Advertisement

Science and Technology Policy and International Security

  • Andrew D. James
Part of the New Security Challenges Series book series (NSECH)

Abstract

Political scientists talk about the ‘securitisation’ of public policy: the process by which organisational or political actors use security rationales to support claims for funding particular activities or where the ‘security state’ uses the rhetoric of external (or internal) threat as a pretext for entering into new policy fields or for developing new powers.1 Such ideas should be familiar to historians of science and technology (S&T) policy because the very notion that governments should intervene to fund and direct science was largely a product of the Cold War security environment. Since 9/11 a new threat has been constructed: the threat of international terrorism. We are said to be living in ‘a new anti-terrorism era’ that has widespread implications for public policy — including S&T policy.2

Keywords

Security Environment International Security National Innovation System Weapon System International Terrorism 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    B. Buzan, O. Waever and J. de Wilde, Security: A New Framework for Analysis (Boulder CO: Lynne Rienner, 1998)Google Scholar
  2. 1.
    and O. Waever, ‘Securitization and Desecuritization’, in R. Lipschutz (ed.) On Security (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995): 46–86.Google Scholar
  3. 2.
    A. D. James (ed.) Science and Technology Policies for the Anti-Terrorism Era NATO Science Series (Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2006).Google Scholar
  4. 3.
    J -J. Salomon, ‘Science Policy Studies and the Development of Science Policy’, in I. Spiegel-Rosing and D. de Solla Price (ed.) Science, Technology, and Society (London: Sage, 1977): 43–71.Google Scholar
  5. 4.
    W. H. McNeill, The Pursuit of Power (Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press, 1982);Google Scholar
  6. 4.
    B. Buzan and E. Herring, The Arms Dynamic in World Politics (London: Lynne Rienner, 1998);Google Scholar
  7. 4.
    J. Hughes, The Manhattan Project: Big Science and the Atom Bomb (Duxford: Icon, 2002);Google Scholar
  8. 4.
    R. Bud and P. Gummett, ‘Introduction: Don’t You Know There’s a War on?’, in R. Bud and P. Gummett (eds) Cold War, Hot Science: Applied Research in Britain’s Defence Laboratories 1945–1990 (Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1999); Salomon, Science Policy Studies, op cit.Google Scholar
  9. 5.
    H. Sapolsky, ‘Science, Technology, and Military Policy’, in I. Spiegel-Rosing and D. de Solla Price (eds) Science, Technology, and Society (London: Sage, 1977): 443–471and Salomon, Science Policy Studies, op cit.Google Scholar
  10. 7.
    C. Freeman and L. Soete, The Economics of Industrial Innovation, 3rd edn (London and Washington: Pinter, 1997) and Sapolsky, Science, Technology, and Military Policy, op cit.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Crow and B. Bozeman, Limited by Design: R&D Laboratories in the US National Innovation System (New York: Columbia University Press, 1998).Google Scholar
  12. 14.
    D. Edgerton, ‘Science and the Nation’ Historical Research 78 (2005): 101–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 19.
    H. Brooks, ‘The Strategic Defense Initiative as Science Policy’ International Security, 11 (1986): 177–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 27.
    B. Balmer, Britain and Biological Warfare: Expert Advice and Science Policy,1930–65 (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001): 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 29.
    J. Agar and B. Balmer, ‘British Scientists and the Cold War’ Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 28 (1998): 248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 31.
    G. P. Zachary, Endless Frontier: Vannevar Bush, Engineer of the American Century (New York: Free Press, 1997).Google Scholar
  17. 33.
    G. Spinardi, ‘Aldermaston and British Nuclear Weapons Development’ Social Studies of Science, 27 (1997): 547–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 36.
    W. Smit, ‘Science, Technology, and the Military’, in S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen and T. Pinch (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (London: Sage; 1995): 598–626.Google Scholar
  19. 37.
    N. Chomsky, L. Nader, I. Wallerstein, R. C. Lewontin, R. Ohmann, H. Zinn, I. Katznelson, D. Montgomery, R. Siever, The Cold War and the University: Toward an Intellectual History of the Postwar Years (New York: The New Press, 1997).Google Scholar
  20. 44.
    B. Bozeman and J. S. Dietz, ‘Research Policy Trends in the United States’, in P. Laredo and P. Mustar (eds) Research and Innovation Policies in the New Global Economy (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2001): 47–78.Google Scholar
  21. 55.
    A. Teich, ‘Impact of Post-September 11 Security Policies on US Science’, in A. D. James (ed.) Science and Technology Policies for the Anti-Terrorism Era NATO Science Series (Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2006): 151–165.Google Scholar
  22. 56.
    R. M. Atlas, ‘Bioterrorism and Biodefence Research: Changing the Focus of Microbiology’ Nature Reviews Microbiology 1 (2003): 70–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 56.
    and B. Alberts and R. M. May, ‘Scientists Support for Biological Weapons Control’ Science, 298, 8 November (2002): 1135.Google Scholar
  24. 60.
    C. McLeish and P. Nightingale, The Impact of Dual Use Controls on UK Science, SPRU Electronic Working Paper Series, Paper no. 132, (Falmer: SPRU; 2005).Google Scholar
  25. 64.
    P. Gummett, ‘Issues for STS Raised by Defence Science and Technology Policy’ Social Studies of Science, 20 (1990): 541–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 65.
    B. Rappert, B. Balmer and J. Stone, ‘Science, Technology, and the Military: Priorities, Preoccupations and Possibilities’ The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (London: MIT Press, 2007).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Andrew D. James 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew D. James

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations