I had no idea how much of our budget went to miltary spending until I graduated and only gov. contracters wanted to hire me. Fortunately, the NSF paided for me to get a master's so I don't have to work for evil.

What was your major?

I'm glad you didn't have to work for evil. I'm sure I am indirectly working for evil. Actually, I know I am. The defense industry's arms have a far reach.

I know there are some at the UofM who want to reject secret and not-so-secret military research funding. But if they don't get the money, won't it just go to someone else? One could also argue that some military research projects have more civilian use than others.. And that one of the reasons American universities lead the world is that they are partly funded by private industry. Unfortunately, this leads to all sorts of conflicts of interest as well as weapons of mass destruction.

One thing I want to add: yes, military spending could theoretically save lives and fighting terrorists can save lives, etc. But building a kickass mass transit system would potentially save the lives of all who die in car accidents each month, a number greater than those who died on 9/11. This would also reduce our dependence on conflict oil. Investing money into alternative fuel rather than building bombs would also reduce that, which would lead to reducing the root causes of Islamic terrorism.. which is ostensibly what our current military spending is supposed to be doing.

Curing diseases obviously saves lives.

Feeding starving people saves lives. Medical treatment for the less fortunate who do not have money for the simplest of healthcare also saves lives. Hell, clean water would probobly save a lot of lives.

All a matter of whose lives you want to save I guess. Seems we try to save lives by taking lives these days.

MicroMan -- EE

Some military research projects, like the internet, have civilian uses, e.g. the internet, and some civilian research projects, like agent1073's work, have military uses. So, where does that leave scientists ethically?

Did you see that the world heath organization choose to promote road safty on world health day? Each year, they choose a disease to promote awarness of and this year they focused on traffic accidents.

Basic necessities for the people who need it in the world would save many lives. I was talking exclusively about saving American lives (there are some here who require food and shelter but with trillions of dollars we could go far beyond just fixing them up). With trillions of dollars though we could bootstrap a couple of the world's superslums out of poverty, helping tens of millions of people... that may be the best use of money if helping lives were what really mattered. To the neocons, taking 10,000 Iraqi lives is not even worth talking about. I think many of us believe that those lives not only did not save any American lives but instead further endangered more American lives -- and I'm not talking about just the over 700 that have actually died.

The question of what a scientist should ethically do in today's environment is a tough one. It's almost impossible to participate in our economy without contributing to evil. I think it's what led some people in the 60s and onward to decide they could only participate by devoting their lives to fighting the system. But what did they accomplish? We can't really expect everyone to give up their lives like they did. I think you can participate yet still do net 'good' even if you do some 'evil' and that it's possible to do more net good than if you had dedicated yourself to only doing good. If that makes any sense.

P.S. That the WHO chose to focus on road safety as the 'disease' is awesome.