È possibile avere una carriera in SciComp senza contribuire alla ricerca sulle armi?

36

Sono a una conferenza internazionale (ICIAM2019) sui metodi numerici e sono sorpreso dalla prevalenza di applicazioni direttamente correlate alla ricerca sulle armi.

esempi:

Un vincitore del premio tiene il suo discorso sul problema matematico della ricostruzione / rilevamento radar di oggetti in movimento, nel suo discorso descrive la situazione di una "piattaforma" radar a 8 km di altezza usando un radar attivo che rileva "soggetti in movimento" a livello del suolo, e si reca su quanto sia magnificamente complicato questo problema.
le persone presentano metodi per risolvere e simulare con precisione le onde d'urto e una rapida ricerca su Google rivela che stanno lavorando alla "fusione inerziale di confinamento".
a cena dopo la conferenza mi sono seduto accanto a persone che facevano i numeri a Los Alamos.

Sto facendo il mio dottorato di ricerca in matematica applicata e metodi numerici e, a dire il vero, non ho previsto che le persone che ricevono i premi e che sono state poste su grandi palchi stiano facendo ricerche sulle armi. Ho anche notato che il pubblico, che è presumibilmente più intelligente di me, applaude a questo lavoro.

Mi chiedo se vorrei far parte o meno di questa comunità e se è possibile costruire una carriera nella matematica applicata senza contribuire direttamente o indirettamente alla ricerca sulle armi. È qualcosa di cui è scrollato le spalle? Sono in una fase molto precoce e sarei molto grato per i consigli delle persone più esperte.

career-development

— MPIchael
fonte

14

Apprezzo questa domanda e non vedo l'ora di ascoltare le prospettive degli altri. Hai tutto il diritto di prendere le tue decisioni di vita basate sul tuo ethos personale; tuttavia, parole come "spaventato" e frasi come "senza ulteriori domande" sono polarizzanti. Ci sono molte persone che sanno esattamente a quale tecnologia stanno contribuendo e credono anche nella moralità di essa, nel bene e nel male. Penso che sarebbe utile rendere un po 'più neutrale la tua lingua.

— LedHead,

1

Ho ammorbidito un po 'la domanda per renderla meno suggestiva. grazie per l'osservazione.

— MPIchael,

4

Consiglio di leggere il libro di Neil DeGrasse Tyson Accessory to War: The Unspoken Alliance Between Astrophysics and the Military .

— Paul

9

Qualcuno dei tuoi esempi è in realtà "ricerca sulle armi"? Esistono molte applicazioni civili per radar. Fusion ha molte applicazioni utili per la generazione di energia. Los Alamos potrebbe avere le sue radici nelle armi nucleari, ma oggigiorno fa molte ricerche che non sono direttamente applicabili alla guerra. Sembra che tu non ti sia spaventato per niente.

— Harabeck,

I commenti non sono per una discussione estesa; questa conversazione è stata spostata in chat .

— Anton Menshov

24

Sono completamente d'accordo con @Anton nella sua discussione. Indipendentemente dal lavoro di calcolo scientifico che svolgi, se lo pubblichi in qualche rivista o luogo pubblico, può essere utilizzato per costruire armi o ulteriore tecnologia militare.

Ho lavorato sui missili per alcuni anni in un laboratorio classificato e posso dirti che ho usato costantemente il mio background di calcolo scientifico in quell'ambiente. Usare ciò che sapevo sulla risoluzione di equazioni differenziali o fare ottimizzazione e calcolo distribuito era solo un sottoinsieme delle cose di cui ho beneficiato in quella linea di lavoro e che non include altre aree come AI, informatica, controlli, sistemi dinamici, ecc. Posso anche dirti che era la norma nel nostro laboratorio trovare articoli e / o post di blog in questi argomenti, quando necessario, per provare a far avanzare algoritmi diversi per i nostri scopi.

So indirectly, anything you make public and available could be used. So you’ll never escape that. That said, I think it’s totally reasonable to never need to directly support arms research with your work. Some of my current colleagues have had big careers in scientific computing and they haven’t supported any arms research directly.

— spektr
fonte

1

I am genuinely curious. Do you rationalize this line of work with the argument "better we have that technology than the other faction"? I have read some of Feynmans books and he describes that that was the dominant argument at Los Alamos at the time.

— MPIchael

3

The best weapon is one that never needs to be used, simply because it's so good nobody in their right mind would want to face an opponent that has that weapon in their arsenal. And as to offensive vs. defensive, there's little difference. Many things (maybe most), can be considered either depending on scenario. An air-air missile for example. If carried on an interceptor defending a city the missile is in a defensive role, if carried on a penetration strike mission by an attack aircraft it's offensive.

— jwenting

4

@spektr but not cynic enough to believe in the inevitability of actors who achieve this level of defensive might eventually using the same power for acts of aggression, I guess!

— Will

2

@Will I am cynical enough to think such a thing could happen. But if at least two players are competing in what would be an arms race, I expect (with no guarantee) the aggression will largely be kept at bay. If a single actor greatly exceeded the power of all others, I would be worried then.

— spektr

2

@spektr Since the world is not quite yet completely divided into the territory of a handful of militarily-matched superpowers this equilibrium isn't a very recognisable pattern in reality. Nevertheless, lacking the military might to resist the expansionist projects and proxy wars of the remaining superpowers is certainly easier to get worried about than remaining in or joining their rank.

— Will

27

TL;DR:

It is certainly possible to build a career in applied math and computational sciences without directly contributing to arms research.
It is hardly possible to build a career in any research without indirectly contributing to arms research.

One can easily avoid direct contributions to military topics by choosing more abstract mathematical topics, carefully selecting numerical/measurement experiments, applying (actually, not applying) for the particular grants, etc. In this way, a researcher can build a very successful career without direct arms contributions.

Now, due to the nature of computational sciences, this research can be of extreme interest for advancing military technology. Developing an abstract applied mathematical method might contribute (without you realizing it) to a certain military application.

It is certainly true that the research from STEM fields is especially prone to potential military usage. However, that is not limited to STEM. Arts, humanities, and all other research can (and did!) potentially contribute to the advances of arms, directly or indirectly.

The simplest example of indirect contibution that is totally outside of your control:

As a professor, you developed an extremely popular course in numerical methods/philosophy of science/history of art. One of your students successfully finished it and decided to apply to arms research. Now you indirectly contributed to this research by providing your passion, materials, and time.

It is easy and possible to find examples of more "direct" indirect contributions. Say, the study of the art of Kukryniksy can lead to more efficient propaganda methodologies.

I, personally, very appreciate the ethical concerns. And the question of research ethics has become quite a hot topic in recent years. I would not discuss if it is ethical to do research that directly contributes to and targets military applications. It is a choice of the particular researcher that we should, at least, respect. But I will point out that potential indirect contributions to military applications are inevitable for any research field. Moreover, the safest way to not contribute to arms is to do nothing, which is obviously a bad solution altogether.

— Anton Menshov
fonte

13

I'm going to be slightly pedantic, but it is in the interest of easing your mind. The problem is here, emphasis mine.

career in applied math without directly or indirectly contributing to arms research.

The way you've framed the question, the only possible answer is "no". But you could say the same for any career choice.

"Can I pursue a career as a pastry chef without indirectly contributing to arms research?"
"Can I pursue a career in vending machine repair without indirectly contributing to arms research?"
"Can I pursue a career in fishing without indirectly contributing to arms research?"

The only answer to all of these is obviously "no", as indirect support could simply mean making the lives of arms researchers easier or providing them with calories to do their work. The world is massively interconnected, and you are largely not responsible for indirect, unintended contributions.

If you develop an interesting approach to any problem within computational science, people can then use your insights to forward many goals. Frankly, even an offhanded comment to a colleague could give them an insight that gels an idea that contributes to something else they're working on.

Worry about your direct contributions. The rest is truly out of your control.

— Ben I.
fonte

3

This is the answer. If you pay tax you are contributing to the defence budget. If your land was invaded you would expect the military to protect you, or not? So it's a bit non sequitur to be against everything military and still expect them to be there when needed. And they are needed; it's only the knowledge that they are there which stops bad guys from moving in. I see you are in Germany. Look East and tell us what's stopping the big bully neighbour from coming over (again).

— RedSonja

@RedSonja while I approve Ben I.'s answer, your argument is very viewpoint-specific. The same logic as you apply to German scientists, also applies to the scientists living in the big bully country, and they might apply the same rationale to justify working for the army... or should they?

— svavil

It always brings me back to Kant's imperative. If everybody would argue like this, we will be in a constants arms-race. If every scientist would desist from arms research, we would be in a better place. These are of course unrealistic extremes, and I know that the world is more complex than that, but it is the only consistent argument I can think of.

— MPIchael

2

This is part of the human condition, sad but true. Come up with an answer and pick up your Nobel prize.

— RedSonja

3

My viewpoint is very much influenced by living in Europe, in a country which in living memory was indeed unhappily occupied by the big bad bully in the East. I lock my door when I go out. Do you not?

— RedSonja

1

Not all defense work is about offensive weapons; a lot is also about security: meaning preventing damage, preventing loss of life, and generally preserving and/or improving quality of life. For example, it is of national interest to diversify sources of energy not only to prevent global warming, but also in case of loss of infrastructure. People research computational epidemiology and informatics to prevent diseases from spreading or curing them as well. Advances in science and technology through the insights gained from computational research are also valuable to security in more ways than offensive weaponry.

While any advances in science can be weaponized for offensive purposes, the same research can also be “counter-weaponized” to save lives and improve quality of life.

— Paul
fonte

3

“Not all...about offensive weapons... ...security...preventing damage...” – I don't say this can't be an invalid argument, however there's a massive slippery slope here. Just about everything militaries have ever done in history was claimed to serve some kind of defensive purpose; in some cases what they ended up doing was actually genocide of the “offending” party.

— leftaroundabout

@leftaroundabout: Defense is multifaceted. All that is made for benevolent purposes can be exploited for malicious intent. Much of what is made for malicious intent can also be manipulated for benevolent purposes as well. It is good to be concious of potential ill consequences of research. But if there is even a remote possibility to exploit it for good as well, I feel it is worth risking.

— Paul

0

I largely agree with the answers above. A field that could be of great interest to computational scientists and that is only indirectly linked to the military is geophysical fluid dynamics. One could work on developing state-of-the-art weather, climate and ocean models. Your work can result in better weather predictions and a better understanding of the climate system and the human influence on this climate system.

— Basileios
fonte

Weather forecasting has direct military applications. The USAF even has a Special Forces branch dedicated to it.

— Gaius