Advertisement

Rethinking ‘Secrecy’ and ‘Disclosure’: What Science and Technology Studies Can Offer Attempts to Govern WMD Threats

  • Brian Rappert
  • Brian Balmer
Part of the New Security Challenges Series book series (NSECH)

Abstract

It is often remarked that post-Cold War, and particularly after 9/11, a ‘new security environment’ has emerged. This is characterised by transnational threats to the West, numerous failing nation states, the proliferation of armaments along with the know-how to manufacture them, and continuing pressures for societal openness. All of these issues intersect in relation to the threats of ‘weapons of mass destruction’ (WMD). Indeed, the danger posed by such weapons has been identified as ‘the key issue facing the world community’.1 The topics of global terrorism and the proliferation of WMD now dominate many national security forums. With these developments a number of questions are being posed with a renewed vigour in policy, academic, and popular discussions: How easy is it to produce and proliferate WMD capabilities? What would count as compelling evidence of their acquisition? What initiatives — such as the imposition of further secrecy restrictions — are likely to limit the spread of WMD? What negative consequences might follow from any such responsive measures?

Keywords

Tacit Knowledge Nuclear Weapon Biological Weapon Moral Economy Weapon Programme 
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.
    T. Blair, ‘Britain in the World’ Speech to UK Foreign Office Conference 7 January (2003).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. MacKenzie, Inventing Accuracy (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    See, for example, M. Armacost, The Politics of Weapons Innovation (New York: Columbia University Press, 1969).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    H. Collins and T. Pinch, ‘A Clean Kill?’, in The Golem at Large (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998): 7–29.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Polanyi, Personal Knowledge (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1958).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    H. Collins, ‘The TEA Set’ Science Studies 4 (1974): 165–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 8.
    D. MacKenzie and G. Spinardi, ‘Tacit Knowledge and the Uninvention of Nuclear Weapons’, in Knowing Machines (London: MIT Press, 1996); 44–99.Google Scholar
  8. 9.
    K. Vogel, ‘Bioweapons Proliferation’ Social Studies of Science 36 (2006): 659–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 11.
    W. Bijker, Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulb (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1997)Google Scholar
  10. W. Bijker and J. Law (eds) Shaping Technology/Building Society (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995).Google Scholar
  11. 12.
    B. Buzan and E. Herring, The Arms Dynamic in World Politics (London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1998): 9.Google Scholar
  12. 13.
    D. MacKenzie and J. Wajcman (eds) The Social Shaping of Technology (Maidenhead: Open University Press, 1999).Google Scholar
  13. 14.
    J. Abbate, ‘Cold War and White Heat’, in D. MacKenzie and J. Wajcman (eds) The Social Shaping of Technology (Maidenhead: Open University Press, 1999): 351–371.Google Scholar
  14. 15.
    D. MacKenzie, ‘Theories of Technology and the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons’, in D. MacKenzie and J. Wajcman (eds) The Social Shaping of Technology (Maidenhead: Open University Press, 1999): 173–98.Google Scholar
  15. 16.
    G. Spinardi, ‘Aldermaston and British Nuclear Weapons Development’ Social Studies of Science 27 (1997): 547–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 17.
    B. Balmer, Britain and Biological Warfare (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 18.
    O. Bosch, ‘Dark Period Ending’ The World Today May (2003): 12–13.Google Scholar
  18. 19.
    J. Borger, ‘Revelation Casts Doubt on Iraq Find’ The Guardian (7 October 2003).Google Scholar
  19. 21.
    D. Vaughan, The Challenger Launch Decision (Chicago,IL: University of Chicago Press, 1996) 62.Google Scholar
  20. 22.
    B. Rappert, Non-Lethal Weapons as Legitimizing Forces? (London: Frank Cass, 2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 23.
    B. Rappert, Controlling the Weapons of War: Politics, Persuasion, and the Prohibition of Inhumanity (London: Routledge, 2006).Google Scholar
  22. 24.
    B. Rappert, ‘National Security, Terrorism & the Control of Life Science Research’, in A. D. James (ed.) Science and Technology Policies for the Anti-Terrorism Era (Oxford: IOS Press, 2006): 172–184.Google Scholar
  23. 25.
    K. Knorr-Cetina, ‘Laboratory Studies’, in S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen and T. Pinch (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (London: Sage, 1995): 140–166.Google Scholar
  24. 26.
    H. Gusterson, Nuclear Rite (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1998);Google Scholar
  25. 26.
    J. Reppy (ed.) Secrecy and Knowledge Production (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Peace Studies, 1999);Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    S. Hilgartner, Science on Stage (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2000).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    P. Westwick, ‘Secret Science’ Minerva 38 (2000): 363–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    H. Gusterson, ‘The Death of the Authors of Death’, in M. Biagioli and P. Galison (eds) Scientific Authorship (New York: Routledge, 2003): 281–307.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    H. Gusterson, Nuclear Rites (Berkeley,CA: University of California Press, 1998): 98.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    R. Kohler, Lords of the Fly (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1994): 11.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    R. Merton, ‘The Normative Structure of Science’, in N. Storer (ed.) The Sociology of Science (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1973): 267–278.Google Scholar
  32. 33.
    D. Edge and M. Mulkay, Astronomy Transformed (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1976).Google Scholar
  33. 34.
    M. Mulkay, ‘Norms and Ideology in Science’ Social Science Information 15 (1975): 637–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 35.
    C. Thorpe, ‘Against Time’ Journal of Historical Sociology 17 (2004): 31–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 36.
    H. Gusterson, Nuclear Rites, op cit.; B. Balmer. Gusterson, Nuclear Rites, op cit.; B. Balmer, ‘Killing “Without the Distressing Preliminaries”’ Minerva 40 (2002): 57–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 37.
    C. Fraser and M. Dando, ‘Genomics and Future Biological Weapons’ Nature Genetics 22 October (2001).Google Scholar
  37. 40.
    G. Knezo, ‘Sensitive but Unclassified’ and Other Federal Security Controls on Scientific and Technical Information (Washington, DC.: Congressional Research Service, 2003).Google Scholar
  38. 42.
    A. Salyers, ‘Science, Censorship, and Public Health’ Science 26 April (2001): 617.Google Scholar
  39. 43.
    See, for example, D. Blumenthal, ‘Ethics Issues in Academic-Industry Relationships in the Life Sciences’ Academic Medicine 71 (12) (1996): 1291–1296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 45.
    S. Hilgartner, ‘Data Access Policy in Genome Research’, in Thackray, A. (ed.) Private Science (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, 1998): 202–18.Google Scholar
  41. 47.
    S. Traweek, Beamtimes and Lifetimes (Boston, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998)Google Scholar
  42. 47.
    and H. Collins, Gravity’s Shadow (Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press, 2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 48.
    D. Chubin and E. Hackett, Peerless Science (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1990).Google Scholar
  44. 50.
    P. Medawar, ‘Is the Scientific Paper a Fraud?’, in P. Medawar The Threat and the Glory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991): 228–233.Google Scholar
  45. 52.
    H. Collins, ‘The Meaning of Data’ American Journal of Sociology 104 (1998): 293–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Brian Rappert and Brian Balmer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brian Rappert
  • Brian Balmer

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations