Minerva Moves Forward

According to Inside Higher Ed, the first seven Minerva grants were announced this week. Minerva is a Pentagon-funded program that seeks contributions from social scientists on a number of topics of use to the military: religion, terrorism, the Chinese military, etc. The stated goals of the program are “1) to develop the DoD’s social and human science intellectual capital in order to enhance its ability to address future challenges; 2) to enhance the DoD’s engagement with the social science community; and 3) to deepen the understanding of the social and behavioral dimensions of national security issues.”

Hugh Gusterson and Catherine Lutz of the Network of Concerned Anthropologists are featured in the article, and detail some of the implications the program might pose to the social sciences.

Have thoughts about the Minerva program? If so, leave us a comment below.

Links:
NSF/DoD Minerva Joint Solicitation

AAA letter regarding Minerva [pdf]

"Military's Social Science Grants Raise Alarm" ~ Washington Post

"When Professors Go to War" ~ Hugh Gusterson

"Pentagon Shift on 'Minerva'" ~ Inside Higher Ed

"Anthropology Association Urges Government to Tread Cautiously With 'Minerva' Project" ~ The Chronicle of Higher Education

"Academics Target Pentagon's Social Science Project" ~ Wired's Danger Room,

"AAA Issues Statement on Minerva" ~ Savage Minds

DoD Defense Bloggers Roundtable Regarding Minerva [pdf]

Minerva in the News

Times Higher Education picked up an article featured in Anthropology Today. The article details some of the major concerns about the Minerva Research Initiative and the effects it could have upon the discipline as a whole. As always, we welcome your comments and thoughts on this issue.

Minerva - NSF/DoD Joint Solicitation

NSF recently signed a memorandum of understanding with the DoD, allowing collaboration between the two agencies, and has just announced a joint solicitation for proposals in the tune of $8 million. The stated goals of the program are “1) to develop the DoD’s social and human science intellectual capital in order to enhance its ability to address future challenges; 2) to enhance the DoD’s engagement with the social science community; and 3) to deepen the understanding of the social and behavioral dimensions of national security issues.”

Although we are pleased with NSF's involvement in Minerva, additional clarification is needed about the extent of DoD's role in the selection and review process. AAA is also concerned that only a portion of Minerva funding is being routed through NSF.

Share your thoughts on Minerva in our comment section below.

Links:

AAA letter regarding Minerva [pdf]

"Military's Social Science Grants Raise Alarm" ~ Washington Post

"When Professors Go to War" ~ Hugh Gusterson

"Pentagon Shift on 'Minerva'" ~ Inside Higher Ed

"Anthropology Association Urges Government to Tread Cautiously With 'Minerva' Project" ~ The Chronicle of Higher Education

"Academics Target Pentagon's Social Science Project" ~ Wired's Danger Room,

"AAA Issues Statement on Minerva" ~ Savage Minds

DoD Defense Bloggers Roundtable Regarding Minerva [pdf]

Hugh Gusterson, "When Professors go to War"

Hugh Gusterson, professor of anthropology at George Mason University, was featured in Foreign Policy this month. In his article, “When Professors go to War,” he describes the potential ramifications of a Pentagon-funded Minerva Project. Given anthropology’s lean to the left and lingering frustration about the (mis)use of social science research in Vietnam, many anthropologists, Gusterson argues, are unlikely to participate in Minerva. Opting out of Minerva compromises the Pentagon’s reported mission of sponsoring research from across the political spectrum. Gusterson writes, “The Pentagon will have the false comfort of believing that it has harnessed the best and the brightest minds, when in fact it will have only received a very limited slice of what the ivory tower has to offer­--academics who have no problem taking Pentagon funds. Social scientists call this ‘selection bias,’ and it can lead to dangerous analytical errors.” The solution is simple: fund through agencies that have experience supervising social science research, such as the NSF or NIH.

In a letter to the Office of Management and Budget, Defense Secretary William Gates, and the House and Senate Armed Services and Budget Committees, AAA urged to have NSF oversee the funding process. It appears some progress has been made. NSF recently signed a memorandum of understanding with the DoD, allowing collaboration between the two agencies. However, this does not mean NSF will be reviewing Minerva proposals, and additional efforts are needed to facilitate joint solicitations.

Secrecy on the Rise

Federal policy dictates that "fundamental" research should remain unclassified. However, according to a report released by the Council on Government Relations and the Association of American Universities, federal agencies appear to be incorporating more restrictive clauses into research grants and contracts. The report found 180 instances of restrictive language at 20 research institutions in 2007, a substantial increase from the 138 found in a 2003-2004 survey. The majority of restrictions are from the Defense Department, but other agencies have also made use of them. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Pentagon officials, called upon the DoD, as well as other agencies, to back off the restrictive language. Gates has ensured universities that research funded by the Minerva Project will remain unclassified. But we still advise all scholars to look for secrecy clauses prior to accepting any grants or contracts.

Please comment below if you've encountered these clauses before and have any advice for our readers.

Minerva & NSF

The Pentagon has launched a program called the Minerva Research Initiative that would fund university-based social scientists to study topics of interest to the Department of Defense, such as the Chinese military and religious fundamentalism. The AAA expressed its concerns about Minerva in a letter to Washington, and urged the Pentagon to coordinate with the National Science Foundation and other agencies that have extensive experience in peer-review and are familiar with the ethical standards and concerns of our discipline. The Pentagon was apparently listening. Pentagon officials signed an agreement with NSF last week enabling the two agencies to collaborate on approving Minerva-funded social science research. Still, there are concerns within the discipline that research will only be used when it supports the Pentagon’s agenda. AAA will continue to follow Minerva closely and will issue updates on this blog.

If you feel strongly about the program, please feel free to comment below.

Minerva Ignores AAA Concerns

The Pentagon issued a call for research proposals for the Minerva Project, The Chronicle of Higher Education reported today. Although there is no mention of coordinating with the NSF, the Pentagon has said, "The Minerva program is likely to be closely coordinated with the National Science Foundation."

The AAA previously issued a response to the proposed Minerva Project, in which it expressed concerns about the very same review process that the Pentagon describes in its announcement. The Association will continue to urge the Pentagon to coordinate with agencies (NSF, NIH, NEH) that have extensive experience in peer-review and are familiar with the rigorous standards of our discipline.

Links:
Pentagon kicks off social science consortium (Wired's Danger Room Blog)
AAA Responds to Proposed Minerva Consortium (AAA Public Affairs Blog)