Defence Universities Alliance: who really benefits?

By Thiranya Hettiarachchi, Second Year, Law

The University of Bristol has a history of research partnerships with the defence sector. Even if the research has civilian applications, can we really separate it from military use? And do these partnerships go beyond funnelling funding into STEM research, risking students’ autonomy by pushing them towards defence careers that conflict with their moral values?

As geopolitical tensions continue to rise, the UK government is keen not to fall behind technologically, and has turned to the main centres of innovation, universities, and formed the Defence Universities Alliance (DUA), of which the University of Bristol is a signatory.

The DUA is an alliance between 35 universities and the defence sector to help strengthen relevant research capabilities, focusing on (but not limited to) cyber security, robotics, AI, aerospace engineering and advanced manufacturing. At a time when graduate unemployment is rising, the scheme is presented as a way to create opportunities for young people. With the university also facing financial pressures, it initially seems mutually beneficial, but for those of us drawn to Bristol’s image as a socially conscious institution, the picture is more complicated.

'Dual-use' or 'peace washing'?

The university’s partnerships worth over £85 million with major arms companies including BAE Systems, Airbus, and Raytheon have made me question whether that image changes when money is involved. These partnerships have been the focus of a number of student protests in recent years which highlighted many of these companies’ links to Israel. In a recent Epigram poll, 64 per cent of respondents disagreed with the university’s decision to join the DUA, compared with 12 per cent who agreed, and 23 per cent who were neutral. This suggests that student opposition remains strong.

The university justifies their relationships with defence by stating that its work is only within the ‘civil sector or some other socially beneficial purpose’. This distinction matters for students: Epigram’s recent poll found that 55 per cent of respondents would be willing to work in the defence industry if it focused on civilian technology, compared with just 16 per cent if it focused on military technology. However, civilian and military research can become intertwined through ‘dual-use’ technology: for example, a surveillance drone used for search and rescue can just as easily be adapted for military use. This leads to a phenomenon called ‘peace washing’, where companies can present the civil benefits of their technology to students who would be uncomfortable with its military applications.

Without transparency, how are students supposed to make informed decisions about the ethical implications of their involvement?

Although the university acknowledges this dual-purpose use potential, recognising the possibility of harm does not itself mitigate that harm. Without meaningful accountability its statement is reduced to a mere formality, rather than a genuine commitment to address the ethical consequences of its partnerships. This concern is even more pressing given that the University itself states that “full disclosure is not always possible”. Without transparency, how are students supposed to make informed decisions about the ethical implications of their involvement? University research should serve the betterment of society, but if it is sensitive enough to be restricted from public access, can that truly be the case?

According to the University’s 2025 financial statement, research grants and contracts were its third-largest source of income, bringing in £348 million that year. With government policy decisions also leading to an estimated £3.7 billion reduction in higher education funding, universities may favour established income-generating activities such as research; since the government controls funding for higher education, universities may feel hesitant to reject government-backed contracts. Whilst this relationship may encourage universities to accept defence partnerships to secure income, the ethical consequences may ultimately be passed onto students, who have less control over the partnerships they are expected to engage with.

Pushed towards defence

One student told Epigram that there is a lot of ‘pressure for aerospace engineers to work with defence companies’ after they were assigned to work with an arms company for their dissertation. The competitive nature of securing a job or funding for research causes many young adults to prioritise putting food on the table over their moral positions, and can we blame them?

This sentiment is shared by other students: 52 per cent of the poll respondents felt they were being pushed towards defence-related research jobs after graduation through factors such as careers fairs, the current job market, and the accessibility of these roles. Partnerships with the defence industry can create pressure on students to participate in projects that conflict with their personal ethics, undermining students’ autonomy over their professional development during their studies.

'THEY WANT YOU' | Epigram / *Thiranya Hettiarachchi*

Ultimately, the university you choose can greatly impact the rest of your life, whether that’s through the friendships you form or through the academic opportunities available. Before I even applied to Bristol I thought I had a good grasp on what I wanted to do in the future and the person I wanted to be, but when you enter an environment that’s more grounded in the realities of the professional world, your idealistic views of your field are challenged as you are exposed to the opportunities and career paths that influence how you view your future.

Partnerships such as the DUA do not only provide students with access to the defence sector, but also present defence-related careers as familiar and professionally desirable. The alliance is not a separate sphere of student life: the DUA charter embeds support for the defence sector into a student’s academic life through the following commitments:

Members will publish and raise awareness of the Defence-related research and other Defence related activity they undertake within their institutions and the importance of supporting Defence and National Security outcomes.

Members will ensure that careers in the defence sector are promoted as part of a balanced portfolio of impartial careers guidance.

Members will allow and support the attendance of defence sector firms and the Armed Forces at career events to ensure a balanced representation of different industries and careers.

Universities should be a world of possibilities where students have a newly found sense of autonomy to explore their interests and build the foundations of the person they will become. By committing to promote careers in defence to students, universities risk narrowing those futures and reducing exposure to, and support for, careers in other sectors.

When institutions prioritise the financial benefits of defence partnerships over students’ ethical concerns, they end up becoming for-profit ventures rather than educational spaces that empower the next generation to think critically and shape a more ethical future. Universities should not encourage these pathways for the sake of money, and at the very least, they should do their best to inform students about the ethical implications of their future careers.