The n-Category Café

Thanks Tom! I have a longish comment planned that is mostly a personal appeal–but first I wanted to post a link to the main site for the letter writing campaign that starts today. The focus is on asking for the passage of the freedom act.

This is the same campaign that will be advertised by over 5000 other .org and .com websites today, so it is the chance to be part of a some possibly very significant action.

Ok, I know this may be asking for punishment but I would like to invite comments aimed at helping me make an important decision. Usually I’d like to decide things with much less input, but the situation seems to be inherently a community problem.

In case anyone doesn’t know, the AMS runs a competition for small research grants (small means less than 20K for a year) called “young investigator grants,” funded by the Mathematical Sciences Program at the NSA. Last year I found out that my grant proposal was a winner just about the same time that Edward Snowden exposed the troubling nature of NSA surveillance, secrecy, and interaction with public encryption.

Now I’m active in trying to argue for reforms–and that means I’m potentially a hypocrite, or at least maybe caught in a conflict of interest, in the sense of receiving tax money from the very organization I’m criticizing. I’d agree that it would be hypocritical to simultaneously call for reforms and secretly work against those reforms, but from what I can tell the Mathematical Sciences Program does not need reformed. It would also be hypocritical to call for reforms and proceed to do something that hurts the chances of those reforms occurring: and that is the question I want to ask.

In the interest of helping myself see things clearly I’ve listed several choices, with pros and cons of each. There are necessarily some redundancies. The question becomes: how should these pros and cons be weighted? Do some outweigh others in such a powerful imbalance that the decision is clear? Maybe I’ve missed a key factor? I would like to hear any thoughts. Email or even written letters are fine too, although there are some 15-20 other mathematicians in my position that might also be interested!

Choice 1: take the money.

pros:

-use it to fund my students, university, family needs

-use it to further basic, open, unclassified research,

-(if published) give moral support to a good subset of the NSA, the math sciences program, and the AMS.

cons:

-(if published) give tacit approval and undeserved PR value to the status quo at the NSA as a whole, and the US govt in general,

-miss the chance to make a stronger statement about the need for reform, analogous to a hunger strike.

Choice 2: refuse the money publicly.

pros:

-make a statement about the need for reform,

-earn approval from those who call for complete disassociation with the NSA

cons:

-possibly hurt chances for future funding, both for myself and colleagues in my department (opinion of someone in our research office).

-possibly strike a blow that hurts part of the NSA which in fact needs no reform (the math sciences program)

Choice 3: wait and see a little longer.

pros:

-perhaps if the freedom act is passed, or more positive executive actions are born from the president’s recent responses and decisions, then the negatives for choice 1 listed above will be mitigated.

-Or, if the situation at the NSA stays the same or worsens then the negative consequences of choice 2 above will be negligible in comparison to the positives.

cons:

-the danger of waiting is vague–perhaps there is a crucial moment for making a good decision one way or the other and this moment might be missed.

Its a tough decision. I haven’t worked in an academic environment (which also makes me feel a little uneasy in offering advice to someone working in that environment) so I’ve no experience of how easy or difficult it is to fund research, but my impression is that getting funding for basic research is getting increasingly difficult, and one should at least take that into account. For example, surely its useful to know what proportion of departmental funding is from the NSA?

Personal conscience matters too - when I’ve gone against my better judgement, I usually find, but not always that I’ve regretted it.

If you take the money from an organisation then this doesn’t necessarily mean that one endorses everything that this organisation does. It is after all at one remove from actually working there, and also in the scale of things, the funding is quite small and it isn’t I assume asking for a long-term working relationship where one becomes publicly associated with the organisation. It might be worth making clear to the funders, as David Roberts mentioned, that there are specific things that you yourself aren’t happy with and that you wish to make clear by saying so a disclaimer in the publication of the research - I assume some kind of publication will come out of your research.

Having said that, I don’t know whether GCHQ/NSA would allow that, even though it seems eminently fair on ethical grounds, as it would set some kind of precedent. It would be worth finding out whether this has ever been done. I don’t know how one would begin to find this out. Perhaps by talking to them or by talking to some body with a professional interest in ethics in the sciences - is there one?

Taking the money, but placing a disclaimer in it is publicly and usefully expressing your anger at this particular activity to the mathematical public. Crucially, the public that will or won’t be affected by your decision isn’t the larger public, the public that a newspaper article is aimed at, but a much smaller one. If the main consideration of not taking the money is to advertise your disapproval of mass surveillance this might be the more effective means of doing so. Especially if its never been done before. It may even embolden others to ask, whereas they might not be so bold to think of refusing funding - thinking its going to hurt them more than hurt the NSA.

It might be worth considering that if you also go down this route, and GCHQ/NSA put up a fight its worth documenting in detail what happens so one can publish an article for the general public. This of course helps advertise some of the anxiety & anger that concerned members of the mathematical community feels to a much broader & larger public. After all the main concern of taking the funding is how it will be perceived by colleagues, the mathematical community, and the larger public: Is it endorsing the mass surveillance carried out by the NSA, will it make you look hypocritical? It might be then worth talking to a journalist to see whether this could have some traction.

A very heartfelt thanks to all you who have been willing to comment here. I’m glad that a range of opinions are presented. I really like some of the ideas for speaking out, and will definitely not be silent either way. If nothing else this has forced me to confront some ethical questions from a less comfortable position than my usual armchair, and that is good.

For now: option three for a little longer (there is nothing to sign yet). Meanwhile as an inveterate optimist I can’t help looking for a little more good news! Here’s hoping.

The relationship between the NSA and Glasgow academics may be about to deteriorate a little further. I’m proud to say that the University of Glasgow — two minutes from my front door and until recently my workplace — has just elected Edward Snowden as its rector.