoon’s discussion really was a discussion of academic freedom. He did not think it was the role of the university to foster any one political viewpoint at the expense of individual researchers’ lines of inquiry. He noted that all researchers have potential problems with how their research might be used or applied by others, but it should not inhibit the freedom to pursue certain research interests. Mr. Tom Dyke, chemistry, agreed with this position, saying that many types of research would offend others, but it should not curtain research in a democratic university; similarly, a student added, if we curtail some funding (DoD), on what basis would the UO make decisions to curtail other funding sources that were seen by some as offensive.

 

Comments for the remainder of the session seemed to fall on one side or the other regarding whether this issue was primarily one of fundamental academic freedom, or one of ethical decision making regarding the DoD (military), and who should make those decisions, the individual faculty member/researcher or the university.

 

As the hour grew later, the discussion wound to a close. President Keyes thanked the panelists and members of the audience for their participation in the forum and adjourned the meeting at 5:00 p.m.

 

 

Gwen Steigelman

Secretary of the Faculty