Becoming a Weapons Scientist

I found Gusterson's "Becoming a Weapons Scientist" to be particularly engaging for the way Gusterson has to engage his own background and preconceptions as a past antinuclear activist with the often surprising ideals and motivations of the weapons scientists he research. While I believe in objectivity in the sciences, I admit that in the study of aspects of the human species, there will be cases in which the researcher himself must also be part of his subject of study. On a controversial issue such as the development of nuclear weapons, it would be nearly impossible for an anthropologist to not have been previously socialized in some way on the issue. In such a case, it is informative to know the lens in which the anthropologist initially views his subject and how that lens may have changed during the study. Moreover, it is also informative to know how the subjects themselves may have been influenced by the presence of the anthropologist. In particular, consider the relationship between Gusterson and the physicist Sylvia, and how Sylvia learns from Gusterson's background as a antinuclear activist, and her critique on how Gusterson likens bomb tests to a ritual. Gusterson admits that this dialogue between himself as an anthropologist and the Livermore scientists as a subject of study is both a case against the objectivity of his study but also a very important part of the subject. 

The counter perspective Gusterson brings to his study allows him to juxtapose his preconceptions with his often contrary findings, and thus emphasize those findings. He finds that the Livermore scientists cover a diverse political spectrum, despite the polarized public rhetoric over nuclear weapons, and that they have varied reasons for entering their field. Contrary to the public depiction of the scientists as amoral and detached from the ethical issues of their research, Gusterson finds that the scientists are actively, albeit privately, engage in their fears and the ethical issues surrounding their research. Fundamentally, they view research into nuclear arms as helping to protect both their country and helping to prevent disaster, particularly from accident. I found it quite revealing that many viewed developing conventional arms as more morally irrepressible precisely because by being conventional, they will definitely be used against people, as opposed to nuclear arms which generally won't be.