the militarisation of science and technology – an update

The document examines the growth of military research and development (R&D) spending and the increasing integration of military objectives into academic and educational institutions in the UK and USA. It critiques the 'Revolution in Military Affairs' (RMA) as a failing high-technology approach to security and highlights a significant funding imbalance where military R&D far outweighs spending on climate change, health, and poverty reduction. The authors argue that this militarisation marginalises non-offensive security strategies and threatens academic freedom and the civilian skills base.

• Global military expenditure reached $1.2 trillion in 2006, with the United States accounting for approximately 45% of this total, spending $529 billion.
• US government spending on military R&D was expected to reach $78 billion in 2007, representing a 57% real-term increase since 2001 and exceeding Cold War maximums by 30%.
• The UK is the third highest government funder of military R&D globally, behind the USA and Russia, with £2.6 billion earmarked for 2006/07.
• The UK government's Defence Industrial Strategy (2005) and Defence Technology Strategy (2006) promote a high-technology, weapons-based approach to security known as the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA), which relies heavily on robotics, computer networks, and university expertise.
• Military funding reaches UK universities through multiple channels, including the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL), which provided approximately £5 million per year to 60 universities, and the privatised QinetiQ, which placed about £2.5 million in MoD subcontracts with universities.
• There is a stark imbalance in R&D funding in industrialised (OECD) countries; in 2004, governments spent $85 billion on military R&D, compared to $50 billion for health and environmental protection and less than $1 billion for renewable energy.
• The RMA strategy's reliance on 'high precision' weaponry is critiqued for failing in asymmetric warfare and causing high civilian casualties, as 'enemy combatants' often hide among civilian populations.
• Military corporations actively target UK schools and colleges with educational materials and competitions to secure a future workforce and associate science subjects with their brands, potentially undermining critical ethical questioning from a young age.
• The decline in UK physical science and engineering graduates—falling by an average of 26% between 1994 and 2001—combined with the closure of numerous physics and chemistry departments, makes remaining departments more dependent on military funding and less capable of independent critique.

APA

Langley, C., Parkinson, S., & Webber, P. (2007). the militarisation of science and technology – an update. Scientists for Global Responsibility. https://www.sgr.org.uk/sites/default/files/2019-04/More_Soldiers_in_Lab_Report.pdf

Chicago

Langley, Chris, Stuart Parkinson, and Philip Webber. the militarisation of science and technology – an update. Scientists for Global Responsibility, 2007. https://www.sgr.org.uk/sites/default/files/2019-04/More_Soldiers_in_Lab_Report.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Langley |first1=Chris |last2=Parkinson |first2=Stuart |last3=Webber |first3=Philip |title=the militarisation of science and technology – an update |publisher=Scientists for Global Responsibility |date=August 2007 |url=https://www.sgr.org.uk/sites/default/files/2019-04/More_Soldiers_in_Lab_Report.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{langley2007militarisation, author = {Langley, Chris and Parkinson, Stuart and Webber, Philip}, title = {{the militarisation of science and technology – an update}}, institution = {Scientists for Global Responsibility}, year = {2007}, month = aug, url = {https://www.sgr.org.uk/sites/default/files/2019-04/More_Soldiers_in_Lab_Report.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }