Readers of GD will be familiar with my/ our claims that the focus on international terrorism has often been to the detriment of other risks. So interesting to note Richard Mottram comments in the FT recently on the relationship between science, technology and terrorism. From the FT:
The challenge will be to engage a broad range of scientists in the fight against terrorism, without causing an unhealthy imbalance in the scientific enterprise. For instance, the billions of dollars spent by the US government on biodefence over the past few years may have distracted researchers from the fight against infectious diseases. The risk of a flu pandemic – or the emergence of a lethal new disease – is far greater than of a large-scale bioterrorist attack. While there is some scientific crossover between the expertise needed to fight natural and man-made epidemics, it is important to allocate research resources on a balanced view of the risks we face globally.
There’s also an interesting paragraph on why intelligence should draw more on scientific advice:
One lesson to learn from the episode over Iraqi weapons of mass destruction is the importance of ensuring that intelligence analysis and assessment draw on expert scientific advice – and more broadly on the scepticism at the heart of the scientific method. Experts should never again be frozen out of intelligence assessments whose outcome may make the difference between war and peace, as they were in the run- up to the Iraq war.
