BACK
TO WEB VERSION
SUMMER/FALL
2003
Research Universities
Should Nudge National Policy
by
Gary Bertsch
The Bush administration’s 2002 National Security
Strategy identifies the “crossroads of radicalism and technology” as
the principal threat to the United States and its allies. Who better
than the research university to help policymakers formulate wise decisions
about this nexus of terrorism and technology?
We clearly have an interest in joining the national debate. Policy, law
and international relations are not the exclusive domain of politicians
and diplomats. And new laws, not to mention political decisions relating
to homeland and international security, could shake the foundations of
academia, both in the United States and abroad. We should — we
must — be involved. Our efforts will have a dual effect. They will
benefit us by discouraging the 800-hundred-pound gorilla in Washington
from unduly infringing on academic inquiry and they will benefit the
nation by advancing its security in this age of terrorism.
Patriot Act
First consider the impact of the anti-terrorist campaign on universities.
Even before the fires at Ground Zero had been extinguished, Congress
had passed, and President Bush approved, the USA Patriot Act, which sought
to help federal, state and local governments shore up security and prevent
terrorism on our soil. The Act also created a new cabinet-level agency,
the Department of Homeland Security, ushering in the most sweeping overhaul
of the executive branch since the days of Harry Truman.
Many feel that Congress rushed through the deliberations leading up to
the Patriot Act, the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Response
Act, and other legislation — laws whose impact we may all live
to regret. Indeed, the new security milieu raises as many questions as
it answers. For instance, will these new laws make us safer, and at what
cost? Will they tend to stifle the research, innovation and legitimate
commerce that are the lifeblood of free societies — and thus make
the eventual triumph over terrorism a Pyrrhic one?
It behooves the university research community to help answer these questions.
We should rein in our defensive reflexes and admit that our endeavors
do have mixed and unintended effects. Dramatic advances in science produce
breakthroughs that promote the common welfare, but many of these advances,
if misused, could make the world more dangerous.
For example, researchers in the biomedical sciences are making discoveries
that will complicate the control of biological and chemical weapons.
The fall 2001 anthrax episodes underscored the perils of liberal access
to biological pathogens; but denying access to such pathogens could fetter
critical medical research. How stringently, then, should we control pathogens
that can be used as weapons? Advances in molecular biology and biotechnology
could yield even more deadly instruments of biological warfare. And the
rapidly evolving field of atomic and molecular engineering — nanotechnology — will
cause headaches throughout the arms-control community. Yet continued
research in these fields is vital.
A catalyst for sound policy
How far should governments go towards regulating scientific inquiry,
which thrives on openness and the initiative of the researcher? If we
do the right things, research universities like ours can nudge the future
toward the positive. We should help our elected representatives find
ways to foster homeland and international security without sacrificing
the scientific openness and civil liberties we all treasure. From my
travels to Washington, D.C., and other national capitols, I can tell
you from experience that policymakers and government officials sorely
need our help.
Sound policy is a product of scientific understanding, thoughtful analysis
of complex issues and competing interests, and an appreciation of the
diverse social, cultural and economic forces at work in the world. Universities
are ideally suited to help policymakers sort through these issues, which
are exceedingly multidisciplinary in nature. We enjoy access to — and
produce — some of the best scientific research in the world. We
have the freedom to fashion partnerships with others inside and outside
academia — and outside our borders — and to pursue unorthodox
lines of inquiry. In short, we need to roll up our sleeves and take an
active role in public affairs.
Happily, the process is already underway. Vice President Gordhan Patel
convened a UGA “Homeland Security Summit” in November 2002,
bringing together nearly 100 participants to determine how we could contribute
to this common effort. The summit spurred several initiatives on campus
to forge research, service and teaching partnerships. It is helping bring
in more research dollars and is acting as a catalyst for creative relationships
with federal agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
and with other universities, including the Medical College of Georgia.
Enhancing trade and security
The UGA Center for International Trade and Security, which I direct,
is one example of the kind of public service the university can provide.
First, working under its parent institution, the new School of Public
and International Affairs, the center is working with Congress to craft
legislation that intelligently controls the transfer of weapons-related
materials — biological pathogens and nuclear materials, to name
two — while remaining mindful of scientific openness, the need
for robust trade and the legitimate reasons for transferring technology
between nations.
Our center is sharing its findings not only within the United States
but also with lawmakers and officials from foreign governments and international
organizations. Russia, which continues to possess a large stockpile of
nuclear materials, has been the object of much of our attention. In 2002
our staff founded the U.S.-Russian Legislative Working Group, a forum
that brings Russian parliamentarians to Washington to discuss with their
counterparts from the U.S. Congress methods of devising laws to enhance
nuclear security and stem weapons proliferation. We also take American
lawmakers to Moscow for reciprocal visits. The kind of free-flowing exchange
that characterizes these meetings helps cement mutual understanding and
camaraderie while promoting joint efforts to counter international terrorism
and a host of security challenges.
Our center also monitors the effectiveness of nonproliferation export
controls — the laws and regulations regarding traffic in items
and substances that might be used to build weapons of mass destruction
or ballistic missiles. Until recently, there were no international standards
to measure how well governments and businesses controlled their weapons-related
trade and technology transfers. To plug that gap, our center developed
a research methodology and used it to evaluate such practices in 35 countries
around the globe. Our evaluations have become the worldwide standard,
used by governments and researchers to assess how well nations are living
up to their non-proliferation obligations. Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.)
praised the center for dealing “with the threat of the proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction at as great a distance from our borders
as possible, since it is only by strengthening the first lines of defense
abroad that the U.S. can hope to prepare successfully for the threat
at home.”
Our center also conducts research assessing the extent to which businesses
comply with governmental rules and regulations on trade and security
issues. We share this research with our counterparts in other countries
and have helped create nongovernmental centers in such countries as Russia,
Ukraine and Azerbaijan. Our center and its partners are using this research
and experience to lobby the governments of these countries to implement
sounder policies. We also use our findings to conduct training in governments
and businesses internationally. We and our counterparts in Moscow have
schooled thousands of Russian officials and business leaders on the ins-and-outs
of non-proliferation and nuclear security.
In short, the work of the Center for International Trade and Security
shows how university-based research can shape better policy and, in turn,
a safer world. UGA is poised to play a leadership role in the areas of
homeland and international security. If we can fuse the scientific expertise
found on South Campus with the humanistic, legal, business and policy
wisdom found on North Campus, we can help our nation and the world meet
the most pressing security challenges of our time. We are blessed to
have this opportunity. For
more information, access www.uga.edu/cits or email Gary Bertsch
at gbertsch@uga.edu.
Gary Bertsch is director of the UGA Center for International Trade
and Security and University Professor of International Affairs in the
School of Public and International Affairs. He is the author and editor
of numerous books and articles dealing with issues of technology transfer
and control, weapons proliferation, and national and international
security.
|