REPORTS circulated last week that the US Department of Defense has terminated its contract with JASON, a cold war-era scientific advisory committee.
The group was created in the late 1950s, when the department sought help from some ambitious, entrepreneurial academic physicists in the hopes of catching up with the Soviet Union, which had just launched the first artificial satellite, Sputnik.
Instead of studying a topic identified by a specific defence patron, JASON received briefings from various government agencies and then its scientists decided what to study. It also chose its own members.
Advertisement
JASON enjoyed remarkable independence compared with in‑house defence advisory boards and proved a particularly useful check on big, expensive ideas. Its reported demise creates a vacuum in a system that too often relies on technical expertise provided by groups more interested in their next multimillion-dollar contract than in supplying sound advice.
Yet much of the hand-wringing about the end of JASON has confused this important fiscal role with ethical oversight. JASON members have traditionally justified their weapons research by invoking scientists’ special responsibility to advise on the implications of their work.
History shows that this is a false premise. From the Manhattan Project physicists who later opposed the development of hydrogen bombs to the JASON scientists whose recommendations for limiting the war in Vietnam inadvertently created the modern, electronic battlefield, scientific advisers have often overestimated their ability to control how the military uses their ideas.
JASON’s demise presents an opportunity for public-minded scientists to rethink their relationship to power. ¿ìè¶ÌÊÓƵs are right to worry about the dangers of their creations, but wrong to think they can stop them on their own. When scientists oppose defence policy, they should speak out publicly, not behind closed doors. They should share their concerns and work with broad coalitions of citizens – not just scientists – to prevent harm.
