UARC should proceed under careful scrutiny
The University of Hawai'i stands at an important crossroads in its mission as a institution of higher learning.
The proposal to partner with the Navy by establishing a university-affiliated research center (UARC) presents significant philosophical and organizational concerns along with obvious opportunities.
On balance, the idea offers more benefits than risks: The potential for advancing our understanding in key research fields of critical relevance to Hawai'i is foremost among them.
The Navy has a long record of funding research in sonar and other marine technologies, for example, and the $50 million that the contract offers could expand the knowledge base accessible to students and researchers.
If the UH regents accept the contract at their meeting next month, the Manoa campus would become only the fifth in the nation to have a UARC associated with the Navy. None of these is precisely comparable — the center at UH would share facilities with other campus programs, unlike other UARCs operating in separate quarters.
QUESTIONS RAISED
A decision to move ahead is, to some extent, a leap into the unknown. And in the course of heated public debate — especially over the prospects for classified research — some serious questions have been raised.
How would conducting work in secret impede a public university in freely pursuing and sharing knowledge with its students? And when the center conducts unclassified research — which is expected to be the typical course of operations — will the benefits outweigh the costs in overhead and shared staff resources?
Fortunately, some safeguards already are in place.
For example, many in the Native Hawaiian community and other opponents worry about secret weapons research being conducted, work they believe to be inappropriate in Hawai'i.
But the reason the Navy wanted the campus as a site for its center was because of the university's expertise in a wide range of research topics unrelated to weapons. These include ocean and astronomical science — the effect of natural and man-made noise on marine life, just to name one example.
And in cases where the defense applications being sought seem controversial, red flags go up: A panel of faculty members will be able to review proposed projects before accepting them from the Navy. Researchers also will have the right to refuse contracts they find objectionable.
PUBLIC INPUT
Whether the UH accepts or rejects these projects, its decision-making should be transparent. The public has the right to know in general what kinds of research its tax-supported university has opted to pursue, as well as which projects it has rejected.
To its credit, the university administration, after a bit of a shaky start, has demonstrated a willingness to hear from the public.
Now, it's time for a cool-headed discussion of these concerns.
Faculty leaders rightly cite the need for a clear cost-benefit analysis. And others are concerned that insufficient oversight of the UARC's management might result in inefficient use of research money.
University officials should listen to these concerns, especially those voiced by academics with experience in military-funded research. Research funding must be well-supervised to ensure accountability.
Certainly, constraints on knowledge a UARC yields through restrictions on publishing or classroom teaching are less than ideal for a public university. To whatever extent its work is done secretly, a measure of the UH mission is sacrificed.
The state should make sure such losses are minimized and that the research funds deliver as many academic gains as possible.
With proper oversight and transparency, this UARC proposal should be approved.
SHARE YOUR VIEWS
