-
18. Science and Homeland Security
- University of Michigan Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
310 | BEYOND SPUTNIK 310 CHAPTER 18 Science and Homeland Security How Have Things Changed for America? The attacks of September 11, 2001, ushered in a new era of homeland security. Whereas the attacks on Pearl Harbor targeted military personnel at a little-known base thousands of miles from the mainland, the September 11 assault targeted civilians in the nation’s capital and the world’s principal financial center. The strikes on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center set the stage for many changes in U.S. society—changes that will exert a significant impact on science policy for decades to come. In the latter half of the twentieth century, American defense policy was largely focused on maintaining U.S. nuclear superiority over the Soviet Union. More recently, however, this focus has shifted to deterring antagonistic nations or blocs of nations from secretly developing nuclear or other high-tech weapons, or the systems to deliver them. The surprise attacks of September 11 were all the more surprising because they used relatively lowtech weapons and nonnuclear technologies. Prior to the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, commercial aircraft were not thought of as potential weapons . The September 11 attacks, like the April 19, 1995, bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, illustrate the horrendous violence that can be committed by a determined and well-coordinated group of individuals with even a modest level of technical knowledge . Science policy, of course, has long been intimately connected with the security of the nation. Even the 1950 act of Congress that created the National Science Foundation stated that one of the agency’s primary missions was “to secure the national defense.”1 The September 11 attacks have spawned a number of new policy questions that must be addressed. How do we keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of those who wish us harm, when so many of the relevant technologies are commonly available, many of which are used by researchers in university, national, and industrial labs? Can we develop technologies that detect threats without infringing on the rights of American citizens? How do we deal with the dangerous vulnerabilities of our growing cyberinfrastructure? How do we determine the proper level of investment in security research and implementation? How can the government encourage private companies to develop and stockpile new vaccines in the absence of a current market? At what point do scientific openness and free exchange of scientific information pose a risk to national security? What role should scientists play in homeland security, and who gets to decide what it will be? Do we depend too much on foreign S&T talent, and if so, what should we do about the paucity of American citizens pursuing S&T degrees? How should universities handle the increased administrative burdens and costs of complying with new homeland security regulations? In short, what does science policy have to do with homeland security? As many of these questions imply, efforts to protect homeland security can have unintended consequences for scientific research and advancement. To cite just one example , the free and open communication that plays such a vital role in modern, global science is threatened by restrictions meant to prevent the communication of technological information to (and among) terrorists. These wellintended restrictions may unintentionally block valuable exchanges among scientists carrying out routine research. One of the greatest challenges to policymakers and ana- Science and Homeland Security | 311 lysts is to determine when the risks of free and open communication outweigh the benefits. It is not entirely clear who should make these decisions—the scientific community or the intelligence and security community. The challenges facing the nation in this new era are unlike any it has faced in the past, in part because of the widespread availability of very sophisticated technologies, and our increasing knowledge about the world around us. Consequently, the science policies that we develop to address this new world will need to be further-reaching, bolder, and more innovative than any the country has developed before. This chapter offers an overview of the relevant science and technology, so that the reader can appreciate the origins of current U.S. vulnerabilities and consider why it is proving so difficult to develop policies that help us eliminate them. Defining the Threat Clearly, federal investment in research should be used to counter the most plausible, and also the most ominous, threats. But debates rage within the policy and scientific communities about how to make such determinations. Indeed...