Discursive Choices:Boycotting Star Wars

Between Science and Politics

Rebecca SlaytonScience, Technology, and Society Program

Stanford University

Science and Publics ConferenceImperial College London, May 19, 2007

“I call upon the scientific community in our country…to give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete.” – Ronald Reagan, the “Star Wars” speech, March 23, 1983

“More than 6,500 scientists…have declared themselves opposed to President Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) and pledged not to accept any ‘Star Wars’ research funds…”– Washington Post, May 13, 1986

How does communication shape scientists’ interventions in public politics?

Studies in Public Communication of Science– Communication as an institution

• Emphasizes structural constraints• Dunwoody, Nelkin, Friedson

– Communication as a resource• Emphasizes agency of scientists/laypersons• Latour, Callon, Wynne, Hilgartner

Most emphasize: communication enhances the political power of scientists

Discursive ChoicesModes of Communication

Scientific Discourse• Dispassionate

language• Claims value-neutrality• Elite credentials• Peer reviewed journals

Political Discourse• Impassioned

language• Explicitly ethical • Large numbers• Mass media

Discursive choices shaped the emergent strategies and identities

of the boycotting scientists.

Outline

• Scientists launch academic research boycott– Norms of scientific discourse

• Scientists launch a political campaign– Mobilizing the mass media

• Journalists frame the boycott– Dominant models of discourse

Sizing up Star Wars

• Technical reports– Reagan-commissioned study

• Concludes that a 99.9% effective shield ‘not technically credible,’ but this is obscured in public

– Explicitly Critical Studies• Union of Concerned Scientists• Office of Technology Assessment

• Balanced reporting– “No Sign of Emerging Consensus”– “Experts Divided into Two Camps”

Star Wars Comes to Campus

Innovative Science and Technology Program

• IST solicits pre-proposals (white papers) from university researchers, not subject to peer review.

• IST director explains white papers: “this office is trying to sell something to Congress. If we can say that this fellow at MIT will get money to do such and such research, it’s something real to sell.”

“Star Wars” is Looking for a Few Good Ideas

Have you always wanted to do ballistic missile defense, but just didn’t know how to get started? Well, here’s your chance!....

No more red tape! Anyone can play!

White Papers Contest at Cornell

Cornell Pledge: Reforming Academic ScienceMinding the Science-Politics Boundary

We believe that it is the personal responsibility of all researchers opposed to the SDI program to refuse to cooperate with the program by not soliciting or accepting SDI funds.

and…we pledge not to do so ourselves.

The SDI program and its political acceptance depend crucially on the participation of individual scientists and engineers….

we pledge neither to solicit nor accept SDI funds, and urge others to join us in this refusal.

David Wright Lisbeth Gronlund 1985

“A Lulu”

Illinois Pledge: Shaping National PoliticsMinding the Science-Politics Boundary

Star Wars… represents… a major step toward precisely the type of irrational, aggressive strategy most likely to bring the greatest catastrophe in history, if not the end of history itself.

We hereby announce our unconditional refusal to participate in the Star Wars program in any way.

…the Star Wars Program is technically dubious and politically unwise.

…a step toward precisely the type of weapons and strategy most likely to trigger a nuclear holocaust.

…as working scientists, we will not apply for or accept support from the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization...

Mobilizing Scientists:Choosing “Scientific” Discourse

Academic scientists only sign a pledge that:– Minimizes impassioned and ethical discourses– Distinguishes between ‘science’ and ‘politics’

Mobilizing the Mass Media:Choosing More Political Discourses

Dual Performances as– Scientists: demonstrate apolitical consensus– Activists: demonstrate political relevance

Mobilizing the Mass MediaA Unified, Political Campaign

• Political relevance– Merged statement foregrounds national, not academic

politics: “The Star Wars Program is technically dubious and politically unwise.”

• Political neutrality– Majority of signers normally accept military funding– Goal is ‘not to make a political statement, but to point

out that the bulk of the scientists who would be working on it think it is technically infeasible…’

– Scientific consensus: majority of the combined faculty in the top 20 physics departments sign the pledge of refusal

Setting the Stage for Washington, D.C.

Foreground: U.S. Military Policy“Anti-ballistic missile defense of sufficient reliability to defend

the population of the United States against a Soviet attack is not technically feasible…The program is a step toward the type of weapons and strategy likely to trigger a nuclear holocaust.”

Background: Academic Freedom and SDI Research“They’re free to keep their mouths shut…I’m also free not to

give the money.”- Donald Hicks, Pentagon Undersecretary for Defense Research

Meeting the Press in

Washington D.C.

Political Arena“We are witnessing the

third major uprising of the nation’s scientists against an element of U.S. weapons policy.”

– Congressman George Brown

Elite Science“They can always get

the people…The question is, of what quality?”

– Nobel Laureate Philip Anderson

Washington Post Coverage of Scientists’ SDI Critiques

• Technical Critiques– Only 1 of 3 studies is

headlined– No editorials

• Scientists’ Boycott– Headline news– Editorial: “Sanctimony and

Science”

Choosing a Frame for the Boycott:Models of Scientific Communication

“Are they not also mixing science and politics?”-Washington Post