Search Climate Insights Directory

The document examines India's military integration of AI, driven by the 'intelligentized warfare' capabilities of China and the acquisition of AI-enabled systems by Pakistan. It details India's shift toward 'Atmanirbhar Bharat' (self-reliance) in producing UAVs and robotics, while maintaining a defensive strategic posture rooted in the 'dharmayuddha' (just war) philosophy. The authors highlight a tension between official policies of restraint and military calls for offensive cyber capabilities, as well as an ethical consensus on maintaining human primacy over lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS).

The energy transition increases demand for minerals like cobalt, nickel, and lithium, which are often sourced from poorly regulated mines in a few countries, leading to human rights abuses and environmental damage. While recycling and new battery technologies could reduce this demand, current recycling rates remain low, and the industry requires more transparent, enforceable sustainability standards.

The report by Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) examines the Institute of Physics' (IOP) investment portfolio and sponsorship ties. SGR identifies that while the IOP has a comprehensive environmental statement, it maintains investments in numerous fossil fuel and arms companies through funds like Vanguard and Invesco. The report highlights specific sponsorships from military entities such as the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) and Babcock International. SGR argues that these financial ties contradict the IOP's stated goals of promoting a sustainable society and acting with integrity, particularly in light of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the Paris Agreement.

The report reveals a pattern of funding, investments, and corporate memberships linking leading UK professional engineering and science organisations to the fossil fuel and arms sectors. It highlights a lack of transparency in financial disclosures and the promotion of these industries to schoolchildren without discussing associated ethical issues. The authors recommend that PESOs implement ethical investment policies, end corporate branding in education, and disclose all corporate payments over £1,000.

The report reveals a pattern of financial links between the fossil fuel and arms industries and UK professional engineering and science organisations, including investments, event sponsorship, and the funding of school education programmes. It highlights a significant lack of transparency and argues that these links compromise the ethical leadership of these professional bodies, particularly when promoting these industries to children without discussing associated ethical concerns.

The report examines the normative tensions inherent in security preparedness, identifying ten central ethical problems regarding priorities, responsibilities, and the distribution of costs and benefits. It evaluates these problems through various ethical theories—including consequentialism, contractualism, and deontology—and assesses existing guidelines like the Sendai Framework and Council of Europe principles. The document concludes by proposing a three-part framework to evaluate the ethical legitimacy of specific security policies based on human rights principles.

The report examines the 'moonlighting' of ICJ judges in ISDS arbitrations, noting that 20 judges have served in at least 90 such cases. It highlights the significant financial incentives for judges to act as arbitrators compared to their fixed ICJ salaries and argues that this practice may undermine the ICJ's reputation for impartiality and independence.

A group of scientists, including representatives from Scientists for Global Responsibility, argues that the appointment of Richard Goodman as Associate Editor for Biotechnology at the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology introduces a pro-GM bias. They cite Dr. Goodman's former employment at Monsanto and his involvement with the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) as evidence of a conflict of interest. The authors claim that Monsanto has a history of using litigation and intimidation to suppress anti-GM views in media and government, and they argue that this appointment violates the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines regarding the disclosure of editorial interests.

The report argues that the increasing commercialisation of science and technology, driven by government policy in the UK and USA, has eroded the traditional academic ethos of openness and objectivity. Through case studies of the pharmaceutical, tobacco, military/defence, oil and gas, and biotechnology sectors, the authors demonstrate that corporate funding often leads to 'sponsorship bias', where results are skewed to favour funders. The document highlights the marginalisation of public-interest research—such as disease prevention, sustainable agriculture, and renewable energy—in favour of profit-driven goals. It concludes with recommendations for universities to adopt ethical standards for partnerships and for the UK government to decouple science policy from purely economic objectives.

The chemical industry is a major employer in science and technology, providing materials that benefit society while producing synthetic chemicals that cause "significant harm to human health and to the environment". The briefing explores the ethical dilemmas and evolving regulations in the sector to guide career choices and identifies opportunities to improve the industry's environmental and health performance.

The report examines the disproportionate influence of the military sector, particularly in the UK and USA, on science, engineering, and technology (SET). It highlights how military funding and corporate lobbying shape research agendas, often marginalizing broader security concepts like climate change and poverty alleviation. The document calls for a significant shift of UK military R&D funds—suggesting one-third to one-half of the budget—toward civil R&D for peacebuilding and environmental protection, while urging greater transparency and a cessation of new nuclear weapons development.

The report investigates the pervasive influence of the military on UK science, engineering, and technology (SET), noting that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) accounts for approximately 30% of the total public R&D budget. It argues that this involvement drives a narrow, weapons-based approach to security and compromises scientific openness through secrecy and corporate lobbying. The authors advocate for a paradigm shift toward 'global security,' recommending that one-third to one-half of military R&D funds be diverted to address poverty, climate change, and conflict prevention.

Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) opposes unilateral US/UK military action against Iraq, characterizing it as a breach of the UN Charter. The organization argues that global security threats from weapons of mass destruction are partly caused by US and UK policies, specifically citing failures in nuclear disarmament, the sabotage of biological weapons protocols, and a general unilateralist approach to international law and climate change.

Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) condemns the September 11 attacks but warns that US military action in Afghanistan risks civilian casualties and regional instability. The statement argues that global security is undermined by high armament spending and inequality, and calls for the abandonment of the US missile defence programme. SGR further advocates for a strong enforcement regime for the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention and the elimination of nuclear fuel reprocessing to prevent terrorist acquisition of fissile materials.

SGR calls for the protection of existing worldwide cooperative agreements regarding space to prevent 'selfish and warlike exploitation'. The organisation specifically opposes the US National Missile Defence programme, citing risks of a nuclear arms race and the waste of resources that could instead fund renewable energy technologies to combat climate change and air pollution. SGR also warns against the use of nuclear-powered spacecraft, highlighting the extreme radioactivity of Pu238 used in missions like Cassini. Finally, the statement urges civil society to reinforce treaties such as the Outer Space Treaty and the Moon Agreement against trends of increasing commercialisation and militarisation.

The document critically examines the 'turn towards technology' in humanitarian aid, specifically regarding sexual violence. It warns that technological solutions often fail due to inadequate problem definitions and the exclusion of affected populations. The author identifies four key areas of concern: the creation of 'digital bodies' (data representations of physical people), the use of intrusive wearables for reproductive and health tracking, the 'technologization' of safeguarding through quantification and criminal law, and the use of data-driven vulnerability assessments that may render male victims invisible. Finally, it cautions against 'humanitarian experimentation,' where untested technologies are deployed in fragile environments without sufficient ethical frameworks, potentially introducing new harms to victims of gender-based violence.