Starting next fall, Stanford's 25-year-old International Policy Studies (IPS) master's program will double in length and expand its interdisciplinary scope to train a new generation of graduates prepared for careers in international policy-making and advocacy.

The two-year program is named in honor of Susan Ford Dorsey, president of the Sand Hill Foundation, who has made a gift of $7.5 million, which has been matched by university funds to create a $15 million endowment. According to program Director Stephen J. Stedman, the funding will be used to better integrate the program into the university's international policy research centers, increase access to courses in the law and business schools, use more full-time faculty to teach classes and introduce a practicum that involves solving real-world problems.

Ford Dorsey's endowment fulfills one of the key priorities of Stanford's International Initiative, according to Stedman, which is to address global problems by leveraging the university's cross-disciplinary and collaborative research and teaching. Ford Dorsey and her husband, Mike, serve on volunteer committees of The Stanford Challenge, which is seeking to raise $4.3 billion in a broad effort to expand the university's role in addressing global challenges and educating the next generation of leaders.

Stedman, a senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI), was asked to lead the program because he has experience in both academic and policy work. In 2003, Stedman served as research director of the U.N. High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, which former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan established to analyze global security threats and propose reforms to the international system. Upon completion of the panel's report, A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility, Annan asked Stedman to stay on as a special adviser to help get support in implementing the panel's recommendations. Following the U.N. world leaders' summit in September 2005, during which more than 175 heads of state agreed upon a global security agenda developed from the panel's work, Stedman returned to the Center for International Security and Cooperation at FSI.

According to Stedman, the revamped curriculum will give students the skills to understand the complex connections between poverty, deadly infectious disease, environmental degradation, resource depletion, food insecurity, interstate conflict, civil war, nuclear proliferation and terrorism.

"In a world where problems cross borders and disciplines, where threats that were previously thought to be independent are found to be interconnected, where distinctions between what is domestic policy and what is foreign policy are becoming more and more tenuous, students need training and perspective to break down disciplinary silos," Stedman says in a statement on the program's website. "They need the tools and dexterity to work across issue areas and in diverse policy arenas. They need to see connections that others miss, and be able to describe and explain those connections so that others will then see them too."

The program, which will be jointly administered by the School of Humanities and Sciences and FSI, will continue to admit about 30 students a year, with up to half coming from outside the United States. Students are required to have taken prerequisite courses in economics and statistics, and to speak a foreign language.

At a Feb. 7 dinner celebrating the newly endowed program, Gareth Evans, president of the International Crisis Group and a member of the U.N. High-Level Panel, talked about the need to "make idealism realistic" and discussed the concept of a state's "responsibility to protect" civilians as a new international norm. "In just five years, which is short in the history of ideas, a brand new historical norm" was introduced and recognized by much of the international community, he said. "This was a historic breakthrough. It should reinvigorate our belief in the art of the possible." Concerning the Ford Dorsey IPS program, Evans said, "When it comes to making idealism realistic  there really could be no better place anywhere in the world that this new master's program at Stanford."

The incoming fall cohort of IPS students will study writing and rhetoric and international economics. They will take core courses in Issues in International Policies, which introduces Stanford's policy research centers and provides analyses of current global issues, and Managing Global Complexity, which teaches concepts and theories of international relations while focusing on issues with competing policy concerns. "The goal is to understand that much of what we study today is marked by trade-offs among various goods that we seek to promote," Stedman says in the statement. "Globalization and interdependence creates opportunities for creative solutions to problems, while sometimes creating negative unintended consequences for policy solutions."

IPS students will take a "gateway" course before selecting a concentration during the second year. These specialized fields include democracy, development and the rule of law; energy, environment and natural resources; global health; global justice; international negotiation and conflict management; international political economy; and international security and cooperation. Finally, students will complete a small group practicum in which they will be required to develop solutions to current global problems.

Every day, the United States burns through 20.7 million barrels of oil. China, the world's second largest consumer, uses about 6.9 million barrels a day. Although the United States is the third leading oil producer in the world (behind Saudi Arabia and Russia), its appetite is so enormous that it overwhelms the country's production capacity. Its known reserves, about 21 billion barrels, would supply only enough to keep the country running at full speed for about three years.

So when STANFORD gathered five faculty members to talk about the implications of U.S. dependency on foreign oil, we expected grave declarations of alarm. But their concern did not square with the growing chorus of citizens and elected officials about why reducing this dependency is so important.

On the next five pages, faculty from political science, economics, law and engineering explain why the debate about energy security is missing the point, and what they think needs to be done.

STANFORD: How would you frame the issue of dependency on foreign oil? What should we be concerned about?

David Victor: The problem is not dependence per se. In fact, dependence on a world market produces enormous benefits, such as lower prices. Nor is the problem that energy's essential role in the economy means that dependence must be avoided. The real problem is that energy - oil, especially - doesn't operate according to normal market principles. Something like 75 percent of the reserves of oil and gas are controlled by companies that are either wholly owned or in effect controlled by governments, and there's enormous variation in how those companies perform. Some of them are just a disaster, like [Mexico's state-owned oil company] Pemex, and others can work at world standards, like Saudi Aramco or Brazils Petrobrás. Some of these governments, such as Venezuela, use oil revenues for political purposes that undermine U.S. influence. High prices do not automatically generate new supply or conservation, partly because suppliers can drop prices to undercut commercial investment in alternatives. Second, we have what has become known as "the resource curse." There'sa lot of evidence that the presence of huge windfalls in poorly governed places makes governance even worse. Revenue that accrues to oil-exporting governments is particularly prone to being misspent, often in ways that work against U.S. interests.

Scott Sagan: I agree that calling the problem "energy dependence" and therefore seeking energy independence is the wrong way to think about this problem. Talking about energy independence feeds the xenophobic impulse that occurs all too easily in American politics. And it suggests to other countries that they should seek independence rather than a more cooperative approach. I see very negative consequences politically in the signal that attitude sends. Think about the current nuclear crisis with Iran. Iran claims that it needs independent uranium enrichment capabilities to have "energy sovereignty." Such uranium enrichment production could be used, however, for civilian nuclear power or for making a bomb, creating enormous nuclear weapons proliferation problems. We're feeding into that kind of thinking when we use the same language about independence when referring to oil. And it produces uncooperative effects elsewhere. The Chinese, for example, cut a deal with Sudan as a means of creating energy security for themselves. It inhibits efforts of the international community to encourage that government to behave responsibly.

John Weyant: There is a distinction between dependence, meaning how much of the oil the United States consumes is imported, and vulnerability, meaning how at risk our economy and our social order are to oil-supply disruptions. That vulnerability is defined by how much of the total supply of oil in the world market comes from unreliable sources. So you have to look at oil supply on a global scale, not just in the United States. It's the instability of the supply that affects price.

Victor: I like John's term "vulnerability," and it leads us to various kinds of actions to reduce our vulnerability to the market rather than trying to make us completely independent. One of them has been around since the '70s - building and coordinating strategic stockpiles so that they are supplied into a single world market. Traditionally that could be done by the major Western countries because they were the major oil consumers. One of the big challenges for policy makers today is how to get India and China to think about the operation of this world market in the same market-based way that we think about it, and to get them to build up those stockpiles and coordinate them with our own. There's some evidence that that kind of coordination can reduce our vulnerability.

Weyant: There's this fallacy among the public that if we don't import so much oil, other oil-exporting countries are going to be hurt and we will be unaffected if oil supplies are cut off. But these countries are sometimes major trading partners of allies, and asking those allies to take a hit on our behalf just leads to other economic problems. If the economies in China and Europe and Japan, who are all major trading partners, go down, it affects how much they can buy from us. It's another reason we can't be xenophobic and just look inward on an issue like this. You get these international trade flows outside the energy sector that could be pretty devastating.

STANFORD: Last summer we saw crude oil prices hit $70 a barrel and gas prices went well above $3 per gallon nationwide. That momentarily changed consumer behavior, and reduced demand. Are high prices a good thing?

Michael May: The key factor in normalizing market conditions is assuring the market that high prices are here to stay. Major oil companies like Exxon and bp have been putting their money to other uses than exploration. They have been buying back shares and increasing returns to stockholders because that's the way Wall Street drives them. That might change if prices stayed high. It probably won't be $70 a barrel, but even $50 a barrel as a base price is almost twice the historic average. The extent to which investors become convinced that that's going to be the future average will have some bearing as to how much money they spend on exploration. Toyota and General Motors and others can make hybrids or much more efficient cars, but it takes billons of dollars of investment, and if the price of gasoline goes down, they have less incentive. When gas is cheap, driving an SUV is not such a big deal.

Victor: The reason some of these companies are buying back the shares is not just because of Wall Street but because they don't have a lot of truly attractive opportunities for investing in new production. Most of the oil reserves are either legally off limits for the Western oil companies or international oil companies generally, or they're de facto off limits because they're in places where it's so hard to do business. Although the public is seized by the high price of energy, the major energy companies are seized by concerns that prices are going to decline sharply. If there is a recession, which would dampen demand for energy, or the capacity to produce oil around the world improves, then prices will decline. It has happened in the past. That fear really retards a lot of investment because these investments have a very long capital lifetime, and you need to protect them against low prices over an incredibly long time horizon.

Michael McFaul: It's very important to understand that oil companies owned and operated by governments are not necessarily profit-maximization entities. Take Gazprom, the gas company of Russia. It is closely aligned with state interests, so profit isn't its only motivation. It will use its money for strategic purposes as defined by Vladimir Putin, not as defined by the shareholders of Gazprom. For instance, early in 2006, Gazprom cut off gas supplies to Ukraine, mostly for geopolitical reasons. Why is Hezbollah so well armed? Because of Iran, which uses oil revenue for strategic purposes; it is not used for investing in a company or investing in the market per se. This is part of the problem of the "resource curse" David referred to. If oil is discovered in a country before democratic institutions are in place, the probability of that country becoming democratic is very low. In countries where the state does not rely on the taxation of its citizens for its revenues, it doesn't have to listen to what its citizens want to do with that money. So instead of building roads or schools or doing things that taxpayers would demand of them, they use their money in ways that threaten the security of other countries, and, ultimately, their own.

Victor: It's important that we not overstate the extent to which users of energy are going to respond automatically to high prices, and the personal vehicle is a great example. Fuel accounts for about 20 percent of the total cost of operating a vehicle. Traditionally it's only been 10 or 15 percent, but we are much wealthier today than we were three decades ago when we had the [first OPEC oil embargo]. I think that helps explain a lot of the sluggishness in response in the marketplace. People are buying smaller, more fuel-efficient cars, but that trend will only go so far because there are other factors that determine what kinds of vehicles people purchase. In the United States and most advanced industrialized countries, most oil is used for transportation, where oil products have no rival. It is hard to switch. In most of the rest of the world, oil gets used for a variety of other purposes, including generating electricity. Those markets are probably going to be more responsive to the high price of oil because they're going to have opportunities to switch to other fuels. The United States used a lot of oil to generate electricity in the early 1970s and when that first oil shock came along, essentially all of that disappeared from our market. That's part of the reason why the U.S. energy system responded fairly quickly to the first oil shock, and why changes in behavior are harder to discern in the current crisis. There is no easy substitute for gasoline.

May: If we generally agree that high oil prices, on the whole, are a good thing because they cause investment in more production and more efficient uses of oil, then it would follow that the rapid growth in consumption in China is also a good thing and we should welcome it, right?

Victor: I disagree with that. In effect what we have right now is a "tax" that's been applied to the oil market due to the various dysfunctions of the way it operates and to unexpectedly high demand in the United States and China. The revenue from that tax is accruing to the producers, and if we think about how to get out of the mess here, then what we want to do is in effect apply a tax to the oil products. If we raise the price of these products to reflect the real total cost of our vulnerability to the world oil market, those companies have an incentive to go off and look for alternatives.

May: So you're saying the same thing: that high oil prices, whether from this tax or otherwise, are a good thing.

Weyant: It depends significantly on who is collecting the tax.

McFaul: Yes, the fundamental question is how the money is being spent. If I had high confidence that the money was going to reinvestment, then I could agree that high prices are good, but that's not what is happening. The Soviet Union's most dangerous adventures in the Third World correlated with the high oil prices in the 1970s. You can see the direct effect. And when the prices came down, the Soviet Union collapsed. The same is true with Iran today. They are being very aggressive in the region - in Iraq, in Lebanon, in Afghanistan - trying to become the Middle East hegemon. This would not be happening if they didn't have all these clients - Hezbollah, Hamas, their friends in Iraq - that they can support with millions of dollars. Going back a few decades, where did Osama bin Laden come from? Where did support for the Taliban come from? It came from this tax that David is talking about. If we're talking about security issues and oil, this is much more serious than supply disruption to the United States.

Victor: I agree with Mike 100 percent. If you look at where the revenues are going from Iran, Venezuela and so on, there's a long list of folks who are doing things that are contrary to our interests with the money that ultimately is coming out of the pockets of American consumers. Dealing with that is job one.

STANFORD: So how would you counsel American policy makers? What needs to happen to reduce our vulnerability over the long term?

Sagan: The vulnerabilities we have today should provide an incentive to make some critical investments and to change our thinking, but we're not really doing that. I was quite surprised at how much I agreed with one aspect of the second Bush inaugural address. [He said] let's start talking about our addiction to oil and all the problems associated with that, but I've been completely disappointed with the lack of follow-through. And part of the problem is this notion of energy independence. We need diversity in our research and development spending across the board, on a variety of technologies. We're going to produce energy security to a large degree by finding cooperative solutions that are efficient and secure for many countries working together. We need to see our national security as being very dependent on others and that's not entirely a bad thing.

Victor: There is one cluster of technology that's going to be exceptionally important - electric vehicles. The all-electric vehicle has been kind of a disaster. We tried to do that in California without much success at all. The new set of pluggable hybrid vehicles, which you plug in at night and charge up, are more promising. If such technologies make it feasible to reduce some of the transportation dependence on oil, then markets will be forced to become more "normal" and more responsive. Electric cars and other technologies can help to keep prices lower and ultimately help make the transition completely away from oil over a period of 30 or 50 years.

Weyant: We only think about energy as a nation when prices are high, and so there's a short attention span on the issue. That makes it really hard to sustain a policy that would be rational over the long term. If we're going to have a big R&D program, for example, you need to invest in technologies and sustain the investment over a long time horizon. If you couple this short attention span with our aversion to taxes, at least historically, you end up with policies that are almost designed from the outset to fail. The political tide is turning a little bit so a well-designed tax might be possible. Maybe you don't raise taxes now but you assure that the price of a [hybrid] car won't go below a certain level and that'll help create a little more confidence with the marketplace. If you just focus on research and development without getting the economic incentives right, you come up with all kinds of great gizmos that no one will actually make or use.

McFaul: We've been talking mostly about how to manipulate the market to change people's behavior and I think that's quite right. I can't tell you how many people I saw come out of a Palo Alto theater after seeing Al Gore's movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and jump into their gas-guzzling machines. I would like to tax those machines; use economic tools to change people's behavior in a way the movie didn't. This has to become a public policy issue. It's not right now. Think about the way the market for cigarettes worked in this country 50 years ago, and think of how it is structured now. We have not just taxes but regulation - they can't be advertised on television - and a national campaign trying to educate people about the health concerns. We need a similar effort on this issue.

Sagan: When you watch the Super Bowl you don't see advertisements for cigarettes, but you do for Hummers. There's no attempt at all to educate people about the relationship between these longer-term problems and what you do individually. And that takes decades.

Victor: One of the acid tests for whether the nation is pursuing a coherent energy policy is our policy on ethanol. Ethanol is important because it is a partial substitute for oil-based gasoline. In this country, almost all of the ethanol that is delivered to the marketplace is made from corn, which is economically inefficient. But we do that because the corn grows in the heartland, such as Iowa - an important state electorally. There have been lots of proposals to, for example, erase the tariff on imported ethanol. Brazil produces ethanol from sugar cane and it's much cheaper and more efficient. But the farm lobby always intervenes and these proposals languish, with the result that the U.S. ethanol industry never faces the rigors of world competition. So long as energy is bouncing around lower on the list of priorities, it will be difficult to have a coherent policy.

Weyant: It would be far better if people were willing to bite the bullet and say this is a problem and it's not going to be painless to solve it, but if we play our cards right it's not going to reduce our standard of living much. Convincing the public is really one thing that might be worth some more effort. It's a cacophony to them.

STANFORD: What is your greatest hope and your worst fear with regard to demand for oil?

Victor: My greatest hope is that inside the Chinese government and inside the Indian government people know that this independence view of the world energy market is completely wrongheaded. Maybe that will create an opportunity for the United States and India and China along with other major oil consumers to collectively manage this issue, and the consequences of doing that will spill over onto other areas of cooperation. My greatest fear, in addition to the things we've already discussed, is that the United States will use the oil issue to beat up on the Chinese and the Indians, and that our relationship with those countries, which is already fragile, will make it harder to work together on other things that also matter.

May: My greatest hope is that the United States, China, India and other major countries work together towards a more hopeful future, including improving the global environment, providing a counterbalance to mischief in the Middle East, and promoting a transition to modernization and away from extremism. My greatest fear is that the little termites who are nibbling at what is currently a somewhat sensible Chinese policy will have their way, either because the country's economy slows down - which it will inevitably - or for some other reason, and we'll wind up fighting each other or destroying each other's capabilities.

McFaul: My greatest sense of optimism comes from this discussion, and about what my colleagues in this discussion said about China, because from the surface it looks like there's a much more pernicious policy of China going its own way. I've learned today that in fact there are very reasonable voices within the Chinese government, and I hope that there will be in my own government. My greatest fear is that there will continue to be politicians who control oil revenues who do things that do not serve international security, and I'm speaking not only of Iran. My nightmarish scenario is that 10 years from now Iran, Iraq and, God forbid, Saudi Arabia are controlled by hostile governments that want to use the revenues that we pay them for their oil to harm us. I give that a low probability, but in terms of things that worry me about our security, it's the instability of those oil-exporting regimes.

Sagan: The hope is that this current crisis will provide the right set of incentives to encourage investment in a diverse set of energy R&D programs across the board, and will encourage cooperation between countries in energy research and development. That would help educate and change the culture of the United States away from a gas-guzzling, governor-in-the-Hummer culture. The fear is that this will become yet one more excuse to move to a more xenophobic policy that discourages cooperative international policies.

Weyant: Remember David Stockman, the erstwhile head of the Office of Management and Budget? I ran into him in Washington and he literally said to me, "Don't worry about oil security and disruptions or any of that stuff. We've got battleships to take care of this problem." That shocked me to no end, and my response was "Do you really want to be in that position, where that's your only option?" Your whole response is "We're best in the battleship field and you shouldn't mess with us?" This type of attitude is what worries me the most.

Sagan: We were earlier talking about the resource curse, and this strikes me as an example of the hegemon's curse. To not take the necessary steps on economic policies or energy policies because you think you've got a military backup solution. If our military strength causes us to be passive or uncooperative on the economic or energy front, it will have a boomerang effect that will really hurt us.

The National Security Agency is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside a code. Secrets lie within. Located in Fort Meade, Md., it dwarfs the CIA. Its budget is black, unknown. And, most disturbing of all, it is the world's largest employer of mathematicians.

One of its secrets, recently revealed, is that it's monitoring millions of phone calls to learn just who was calling whom. (Technically, only telephone numbers are being recorded, but you don't have to be Q from James Bond to get a name from a number.) This information was being used to determine who might be a terrorist.

Legal or not, the spying program isn't worth violating our civil liberties for. The information one can glean will hardly help us win the war on terror.

With the NSA data, you can draw a picture with nodes or dots representing individuals, and lines between nodes if one person has called another. Mathematicians who work with pictures like this are called graph theorists. The field of social network analysis deals with trying to determine information about a group from such a graph, such as who the key players are or who the cell leaders might be.

But even when you know everyone in the graph is a terrorist, graphs don't contain information about the order or hierarchy of the cell. Researchers look instead for graph features like centrality: They try to identify nodes that are connected to a lot of other nodes, like spokes around the hub of a bicycle wheel. Monterey Naval Postgraduate School researcher Ted Lewis, in his textbook "Critical Infrastructure Protection," defines a critical node to be such a central hub.

There are two problems. First, the central player might not be as important as the hub metaphor suggests. Jafar Adibi of the University of Southern California looked at e-mail traffic between Enron employees before Enron collapsed, and drew the graph. He found that if you naively analyzed the graph, you could mistakenly conclude that one of the central players was CEO Ken Lay's ... secretary. But that wasn't the person who ran the company into the ground.

Second, as the journal Studies in Conflict and Terrorism reported in 2003, you can kill all the central players in a terrorist cell and still leave the cell with a complete chain of command -- still capable of carrying out a devastating attack.

Expert Kathleen Carley of Carnegie Mellon was able to correctly predict -- twice -- who would take over Hamas when its leaders were assassinated, and her analysis used detailed information about the individuals in the organization, not just what anonymous nodes were linked with what. The moral is that the graph theory approach is inadequate. For useful results, it's important to utilize the lattice theory approach, which takes into account order and hierarchy.

The other questionable aspect of the NSA spying program is that it seeks to work out who might be a terrorist based on their calling patterns. While I agree that anyone calling 1 (800) AL-QAEDA is probably a terrorist, guilt by association is not just bad law, it's bad mathematics, for three reasons.

The simplest reason is that we're all connected. Not in the Haight-Ashbury/Timothy Leary/late-period-Beatles kind of way, but in the sense of the Kevin Bacon game. Sociologist Stanley Milgram took individuals unknown to each other, separated by a continent, and asked one person to send a package to the other -- but only by sending the package to an individual he or she knew, who could then only send the package to someone he knew, and so on. While Milgram's interpretation of the results has since been questioned, the conclusion that emerged is that it took only six mailings, on average, for each package to reach its intended destination.

For example, President Bush is only three steps away from Osama bin Laden. And terrorist hermits like the Unabomber might be connected only to very few people. So much for guilt by association.

The second reason the NSA methodology is flawed is the concept "strength of weak ties," made famous by Stanford sociologist Mark Granovetter. Robert Spulak of the Joint Special Operations University puts it this way: You might not see your college roommate for 10 years, but if he were to call you up and ask to stay in your apartment, you'd let him. This is the principle under which sleeper cells operate: There is no communication for years. The links between nodes that the NSA is looking for simply might not exist for the real threats.

Formal concept analysis, a branch of lattice theory, helps rectify this situation. Individuals who share many of the same characteristics are grouped together as one node, and links between nodes in this picture, called a concept lattice, indicate that all the members of a certain subgroup, with certain attributes, must also have other attributes. For instance, you might group together people based on what cafés, bookstores and mosques they attend, and then find out that all the people who go to a certain cafe also attend the same mosque (but maybe not vice versa). While this tool has in fact been used by researchers at Los Alamos National Laboratory to sift through hundreds of terrorism-related reports, it's still dangerous to rely on the math.

The NSA data mining is flawed because, as Kennedy and Lincoln buffs know, two people can be a lot alike without being the same person. Even if there is only a 1 in 150 million chance that someone might share the profile of a terrorist suspect, it still means that, in a country the size of the United States, two people might share that profile. One is just minding his own business. The other is Cat Stevens.

This isn't to say mathematicians are useless. In September 2004 -- 10 months before the July 7 bombing of the London Underground -- mathematician Gordon Woo warned that London was a hotbed of jihadist radicalism. But Woo, who works for the Bay Area company Risk Management Solutions, didn't anticipate the bombings using math. He used his knowledge and experience of London, especially the Wood Green area. That's what law enforcement officials should be doing.

As for tracking terrorist financing, it may already be too late. The terrorism of the future, according to mathematician Stefan Schmidt of the Technical University in Dresden, Germany, may be the terrorism of the futures -- when bombs explode, the stock market drops. Schmidt wants to quantify the impact on the market of a terrorist incident. The only people who know when a bomb will explode are the terrorists. By playing the market, they may already have obtained as much money as they need -- in perfectly legitimate ways -- thus stifling Treasury Department efforts to cut off the source of their funding.

Math is just a tool. Used wisely, math can indeed help win the Battle of Britain (by breaking the German codes). But used unwisely -- as seems to be the case in the NSA telephone caper -- your approval rating might just hit an all-time low.

It's been said that World War I was the chemists' war and World War II the physicists' war, but that World War III is destined to be the mathematicians' war.

With the gravest threat to U.S. security now posed by rogue terrorists who simultaneously hold a grudge and have access to weapons of mass destruction, some of this country's prime human calculators are on the case.

Combatting terrorism not with mortars and missiles but with mathematical models, they intend to prove this theorem: There literally is safety in numbers.

In their vanguard is an amiable Stanford University professor who, by devoting himself to the application of math principles to doomsday scenarios, is beginning to acquire the nickname "Dr. Doom." The attacks of Sept. 11 inspired mathematician Lawrence Wein to channel his expertise into some of the most compelling questions of our time.

He has ciphered the risks of our "woefully inadequate" inspection of container ships, assessed the effectiveness of border-control fingerprint checks to spot terrorists, and performed what may well be the first math analyses of hypothetical botulism, anthrax and smallpox contaminations.

Recall the agitation last year over warnings that the nation's milk supply was vulnerable, based on the calculation that one terrorist with a few grams of botulinum could contaminate a tanker and potentially poison 100,000 gallons of milk? That's just one of many tidings of comfort and joy brought to you by Wein.

Another such upper is that just about 6 percent of containers shipped into U.S. ports will be categorized as suspicious and subjected to tests for a nuclear device, based on a system that relies largely on reporting by the shipper. The rest, Wein noted, "just waltz right into the country without an inspector laying an eye on them."

At Stanford's Graduate School of Business, he teaches a core course in operations, and he says the parallels are strikingly similar: Just as McDonald's needs a well-designed distribution system to get its hamburgers out quickly, so the government needs a well-designed distribution system to get vaccines and antibiotics to citizens who might sicken or die from a bioterror attack. In math lingo, some of these computations rest on "queueing theory" -- the notion that a lot of needy people must line up behind a limited number of distributors.

And what do we do after crunching millions of numbers to arrive at specific prescriptions? Wein has taken on the role of necessary nag to a torpid federal bureaucracy and recalcitrant industries.

In fact, the feds scrambled to try to suppress publication of his damning milk study as a threat to national security -- an argument the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences rejected before publishing the work.

These days, Wein regularly testifies at congressional hearings, addresses scientific forums and pens op-ed pieces in national newspapers about precisely what the government should be doing -- and where it is falling short.

"I believe my work demonstrates that numbers really matter, and we need to pay attention to what they tell us," said Wein, a critic of the federal government's homeland security failures in key areas, particularly at the ports. "I really don't bring my own personal political views into this -- I would be just as critical of the federal bureaucracy if a Democrat were in the White House.

"Bureaucracy just isn't designed to respond nimbly."

On the other hand, politicians are eager to do something, anything, that might thwart a terror attack or save lives. But in an information vacuum, that makes them easy prey for entrepreneurs hawking all kinds of safety gadgets.

So, much of Wein's math analysis goes beyond documenting threats to assess the most effective, cost-efficient remedies.

Take the milk scare, for example. Wein urged the government to mandate that milk tanks and trucks be locked, that two people be present when it is transferred along each part of the supply chain, and that milk truck drivers use a 15 minute test to detect any toxins. The estimated cost of all this: 2 cents per gallon.

Some other experts disputed Wein's assumptions, and dairy industry groups insisted they already had taken extra steps such as raising pasteurization temperatures to secure the milk supply. They dismissed the scenarios Wein described as "highly unlikely or impossible."

To avoid being victimized by a radioactive device aboard a tanker -- otherwise known as a "poor man's missile" -- he and colleague Stephen Flynn of the Council on Foreign Relations advocate using techniques such as gamma-ray imaging to screen 100 percent of containers. They calculate the cost at $7 per container.

Some of Wein's calculations have translated into real reform.

In 2004, he presented to the White House his findings that the system of collecting only two fingerprints from incoming foreign visitors ran a high risk of missing terrorists because so many prints turned out to be of poor quality. His solution was simple: Take prints from all 10 digits. The government adopted it.

His 2003 research into the most effective response to an anthrax attack prompted pilot programs that are now testing his finding that the best way to widely distribute antibiotics would be by mail carriers, who already go door to door.

Albert Einstein once observed: "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

And sure enough, one of the impediments to fighting terrorists with mathematics is the paucity of hard data.

An anthrax scenario illustrates the point. Estimates of fatalities per kilogram of poisonous agent released vary from a low of zero to a high of 660,000. That's because of variables: the dose required to cause infection, the percentage of people who survive infection, the degree of aerosol dispersion, the density of the population, the environmental stability of the agent and the effectiveness of a public health system response.

As Wein acknowledges, "It's not like we can do massive clinical trials on this."

The trail of what-ifs is so convoluted that in 2002 the National Academy of Sciences cited "an irreducible uncertainly of several orders of magnitude in the number of people who will be infected in an open-air release."

This makes some experts suspicious of anybody's calculations, even from a researcher with a pedigree like Wein's.

"With so much uncertainly surrounding the outcome of a bioweapons attack, it does not make sense to plan extensive biodefense programs when more-certain public threats, particularly those involving nuclear weapons, require attention," argued Allison Macfarlane, research associate in the Science, Technology and Global Security Working Group at MIT.

But Wein is undeterred, and is busy on new assessments. Yet he insists his work has not impaired his ability to sleep soundly.

"People really are much more likely to suffer from cancer than a terrorist attack, but that doesn't merit the same attention," he said. "We should do what makes sense to protect ourselves from both."

In 1979, anthrax was accidentally released in the city of Sverdlovsk (pop. 1,200,000) in the former Soviet Union, infecting about 80 to 100 people and killing at least 70. Russian officials claimed at the time that tainted meat sold on the black market was responsible; American officials argued that a nearby biological weapons facility released the killer spores. In the early 1990s, Harvard researchers visited the city to piece together the epidemiology of the outbreak. Their investigation, published in Science magazine in 1994, concluded that the Soviet cover story was false.

Now, physicist Dean A. Wilkening, director of the science program at Stanford's Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC), has revisited this Cold War tragedy and used its real-world data to improve our ability to model the medical effects of inhalational anthrax. This, in turn, allows him to model more accurately hypothetical scenarios such as the release of a kilogram of aerosolized anthrax in Washington, D.C., today.

The models researchers have used in such thought experiments "predict very different outcomes," says Wilkening, whose work to better understand the human effects of inhalational anthrax was supported by grants from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation. Using real-world data from the Sverdlovsk outbreak and from limited nonhuman primate experiments, he was able to eliminate two of four theoretical models currently used in "what if?" scenarios that inform bioterrorism policies ranging from how much medicine we should have on hand in the Strategic National Stockpile to how rigorous post-attack decontamination efforts need to be. He reports his findings in the May 1 issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

"To date, researchers haven't paid enough attention to which model they use," Wilkening says. "Different models can give predictions that vary by a factor of 10 or more, so it matters which model one uses for predicting the human effects of inhalational anthrax." Wilkening aims to anchor models on the best available data and provide realistic models that the bioterrorism community can employ in policy studies.

The Sverdlovsk outbreak is "a sort of natural experiment," he says. "It's a tragic incident, but it also is a very valuable source of scientific data that one can use to distinguish between the four models currently in use." The upshot of his analysis is that two of the models currently in use are not accurate for predicting the human response to inhalational anthrax.

Insufficient data is available to resolve which of the remaining two models he examined is most accurate. That answer will have to await further data from costly nonhuman primate experiments, should they ever be performed (none are planned). "We have to use both [models] right now, or use them as bounding cases," he advises.

Wilkening explored four policy issues that illustrate the consequences of choosing different models: 1) calculating how many anthrax-exposed people would become infected and how many would die; 2) assessing if decontamination would be needed; 3) determining how soon exposed people would show symptoms and how soon doctors would recognize those symptoms as anthrax; and 4) calculating how soon exposed people need to receive antibiotics to avoid contracting the disease.

"To figure out what happens in a bioterrorist event, you need to know two basic properties about the pathogen you're dealing with," Wilkening says. One is the dose-response curve, which determines the likelihood of becoming infected at different exposure levels--the higher the dose of anthrax you get, the higher the probability that you will become infected. The dose at which 50 percent of an exposed population becomes infected, called the ID50, is around 10,000 spores. The other basic property is the incubation-period distribution, or the time the pathogen takes to grow in the body before symptoms first appear.

Wilkening's study brought dose-dependence to a debate over how long the incubation period is for inhalational anthrax. Published data from vaccine efficacy tests in which nonhuman primates were challenged with high doses of anthrax--up to a million spores--indicate an incubation period of one to five days. Data from Sverdlovsk, which exposed people to low doses probably on the order of 1 to 10 spores, indicate a longer incubation period, about 10 days. Whereas previous authors have debated whether nonhuman primate experiments or the Sverdlovsk data should be used to determine the incubation period for inhalational anthrax in humans, Wilkening demonstrates that both estimates are correct, with the difference between them being due to the dose dependence of the incubation period and the very different doses received in each case.

"If you are exposed to a higher dose, there is a much higher chance that an anthrax spore will germinate quickly, thus leading to a shorter incubation period," he says. "Sverdlovsk was a low-dose exposure event and, consequently, one would expect anthrax spore germination to take a longer time, thus leading to a longer incubation period."

Truth and consequences

Russian officials confiscated the medical records of the Sverdlovsk victims and have so far refused to release details of what happened on April 2, 1979. "It would be nice to know exactly what happened, because that would allow us to model the event more accurately," Wilkening says.

Nevertheless, based on weather and other data from the day of the event, scientists think that around 2 p.m. spores, or dormant cells that revive under the right conditions, were released from a military facility, and the Bacillus anthracis spores spread up to 5 kilometers downwind. People breathed in the spores, which geminated and incubated in the body for between four to 40 days before people began to feel ill or show signs of illness such as sore throat, coughing, pains, aches and runny nose--the same symptoms as flu--that indicated they had entered what doctors call the prodromal phase. Within four days, people passed the point of no return, called the fulminant phase, in which toxins from the bacteria had built up to such an extent that people went into shock and died.

It's impossible to save those who've entered the fulminant phase and difficult to save those who've entered the prodromal phase. But if people can start treatment after exposure but before symptoms appear, there's a good chance that they will survive--a conclusion Wilkening draws from work by colleagues at Stanford's Center for Health Policy. Treatment primarily consists of antibiotics such as ciprofloxacin, doxycycline or penicillin. While a vaccine to prevent anthrax exists, it is not yet available for the general public but would be made available to people exposed to anthrax, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website.

In his study, Wilkening ruled out two of the four models because they either did not fit the Sverdlovsk data or the nonhuman primate data, or both. "There are two models that people have used that should no longer be used to predict fatalities, models B and C." (The four models used in his analysis are labeled A-D for convenience.)

Using the two remaining models A and D, he predicted that a hypothetical attack releasing 1 kilogram of anthrax spores in Washington, D.C., would infect between 4,000 and 50,000 people, most of whom would die if not treated quickly with antibiotics. The difference of a factor of 10, Wilkening points out, is "an uncertainty with which we must live for the time being until better data can resolve which of the models A or D is more accurate."

Regarding decontamination efforts, the higher the probability of becoming infected at low exposure levels, the greater the need for effective decontamination, especially for indoor environments. Spores "by nature are hardy," Wilkening says. In the soil, out of the way of sunlight, they can last for a decade. "Residual contamination can be a very serious problem in the wake of an attack," Wilkening says. "Unfortunately, both models A and D predict that residual surface contamination from anthrax spores will be a problem. Consequently, we need to come up with effective indoor decontamination strategies."

Analysts such as Professor Lawrence Wein of the Graduate School of Business are considering the issue. Last year, he assessed decontamination and concluded cleaning buildings to make them safe to reoccupy was a billion-dollar proposition.

In addition, the four models make very different predictions about when symptoms would occur. The day after exposure, they predict between 10 and 1,000 people feeling sick, with more people getting sick in the viable versus discredited models.

"In terms of detecting the outbreak rapidly, this is a good thing because it says that doctors could recognize it [sooner]," Wilkening says.

In terms of treating people before they reach the prodromal phase, however, this is a bad thing because people become sick quicker. Wilkening's analysis may help policymakers reassess how fast antibiotics need to reach people. His best model says administering antibiotics by day three saves 90 percent of exposed people. "Today we cannot meet the three-day requirement," he warns.

North Korea's nuclear facility at Yongbyon, which had been "frozen" under international inspection since 1994, was reactivated this January for the production of plutonium. Just last week the North Koreans announced that they intended to use the resulting plutonium to make nuclear weapons, which only confirmed what we always believed.

If it keeps on its present course, North Korea will probably have six to eight nuclear weapons by the end of the year, will possibly have conducted a nuclear test and may have begun deployment of some of these weapons, targeted against Japan and South Korea. By next year, it could be in serial production of nuclear weapons, building perhaps five to 10 per year.

This is a nightmare scenario, but it is a reasonable extrapolation from what we know and from what the North Koreans have announced. The administration to this point has refused to negotiate with North Korea, instead calling on the countries in the region to deal with the problem. The strategy underlying this approach is not clear, but the consequences are all too clear. It has allowed the North in the past six months to move from canned fuel rods to plutonium and, in a few more months, to nuclear weapons. And the consequences could extend well beyond the region. Given North Korea's desperate economic condition, we should expect it to sell some of the products of its nuclear program, just as it did with its missile program. If that happens, a nuclear bomb could end up in an American city. The administration has suggested that it would interdict such transfers. But a nuclear bomb can be made with a sphere of plutonium the size of a soccer ball. It is wishful thinking to believe we could prevent a package that size from being smuggled out of North Korea.

How did we get into this mess?

For several decades North Korea has aspired to have nuclear weapons. During that period successive administrations have, through a combination of threats and inducements, curtailed their program but never their aspirations. In the late 1980s the first Bush administration saw the potential danger and persuaded the Soviet Union to pressure North Korea to join the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and subject its nuclear facilities to international inspection. The North Koreans complied, but they stalled long enough to give them time to make and store enough plutonium for one or two nuclear bombs before the inspectors arrived.

Shortly after the Clinton administration took office, they tried again. As spent fuel was being taken from the nuclear reactor at Yongbyon, the North Koreans ejected the inspectors and began preparations for reprocessing. This would have given them enough plutonium for five or six additional nuclear bombs. President Clinton considered this sufficiently dangerous that he declared reprocessing a "red line." In response, I had the Joint Chiefs prepare a plan to use military force if necessary to prevent this outcome. When Kim Il Sung offered to negotiate the issue, Clinton responded that he would negotiate only if the North Koreans froze all activity at Yongbyon during the negotiation. In the end, military force was not necessary. The agreement that ended this crisis was far from perfect, but in its absence North Korea could today have 50 to 100 nuclear weapons.

But the North Koreans never gave up their desire for nuclear weapons. Even as they complied with the freeze at Yongbyon, they covertly started a second nuclear program at a different location. American intelligence discovered signs of this program and last fall confronted the North Koreans, who did not dispute the charge. The administration responded by stopping fuel oil deliveries called for under the old agreement, to which the North Koreans responded by reopening Yongbyon and racing to get nuclear weapons.

There are three basic approaches for dealing with this dangerous situation. The administration can continue to refuse to negotiate, "outsourcing" this problem to the concerned regional powers. This approach appears to be based on the hope that the regional powers will be able to prevail on North Korea to stop its nuclear program. But hope is not a strategy. If their hopes are not realized and North Korea continues on its present course, it will soon have a significant nuclear arsenal. And while the regional powers could play a role in resolving this crisis, they are unlikely to succeed in the absence of a clear American negotiating strategy in which they can participate.

A second alternative is to put economic pressure on North Korea and hope for "regime change." Or the United States could take military action to bring this change about. But while the regime may one day collapse, with or without economic pressure, there is no reason to believe that it will happen in time - the nuclear threat is imminent. Taking military action to force a timely regime change could result in a conflict comparable to the first Korean War, with casualties that would shock the world.

The third alternative is to undertake serious negotiations with the North Koreans to determine if there is a way to stop their nuclear program short of war. The administration is clearly reluctant to negotiate with the North Koreans, calling them loathsome and cheaters. It is easy to be sympathetic with this position; indeed, the only reason for considering negotiation with North Korea is that the other alternatives are so terrible. The administration, seeing the danger, has said that it "would not tolerate" a North Korean nuclear arsenal. The North Koreans responded to this declaration by accelerating their program. The conflict between our views and their actions is a formula for drifting into war. It is imperative that we stop that drift, and the only clear way of doing that is by negotiating.

Any negotiations with the North Koreans are likely to be difficult and protracted, so they should be predicated on a prior agreement that North Korea will freeze its nuclear activities during the negotiations. For negotiations to have a chance of success, they would need to have a positive dimension, making it clear to North Korea that forgoing nuclear weapons could lead it to a safe and positive future. But they would also need a negative or coercive dimension, both to induce North Korea to take the right path and to give us and our allies more credible options if diplomacy should fail. President Kennedy said it best: "We should never negotiate from fear, but we should never fear to negotiate."