FAS Strategic Security Blog

A survey conducted by the Federation of American Scientists and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) revealed that while scientists are disposed to assist in criminal investigations, they often fear working with law enforcement agencies. The survey questions were designed to evaluate the working relationship between FBI field agents and scientists, and the results, published December 22, 2008 in Science Progress, indicate a reluctance to discuss research with law enforcement and other issues that are specific to the science community.

Anecdotal evidence suggested that some scientists held negative views of law enforcement. This survey is the first step in recognizing the scope of the problem and addressing it directly.

“The results suggest a larger percentage of scientists show cooler feelings towards the FBI than the general public, and often misunderstand why FBI agents might be contacting them,” said Michael Stebbins, Director of Biology Policy at the Federation of American Scientists. “FAS is now working with the FBI to develop specific solutions for alleviating the concerns of scientists and strengthening the relationship between law enforcement and the scientific community.”

“The FBI proactively initiated this outreach effort with FAS to engage the scientific community, seek their input, and gather useful information enabling us to improve the relationship. The results of this survey will go a long way to helping us better understand the challenges we face and to overcome some of the misconceptions that exist between law enforcement and scientists,” said Dr. Vahid Majidi, Assistant Director of the FBI’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate.  “This information will enable us to devise a strategic plan to address this matter and to continue working with the scientific community to enhance our relationship.”

FAS and the FBI will apply the lessons learned in this survey towards developing training materials for field agents to improve the relationship between scientists and law enforcement.

“Perhaps the most important step toward building a better working foundation is for law enforcement agencies, like the FBI, to establish procedures for contacting science experts,” said Stebbins. “Many of the scientists’ concerns would be alleviated if the specific goals the agent hoped to achieve were clarified. If clear boundaries are established then the cooperation of scientists and law enforcement agents will likely improve.”

The Survey:

FAS collaborated with the FBI, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research to develop the survey questions and distribute it to the scientific community. The survey contained a mix of multiple choice and open-ended questions and was distributed to 10,969 AAAS member scientists. 1,332 surveys were completed and the resulting data produced an average margin of error associated with the total data set of +/- 2.7%.

Key findings of the survey:

• Despite suspicions of the FBI and opposition to law agencies monitoring scientific research, scientists are willing to aid in certain situations.

• Scientists feel that the FBI does not work well with the scientific community, specifically that law enforcement officers don’t understand their work (76%), that these agencies are more interested in restricting research for security purposes than they are in the scientific value of the work (71%), that officers have an overzealous approach to security issues and an interest in censorship (63%), and that research will be restricted from publication (55%).

• Only 15% of surveyed scientists indicated any personal past contact in a professional capacity and these attitudes are likely based on stereotypes instead of actual experiences

• Relations with the FBI would improve if law enforcement agents approached scientists in a professional manner by setting up an appointment or initiating contact through official channels such as the scientist’s department head or supervisor.

Increasing scientific literacy among agents and officers will ensure clearer communication since scientists are most comfortable talking about their work with others familiar with scientific concepts, possibly because they are less concerned that the research will be misunderstood.

Compared to all the excitement created by the US-Indian nuclear trade deal, the Russian equivalent, submitted last week, created barely a ripple [caution: big file to download]. While FAS strongly opposes the US-Indian nuclear trade agreement, the Russian case is much more complex.

There are reasons to oppose the Russian deal and reasons to support it. The calculation is further complicated because some of the reasons, in my opinion the primary reason, for opposing the deal are not because of specific problems with the deal, per se, but because the deal is a surrogate for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), which is itself a breathtakingly bad idea.

Continue reading »

The military budget is out of control. Not in the sense of the mantra of “waste, fraud, and abuse.” That is, in fact, a tiny slice of the enormous U.S. military spending. No, the budget is out of control in the sense that spending on the military is no longer subject to meaningful political review. The Pentagon has slipped its leash and Congress is not asking questions.

Congress is currently considering President Bush’s proposed budget, which included $515 billion for the military and separate requests for tens of billions more for intelligence and nuclear weapons and, on top of that, separate requests of over a hundred billion can be expected to cover the operating costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is more than we spent on the military during the height of the Cold War, even accounting for inflation. The president is constantly reminding us of how dangerous the world is and, of course, the threats to American security are all too real. But using the threats faced by the US today to justify Cold War-level budgets is possible only if we have near total amnesia about what the threat during the Cold War really was.

Continue reading »

Wolfgang Pauli is a legendary figure among physicists. He is remembered for having both one of the greatest minds of the twentieth century and one of its sharpest tongues. One student’s paper he dismissed by saying: That’s not right; it isn’t even wrong. (Or words to that effect in German; Pauli was Viennese.) If a theory isn’t relevant to the facts at hand, if it can’t be tested, if it doesn’t advance our understanding, then it isn’t that the theory is not right, it’s not even really a theory, it isn’t even wrong. It simply isn’t a tool for scientific understanding. Congressman Rush Holt once used Pauli’s expression in response to the claims that creationism, now often called Intelligent Design (ID), could be an “alternative” to the theory of evolution. Creationism isn’t even wrong because creationism can’t explain anything in the sense that science understands the word “explain.” Most advocates of creationism accept that evolution works at some scale and explains some things but for anything evolution does not explain they then assert that God, the Intelligent Designer, simply made it so. This is a valid religious belief. But what is the testable hypothesis? What is the prediction? What is the deeper understanding of mechanism? There isn’t anything there for a scientist to grab hold of. As far as science is concerned, creationism isn’t even wrong.

In contrast, Ben Stein has just released a movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, that is very, very wrong, indeed. (I confess, I have not seen the movie yet. It opens later today. This essay is based on Ben Stein’s extensive interviews, the movie website, and an extended, nine minute trailer available on the website. I will see the movie this weekend, although it pains me to give him any of my money.) I won’t argue about creationism here; it has been discussed in depth elsewhere. That “Intelligent Design” is a phrase designed in a transparent attempt to teach creationism without using the word “creationism” is well established. Ben Stein’s charges of unethical suppression of creationist spokesmen has been repudiated. But what is so very wrong about Ben Stein’s movie is not just the science; what I want to discuss here is his portrayal of how science works.

Continue reading »

[NOTE: The Federation of American Scientists is delighted to have a Scoville Fellow this year, Ms. Katarzyna (Kasia) Bzdak. Kasia reads the Polish language press and, in particular, follows the ongoing political debate about the US missile defense deployment in Poland. This is her second blog entry on the subject; the first was written before the last Polish elections. The following is her report on the missile defense decision as seen from the Polish side.]

In recent weeks, Polish-US missile defense negotiations have seemingly progressed after a lull following elections in Poland last October. The Polish election changed the style and substance of the debates significantly, as the administration of staunchly pro-American Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski was ousted by the Civic Platform (PO), headed by current Prime Minister Donald Tusk. While Kaczynski supported the deployment of US missile defense components (10 interceptor missiles) on Polish soil without reservation throughout the campaign, Tusk promised to toughen negotiations with the United States, work to gain concessions for continued Polish support of US military operations and foreign policy, and improve relations with Russia, which is viscerally opposed to the deployment. Continue reading »

The spending bill just agreed by Congress over the weekend explicitly specifies zero funding for the Reliable Replacement Warhead, or RRW, and support for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, but below the administration’s request.

The RRW is a new nuclear weapon that the administration claims is essential to maintaining the integrity of the nuclear arsenal. Most outside experts believe that existing nuclear weapons are more than adequately reliable. Moreover, as I have commented previously in this blog, the Reliable Replacement warhead will almost certainly not be more reliable than current warheads and absolutely certainly will not be meaningfully more reliable. Moreover, it will not replace existing warheads but be deployed alongside them for decades, and it is not even the reliable replacement warhead, because a minimum of four new types were planned.
Continue reading »

On 14 November, Peter Orszag, Director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), testified before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee about the relative costs of plutonium reprocessing and direct disposal of used nuclear fuel. The oral testimony was quite brief and, unless otherwise noted, my comments are based primarily on the longer and presumably more carefully prepared written testimony. The testimony contained many errors, not all of them trivial, but one gigantic omission discussed at the end of this essay is inexcusable and calls into question the credibility of the entire CBO report.
Continue reading »

[NOTE: The Federation of American Scientists is delighted to have a Scoville Fellow this year, Ms. Katarzyna (Kasia) Bzdak. Kasia comes to FAS from Columbia University has been following the Polish language press since before the recent national elections there and submitted this report on the political status of the US missile defense deployment.]

Although the recent election in Poland promised to bring change in the style of Polish foreign policy, it was not a definitive referendum on the future of US missile defense components on Polish territory. The outgoing ruling party, Law and Justice (PiS), lead by former Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski, supported the deployment of US interceptors in Poland wholeheartedly during its tenure and during the campaign. The victorious Civic Platform (PO), conversely, failed to clearly articulate a position on the missile defense shield, and seemed to hedge its position on what the US would concede to Poland for its participation in the program. Reports in the Polish press directly following the election suggested that certain concessions from the United States—the transfer of short and medium-missile defense systems, relaxed visa restriction, or economic investments—could induce the Civic Platform’s consent. More recent reports in the Polish press, however, suggest that the PO has tempered its enthusiasm for the project, and negotiations with the United States have been postponed pending discussions with Poland’s neighbors, including Russia. Nonetheless, given the dual-executive system codified in Poland’s constitution, President Lech Kaczynski (former PM Jaroslaw Kaczynski’s twin, biologically and ideologically, and a leader of PiS) will continue to wield substantial power in Polish foreign policy, so the effect of the PO’s potential change of heart remains dubious.
Continue reading »

According to a recent report from AP, Slovak police arrested people trying to sell highly enriched uranium to undercover agents. According to the police, the material, said to be about a kilogram of uranium, could be used for a dirty bomb. This is a replay of the Padilla case, the so-called “Dirty Bomber,” who was allegedly going to use uranium to make a radiological, or “dirty,” bomb. (The government later dropped reference to the dirty bomb but convicted Padilla on other charges.) I don’t think what the Slovaks have is actually uranium (see below) but, even if it is, dirty bombs are not the problem.
Continue reading »

Arguments justifying the continuing existence of the world’s nuclear arsenals are like the tired joke about the joke convention. Many of these arguments have been with us for decades. Some made sense decades ago but do no longer, now that the Cold War is history. Others never made sense even during the Cold War but have, through sheer longevity, taken on a wholly undeserved intellectual authority. And some statements are not really logical arguments at all but merely catch-phrases that have been with us so long we no longer question their truth; indeed, we don’t even reflect on what, if anything, they actually mean. So one can, like at the joke convention, just shout out “Number 37!” and, instead of laughing, the wise ones of the nuclear establishment nod in sage agreement.
Continue reading »