ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

A Transversable Path

I am thrilled by your decision to ask A. Carl Leopold to write an Opinion article for The Scientist (“Weapons Research Extracts A Toll On Academic Science,” Oct. 16, 1989). I’m sure many of your readers will feel that Leopold’s arguments are unnecessarily alarmist, but, alas, such is not the case. If, as Leopold asserts, 65% of federal allocations for R&D are for military purposes, scientists cannot afford to bury their heads in the sand for another decade; immediate act

Donald Barnes

I am thrilled by your decision to ask A. Carl Leopold to write an Opinion article for The Scientist (“Weapons Research Extracts A Toll On Academic Science,” Oct. 16, 1989). I’m sure many of your readers will feel that Leopold’s arguments are unnecessarily alarmist, but, alas, such is not the case. If, as Leopold asserts, 65% of federal allocations for R&D are for military purposes, scientists cannot afford to bury their heads in the sand for another decade; immediate action is required and Leopold has not left us hanging. On the contrary, he has drawn us a clear and traversable-path.

I have served as contracting officer for the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) on several university contracts. Frankly, I was appalled at the power I wielded as a mere junior officer over the actions of full professors at major universities. My mission was to define the behavioral and physiological effects...

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

Receive full access to digital editions of The Scientist, as well as TS Digest, feature stories, more than 35 years of archives, and much more!
Already a member?
ADVERTISEMENT