While, until recently, the term dual-use set alarm bells ringing, TU Delft and the Ministry of Defence praise it as something positive, notes Sander Otte. But dual-use is far from harmless, he says.
(Photo: Sam Rentmeester)
‘Two for the price of one! Who would say no to that?’
A basic sales strategy. Completely innocent, as long as it concerns an extra tube of toothpaste. But if you think that this method is limited to the supermarket, you are mistaken. Here at TU Delft too, irresistible ‘1+1 free’ deals are becoming increasingly common. Only here they have a slightly more questionable name: dual-use.
The idea is simple. Suppose you do research for a certain purpose, say application ‘A’. But unintentionally, your findings also turn out to be useful for a completely different purpose, application ‘B’. Just like that, all for free! Good deal, right? And now imagine that application ‘B’ also happens to benefit the defence of our country? Who can be against that?
With this logic, the Ministry of Defence seems to have started a campaign to promote defence-related research at TU Delft. For example, in collaboration with the Ministry, YES!Delft launched a special Dual-Use Validation Program. They also advertised by email for a Dual-Use Ideation Workshop, where participants can compete for a Customer Discovery Support Voucher of EUR 10,000 for the best dual-use start-up idea. And on top of all this, TU Delft suddenly turned out to be renting out buildings to the Ministry of Defence for an innovation centre where start-ups and SMEs can work on ‘dual-use technology’. According to the Executive Board, this type of real estate rental ‘fits within the university’s societal mission’.
The term is specifically intended to indicate harmful side effects of research
All sounds nice, but the original meaning of ‘dual-use’ is far from innocent. The term is specifically intended to indicate harmful side effects of research. For example, virological research that can also be used for the development of biological weapons. Or a little closer to home: soil research for CO2 storage that can just as well be used to trace oil and gas wells. As a researcher you think you are doing the right thing, but in fact you are helping maintain the fossil status quo.
The fact that dual-use is now so openly advertised as something good is a cause for suspicion. What is not mentioned is that defence research (i.e. application ‘B’ above) in itself entails a risk of dual-use. In military research, there is always the possibility that technology, rather than being used for defensive purposes (say ‘B1’), can also be used for offensive purposes (‘B2’). A kind of ‘dual-use on dual-use’ so to speak. That this risk is not imaginary, is evident from the fact that until recently TU Delft was (and possibly still is) involved in several military dual-use projects with Israel. To put it bluntly: you say that you are doing good civil research, you think you are protecting the Netherlands from a Russian invasion, but in fact you are covertly helping mutilate Palestinian children. Impact for a better society.
In short, if TU Delft must contribute to defence research – and that is very much the question – let it be completely transparent and make it single-use. If not, our moral principles, like the toothpaste, will go on sale.
Sander Otte is Professor of Atomic Quantum Engineering. He regularly speaks out as a scientist in the climate debate and protests together with Extinction Rebellion.
Do you have a question or comment about this article?
A.F.Otte@tudelft.nl
Comments are closed.