Santa Cruz Indymedia : http://santacruz.indymedia.org
Home
Santa Cruz Indymedia

LOCAL News :: Education & Youth

University in Service of the Warfare State:

Comprehensive Profile of UCSC's Jack Baskin School of EngineeringΩ
THE BASKIN STUDY



Is science nothing more than the rational and ethically banal servant of war? Are the physical sciences and engineering disciplines naturally concerned with the
production of weapons and war by matter of fact? A survey of the many disciplines, major funding for scientific and technological research, and connections
between scientific institutions and the military enterprise would seem to affirm this view.
We should not accept this perception, as it would imply that we necessarily condemn and abandon these fields of science as innately concerned with
control and domination. Although science and technology have historically been enablers of exploitation, repression, and war, they have also been forces of
liberation and wellsprings of peace.
This study is dedicated to a science for peace, acknowledging that there increasingly exists opportunity and power on the part of those within academia
to put an end to the goals of exploitation and war. All that is needed is the existential courage to do so.


Darwin BondGraham
June 2, 2003
UC Santa Cruz




One of the most important contributions to the sociological understanding of modern war is Seymour Melmanπs 1970 book, Pentagon Capitalism. The
central thesis of the book is that by 1970 the military-industrial complex had ceased to exist.
Melman describes the military-industrial complex on the terms that Eisenhower used in his famous farewell speech to the nation. According to Melman
the meaning which Eisenhower imbued the term with defined the military-industrial complex as the vast and informal networks of military, business, and
political interests within our society, each having a common interest in maintaining a permanent capacity for war through the continuous development and
production of new weapons, technologies, and crises in which to use them. Thus the ≥complex≤; a diffuse and market oriented business sector competing and
producing the weapons of war - a civilian controlled military apparatus - and a bureaucratic political establishment sufficiently detached from and so
disinterested in the specific organization of either of the former.
Melman shows us that such a complex had ceased to exist by 1970, being replaced by a ≥new industrial management in the federal government...
clearly structured and organized, with all the paraphernalia of a formal centrally managed organization....≤ (Melman 10). The complexity in terms of
independent entities and often competing interests of the actors within the militarized sphere of our nation had been replaced by and consolidated into a massive
bureaucracy with central planning, total control over its corporate parts, exercising a phenomenal power over the productive (and destructive) resources of the
United States, and aware of its own overarching interests as one body.
Complexity had given way to simplicity. The warfare state organized itself around the bureaucratic political establishment of the Department of
Defense in concert with the executive branch of the federal government. These offices of government clearly control the industry and armed forces by
effectively becoming one super-corporation. In terms of the power and control over the economic, social, and political lives of the US populace, no single entity
rivals the military enterprise. Subordinate and dependent to this managerial structure are; 2.8 million civilians employed directly by the military enterpriseπs
business sector (Office of the Secretary of Defense: DEPPS 2001). The central management appropriates an annual budget of approximately $400 billion
plus $6 billion in the supporting NNSA nuclear weapons complex. Added to this are the hundreds of billions in the financial assets of the military enterpriseπs
subsidiary contractors. The military enterprise directly controls a substantial portion of the nationπs economic and cultural existence, while exercising an
absolute control over the industry, employees, and institutions which fall under its de facto jurisdiction. As of April 2001, the management of this bureaucracy
embodied in the Pentagon employs 669,000 civilian administrators and technocrats who oversee 1.37 million enlisted soldiers, and 1.28 million reserve
soldiers. (Department of Defense: Defense Almanac).
Somewhere in between the substantial and absolute fields of coordination and control exercised by the military enterprise over relevant spheres of the
American economy, government, and culture, are the physical science and engineering resources and researchers of the United Stateπs major research
universities. Our societyπs science and engineering resources are one of the critical productive assets for the military enterprise. Science and engineering
provide the perpetual revolution in military technologies that guarantee dominance of force. Therefore the military is bound to science, addicted to technological
change, and mortally compelled to control the development of whole disciplines including physics, engineering sciences, computer science, and math.
Universities have been incorporated into the military enterprise. If we conceive of the military enterprise as a centrally administered organization
comprised of the DoD headquarters, and its contracted corporations and universities, we are presented with an institution as singular as any other. With respect
to the university, this means that the engineering schools, physical sciences, and managed FFRDCs are in key respects only nominally part of the university,
while remaining in practice, purpose, and outcome a subsidiary part of the military enterprise. Lincoln Labs, Los Alamos and Livermore Labs, the Carnegie
Mellon Software Engineering Institute, while all nominally part of the university are in fact subordinate economic units of the warfare state.
This paper will push this thesis further, to illustrate that in actuality most university engineering schools, and many departments are in key respects as
much a financial and operational subsidiary of the military enterprise, as they are of the university with whom they may share real estate and payrolls.
Recognizing the organizational facts state above, this study intends to analyze a specific aspect of the state managementπs organizational strategy,
particularly the quality and levels of power and forms of organization the warfare state exercises over certain scientific disciplines. This study will examine the
methods and levels of organizational strength used by the military enterprise to shape scientific fields to pursue militarily relevant technologies. Another focus
of this study will be to elucidate the forms of organization that the warfare state fosters among researchers; organizational forms that engender and reward
research for the sake of war. Forms of organization to encourage intellectual and career pursuits complementary to the maintenance and expansion of the
military enterprise.
This study will examine how the state management (also called the warfare state, or military enterprise) organizes researchers within and between
universities, funds specific kinds of research or certain individuals, and facilitates through these forms of control over science a broad but effective militarization
of scientific research and development within American Academia.

Transformation, War, and the Place of Science and Technology: An Introduction to the Knowledge Based Needs of the Military Enterprise
The military enterprise has increasingly become dedicated to the concept of transformation as a goal in itself. Transformation means constant evolution
of the militaryπs organization and technology to allow for unrivaled domination on the battlefield. Transformation is now the dominant military doctrine
guiding the state management. Transformation is sought to ensure continued US military superiority in all aspects of war including large scale state vs. state
conflict, to more asymmetrical scenarios like the Afghan war. Modern military theorists including the current Secretary of Defense have espoused a firm belief
in ≥revolution in military affairs,≤ which is synonymous with transformation. Donald Rumsfeld described his return to the Department of Defense by saying;

≥When President Bush called me back to the Pentagon after a quarter of a century, he asked me to come up with a new defense strategy to work with the
Department of Defense and the senior military to fashion a new approach.≤
≥Preparing for the future will require us to think differently and develop the kinds of forces and capabilities that can adapt quickly to new challenges and to
unexpected circumstances. An ability to adapt will be critical in a world where surprise and uncertainty are the defining characteristics of our new security
environment.≤
≥To do this, we need rapidly deployable, fully integrated joint forces capable of reaching distant theaters quickly and working with our air and sea forces to
strike adversaries swiftly, successfully, and with devastating effect. We need improved intelligence, long-range precision strikes, sea-based platforms to help
counter the access denial capabilities of adversaries.≤ (Rumsfeld 1,1,2002).

These "rapidly deployable" forces with the above stated capabilities will demand a reorganization of the military on scale not seen since the
consolidations and reconfigurations of the post WW2 era. Central to the project of 21st century military transformation is the science and technology base that
will allow for the unprecedented capabilities desired by the military enterprise. Douglas Macgregor (2001) of the National Defense University maps the
projectπs goals as; ≥changing a large, expensive Industrial Age structure, especially the Army, into a leaner, more strategically agile Information Age
force.≤ The political goals of the transformation are clearly for the maintenance of US superpower in the ways of war. The enlistment of our societyπs
scientific resources primarily for the expansion of US militaryπs capabilities is understood at all levels of government. In 2001 President Bush called for;

≥a break with Pentagon orthodoxy [to] create åa new architecture for the defense of America and our allies,π investing in new technologies and weapons
systems. On land, our heavy forces will be lighter. Our light forces will be more lethal. All will be easier to deploy and to sustain. In the air, weπll be able
to strike across the world with pinpoint accuracy, using both aircraft and unmanned systems.π ≥ (Sanger 2,14,2001).

A transformation is underway. Led by the political and economic elites of the United States, and supported by significant portions of the US population
including those millions of Americans directly dependent upon the warfare state, the military seeks new technological capabilities to carry out its mission of
dominance and intervention into the 21st century. The "break with Pentagon orthodoxy" does not imply a new mission, the mission is still total and
unchallenged military domination of the globe. The break with orthodoxy only demands a paradigm shift in the methods of carrying out this mission. The
revolution in military affairs will not only affect the machines and tools of war. The transformation demands a renewed militarization of our societyπs cultural,
political, and educational institutions.
The technological-scientific aspects of this transformation are far reaching. Of extreme importance to the transformation of US military capabilities and
continued militarization of our society is the relationship between the military enterprise and our scientific institutions. Ronald Sega (4,10,2002), Director of
Defense Research and Engineering (formerly Dean of Engineering at the University of Colorado) emphasized the importance of science and technology before
the US congress in 2002:

≥S&T [science and technology] is a key enabler of transformation. It not only provides the technology for future warfighting capabilities, but provides
the opportunities for changing doctrine that govern the way future forces fight. We must through our S&T investments, continually enhance our
technological advantage to provide significantly advanced capabilities...≤

The military enterprise necessitates control and coordination of these institutions and their resources. It accomplishes this requirement in several ways.

Universities as Institutions in Service of the Warfare State
Colleges and universities are focal points of scientific research and development and the creation of new knowledge. They are the key institutions
producing scientists and engineers. Universities also contain vast capital and human resources making them invaluable components of the warfare state.
According to Sega, the two most important contributions of our academic institutions to the military enterprise are the ≥dual dividends≤ of DoD funding
- new knowledge applicable to military technologies, and the future scientists and engineers trained to carry out the same missions in the future (Ibid). He
continues to state that the military research and engineering program is dependent upon active partnerships with universities.
Speaking from the subordinate position, a recent policy publication and lobbying effort released by SPIE (International Society for Optical
Engineering) describes military funding of S&T on the same grounds.

≥DoD funding to universities help produces scientists and engineers who staff our government and industrial research laboratories, and serve as university
faculty to educate the next generation of science and engineering leaders. While universities contribute to the United Statesπ pre-eminent technological
position and military strengthä.≤ (SPIE 3,1,2002).

Both Sega and the SPIE organization have outlined the importance of DoD control over research funds within universities. It helps to propel
technological development for war, it guides science and technology toward militarily applicable topics, and it trains the next generations of scientists along the
way. By incorporating universities into the military enterprise, the DoD has guaranteed a steady flow of new technological possibilities while simultaneously
organizing and indoctrinating students and faculty into the structure of the warfare state. The goals of the state management become the goals of the scientists:

≥In developing the FY 2003 appropriations for the DoD S&T programs, SPIE urges Congress to bear in mind that the Nationπs ability to confront military
and terrorist threats is founded on a commitment of federal investment in basic and applied scientific and engineering research.≤ (Ibid).

SPIE is an organization of 16,000 professionals in the United States. They represent among others, faculty members of universities, and as a
subordinate organization within the military enterprise, they recognize their dependence upon the military goals of the government. Their interests have become
the interests of the state management.

How the Military Enterprise Controls Scientific Research and Development
It is important to note what disciplines and fields of science and technology the state management is interested in. Within universities the DoD focuses
its control and organizational command over the physical sciences and engineering. According to Paul Kaminski, Undersecretary of Defense for acquisition
and technology the DoDπs funding priorities in universities focuses on basic research relevant to war;

≥Universities carry out sixty percent of the total basic research program - basic research is a core competency of the universities, and university research
pays additional dividends through the associated training of future scientists and engineers in disciplines important to national defense.≤ Of this basic
research program, ≥...the DoD provides almost two-thirds of total federal support for basic research in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering,
and materials science.≤ (Kaminski 1997).

According to the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the levels of DoD funding are extremely high and diffuse within the university:

≥DoDπs S&T investment helps ensure the health of a number of critical research fields. For example, DoD funds a high percentage of university-based
engineering research, including 76 percent of electrical engineering, 72 percent of mechanical engineering, 15 percent each of aeronautical and
astronomical engineering, and 24 percent of astronautical engineering. DoD also supports other university research, including 47 percent of metallurgy
and materials, 41 percent of computer sciences, 36 percent of oceanography, and approximately 15 percent each in chemistry and mathematics.≤ (OSTP
2003).

By being the largest source of research funds for these fields, the DoD exercises an editorial control over the direction of science, and the types of
projects and people who succeed. As the largest, sometimes only source of funding for research in electrical, mechanical, and computer engineering, computer
science, metallurgy and materials, physics, and oceanography, the military enterprise is structurally the executive manager of university science and engineering
in the US.
A breakdown of the DoDπs funding of university research in 2000 is as follows: Total DoD funding for basic research within colleges and universities
totaled $1.203 billion. The largest funding agencies within the DoD are DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) accounting for $356 million,
the Departments of Navy, Army, and Air Force - respectively $234 million, $117 million, and $109 million, and the Washington Headquarters Services at a
sum of $282 million (BondGraham 2003). A breakdown of the university departments and disciplines which the DoD funded in 2000 is as follows:
Engineering accounted for approximately 38% of all funds, math and computer science was second at 22%, with life science 19%, physical science 9.6%, and
environmental science at 8% (Ibid).

Control and Direction Beyond Funding
The funding of university research is the dominant method of controlling and incorporating university researchers into the military enterprise. However
there are several other organizational aspects of the university service and subsidiary behavior regarding the warfare state.
These other organizational structures are the formal and informal links between university researchers and the military enterprise. They include;
professional relationships involving co-investigation and work between university researchers and scientists at military-industrial corporations or military labs;
past positions or employment of current university faculty members by military industrial corporations or military agencies; advisory positions to the warfare
state held by university professors; or participation in professional conferences linked to, organized by, or sponsored by the military and/or its corporate
industrial partners.
Each of these organizational strategies creates and entrenches a scientific community whose interest it is to involve themselves in, and rely upon the
military enterprise (their central director) for career advancement, professional development, and intellectual/academic support.


The Jack Baskin School of Engineering, UC Santa Cruz
The Baskin School of Engineering has since its founding in 1997 become a textbook example of the subsidiary behavior of university science and
engineering departments to their central director - the military enterprise. To illustrate how the Baskin School of Engineering is a subsidiary of the military
enterprise I have operationalized five key concepts and collected data on the school as a whole. The following section on research methods describes the
concepts, and how the data was collected.

Research Methods
Militarization of the university refers to the process and conditions in which a universityπs people and resources have been mobilized to contribute to
the military enterprise of the political elites, the Department of defense, and the DoD's contracted corporate subsidiaries. Faculty research and the education of
new workers/researchers are the primary resources sought by the military enterprise within colleges and universities. To gauge the level and quality of service
the university provides the US military through its faculty I have operationalized militarization into five categories. Each category is meant to encompass a
specific kind of contribution by a faculty member to the warfare state. The five categories are:

Category 1. Has the faculty memberπs research been funded by

A.Any agency or office of the military?
B. Any corporation that as a significant part of its business operations carries out contracted work for the military? or
C.A FFRDC (Federally Funded Research and Development Center or National Lab associated with the warfare state.

Table M-1. specifies all entities which fit into these subcategories A, B, and C.

Category 2. determines whether a faculty member has co-investigated or collaborated on a project with researchers at either

A.A military lab or agency,

B. A corporate lab, or
C. A National Lab or FFRDC.
Similar subcategories apply for category 2. and 1. The only difference is in subcategory A., where collaboration with military researchers involves a
faculty member working with military employed scientists at the labs overseen by the agencies in table M-1. These labs and institutions include; the Naval
Research Labs, Army Research Labs, Air Force Research Labs, Naval Postgraduate School, Center for Naval Analysis, etc..

Category 3. associates faculty participation in conferences linked to, sponsored by, and organized by the military or its corporate contractors with service to the
warfare state. Relevant conferences include; MILCOM (Military Communications) sponsored by TRW, Lockheed, and Raytheon among others; The Asilomar
Conference on Signals Systems and Computers held annually in Monterey California and co-organized by the Naval Postgraduate School, and the Mission
Research Corporation. Conferences are an important method of organizing scientists from many different institutions (universities, military, and corporations)
into effectively coordinated communities and teams of researchers.

Category 4. links university researchers to the military enterprise by means of current or past employment by a military contracted corporation. Faculty within
the disciplines of engineering and the physical sciences often act as advisors to corporations. There is also a tendency for engineers and scientists to work for
military contractors prior to or interim their university positions. For this category, all subcategories in table M-1. column B. are applicable.

Category 5. is a measurement of faculty service to the warfare state in the form of expertise and guidance. Has the professor ever served as an advisor for any
agency or office of the military? Involvement in any military agency as an advisor, or any position in a DoD funded think tank such as JASON apply.
*note ≠ This table is by no means exhaustive of the military agencies,
corporations, or national labs that comprise the military enterprise.
They are however comprehensive of the agencies, corporations, and
labs linking the Baskin School of Engineering to the warfare state in
this study.
* Appendix A. contains basic descriptions of all agencies,
organizations, corporations, and other entities listed throughout the
study.


Collection of Data

Most of the data collected for this study was obtained online.
An interesting convenience of studying power structure and
organization of university scientists and engineers is that we
are looking at a group that uses the internet at a rate of 99%.
Every professor in the Baskin School of Engineering has a
website, and most have extensive information on themselves
available with just a few clicks of the mouse.
To determine each faculty memberπs measurements in
categories 1-5, data was drawn from their self published Curriculum Vitae, their resumes and auto-biographies, and other information directly available on their
websites. To determine if they were a recipient of DoD funding, corporate funding, or National Lab funding the primary method used was a survey of their
publications available online and in hard copy within the UCSC science library. Funding agencies are usually acknowledged in published reports. General
web searches were also employed to search for free-floating information on any given faculty member.

A Note on This Studyπs Measurement
It is necessary to note that this study is a minimum measurement of militarization. It is a minimum measurement of a university facultyπs support and service
within the military enterprise for several reasons.
First and foremost there is the fact that this study can only prove a relationship between a researcher and the military enterprise, while it cannot disprove
such a relationship. This leads to one shortcoming - the possible prevalence of false negatives. There is the strong possibility that this study has omitted many
faculty connections and services to the military enterprise. Because this study relies so heavily on self identification by faculty with the warfare state it is
impossible to determine how much has been omitted by these individuals. It cannot be said to exactly represent the quantity of service which the Baskin School
of Engineering provides the military enterprise. Rather, it is an approximation in terms of quantity, and a reflection in terms of quality.
The second important point to make is that this study is limited only to faculty of UC Santa Cruzπs Baskin School of Engineering. Only the Computer
Engineering, Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, and Bio-Molecular Engineering departments are included in this study. By focusing only on faculty,
the Baskin Schoolπs 14 full time researchers have not been included. Lecturers and visiting professors, and graduate students have also been omitted from this
study.





The Baskin School Faculty

Below is a comprehensive list of the Baskin Engineering Schoolπs faculty members along with their connections to the military enterprise.


Faculty measures of militarization:

1. Projects funded by the
A. military?
B. Corporate military contractor
C. National Lab

2. Co-Investigates with researcher(s) at
A. military,
B. corporate,
C. national lab?


3. Participates in conferences linked to military? Sponsored by military? Serves
on or coordinates military-science conference?

4. Worked(s) for corporate-military contractor?

5. Serves as advisor for any military agency?





ABADI, Martin

DE ALFARO, Luca

1. A. ONR, DARPA, AFOSR


BALMFORTH, Neil

BRANDT, Scott

1. DoD, DARPA
4. May 1991 - August 1992
Senior Research Scientist, Alliant Techsystems Research and Technology Center (Formerly Honeywell
Systems and Research Center), September 1990 - May 1991
Founder and Vice President, Theseus Research Inc, Theseus Logic
March 1987 - September 1990
Senior Research Scientist, Honeywell Systems and Research Center

BRANDWAJN, Alexandre

CHAN, Pak

1. B. Xilinx

DAI, Wayne

1. A. DARPA

DEAMER, David

DRAPER, David

4. RAND Corp.

FANG, Jiayuan

1. A. DARPA

FERGUSON, F. Joel

1. A. DoD

FRIEDLANDER, Benjamin

1. A. DARPA, ONR, AFOSR, ARO,
3. Asilomar Conference on Signals Systems and Computers
4. Saxpy Computer Corporation, Director of Advanced Technology, 1985-1988.
Systems Control Technology, Manager of the Advanced Technology Division, 1976-1985.
Israel Aircraft Industries, Consultant, 1972.
Electronic Research Department, M.O.D, Israel, Engineer and Group Leader, 1968-1972.


GARCIA-LUNA-ACEVES, JJ

1. A. DARPA, ONR,
B. SRI, Hughes, Raytheon
2. A. NPS
3. MILCOMπ97
4. SRI


GRISS, Martin

GU, Claire

1. B. Rockwell Science Center
C. LLNL
2. B. Rockwell Science Center
4. Rockwell Science Center

HAUSSLER, David

1. C. LANL
3. Asilomar 2002

HELMBOLD, David

HUGHEY, Richard

1. B. Lockheed Martin
C. LANL



ISAACSON, Michael

1. A. DARPA, AFOSR


KANG, Steve M.

KARPLUS, Kevin

1. C. LANL

KOLAITIS, Phokion

KOTTAS, Athanasios

LANGDON, Glen

1. A. ONR
2. A. NPS

LARRABEE, Tracy

1. A. DoD

LEE, Herbert

LEVINSON, Robert

1. A. ONR
2. A. NPS

LIU, Wentai

1. A. DARPA
4. GE Microelectronics Center


LODHA, Suresh

1. A. DoD
2. A. NPS

LONG, Darrell

1. A. ONR, DoD
C. LANL, LLNL, Sandia
2. A. NPS
3. METOC Navy


LOWE, Todd

MADHYASTHA, Tara

MANDUCHI, Roberto

1. A. DARPA, ARL, DoD
C. JPL

MANGEL, Marc

1. A. ONR
5. Consultant: Office of the President, Center for Naval Analyses, 1982-1991
& Center for Naval Analyses (CNA, the research and development center for the US Navy) from Nov
1977-Aug 1980, including service as the Operations Evaluation Group Representative to the Commander,
Medium Attack Wing, US Pacific Fleet (Whidbey Island, Washington).

MANTEY, Patrick

1. A. ONR
2. A. NPS

MCDOWELL, Charlie

MILANFAR, Peyman

1. A. ONR, ARO
4. SRI, ALPHATECH

MILLER, Ethan

1. A. DARPA, ONR
C. LLNL
3. ≥RAMA: A Reliable High-Performance Scalable File System≤, Army Research Lab, Aberdeen, MD
(April 2000)
≥Building Large Scalable File Systems≤, Lawrence Livermore National Lab (May 1999)
4. B. BBN Technologies, GTE Corp. (Verizon)

OBRACZKA, Katia

1. A. DARPA, Air Force
B. Hughes Research Laboratories
3. DARPA workshop on ≥Smart Spaces≤ 1998 (A lightweight protocol for interconnecting heterogeneous
devices in dynamic environments Almeroth, K.C.; Obraczka, K.; de Lucin, D.;
Multimedia Computing and Systems, 1999. IEEE International Conference on , Volume: 2 , Jul 1999
Page(s): 420 -425 vol.2)

PANG, Alex

1. A. DARPA, Navy
C. LLNL
2. A. NPS
3. ONR Experts Panel on Capturing Transfering, and Visualizing Uncertainty 2000. DARPA PI Meeting
≥Supercomputing 2000. Sandia National Lab, LLNL


PEDROTTI, Ken

1. A. DARPA, Air Force
4. Rockwell Science Center, currently Opticomp (advisor)

POHL, Ira

PRADO, Raquel

ROHL, Carol

SADJADPOUR, Hamid

1. ONR
3. Presentations at Asilomar 1994, 1996, 1998, and IEEE Military Communication Conference San Diego
1995.
4. Lincom corporations between February 1994 and July 1995 as a member of technical staff.

SCHLAG, Martine

1. B. Xilinx

SCHMIDT, Holger

SHAKOURI, Ali

1. A. DARPA, DoD MURI, ONR
2. A. DARPA HERETIC
B. Hughes Research Lab, SRI


STATA, Raymie

TAN, Wang Chiew

TAO, Hai

1. A. Air Force
B. Sarnoff Corporation,
2. B. Sarnoff Corporation
4. Sarnoff Corporation

VAN GELDER, Allen

VARMA, Anujan

1. A. DoD, DARPA

VESECKY, John

1.A. DoD MURI, ONR
2. A. NPS, NRL
3. A. NPS Tactical Oceanography Symposium NPS 1990 (Symposium on Tactical Oceanography: Naval
Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, 12-15 March 1990 (1991)
Commission on Geosciences, Environment and Resources (CGER))( Oceanography and Naval Special
Warfare: Opportunities and Challenges (1998)
Commission on Geosciences, Environment and Resources (CGER))
5. DoD: JASON (LIST compiled from DOD membership lists given
under FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT requests and in
published CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, by Charles
Schwartz, Physics Dept., Univ. of Cal.Berkeley,
94720. Dated July 1987.)

WANG, Hongyun


WARMUTH, Manfred


1. A. Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center


WHITEHEAD, James


1. A. DARPA
4. Engineer, Raytheon Equipment Division, 1989-1992.


WILHELMS, Jane



YELLIN, Joel






Scientific Research at the Baskin School
Funding -
Of the 56 faculty members within the Baskin School of Engineering, 29 are shown to have current research which is funded directly by the Department of
Defense or one of its agencies. This amounts to 51% of the Baskin faculty with funding from the DoD. Subcategories B, and C - Corporate, and National
Lab/Federally Funded Research and Development Center (NL-FFRDC) funding show levels of 7 and 8 faculty members respectively. No faculty member was
shown to conduct research funded from all three sources - DoD, corporate, and NL/FFRDC Similarly the overlap between faculty funded by both DoD and
corporate money was small - only 3, with the overlap between military and NL/FFRDC funding measuring 4 faculty, and faculty accepting corporate and
NL/FFRDC funding measuring a mere 2 faculty members.
The data does however point toward a dependence on DoD research funding, especially from the Office of Naval Research and the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency.
Furthermore, many of the largest grants for research at the Baskin School come from the military. Perhaps the largest project in the last decade was
REINAS, the Real Time Environmental Network and Analysis System. For a background on this project and its purpose refer to: "REINAS: Real-Time
Environmental Network and Analysis System: Concept Statement," Long, Mantey, Pang, Langdon, Levinson, Kolsky, Gritton, Wash, Rosenfeld (1993).
REINAS received $1.5 million in the very least from the Office of Naval Research.
Another major research project funded by the warfare state was WINGs Wireless Internet Gateways - a mobile computer communications system
designed by a Baskin faculty member with funding from DARPA. (Garcia-Luna 2001).
The most recent appropriation for research to the Baskin faculty was in the form of a MURI award to professor Ali Shakouri for a project on "Direct
Thermal to Electrical Energy Conversion."

" The average award will be $1 million per year over a three-year period. Two additional years of funding will be possible as options to bring the total
award to five years. Out-year funding is subject to satisfactory progress in the research and the availability of funding appropriations."

"Today's announcement is the result of a rigorous merit competition over many months under the DoD MURI program. In response to the MURI broad
agency announcement solicitation, many letters of intent to submit proposals were received leading to 83 full proposals requesting $497 million for
multidisciplinary research. After a thorough evaluation by DoD technical expert teams, 17 of these proposals were found to be suitable for funding." (DoD
News Release: 3/12/03).

The Baskin School's latest grant is significant because it is a MURI (Multi-Disciplinary University Research Initiative) Grant. MURI grants accomplish an
important organizational and communication need within the scientific community. According to the Office of Naval Research (ONR 2003),

"The Multidisciplinary Research Program of the University Research Initiative (MURI) is a multi-agency DoD program that supports research teams
whose efforts intersect more than one traditional science and engineering discipline. Multidisciplinary team effort can accelerate research progress in areas
particularly suited to this approach. Multidisciplinary research also can help to hasten the transition of research findings to practical application."

By supporting teams of researchers, the MURI grant establishes an impetus and support for scientists in different fields, and at different universities to
collaborate in order to seek out DoD funding. MURI grants act to organize researchers, and support associations between researchers in cross disciplinary
fields of interest to the warfare state. An excellent example of such organizational support is Baskin faculty member Suresh Lhoda's research team, support by
an Army MURI award. The project is, "Next Generation, 4-D Distributed Modeling and Visualization," a project dedicated to the research and design of
systems capable of;

"Gaining a detailed tactical picture of the modern battlespace," "[through] algorithms for geo-registration and tracking, fast and accurate 4D model
construction techniques, portable visualization, dynamic and universal data structures with fast updates for visualization, multimodal interaction,
uncertainty representation computation, visualization and validation, and information fusion and uncertainty processing in distributed mobile networks."
(MURI Visualization Team).

Through this MURI funded project, professor Lhoda works with researchers at UC Berkeley, Georgia Institute of Technology, University of Southern
California, and Syracuse University. This kind of research could only be funded in this manner. But the funding technique also has the effect of organizing a
network of researchers between campuses whose service to the military enterprise is critically valuable.

Collaborative Research -
No less than 9 faculty members of the Baskin School have collaborated on research with employees of the military while at the Baskin School. No less
than 2 have collaborated with researchers at corporate military contractors. The collaborative research stems mainly from the REINAS project in which
UCSC's team worked closely with at least two scientists from the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey California.
Collaborative research is usually the product of close ties between university faculty and their military/corporate peers. In the case of Baskin faculty
member Claire Gu, her work with scientists at Rockwell Science Center correlates with her past position as an employee. Similarly, Tao Hai professor of
computer engineering has collaborated on research with employees of the Sarnoff Corporation. He has also been employed by Sarnoff, and his university
research has been funded by Sarnoff.
Collaborative research ties together faculty members with their counterparts in other subsidiaries of the military enterprise. Where university faculty
fulfill the basic scientific research and groundbreaking work, their peers within industry and the military apply the results. By connecting and co-investigating
with researchers outside of the university, the research and development process completes itself from basic to applied.

Conferences Linking the Baskin School to the Military Enterprise -
At least 8 members of the Baskin School of Engineering have participated in conferences linked to, organized by, or sponsored by the military
enterprise. Conferences are extremely important for the organization of the warfare state's research employees and scientists. Conferences connect researchers
with one another for future collaborative projects, they provide venues for the sharing of current interests and trends, they connect researchers with funders, and
scientists with the agencies and industries that apply their findings to war.
The two most illustrative examples within the Baskin School of military enterprise conference participation are professor Benjamin Friedlander's role in
the Asilomar Conference, and professor Darrell Longs past attendances.
Friedlander measures as perhaps the most militarized scientist within the Baskin School. Nearly all of his research is funded by military agencies, and
sub-contracted corporations, he has held past positions at military-industrial firms, and served as an advisor on national missile defense in the 1980's. His role
in the Asilomar Conference on Signals Systems and Computers makes him an important organizer for the military enterprise.
The Asilomar Conference is an annual industry, university, military conference on communications technologies drawing researchers from all spheres
of the military enterprise held in Monterey California. The conference is co-organized by the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS), and the Mission Research
Corporation (a major military contractor with a facility in Monterey). Friedlander serves on the conference's steering committee, and has acted as,
"Chairman of numerous sessions at the Asilomar Conference on Circuits, Systems, and Computers," (Friedlander). Also on the conference's steering
committee are faculty from the NPS, employees of Mission Research Corp., Texas Instruments, and faculty members from universities including Penn State,
University of Washington, San Diego State, and University of Texas (Asilomar 2003).
Baskin Professor of Computer Science Darrell Long attended a conference that was held aboard the USS Carl Vinson US Aircraft Carrier in which
naval warfare systems and the scientific community's research were described as such;

"The METOC problem for the workshop was bound by addressing two specific aspects, METOC support to carrier air strike (STRIKEOPS), and battle
group undersea warfare (USW), of a typical battle scenario."

METOC refers to meteorology and oceanography, a topic around which the Navy has organized various studies, conferences, and working groups of which
this is one. The workshop went on to carry out a wargame in which the Navy demonstrated through a wargame the importance of high tech computer systems
on which they are dependent. Professor Long's participation was extensive:

"On the classified computer, Dr. Long accessed TARPS, STOIC, and annotated satellite imagery." " Dr. D. Long ≠ UC Santa Cruz ≠ Discussed the
REINAS project; 3 components to REINAS - Sensors, Dbase, Visualization to End User. Discussed current instrumentation and video instruments,
configuration of instrument and database nodes, environmental visualization with REINAS."

Current and Past Employment of the Baskin Faculty by Corporate Military Contractors -
At least 12 of the Baskin faculty have worked for a corporate military contractor during their professional career. Rates of employment for scientists
and engineers in the commercial subsidiary sector of the military enterprise are extremely high. Professor Charles Schwarz of UC Berkeley's Physics
Department has measured rates of military/military-industrial employment for graduates as high as 48% for physics, 34% astronomy, 58% atmospheric
science, 28% applied mathematics, 64% aeronautical engineering, 43% electrical engineering, 34% materials engineering, 36% mechanical engineering, and
24% nuclear engineering (Schwartz).
Military dominance in these economic fields lead many graduates into employment within the military enterprise in either corporate operations or the
DoD's labs and agencies. This also seems to be a popular interim form of employment for many graduates before pursuing their doctoral degrees and
research. Many then stay within the university while retaining their contacts at DoD and corporate agencies of the military enterprise.
Scott Brandt, professor of computer science within the Baskin School lists among his past employment three military industrial firms including
Honeywell Systems Research Center, and Theseus Research & Logic. From 1991-1992 he worked as a senior research scientists for Alliant Techsystems.

" ATK is a $2.2 billion aerospace and defense company with strong positions in propulsion, composite structures, munitions, precision capabilities, and
civil and sporting ammunition. The company, which is headquartered in Edina, Minnesota, employs approximately 12,000 people and has three business
groups: Aerospace, Precision Systems, and Ammunition and Related Products." (Alliant Techsystems).

" Alliant Techsystems is the largest supplier of all munitions to the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and works on many DoD contracts, including large
and small caliber munitions employing depleted uranium penetrators, rocket motors for most missiles-- most notably the Trident II nuclear missile and the
AGM-130 and AMRAAM missiles." (Reaching Critical Will).

Other Baskin faculty with past employment links to the military enterprise are professor of computer engineering JJ Garcia Luna Aceves - who worked
at SRI, the famous military research institute based in Palo Alto; electrical engineering professor Peyman Milanfar - also with a past position at SRI, and
employment history with a military technology corporation called Alphatech; computer science professor Ethan Miller - who worked at BBN Technologies;
professor of electrical engineering Hamid Sadjadpour who was employed by Lincom Corporation, a DoD contractor that integrates satellite technology for the
warfare state; and computer science professor James Whitehead who worked as an engineer for Raytheon's Equipment Division from 1989-1992.
These examples reflect the military enterprise's strong incorporational structure which integrates commercial weapons manufacturers, non-profit
research institutions, university faculty members, their students and graduates, and their central management - the Department of Defense.

Expert Faculty Advisors of the Warfare State
The final measurement of the Baskin School's militarization, advisory service to the military enterprise revealed at least 3 cases. The Department of
Defense has since World War Two sought the expert advice of university scientists in fields as diverse as biology, physics, and psychology. Of key
importance to the military enterprise is expert advice on the efficacy and realistic costs, and consequences of new weapons systems in terms of their utilitarian
value in war.
Within the Baskin School, professors Marc Mangel, John Vesecky, and Alex Pang have all served in consultant positions to the warfare state. Pang's
advisory position was at Los Alamos National Labs. Professor Mangel's work was also in conjunction with employment by Center for Naval Analysis (A
Research and Development Center of the US Navy) from 1977-1980. His work description states, "service as the Operations Evaluation Group
Representative to the Commander, Medium Attack Wing, US Pacific Fleet (Whidbey Island, Washington." (Mangel).
Professor and Chair of the Electrical Engineering Department within the Baskin School, John Vesecky holds a particularly interesting and critical
position within the warfare state's advisory body. Vesecky has participated in the DoD's scientific advisory board JASON. JASON was founded in 1958 as
an advisory group of physicists to guide DoD research and development priorities. Vesecky's level of participation, and exact contribution to the JASON
group is impossible to determine given that the majority of the think tank's publications and studies are classified, but he is listed as co-author in several
JASON reports including "Digital Beam Synthesis (DBS) for a High Capability Opto-Electronic Radar (HICAPOR)" published through the MITRE
Corporations JASON Program Office (Despain et. al) and "Intelligence missions of future subs." (J. Goodman et al.).
Vesecky's work centers on;

"remote sensing of the ocean surface; ocean current measuring radar for coastal ecology and oceanography, radar and radar systems, especially
synthetic aperture radar (SAR); wave scattering; remote sensing and public health; global change."(Vesecky).

It is his interest in radar, radar systems and the ocean environment which have made him a valued member of the military enterprise.

Conclusion
I have put forward the claim that many of our nation's scientific resources and people are mobilized for the purposes of strengthening the warfare state.
University researchers in particular are a key component of the military enterprise for the reasons that they; conduct vital research on scientific and
technological topics of interest to the warfare state, and they educate the next generation of employees, technocrats, and administrators of the military
enterprise. In addition to these two primary roles, university professors serve in advisory positions to the Department of Defense and its corporate
subsidiaries. Professors facilitate and are facilitated by organizations, conferences, and professional societies that serve to further the interests of the warfare
state and their own simultaneously. And professors and their graduates compose the workforce of the military enterprises scientifically bound industrial
manufacturers and corporations when they are not consumed in their academic roles.
Finally and most seriously, the militarization of university faculty successfully serves to legitimate war, waste, destruction and all the trademarks of the
military enterprise. Faculty participation is necessitated by the basic scientific needs of the warfare state, but it also serves to lend the names of our nation's
universities to the business that is war. The system has very real utility in its production of knowledge for war, and graduates for the military enterprise's
workforce. Equally, the system legitimates itself and the goals of its central directors in the Department of Defense. These goals are the pursuit of war and
violence through technological dominance as a means to solving socially derived problems. And the institutional goal of expanding the power, scope, and
control of the warfare state over every last aspect of American life, from work, to play, education and to knowledge itself.
"More praise of peace is easy but ineffective. What is needed is active participation in the fight against war and everything that leads to it." Albert
Einstein - The model of Existential Courage

Appendix A.

DoD - The Department of Defense

DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) Founded in 1958, DARPA is the DoDπs primary funder of scientific research and development. DARPA
focuses on high risk high payoff projects and technologies. DARPA is the US militaryπs catalyst for paradigm shifts in warfare - it leads the way in technological
transformation.

ONR (Office of Naval Research) The Navyπs funding agency for scientific research. Founded in 1946, the ONR remains the largest service agency funder
spearheading many projects in communications, engineering, and engineering.

ARO (Army Research Office) Army funding agency for scientific research.

AFOSR (Air Force Office of Scientific Research) Air Force funding agency for scientific research

SPAWAR (Space and Naval Weapons Systems Center) Naval research division focused on communications and high tech research.

SRI (Stanford Research Institute, now SRI International) Located in Menlo Park CA, employs roughly 1500 scientists and engineers. Originally linked to
Stanford University as a research park, the non-profit institution was forced to sever ties with Stanford in the early 1970πs. SRI carries out advanced research on
many scientific topics of interest to the military.

Sarnoff Corporation - ≥Sarnoff has a broad range of Government Clients which includes the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA), the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), all branches of the Armed Services, the Intelligence Community
organizations.≤ (www.sarnoff.com)

Rockwell Science International - Based in Thousand Oaks CA, Rockwell employs 450 researchers producing imaging and optics technologies, materials, and other
high tech knowledge based products for the US military and its corporate contractors.

Raytheon - Based in Lexington MA with operations spread throughout the US, Raytheon employs approximately 77,500 employees producing weapons and
weapons systems.

Hughes Research Lab - Based in Malibu CA engaging in military technologies.

Alphatech - Founded by MIT professors, Alphatech works on technologies for National Missile Defense, Automatic Target Recognition, Remote vehicle tracking
and identification, among other military sponsored projects.

Xilinx - Manufacturer of computer hardware, significant contracts with DoD, and DARPA.

Lincom - High Technology communications firm with SBIR (Small Business Innovative Research) awards from the DoD.

Opticomp - Fiber optics corporation with major DoD contracts.

BBN Technologies - Based in Cambridge Mass., BBN is a major DoD contractor in high tech research and design.

GTE (Verizon Corp.) Although known for its commercial communications products, GTE Verizon Corp. is a major military industrial firm with a history in
missile defense, nuclear fuels, and advanced military technologies.

GE Microelectronics Center - Major military contractor producing jet engines, vehicle components, and weapons systems.

RAND Corp. - Based in Santa Monica CA, RAND conducts research for most branches of the federal government with an emphasis on DoD, and DoHS
(Department of Homeland Security) projects.

Saxpy Computer Corporation - Received SBIR contracts throughout the 1980's for work on national missile defense.

Systems Control Technology Inc. - Received SBIR contracts throughout the 1980's for work on national missile defense.

Israeli Aircraft Industries - Major Israel based military contractor producing weapons for sale in over 80 nations.

Lockheed Martin - Number one military industrial corporation in the world. Producer of weapons and weapons systems including Trident nuclear missile
submarines, F-16 and the new F-22 fighter aircraft, etc.

Alliant Techsystems - Manufacturer of munitions for DoD, maker of the Depleted Uranium shells now used in most combat.

Honeywell Systems - Corporate parent of Alliant Techsystems, and also a major DoD contractor.

Theseus Research & Theseus Logic - SBIR contractor for DoD, Army, BMD, and National Security Agency.









Works Cited

Melman, Seymour. "Pentagon Capitalism." McGraw Hill. New York: 1970.

Department of Defense: Defense Almanac. www.defenselink.mil. 2003.

Rumsfeld, Donald. ≥21st Century Transformation of US Armed Forces.≤ Remarks as Delivered by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, National Defense
University, Fort McNair, Washington, D.C., Thursday, January 31, 2002.

Macgregor, Douglas A. ≥Resurrecting Transformation for the Post Industrial Era.≤ Defense Horizons. September 2001.

DAVID E. SANGER, ≥Bush Details Plan to Focus Military on New Weaponry,≤ New York Times, February 14, 2001

Sega, Ronald M. ≥Statement of the Honorable Ronald M. Sega, Director of Defense Research and Engineering - Before the Senate Armed Services Committee on
Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee DoD Science and Technology Programs.≤ April 10, 2002.

SPIE. ≥FY 2003 Funding for DoDπs Science and Technology Programs.≤ March 1, 2002.

Kaminski, Paul G. ≥DoDπs Fiscal 1997 Acquisition and Technology Program.≤ Defense Issues: v. 11 n. 32. 1997.

BondGraham, Darwin. ≥College and University Statistics for FY 2000: Department of Defense Funds for Research.≤ www.fiatpax.net/univstats2000.html.

OSTP (Office of Science and Technology Policy: President of the United States) ≥Department of Defense.≤ www.ostp.gov/NSTC/html/dei/dod.htm

Long, Mantey, Pang, Langdon, Levinson, Kolsky, Gritton, Wash, Rosenfeld "REINAS: Real-Time Environmental Network and Analysis System: Concept
Statement," (1993). enkidu.cse.ucsc.edu/projects/reinas/publications.html

Garcia Luna, Aceves JJ. "Wireless Internet Gateways for the Internet." 10/22/2001. Prepared for Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Grant No.
DAAB07-95-C-D-157.

DoD: News Release. "Universities Selected for Research Funding." 3/12/03. www.defenselink.mil/news

ONR, Office of Naval Research. "Multidisciplinary Research Program of the URI." www.onr.navy.mil. 2003.

MURI Visualization Team. "Next Generation, 4-D Distributed Modeling and Visualization." www-video.eecs.berkeley.edu/vismuri/people.html. 2003.

Friedlaner, Benjamin. "Internet Homepage." www.cse.ucsc.edu/~friedlan/homepage.html

Asilomar. "Asilomar Conference on Signals System and Computers." web.nps.navy.mil/~asilomar/ 2003.

METOC Working Group. "Report of the 7-8 May 1998 ONR/CNMOC Interactive METOC Working Group." PARC. www2.parc.com/istl/projects/uir/pubs/
items/UIR-1998-08-Card-METOC-ONR.pdf

Schwartz, Charles. "Social Responsibility v. 2 n. 1: Information for Students on the Military Aspects of Careers in Physics." 1989.
www.socrates.berekely.edu/~schwartz/physbklt.html

Alliant Techsystems. "Corporate Profile." www.atk.com/about/. 2003.

Reaching Critical Will. "Alliant Techsystems: Company History and Products." www.reachingcriticalwill.org/dd/alliant.html. 2003.

Mangel, Marc. "Positions Honors and Awards." www.soe.ucsc.edu/~msmangel/cv.htm. 2003.

Despain, Alvin M.; Vesecky, John F. " Digital Beam Synthesis (DBS) for a High Capability Opto-Electronic Radar (HICAPOR)" MITRE CORP MCLEAN VA
JASON PROGRAM OFFICE. www.stormingmedia.us/cgi-bin/88/8890/A889033-77-4t.php

J. Goodman, S. Drell, M. Gregg, H. Levine, W. Munk, and J. Vesecky, "Intelligence missions of future subs." Technical Report JSR-01-225, JASON, 2001.

Vesecky John. "Homepage." www.cse.ucsc.edu/people/faculty/vesecky.html. 2003.
 
 


New Comments are disabled, please visit Indybay.org/SantaCruz

Calendar

No events for this day.

view calendar week
add an event

Views

Media Centers

Syndication feeds

Account Login

This site made manifest by dadaIMC software