Viewpoint Large-scale military funding induces culture clash Aant Elzinga Mission-oriented research shifts the assessment of research products and potential from scientists to external factors. This is the point of mission funding, but it introduces what the author calls 'epistemic drift', which is part of a more general clash between different value systems and cultures. The culture clash between the military and industry has led to a shift in debate from spin-off to dual-use tech- nologies. Similar conflicts and ten- sions are introduced into the universi- ty research system by large-scale mission funding such as that of SDI, and it is imperative that universities establish a strong civilian base for fundamental research funding instead of lobbying for military support. The author is Chair and Professor in the Theory of Science (Vetenskapsteori) at the University of Gothenburg, 412 98 Gote- borg, Sweden. Spin-off used to be a central issue in discussions of defence-related tech- nologies. To this day it remains un- clear to what extent military invest- ment in R&D leads to technologies that also benefit commerce and wel- fare. In the case of the SDI program- mes spin-off was advanced as a selling point when the Reagan administration sought to bring the European allies on board. In retrospect much of what was said appears to be rhetoric. The Pen- tagon no longer nurtures civil industry the way it once did. It seems to be incapable of doing so. Thus the focal point of the debate has shifted from spin-off to a new catchphrase, 'dual use'. This refers to technologies that are useful in both military and civil spheres. Good examples of such a converg- ence may be found in areas such as polar research and development and remote sensing. In the case of the former we have special clothing and vehicles for transportation in harsh climates. In the latter case com- munications and navigation satellites may be cited. They can serve both civilian and military purposes. NASA's role in monitoring the Earth may also have components where civilian and military interests converge. However, this programme, part of an international effort under the aegis of the International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU), is mainly concerned with aspects such as global climate change, environmental de- terioration and the depletion of the ozone layer. Here looking for con- vergence may generate conflicts over time-usage and focus. We have already seen such conflicts of interest in the polar regions, where civilian meteorological agencies are mainly concerned with long-term stu- dies of the cryosphere-ocean- atmosphere interface because of a strong environmental motive, while military programmes are inclined to focus on shorter-term problems relat- ing to ice dynamics at the surface and underwater navigation. Here, in the Arctic, long-term environmental and shorter-term military motives some- times translate into differences in the simulation models and conceptualiza- tions that are set up to interpret data. As the philosophers of science have been pointing out for almost 30 years now, in science there is no such thing as raw data - if data are to make sense they must be impregnated with theory, and our focus is directed by the problems we are interested in first and foremost. Thus it is fair to say that below the surface of apparent convergence there remain significant divergences which still have to be managed in cases of dual-usage science and technology. Given this, it is not surprising to find that some from the civilian side who favour dual usage would like to see a new philosophy, the ultimate thrust of which would be the introduction of a civilian equivalent to DARPA, SPACE POLICY August 1990 187