[Printed in the occupied print shop of Stanford's Applied Electronics Laboratory in April, 1969. Original document scanned and OCR's 2005.]
GUIDELINES FOR RESEARCH AT STANFORD AND SRI
A peaceful world requires not only the cessation of war research,
but the establishment of centers of research for peaceful purposes.
We believe that Stanford Research Institute and Stanford University
can form such a center, in which scientists investigate the bio-
logical, psychological, political, economic and physical prerequisites
for peace and social justice. The results of basic and applied re-
search can and should benefit all peoples.
———These guidelines are Intended to orient research priorities
toward meeting pressing needs of the world's population. To do this,
they cannot be separated from the encouragement of new research di-*
rections and an enlargement of effective intellectual freedom. To
be politically effective, they cannot be separated from the consid-
eration of the role which Stanford and SRI now play in the defense
economy, in the crisis-ridden cities, and in the wide world beyond.
A "wholly owned subsidiary of Stanford University," SRI was created
in 1946 to serve West Coast industry. In the words of a university
press statement, "The institute plans to do the kind of research that
industry itself might do if each company could set up its own compre-
hensive research organization, supported by the resources of a great
Until the 1950's SRI was so concerned with existing California
/industries ——oil, food, chemicals——that it did only about 25 per cent
of its research for the government. Under Frederick Terman's guid-
ance, the university tar surpassed SRI's efforts in developing the
basic science, spinning off the electronics and aerospace firms, and
encouraging industrial parks-together the hubs of the present Cali-
SRI quickly learned the value of a subsidized defense economy
and brought Terman and most of the large defense contractors, many
of the Stanford Trustees, onto its own board and into the list of
SRI Associates. In the past decade it has moved further, from a
department store" for industrial and military research into a strategy
center and intellectual staging area for the expansion of free en'-
terprise into both Eastern Europe and the underdeveloped countries
of the Pacific Basin.—In this role it helps to organize the efforts
of individual firms from all over the free world, coordinates their
efforts with government, and builds public opinion to support their
efforts.—Counter-insurgency and CBW are simply two outgrowths of
the investment studies and high-level business meetings which SRI
sponsors around the world.
BENEFITS OF A CLOSE STANFORD - SRI RELATIONSHIP
We envision two positive methodological benefits from the estab-
lishment of SRI and the Stanford community as a peace research center.
Interdisciplinary approach —A program of research to benefit
all peoples will necessarily transcend narrow disciplinary perspec-
tives and consider the interrelation of many aspects of each research
problem.—The physical impact and psychological implications of tech-
nological progress must be continually projected.—Stanford Research
Institute has already developed an interdisciplinary approach to many
of its projects.—Our objection to the present content of SRI research
does not keep us from appreciating the need for this approach.—We
encourage the extension of this approach to all applied research
problems within SRI and the Stanford community.
Scientific cooperation —At its best, science is a cooperative
venture.—Stanford Research Institute was originally established to
aid and supplement scientific research at Stanford University.—We
anticipate that the establishment of a scientific community including
both the Institute and the University will enable Stanford and SRI
scientists to share the resources, equipment, libraries and knowledge
of both institutions.—Current institutional division of resources is
wasteful and often detrimental to the advancement of science.—Devel-
oping a close, rational relationship between the laboratories,
departments, and institutes at Stanford and SRI will be an important
move toward a cooperative science.
We propose the following areas for top-priority research.—(For
details of specific research topics within these areas, see the posi-
tion papers written by the caucuses within each discipline.)
Life Sciences. —Research in the life sciences must seek to im-
prove both the health and life span of all the world's people and
the methods by which population on this planet may be limited.—In-
terdisciplinary studies immediately are necessary to find ways to
convert discoveries in the life sciences into actualities accessible
to all people, rich or poor, American businessman or African tribesman
Environmental studies. —Man has severely damaged the land, sea
and air he depends upon for life.—Together we can expand study of
the ecology of this planet, and consider appropriate means of conser-
ving our resources, independently of the interests of corporate
Engineering. —Engineering research should evolve devices, tech-
niques and systems which will increase man's ability to deal con-
structively with his environment.—Cooperate effort between Stanford
and SRI will allow an orientation of engineering research toward prob-
lems of social relevance.
Social science. —Through their examination of human behavior
and institutions, social scientists can help us to realize our visions
of a more just society.—Social science research must enable people
to better understand the forces governing them, thereby facilitating
ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND FUNDING
Fears are continually expressed lest the adoption of community
guidelines bring about curtailment of academic freedom.—But freedom
cannot exist without responsibility.—We have already accepted the
moral responsibility to limit our research in a variety of ways.
Under the guise of "ethical" behavior we agree not to steal someone
else's research ideas, particularly if the individual is young and
in training and would not have the resources to compete with a well
funded, well organized research operation.—We agree that research
on human beings, regardless of its scientific merit is not justi-
fied if it jeopardizes the health or will being of the subject.—It
is well within our principles for the responsible exercise of aca-
demic freedom to limit research to those areas which do not destroy
life or increase oppression.
It is the pattern of funding of research, and not the demand
for community guidelines which is the great threat to academic free-
dom today.—Scholars today are encouraged to do the work of the
powerful at the expense of the poor.—Close to half of all monies
spent on America's scientific research come from the department of
Defense, including non-military projects and programs which, in a
civilized society, should be justified in terms other than "national
defense".—Industry, much of which is itself subsidized by the DOD,
finances another important portion of research and shapes the job
market, consequently the education, for all too many scientists.
Even the foundations and the non-military agencies of government too
often reinforce, rather than oppose, the restrictive trends.
At this point of reappraisal, we must start the process of inter-
posing humane guidelines between the marketplace and scholarly re-
search.—To refuse this responsibility is to allow those who monopo-
lize the marketplace to determine the scope of our freedom.
At the same time, we believe that the general public, with the
aid of the scientific community, has the power and the responsibility
to redirect America's research funding priorities.—We call upon the
peninsula scientific community——members of Stanford University, Stan-
ford Research Institute and Stanford Industrial Park, in particular--
to focus their energy and influence to the redirection of scientific
funding away from those areas of science which destroy life and in-
Certain research does not benefit humanity.—We therefore pro-
pose the following limitations on research in the Stanford community:
I. —Cease all classified and secret research at Stanford and SRI
A. —Terminate and refuse all SRI and Stanford contracts and
subcontracts that involve classified publication or clas-
sified communication of any sort.—An appeal-hearings
process might be provided for researchers who require
clearance to obtain certain classified information (e.g.
B. —Terminate and refuse projects requiring security clear-
ances needed to obtain access to classified information.
C. —Terminate and refuse all contracts funded by sources whose
identification is not available.
Maintain central, public files of all communications con-
cerning research in progress at SRI and Stanford.—These
tiles should include open financial accounts, interim and
final reports, memos, letters and notes on verbal commu-
nications with project sponsors.
Explanation: —Classified research is directly opposed to the
free flow of scientific information. Classified inputs into research
make it impossible for everyone to replicate work, a procedure essen-
tial to scientific inquiry. Use of classified information should be
allowed only where the reason for classification is not related to
the work being done. Professors and students who claim they need
security clearances to keep up with "the state of the art" or to
find new dissertation areas should be encouraged to do research in
fields which do not rely on classified material. If a Stanford re-
searcher's work is shown to have been done before, but subsequently
classified, the work should count toward degrees and professional
advancement. Classified research does not increase the amount of
information available to the scientific community.
Stanford Electronics Laboratory presently has six contracts
worth $2.2 million requiring security clearance for researchers and
resulting in some classified publications. Stanford has at least
two other contracts of military relevance which involve obtaining
access to classified material, (our additional classified contracts
including classified launch dates and similar information. SRI has
about $85 million in partly-classified continuing government contracts
and an additional ,444 million la fully-classified continuing govern-
II. —Cease all CBW research at 8RJ. and Stanford
Terminate and refuse any research funded by the .-Department of
Defense, by other government agencies, or by corporate spon-
sors, that has a strong probability of being used for chem-
ical or biological warfare.
Explanation: —The distinction often made between "offensive"
and "defensive" CBW research is largely false. "Defensive" research
involves the creation of offensive CBW agents and delivery systems
against which the "defensive" techniques may be tested.
The Department of Defense presently finances ^404,000 of re-
search directly related to CBW at SRI. There are $96,000 worth of
III. Cease all counterinsurgency research at home and abroad
A. —Cease all research in support of the wars against the
peoples of Vietnam, Laos and Thailand.
B. —Cease research into methods of controlling or suppressing
insurgent movements in foreign countries or in the United
States, especially in the urban ghettos, funded by any
body, corporation or government.
Explanation: —The Joint Chiefs of Staff define counterinsur-
gency as "those military, paramilitary, political, economic, psycho-
logical and civic actions taken by a government to defeat the sub-
Counterinsurgency research which must be ceased includes mili-
tary operations and social science techniques directed toward sup-
pressing insurgent or nationalist revolutionary movements, whether
in Vietnam, Thailand, Peru or Oakland.—SRI presently has $6,236,000
In DOD contracts relating to the war efforts in Southeast Asia.—SRI
researchers have done "cost-analysis studies of alternative recon-
naissance routes /read: bombing routes/ over North Vietnam." They
are also working on the electronic Maginot line in the DMZ.—SRI
presently has 43 permanent staff members at the Thailand R&D Center
in Bangkok working on contracts such as "Counterinsurgency commu-
nications requirements for Thailand." SRI's Vietnam researchers have
worked on a "land reform" program for the Ky-Thieu government, and
SRI's Thai researchers have written ethnographies of the "unstable
areas" in Thailand.—SRI has also done Counterinsurgency work for
the Department of Defense in Peru and Honduras.
IV. —Cease all applied military research and development efforts
———at SRI and Stanford.—Terminate and refuse research intended
primarily for military applications, funded by the Department
of Defense or any other sponsor, in electronics or any other
Explanation: —Work on any devices, systems or techniques which
promote the efficient destruction of human lives or lateration of
resources essential to human life, must be ceased.
Electronic warfare research done in the early I960's is now
being used in Vietnam (e.g. jamming of radar-directed anti-aircraft
tire).—Techniques being developed now will assist Counterinsurgency
operations in the 1970's.—The University Committee on Classified
Research has not performed satisfactorily in reviewing this work,
Which generates classified reports to the Pentagon and requires
access to classified material.
The Stanford Electronics Laboratory is presently doing over
^St.2 million, in classified applied military electronics work for the
Department of Defense.
WHY NOT SEVERANCE?
Severance from the university, even with covenants against par-
ticular tactics in SRI's overall strategic effort, would only free
the hand of SRI's business leaders' and—financial supporters to pur-
sue their efforts more easily.—It would remove the influence of the
newly-awakened Stanford community and our concern for control by those
affected by SRI, furthering the tendency toward an unchecked monop-
olization of economic and political power in our society.—It would
allow SRI and its defense industry associates to pursue their well
publicized planned entree into the "socio-economic market" (including
America's own ghetto colonies, educational and transportation systems)
with their anti-participation social engineering.
Paradoxically, it would also encourage a new and —— for the
corporation leaders who dominate both Stanford and SRI-- more pro-
fitable division of labor between the two institutions.—Stanford,
through Institutional financing from foundations and non-military
government agencies, would handle basic research and development of
skills, supported, for example, by the International Education Act.
SRI could then do the contract research and classified projects more
directly related to international expansion and its defense——quite
possibly the same projects which Stanford University is now re-
fusing, with faculty members serving as consultants.
A Review Board must be created which is empowered to terminate
existing contracts and grants and to veto the acceptance of new con-
tracts or proposals which violate community guidelines.—All mem-
bers of the Board must accept the sense of the community guidelines
for research at Stanford and SRI.
The Board must include individuals with technical competence
to evaluate projects, individuals expected to benefit from or be
affected by research in various areas, and individuals broadly con-
cerned with the case of science and technology by those in power
in the society to achieve political and social ends.
It is not anticipated that the Board will need to review in
depth all contracts and research proposals at Stanford and SRI.—It
is likely that by consideration of titles, abstracts and funding
agencies, the Board will be able to approve most proposals.—It will
then be free to concentrate on those projects which appear to
violate the guidelines set down by the community.—Provision must
be made, however, for members of the community to request a review
of projects by presenting evidence indicating a reasonable possi-
bility that community guidelines are, or will be, violated.
This outline for establishment of a Review Board should in no
way be construed as an attempt to establish a one-sided body.—There
is ample room within the community guidelines for greatly divergent
views concerning the priorities which should be given to various
areas of research.—These viewpoints should be represented on the
OPEN DECISIONS OPENLY ARRIVED AT
n —Deliberations and decisions of the Review Board must be open
to the community. The University must disseminate information about
research at Stanford and SRI as well as time and place for Review
Board meetings.—To these ends, a regular publication of the univer-
sity should list, at least once, all Stanford and SRI contracts pre-
sently in existence, and then continue to present titles of new
proposals , with subsequent indication of acceptance by the Review
Board and the funding agency.—In addition, this publication should
carry essays, articles and letters concerning research at the uni-
vdrsity, national and international priorities for research, methods,
procedures, and criticisms of the new guidelines or the reinterpre-
tation or possible deletion of current ones.
All proposals, contract reports and related literature must be
filed for community perusal and research in a public library.