Posted By IISS at 28/04/2009 14:32:51
Yesterday, in a speech to the US National Academy of Sciences, President Obama said that ‘energy is this generation’s great project’ as he stressed the value of basic research and set out a goal of devoting more than 3% of US GDP to research and development, well above current levels. Speaking at length about the precedent of the Apollo programme over 50 years ago, he concluded: ‘We will not just meet, but we will exceed the level achieved at the height of the space race ... this represents the largest commitment to scientific research and innovation in American history’. Besides the high levels of basic research spending in the stimulus package, he said, his budget would double funding for several key national institutes and agencies such as the National Science Foundation. And he announced the funding of the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy (ARPA-E).
In his Closing Argument ‘Moon Over Manhattan’ in the most recent issue of Survival, Managing Editor Jeffrey Mazo argued for just such an Apollo-scale investment to achieve energy independence and a low-carbon economy
, but that subsuming it in the stimulus package risked diluting the clear, inspirational goal central to successful long-term big-government projects. Moreover, substantial increases in R&D funding would not be sufficient; the ways in which it is allocated and monitored would also need to be carefully designed. With sufficient funding ARPA-E could serve as the nucleus of a massive national effort for energy transformation. Every president for the last 30 years has invoked the Apollo model for national technological goals, but none fought, or even asked, for the necessary money. Mazo concluded his essay by saying that ‘among the many tests facing Barack Obama is whether he might actually put into effect what five predecessors have merely promised’. On present evidence it looks like he will at least try.
Dana Allin, Editor, Survival, Senior Fellow for US Foreign Policy and Transatlantic Affairs
On Saturday the World Health Organisation declared the spread of H1N1 swine flu in Mexico and the United States a
‘public health emergency of international concern’, though it has not been characterised as a pandemic. The EU plans to convene a meeting of health ministers in Brussels on Thursday.
‘Is Pandemic Flu a Security Threat?’ is the title of an article by Christian Enemark in the February–March 2009 issue of Survival. Enemark, Lecturer at the Centre for International Security Studies, University of Sydney, and Visiting Fellow at the John Curtin School of Medical Research, Australian National University, argued that, with the prospect of the next influenza pandemic causing illness and death on a large scale, over a wide area, in a short space of time, some Western governments have started framing pandemic flu as a threat to national security. But the framing of a health issue in security terms could lead to emergency responses which are ineffective, counter-productive or unjust. ‘Appealing to national security’, Enemark argues, ‘may be a good way of focusing national attention and resources. However, given the transnational reach of this potential microbial threat and the increasing interdependence of states, the greater part of the solution must lie in international cooperation’. With the potential of the current swine flu outbreak evolving into a pandemic, his warning could not have been more timely.
Consolidated news, information and discussion about swine flu and other strains can be found on the online collaboration site fluwiki.
Jeffrey Mazo, Managing Editor, Survival