Features
By Dr. Christopher K. Tucker
A comprehensive approach to developing, deploying, and utilizing our eyes in the sky can revolutionize national security and environmental sustainability.
By Andrew Plemmons Pratt
Given the Obama administration’s positive approach to science and to human rights, a new CAP report argues that now is the time to craft policies that support collaborations between researchers and advocates that stop atrocities.
By Nathaniel Hafer, Cheryl J. Vos, Karen McAllister, Gretchen Lorenzi, Christopher Moore, Kavita M. Berger, and Michael Stebbins
Anecdotal evidence has led to the impression that many in the scientific community hold a negative view of law enforcement. Before the two communities can solve this problem, we need to get a sense of the types and range of views scientists hold.
By Rick Weiss, interviewer
AAAS Science and Human Rights Program Director Mona Younis talks with Rick Weiss about how scientists have protected the rights of their colleagues, helped bring Balkan war criminals to justice, and safeguarded vulnerable populations in Darfur. The program’s new initiatives aim to spur a pro-bono movement within the research community to support human rights work, just as exists within legal circles.
By Jonathan D. Moreno
A large set of questions for 21st century neural and behavioral science has come into focus, and they will play a significant role in both national intelligence operations and in relations within a globalized scientific community.
By Mark Drapeau
The next transition team must make the most of modern information and communications technology to shape, coordinate, and run the process of moving the next president into office. Here are some suggestions on how that can work.
By Rick Weiss
There are a growing number of cases in which technologies developed for routine scientific and medical uses are finding unexpected application in the shrouded world of genocide, torture, and political oppression.
By Jonathan D. Moreno
Crippling our nation’s future economic competitiveness and military preparedness by crimping scientific learning and denigrating authoritative science puts our nation at risk.
By Rick Weiss
A new report from the National Research Council argues that the military should harness the power of neuroscience to amplify the cognitive prowess of U.S. personnel and make foreign soldiers, um, less smarter.
By Jerome Franck, Ph.D.
Bugs pack an amazing set of capabilities into a very small package. Understanding and mimicking those abilities can allow researchers to shrink the size of autonomous robots to proportions like those of household pests.
By Michael Stebbins, Ph.D.
A clear set of policy guidelines for reporting biosecurity concerns in research labs is clearly in order. Here are some suggestions.
By Michael Rugnetta
New technologies enable scientists to understand, alter, and enhance our brains. These raise a host of policy-relevant questions about privacy, social and political coercion, access to technology and therapy.
By Michael Peroski
Neuroscientists boast that fMRI technology could allow for mind-reading machines. The technology raises numerous legal issues. But the big question is, will it work?
By Jonathan Pfeiffer, interviewer
A recent National Research Council report recognizes that the 9/11 attacks provoked counter-productive security measures that stifle access to fruitful scientific research. Security expert Bruce Schneier talks with
Science Progress about the science that makes us smarter and the security that makes us safer.
By Dan Guttman
WWII contracting out of scientific inquiry in the interest of national security was the springboard for mid-20th century reform of American government that yielded great successes but has lost its moorings. It’s time to re-envision the role of private contractors in the public service.
By Jonathan B. Tucker
Biotechnology offers great benefits for humankind but could also lead to unimaginable horrors. Scientists and policymakers around the world urgently need to address these dual-use risks.
By Joseph Cirincione
The arguments for a new nuclear warhead contradict technical truths and threaten national security interests. Congress is correct to question the proposal.