BAMOS Vol 33 No.2 June 2020 | Seite 16

16 BAMOS Jun 2020 The Australian Context The growing presence of arms manufacturers like Lockheed Martin in Australian science reflects the US‐Australia International Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative (AUSMURI), a joint effort of the Australian Department of Defence and the US Department of Defence to fund research projects relevant to Australia's military priorities. These priorities include the goal of expanding Australia's arms export industry to one of the world’s top ten. In August 2016, the University of Melbourne announced the establishment of the "STELaRLab" research centre, a collaborative project with Lockheed, which in 2018 was expanded to the University of Adelaide. At both institutions, the STELaRLab directly finance research programs, honours and PhD scholarships, and post‐doctoral research positions. Lockheed's presence also extends to many other Universities across Australia: for instance, the company’s 2019 agreement with the University of Newcastle formalises Lockheed’s involvement in designing the undergraduate aerospace curriculum. Lockheed also finance STEM outreach programs for Australian high school students. The company are key sponsors for the Queensland University of Technology's Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Challenge, a program intended to excite high school and undergraduate students about STEM. Since 2015 Lockheed have been the major financers of the National Youth Science Forum (NYSF), a summer school that encourages Year 11 students to consider STEM careers. The company’s website states that their STEM outreach aims to "strengthen the workforce pipeline" and the STELaRLab promotional video shows the NYSF students attending a Lockheed information seminar. Addressing obvious concerns, the NYSF director Damien Pierce commented "If their [Lockheed’s] expectation was they wanted everyone to go directly into defence science and build bombs well that's not palatable, but when they're interested in the pipeline of their company and their company is not just defence… that's appropriate." While Lockheed are indeed involved in sectors other than defence, students must understand the primary ways the company’s research is monetised. Lockheed's latest annual report indicates that 60% of their 53.8 billion USD of sales in 2018 were to the US Department of Defence, and 27% were for F‐35 fighter jets alone. Furthermore, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimates that after including exports, 47.3 billion USD, or about 88%, of Lockheed's 2018 sales were of arms, with the company selling more arms than their competitors every year since 2009. Arms sales therefore comprise Lockheed’s core business, which may not be obvious to students. I worry whether Australian STEM students are sufficiently prepared to assess these opportunities for themselves on ethical grounds, particularly at the high school level. Furthermore, I believe we must ensure members of our own community have the necessary knowledge to assess potential reputational risks when engaging with companies like Lockheed, and to reach their own informed judgements about the ethical trade‐offs between advancing science, and social licensing. Science and Ethics My experiences as a science student across three Australian universities lead me to believe that many STEM students, myself included, are unprepared to reflect on or discuss the ethics of science’s role in complex issues. The consequences could be serious. There are numerous historical and recent examples of scientific work that are now almost universally regarded as profoundly unethical, with many examples drawn from situations where scientists work closely with military or intelligence institutions. “Operation Popeye” provides an example from our own field. Many factors make it hard for scientists to openly discuss the ethics surrounding complex issues. Because scientists trade in objective knowledge, but objectivity in ethics is difficult, some may worry that open discussion will lead others to view them as non‐objective. Others may worry that overt moralising