Leaked documents have revealed that the British military is recruiting philosophers, psychologists and theologians to research new methods of psychological warfare and behavioral manipulation.
The University of Cambridge was one of the institutions included in the official membership list of the Department of Defense's Defense Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL), with nearly £ 70 million planned to be spent on funding human and social sciences research capability, HSSRC) to explore how the arts, humanities, and social sciences can shape military and security strategies, including "psychological operations."
A university spokesman said the choice fell on Cambridge. Other candidates included Lancaster University, which subsequently dropped out, as well as arms manufacturers BAE Systems and QinetiQ.
In a slideshow for potential contractors posted on the Internet, DSTL highlighted “understanding and influencing human behavior” among research priorities, including through “targeted manipulation of information” and “coordinated use of the full range of government capabilities … including military and non-military, open and veiled."
Planned research includes “testing, refining and validating working concepts, tools, methods and techniques to analyze the audience to inform the planning of appropriate activities, the synchronized implementation of these activities [and] assess their effectiveness,” the document says.
As part of their application to the HSSRC, Cambridge faculty members proposed a partnership with national security consultant Frazer-Nash to create a research center, initially under the university's Center for Arts, Social and Human Sciences Research (CRASSH). Within 12 months, it was to evolve into an independent university research facility called the Center for Strategic Futures, "with a longer-term goal of exploring the possibility of using it as a profitable management consulting program."
The center, funded in the first four years at £ 6.9 million, was supposed to help the Department of Defense decide where to spend the funds, "including holding open competitions for research funding." The university administration expected that not only the core funding would "provide a significant surplus," but their own scientists would pay another £ 20 million for the research.
Forming a partnership with Frazer-Nash, "which has the highest level of trustworthiness," would give Cambridge access to the defense industry, as well as set the stage for various "projects, even secret." The documents suggest that the university has some kind of relationship with the Department of Defense, DSTL and Frazer-Nash, but their nature is not clear.
Promotional video:
Dozens of Cambridge scientists were included in the application, including specialists in disciplines such as architecture, psychiatry, neurobiology and sociology. The project was led by Professor Stephen Connor, Director of CRASSH.
The Cambridge Faculties General Board approved the application for funding in June 2018 following a presentation by the University's Vice-Chancellor for Research by Dr. Peter Hedges, Head of Research at the University. Board members were told that Cambridge had been criticized for not taking advantage of such opportunities before. It was said that using this opportunity would give them the opportunity to influence defense research and policymakers.
According to the documents, the heads of educational institutions potentially involved in the project expressed support, especially as many represented areas that usually have difficulties in obtaining funding. The arts and the humanities, in particular, do not often get a share of large research investments.
However, a Cambridge University spokesman said the university was no longer seeking a contract with the HSSRC, but could not provide details of why it decided to withdraw at such a late stage. Simon Schaffer, professor of history and philosophy of science at Cambridge, said he welcomed the decision but was concerned that the discussion was not broad enough.
Schaffer expressed particular concern about the suggestion in the documents that the "reputational risks" arising from the university's cooperation with the Department of Defense would be mitigated by a communications campaign funded by funds allocated by the HSSRC.
“Now I don't want to be too academic on this issue, but it is extremely surprising that a program designed to change the views and opinions of people for military purposes would spend some of its funds on changing the views and opinions of people so that they do not mind changing views and opinions of people. See what they did there? Propaganda is squared and it seems wrong,”he explained.
DSTL also said that funding for the HSSRC did not go to a PR company.