Should Social Scientists Aid the U.S. Government in Information Campaigns?

Abstract

Comments on an article by Sara B. King (see record [rid]2011-29776-001[/rid]). In reading the article, three issues stand out: ethical concerns stemming from scientists/military collaboration, question of effectiveness of the present state-of-the-art military Information Operations (IOs), and possible improvements to the present IO. The author raises the question of ethicality of social scientists’ involvement in educating the military IO's decisions, as this may impinge on the foremost goals of the U.S. government to instill democracy around the world. Social scientists concerned with maintaining democracy should also consider the inherent asymmetry between the IO of the U.S. military and the corresponding efforts of its adversaries. There is an opportunity for a sort of natural selection on the adversary’s communications, with the public playing the judge’s role. More effective video/stories/photographs become multiplied through emails, word of mouth, and telephone messages; less effective ones die out. But the U.S. military is a singular entity, and it has only one shot at influencing the targets of its IOs. Without prior vetting, these are hit-or-miss campaigns that can be costly in both money and lives. In summary, the effectiveness of present military IOs is questionable. As the examples above demonstrate, in the absence of systematic research, the outcomes of any given information campaign remain a gamble that can either help or hinder the U.S. military’s goal to win the hearts and minds of the civilian population in the zones of conflict. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)