Dr. Milton considered himself a “pure” scientist, his work itself separate from the use of his work, and thus, detached from any ethical considerations, but he had always just assumed that knowledge ultimately created good.

This is a disturbingly common attitude in academia. I’m doing my PhD at a well-known/highly ranked R1 institution in the US, and the amount of faculty that take DoD (or DoW now I guess) funding to work on their projects was shocking. They make the same assumptions as Dr. Milton—their science stands on its own, apart from any military use, and will ultimately create more good than evil. Further, they justify it by saying they only take money for things they would have researched anyway, arguing that the DoD (or other nefarious actors like oil or private defense companies) could’ve just used their results for free.

To me, this is beyond flawed, and Dr. Milton’s story shows us where this mentality leads. The research you do today affects what research you’ll be doing in a year. If the DoD offers you funding for one of your ten project ideas, you are shuttling yourself towards a research trajectory that benefits the DoD. It’s so sinister to me.

(And yes, there are many innovations—like the internet I’m posting on right now—that were originally DoD funded projects. Their projects can have positive benefits too, but do they outweigh the negative?)