The bottom line for me, given my cerebral limitations and general academic mediocrity, was the possibility to carry out a long-term project (five years) that would provide the kind of funding that would be unthinkable were I to apply to SSRC, Wenner-Gren, Fulbright, Ford Foundation, NSF, etc. Moreover, I saw the opportunity to help assemble an international team of social scientists who could provide cross-cultural perspectives that would enrich my research goals centered on attitudes and perspectives.

Personally, I have conducted ethnographic research in Eurasia for more than a decade, but I have never been able to help employ and engage with host scholars in that part of the world in any capacity that I considered just to their abilities and insights b/c of, you guessed it, the pathetic dollar amounts of funding available through the usual channels.

Minerva, as I understand it from the ideas generated by Secretary Gates ( who holds a doctorate incidentally in Russian studies) was to help develop better aware cadres of both military and government personnel where issues such as Islam and Muslim societies are at stake. As you all know, the Minerva grants cover a much wider range of topics.

If the position colleagues take, as suggested by Dr. Robin’s reading of others’ opining, is that anything associated with a direct source of OSD (office of the Secretary of Defense) funding places one on the proverbial slippery slope of aiding and abetting purveyors of cancer, then, yeah, there’ no sense in arguing, but, if you, as a person, have some pride and dignity in your own abilities and capacities (despite what I say above, I actually have some confidence in my own) to inform others and work independently, then I cannot see how one doesn’t take a chance on this.

Dr. Robin cogently reminds readers to be aware of historical precedent with regard to the military or various branches of state government directly funding the social sciences. Of course, the intertwining is deep, but if we’re going to discuss Camelot, why not also discuss all of the anthropological research efforts and direct military involvement during the Second World War? Many pros and cons to those research accomplishments.

One aspect of ethical consideration that I haven’t seen discussed robustly here is the involvement of our host colleagues and people whom we would interview, observe, etc. Working in Eurasia just after the collapse of the COld War, I will say that I have always found it to be extremely hard to gain any rapport with acquaintances, colleagues, and even friends had I not been as explicit as I could about who funded my research, and where, for example, does SSRC money come from. As conscientious anthropologists, we usually tell our students that we try not to involve ourselves directly with government agencies and funding b/c anthropologists usually work in countries where people have good reason to fear almost all authorities. This certainly has been my experience.

Nevertheless working where I have my experiences were so mindblowing to me b/c I made the effort and the efforts were forced upon me to discuss all manner of political issues with Eurasians, including American foreign policy, 9/11, war in Iraq and Afghanistan, Islamism, democracy, etc. I have also tried to be as forthcoming as I could be with people about what I might write and who may read what I write, which is to say nothing about how my own thought may be construed or misconstrued.

The major moral issues of Minerva Funding are the degree to which we compromise the anonymity and safety of consultants, the U. S. state’s agenda, and the scholars’ abilities to work with intellectual vigor and independence. It seems curious that certain voices in this debate already have the gifts of clairvoyance and prescience about the outcomes of these moral issues so that they seemingly answer these concerns definitively and absolutely. No need for any scientific skepticism here.

Lastly, what of the idea of the scholar who feels that he has something to say to those in government that reflects a reality or embodies knowledge that he is convinced people in government know little to nothing about. It isn’t only anthropologists who are famous for back seat driving. Unfortunately, if one entertains pretensions to informing policy or having some role, large or small, in steering an aspect of government, then I think you have to be as direct as possible in giving it a direct and serious effort.

Of course, I am sympathetic to those who despise militarism, military involvement in knowledge production, and any and all direct government involvement in social science. It just so happens that I don’t agree with you on all points.

I’ll end with reference to my second paragraph: I am would be very excited to have the potential for the time and funding that enable me to work carefully and consistently with host Eurasian colleagues who will enrich the nature and understanding of our research questions and project design beyond what I and my other American colleagues could do on our own. We are mutually dependent on each other, and till this point their opinions, criticisms, and findings have made the proposal what it is, so if we receive the funding, we have to acknowledge that at least its planning has been very cross-cultural in scope.