Hugh Gusterson has a new article out titled, “Project Minerva Revisited,” in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists for August 5, 2008 — well worth reading carefully, since it contradicts and corrects some of the ways that the agreement between the National Science Foundation and the Pentagon have been presented to the public. It is one of the sharpest articles yet in spotlighting some of the serious limitations and contradictions of both the Minerva Research Initiative and the role played by the NSF, and the cosmetic gloss that has been applied by those promoting these initiatives.
Also of related interest, and part of the public record, are some recent congressional testimonies that might interest readers:
Dr. Mark L. Weiss, Division Director Division of Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences Directorate of Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences National Science Foundation. Before the Committee on Armed Services Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities and Committee on Science and Technology Subcommittee on Research and Science Education
United States House of Representatives, April 24, 2008 — PDF
Colonel Martin P. Schweitzer, Commander, 4 / 82 Airborne Brigade Combat Team, United States Army. Before the House Armed Services Committee, Terrorism & Unconventional Threats Sub-Committee and the Research & Education Sub-Committee of the Science & Technology Committee , 110th Congress, 2nd Session Hearings on the Role of the Social and Behavioral Sciences in National Security
United States House of Representatives, 24 April 2008 — PDF
Dr. Montgomery McFate, Before the House Armed Services Committee, Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, United States House of Representatives, 110th Congress, 2nd session, Hearings on the Importance of Socio-Cultural Knowledge to the U.S. Military
09 July, 2008 — PDF
Downloadable audio file available, no video.
For more testimonies of relevance see under the date headings for April 24 and July 9, 2008.