Governance

FSI's research on the origins, character and consequences of government institutions spans continents and academic disciplines. The institute’s senior fellows and their colleagues across Stanford examine the principles of public administration and implementation. Their work focuses on how maternal health care is delivered in rural China, how public action can create wealth and eliminate poverty, and why U.S. immigration reform keeps stalling. 

FSI’s work includes comparative studies of how institutions help resolve policy and societal issues. Scholars aim to clearly define and make sense of the rule of law, examining how it is invoked and applied around the world. 

FSI researchers also investigate government services – trying to understand and measure how they work, whom they serve and how good they are. They assess energy services aimed at helping the poorest people around the world and explore public opinion on torture policies. The Children in Crisis project addresses how child health interventions interact with political reform. Specific research on governance, organizations and security capitalizes on FSI's longstanding interests and looks at how governance and organizational issues affect a nation’s ability to address security and international cooperation.

-

Reset of U.S. Nuclear Waste Management Strategy and Policy

Meeting 3: Consent-Based Siting

The Reset Project’s third meeting, March 9-10, 2016, will focus on another key issue: consent-based siting. In 2012, the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future recommended a new, consent-based approach to siting future nuclear waste-management facilities. As a near-term action, the Commission recommended that future siting efforts be informed by past experience, drawing on experience gained in siting nuclear waste facilities in the U.S. and abroad. In 2013, the Secretary of Energy released the Administration’s Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-level Radioactive Waste, which endorsed the principles underlying the BRC recommendations (adaptive, phased implementation).  Recently, the Department of Energy has invited public comment on the design of a consent-based siting process.

Critical to the success of any consent-based approach in the U.S. is that the implementer sustain public trust and confidence over decades and that there be a resolution of how power is distributed between the federal government on the one-hand and state/local governments on the other.

The Reset Project’s third meeting seeks to advance the understanding of how a consent-based siting process might be designed in the U.S.:

  1. What insights are provided from the U.S. experience for building local, Tribe and State confidence, and for initiating and sustaining consent-based siting?
  2. How can consent-based siting be informed by the experience by other nuclear projects in the U.S or internationally? 
  3. How is “consent” sought, demonstrated and sustained?
  4. What are priority areas for preparing the policy and regulatory foundations for consent-based siting?

These topics will be addressed over a two-day meeting, through presentations and panel discussions. Invited speakers will share their experience, drawing on their first-hand experience with consent-based siting – from those with direct experience at the levels of local government, Tribe and State governments, to implementers and regulatory authorities involved. Scholars and other experts will be invited to address some important ethical and legal dimensions of consent-based siting. Considerable time will be set aside for discussion and audience participation.  

Reset Conference Documents for meeting no. 3 can be accessed through this link. 

 

Back to Home Page


For information related to the first meeting in this series, and relevant materials, please click here.

For information related to the second meeting in this series, and relevant materials, please click here.

Steering committee members
Sponsors: Precourt Institute for Energy, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Center for International Security & Cooperation
Authors
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

The United States needs to build a better governance regime for oversight of risky biological research to reduce the likelihood of a bioengineered super virus escaping from the lab or being deliberately unleashed, according to an article from three Stanford scholars published in the journal Science today.

"We've got an increasing number of unusually risky experiments, and we need to be more thoughtful and deliberate in how we oversee this work," said co-author David Relman, a professor of infectious diseases and co-director of Stanford's Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC).

Relman said that cutting-edge bioscience and technology research has yielded tremendous benefits, such as cheap and effective ways of developing new drugs, vaccines, fuels and food. But he said he was concerned about the growing number of labs that are developing novel pathogens with pandemic potential.

For instance, researchers at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, in their quest to create a better model for studying human disease, recently deployed a gene editing technique known as CRISPR-Cas9 on a respiratory virus so that it was able to edit the mouse genome and cause cancer in infected mice.

"They ended up creating, in my mind, a very dangerous virus and showed others how they too could make similar kinds of dangerous viruses," Relman said.

Image

Scientists in the United States and the Netherlands, conducting so-called "gain-of-function" experiments, have also created much more contagious versions of the deadly H5N1 bird flu in the lab.

Publicly available information from published experiments like these, such as genomic sequence data, could allow scientists to reverse engineer a virus that would be difficult to contain and highly harmful were it to spread.

And a recent spate of high-profile accidents at U.S. government labs – including the mishandling of anthrax, bird flu, smallpox and Ebola samples – has raised the specter of a dangerous pathogen escaping from the lab and causing an outbreak or even a global pandemic.

"These kinds of accidents can have severe consequences," said Megan Palmer, CISAC senior research scholar and a co-author on the paper. "But we lack adequate processes and public information to assess the significance of the benefits and risks. Unless we address this fundamental issue, then we're going to continue to be reactive and make ourselves more vulnerable to mistakes and accidents in the long term."

Centralizing leadership

Leadership on risk management in biotechnology has not evolved much since the mid-1970s, when pioneering scientists gathered at the Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA and established guidelines that are still in use today.

Palmer said that although scientific self-governance is an essential element of oversight, left unchecked, it could lead to a "culture of invincibility over time."

"There's reliance on really a narrow set of technical experts to assess risks, and we need to broaden that leadership to be able to account for the new types of opportunities and challenges that emerging science and technology bring," she said.

Relman described the current system as "piecemeal, ad hoc and uncoordinated," and said that a more "holistic" approach that included academia, industry and all levels of government was needed to tackle the problem.

"It's time for us as a set of communities to step back and think more strategically," Relman said.

The governance of "dual use" technologies, which can be used for both peaceful and offensive purposes, poses significant challenges in the life sciences, said Stanford political scientist Francis Fukuyama, who also contributed to the paper.

"Unlike nuclear weapons, it doesn't take large-scale labs," Fukuyama said. "It doesn't take a lot of capacity to do dangerous research on biology."

The co-authors recommend appointing a top-ranking government official, such as a special assistant to the president, and a supporting committee, to oversee safety and security in the life sciences and associated technologies. They would coordinate the management of risk, including regulatory authorities needed to ensure accountability and information sharing.

"Although many agencies right now are tasked with worrying about safety, they have got conflicting interests that make them not ideal for being the single point of vigilance in this area," Fukuyama said.

"The National Institutes of Health is trying to promote research but also stop dangerous research. Sometimes those two aims run at cross-purposes.

"It's a big step to call for a new regulator, because in general we have too much regulation, but we felt there were a lot of dangers that were not being responded to in an appropriate way."

Improving cooperation

Strong cooperative international mechanisms are also needed to encourage other countries to support responsible research, Fukuyama said.

"What we want to avoid is a kind of arms race phenomenon, where countries are trying to compete with each other doing risky research in this area, and not wanting to mitigate risks because of fears that other countries are going to get ahead of them," he said.

The co-authors also recommended investing in research centers as a strategic way to build critical perspective and analysis of oversight challenges as biotechnology becomes increasing accessible.

 

Hero Image
cdc 10727
A scientist conducts an experiment with live virus in a biosafety level 4 laboratory at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
All News button
1
-

Abstract: In November 1954, French Algeria erupted in violence.  Confronted with a growing nationalist revolution, French authorities turned to not only to repression, but to a radical program of social reform aimed at capturing Algerian Muslims’ hearts and minds.  Why, beginning in the 1950s, did the French Army come to see its task not only as conventional combat, but also social engineering?  Historians often focus on the violence employed by the French Army during the war, but in so doing, they have missed both the full scope and the novelty of the French state’s strategy of “Pacification.”  Drawing on archival research and oral interviews, I show that French commanders did not simply seek to preserve colonial rule, but to radically remake Algerian society along French lines.  French civil and military leaders sought to discover an alternative model of decolonization –one capable of immunizing Algeria against subversive Cold War threats and guaranteeing its future as part of France.  In the process, they transformed the norms of modern warfare, and laid the foundations of the postcolonial relationships between Europe and the Muslim world.

About the Speaker: Terrence Peterson is a Postdoctoral Fellow at CISAC for 2015-2016, where he is working on the development of French and international counterinsurgency theories during the period of decolonization.  He earned a PhD in History from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 2015.  Entitled “Counterinsurgent Bodies: Social Welfare and Psychological Warfare in French Algeria, 1956-1962,” his dissertation examines the French Army’s efforts to counter a nationalist revolution by combining population development projects and mass psychology techniques to ‘modernize’ Algerian Muslims and remake them in the image of Frenchmen.  Fulbright grantee to France for the year of 2012-2013, his current research focuses on the intersections between the Cold War, decolonization conflicts, and the development of counterinsurgency doctrines.  In addition to several articles under way, his article “The ‘Jewish Question’ and the ‘Italian Peril’: Vichy, Italy, and the Jews of Tunisia, 1940-1942” appeared in the Journal of Contemporary History in April 2015.

Postdoctoral Fellow CISAC
Seminars
Paragraphs

Eight leading experts in the areas of intelligence ethics and oversight and accountability were invited to contribute their perspectives on the US Senate Select Committee Report on the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program  The responses that follow, presented in alphabetical order, offer a range of views that together provide an excellent guide to the questions and concerns posed by the report and its reception, and provide a thoughtful basis for further exploration and consideration of key issues; of ethics, of the relationship between claims regarding efficacy and normative values in the torture debate, of the relationship between law and ethics, of the significance of language in the torture debate, of the ‘politics of lying’ and of the implications of this episode for the future of intelligence oversight in the US.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Routledge - Taylor & Francis Group
Authors
Amy Zegart
-

- This event is offered as a joint sponsorship with the Hoover Institution - 

 

Abstract: Writing on matters relating to the cyber era dominate government and academia alike.  Much of the focus tends to be on either the technical aspects or questions about cyber threats and warfare. Much less attention has been on the advent of the cyber era for the intelligence community. While there can be no doubt that the technological age in which we find ourselves today is new, there is a related question about the extent to which it has changed the work of the intelligence community. This talk argues that to find an answer, it is imperative to consider previous technological revolutions and consider how the intelligence community adapted. Only by doing so is it possible to address the issue of whether intelligence is the cyber era is a revolution or evolution.

About the Speaker: Professor Michael S. Goodman is a Professor in ‘Intelligence and International Affairs’ in the Department of War Studies, King's College London.  He has published widely in the field of intelligence history, including most recently The Official History of the Joint Intelligence Committee, Volume I: From the Approach of the Second World War to the Suez Crisis (Routledge, 2014), which was chosen as one of The Spectator’s books of the year.  He is series editor for ‘Intelligence and Security’ for Hurst/Columbia University Press and is a member of the editorial boards for five journals, including the three main intelligence ones. He is currently on secondment to the Cabinet Office where he is the Official Historian of the Joint Intelligence Committee.

Michael Goodman Professor in Intelligence and International Affairs Speaker King's College London
Seminars
-

Abstract: This book seeks to understand the connection between Pakistan and Islamist militancy. The book argues that, since Pakistan’s founding in 1947, it has used religiously motivated non-state actors as strategic tools to compensate for acute political and material weakness. Over time, this policy has become so important as to constitute a central pillar of Pakistani grand strategy. Contrary to conventional wisdom, Pakistan’s militant strategy has not been wholly disastrous. Over the decades, it has achieved important domestic and international successes, helping Pakistan to strengthen its domestic political foundations, confront stronger adversaries, undermine South Asia’s territorial status quo, and shape the strategic environment in Afghanistan. Recently, however, these successes have given way to severe problems, as Pakistan has lost control of its proxies, been forced to make damaging resource tradeoffs, and risked inciting catastrophic war with an increasingly powerful India. These problems undermine regional stability and threaten the survival of the Pakistani state. The weakness that originally made Pakistan’s militant strategy useful has now made support for militancy extremely dangerous. If Pakistan does not abandon its strategy of jihad it may face catastrophe.

About the Speaker: S. Paul Kapur is Professor in the Department of National Security Affairs at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School. He is also an Affiliate at Stanford University’s Center for International Security and Cooperation, and a Visiting Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation in New Delhi. Previously, he was on the faculties of the U.S. Naval War College and Claremont McKenna College, and was a visiting professor at Stanford University’s Center for International Security and Cooperation. His research and teaching interests include the strategic use of militancy, nuclear weapons proliferation, deterrence, and South Asian and Pacific Ocean regional security. Kapur is author of Dangerous Deterrent: Nuclear Weapons Proliferation and Conflict in South Asia (Stanford University Press, 2007) and co-author of India, Pakistan, and the Bomb: Debating Nuclear Stability in South Asia (Columbia University Press, 2010). His articles have appeared in leading journals such as International Security, Security StudiesAsian SurveyWashington Quarterly, and in a variety of edited volumes. Kapur manages several strategic engagement projects for the U.S. Department of Defense. He received his Ph.D. in political science from the University of Chicago and his B.A. from Amherst College.

Professor in the Department of National Security Affairs U.S. Naval Postgraduate School
Seminars
-

Abstract: TBA

About the Speaker: Amy Zegart is co-director of CISAC and Professor of Political Science, by courtesy. She is also the Davies Family Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. 

Before coming to Stanford in 2011, Zegart served as professor of public policy at UCLA’s Luskin School of Public Affairs and as a fellow at the Burkle Center for International Relations. Her research examines the organization of American national security agencies and their effectiveness. She is the author of two award-winning books. Flawed by Design, which chronicles the development of the Central Intelligence Agency, Joint Chiefs of Staff, and National Security Council, won the highest national dissertation award in political science. Spying Blind, which examines why American intelligence agencies failed to adapt to the terrorist threat before 9/11, won the National Academy of Public Administration’s Brownlow Book Award. She has also published in International SecurityPolitical Science Quarterly, and other leading academic journals. She serves on the editorial boards of Terrorism and Political Violence and Intelligence and National Security. Her most recent book is Eyes on Spies: Congress and the United States Intelligence Community.

Zegart was featured by the National Journal as one of the ten most influential experts in intelligence reform. She served on the Clinton administration's National Security Council staff and as a foreign policy adviser to the Bush-Cheney 2000 presidential campaign. She has testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee, provided training to the Marine Corps, and advised officials on intelligence and homeland security matters. From 2009 to 2011 she served on the National Academies of Science Panel to Improve Intelligence Analysis. Her commentary has been featured on national television and radio shows and in the New York TimesWashington Post, and Los Angeles Times.

Before her academic career, Zegart spent three years at McKinsey & Company advising Fortune 100 companies about strategy and organizational effectiveness.

A former Fulbright scholar, Zegart received an AB in East Asian studies magna cum laude from Harvard University and an MA and PhD in political science from Stanford University. She served on the FBI Intelligence Analysts Association National Advisory Board and the Los Angeles Police Department’s Counter-terrorism and Community Police Advisory Board. She also served on the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board Task Force on Nuclear Nonproliferation and is a lifetime member of the Council on Foreign Relations. She was appointed to the board of directors of Kratos Defense and Security Solutions in September 2014.

CISAC
Stanford University
Encina Hall, E216
Stanford, CA 94305-6165

(650) 725-9754 (650) 723-0089
0
Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies
Morris Arnold and Nona Jean Cox Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution
Senior Fellow at the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered AI
Professor, by courtesy, of Political Science
amyzegart-9.jpg PhD

Dr. Amy Zegart is the Morris Arnold and Nona Jean Cox Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. The author of five books, she specializes in U.S. intelligence, emerging technologies, and national security. At Hoover, she leads the Technology Policy Accelerator and the Oster National Security Affairs Fellows Program. She also is an associate director and senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered AI; a senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute; and professor of political science by courtesy, teaching 100 students each year about how emerging technologies are transforming espionage.

Her award-winning research includes the leading academic study of intelligence failures before 9/11: Spying Blind: The CIA, the FBI, and the Origins of 9/11 (Princeton, 2007) and the bestseller Spies, Lies, and Algorithms: The History and Future of American Intelligence (Princeton, 2022), which was nominated by Princeton University Press for the Pulitzer Prize. She also coauthored Political Risk: How Businesses and Organizations Can Anticipate Global Insecurity, with Condoleezza Rice (Twelve, 2018). Her op-eds and essays have appeared in Foreign Affairs, Politico, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal.

Zegart has advised senior officials about intelligence and foreign policy for more than two decades. She served on the National Security Council staff and as a presidential campaign foreign policy advisor and has testified before numerous congressional committees. Before her academic career, she spent several years as a McKinsey & Company consultant.

Zegart received an AB in East Asian studies from Harvard and an MA and a PhD in political science from Stanford. She serves on the boards of the Council on Foreign Relations, Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, and the American Funds/Capital Group.

Date Label
Amy Zegart Co-director CISAC
Seminars
Paragraphs

In 1961, at the height of the Berlin crisis, the United States and Great Britain simultaneously struggled to adopt effective policies toward the first meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement in Belgrade. While the John F. Kennedy administration initially adopted a policy of standoffishness toward the conference, the government of Harold Macmillan engaged in a campaign of quietly encouraging moderate attendance. Moderate British expectations led to sound policy, whereas the Kennedy administration's inability to develop a coherent outlook and response cost it a priceless opportunity to understand the emerging phenomenon of nonalignment.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Cold War History
Authors
Robert Rakove
Subscribe to Governance