d science?," Economist (London), September 7, 1985, p. 93.

An
excerpt:
[T]he share of American government R&D funds going for
defence . . . rose from 47% in 1980 to 70% this year. Japan, in
contrast, gives less than 1% of its government R&D funds to
defence. . . . Yet the differences in research priorities between,
say, America with its defence bias and Japan with its market bias
are less stark than the raw statistics suggest. The makers of
science policy in most industrial countries are investing in the same
group of core technologies -- computers, materials and
biotechnology. A review of science and technology policy by the
OECD [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development]
notes that, biotechnology apart, the Pentagon and Japan's ministry
of international trade and industry (Miti) are putting their money into
very similar kinds of R&D.
In computer science, for example, both are trying to build a "fifth-
generation" computer that can give a rudimentary imitation of
human thinking. Miti has underwritten about a third of the
development costs of very-large-scale-integrated (VLSI) circuits; the
Pentagon has a $300m development programme in the same
area. Miti has a $30m R&D programme on fibre optics; the
Pentagon is spending $40m a year on similar research. Both are
also investing heavily in research on new materials such as
polymers and metal-matrix composites. Both are spending about
$200m on manufacturing technology, including robots and factory
automation. Does it matter whether the research sails under a
military banner or a civilian one? Many scientists who oppose star
wars s