Science, Technology, and Public Policy

Colleagues and friends share their remembrances and stories of Patricia (Pat) McLaughlin, long-time Belfer Center colleague, who passed away February 1, 2020. 

The study of existential risk — the risk of human extinction or the collapse of human civilization — has only recently emerged as an integrated field of research, and yet an overwhelming volume of relevant research has already been published. To provide an evidence base for policy and risk analysis, this research should be systematically reviewed. In a systematic review, one of many time-consuming tasks is to read the titles and abstracts of research publications, to see if they meet the inclusion criteria. The authors show how this task can be shared between multiple people (using crowdsourcing) and partially automated (using machine learning), as methods of handling an overwhelming volume of research.

This paper argues that these potential vulnerabilities deserve rigorous, urgent, and thorough investigation. First, it draws from cybersecurity literature, and reviews general sources of vulnerability in digital systems. Next, with these sources of vulnerability in mind, it reviews the health intelligence systems used in the US as well as in a current Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), the Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). It then It then reviews the possible motives state actors have to attack health intelligence systems, drawing on recent examples of state-led efforts to manipulate, conceal, or undermine health information. It then speculates about what an attack on a health intelligence system might look like. It concludes by proposing a research and education agenda to thoroughly interrogate these issues and generate policy recommendations needed to address them.

Sheila Jasanoff, a professor at the Harvard Kennedy School, speaks to TNM about the need for Science and Technology Studies, policy playing catch-up with the progress of science, data collection in democracies and more.

How can the public and private sectors finance economic growth in the Arctic that serves the people and ecosystems of the Arctic? How does society ensure that these investments build social-ecological resilience in a region that is transforming before our eyes? Join this five-week study group to explore these questions and learn from Arctic experts and finance professionals about how to finance sustainable development in communities impacted by a changing climate. Led by Arctic Initiative Senior Fellow Joel Clement, an Arctic policy leader and former federal climate-change whistleblower, and Graham Sinclair, a subject matter expert on sustainable investment and an Environmental, Social, and Governance architect with decades of experience working with development financing institutions.

The Study Group will consist of five weekly sessions: Tuesdays from 6pm – 7:30pm, February 4 – March 10, 2020, in Belfer-400 (Land Lecture Hall). For more information or to sign-up, please contact brittany_janis@hks.harvard.edu. Space is limited; please register by February 4.

Bruce Schneier writes that the whole point of modern surveillance is to treat people differently, and facial recognition technologies are only a small part of that.

The arguments in favor of the United States' declaring that the only purpose of its nuclear weapons is to deter others who possess them from using theirs — in other words, that in no circumstances will this country use nuclear weapons first — are far stronger than the arguments against this stance. It must be hoped that the next US administration will take this no-first-use step promptly.

Bruce Schneier writes that the 5G network has plenty of security weaknesses, including ones the United States doesn’t want to fix since they help its own surveillance efforts.

Neither the United States nor Iran wants to go to war. That’s the good news. The bad news is that in the fog of crisis — similar in many ways to the fog of war — the danger of inadvertently stumbling into war is dangerously high.

Bruce Schneier details the threat of artificial personas taking over political debate in the United States—and elsewhere.