Under what circumstances should social scientists work with the military or defense organizations more broadly? In the U.S. context, the Human Terrain Program has been intensely controversial, especially among anthropologists. The more recent Minerva Initiative has attracted less controversy and is partially cosponsored by the National Science Foundation. But response is still very uneven and debate sometimes heated. Project Minerva is a Department of Defense initiative to fund social science research on a series of issues it deems important.

Is Minerva an opportunity to overcome a deep divide between civilian social science and the military that developed in the era of the Vietnam War and misguided counterinsurgency programs like Project Camelot—a divide that is problematic for the idea of a citizen army in a democracy? Or is it a threat, perhaps because it may displace nonmilitary funding sources or because it poses difficulties for researchers, especially in conducting on site fieldwork in risky settings? Are there specific organizational structures that would make it more (or less) appropriate for social scientists and academic research organizations to accept funding or work collaboratively with the military? Are there some kinds of research for which military links are especially problematic?

The issues are not limited to the United States. What can we learn from international perspectives and experiences elsewhere? And what can we learn from historical experiences and previous controversies? The issues bear, of course, not only on work with “strategic” objectives but on issues like peacekeeping or AIDS in the military. The issues also bear on calls for more “public” social science and demonstrations that social science knowledge is practically useful.