The program 's funding of social science research for national security purposes has proven controversial . Although many scholars support Minerva , at the program 's start a number of academic researchers sounded public alarm about the prospect of Defense Department funding for research . In 2008 the American Anthropological Association sent a public letter suggesting that the funding be transferred to a different body , such as the National Science Foundation ( NSF ) . Hugh Gusterson , a prominent anthropologist at George Mason University , wrote a series of articles in a variety of venues that have attracted significant attention , " any attempt to centralize thinking about culture and terrorism under the Pentagon 's roof will inevitably produce an intellectually shrunken outcome . ... The Pentagon will have the false comfort of believing that it has harnessed the best and the brightest minds , when in fact it will have only received a very limited slice of what the ivory tower has to offer — academics who have no problem taking Pentagon funds . Social scientists call this " selection bias , " and it can lead to dangerous analytical errors . " The journalist Nafeez Ahmed has expressed concern that Minerva research , in its effort to understand mass mobilization , may be targeting peaceful activists , NGOs and protest movements . Others believe social science should continue to emphasize security issues but worry that DoD funding will bias findings . One article notes : " In an incentive structure that rewards an emphasis on countering global threats and securing the homeland , the devil lies in the definitions . In this framework , the Boston Marathon bombing becomes a national security problem , whereas the Sandy Hook massacre remains a matter for the police and psychologists — a distinction that is both absurd as social science and troubling as public policy . "
Boston Marathon bombing
Boston Marathon bombing
Minerva Initiative