I have begun a new position at the University of California, Berkeley, within the new Center for Science, Technology, Medicine, & Society (CSTMS). The Center is a vibrant hub of activity and research on the social and political dimensions of science, technology and medicine. It takes an array of perspectives, from Science & Technology Studies, History of Science, and the Medical Humanities, to help us understand the past, and shape the present and future course of social and technical decisions.
As an Academic Coordinator, I am responsible for helping the Center create its identity, building its presence within the University and the broader community, and writing grants for new research initiatives. It is an extremely exciting time to be in such a position, as there is a lot of momentum within Berkeley to expand research in this area. Do keep an eye on our website, as it will be changing significantly in the coming weeks!
I am also a Visiting Scholar at Berkeley, and will be maintaining my Harvard University affiliation as an Associate Research Fellow in the Program for Science, Technology, & Society at the Kennedy School of Government. Under these titles, I will be publishing at least one article about how states have come together over the last 400 years to try to jointly control militarily significant technology. At different points in that history, there were very different visions of what the international order was and should be, and those visions significantly influenced (and were influenced by) how states envisioned what counted as militarily significant technology.
My research interests are shifting slightly this year, as I move from an international focus on export controls and the ambiguity of classification to a focus more on the role of government regulations on the conduct of university research. I will be looking specifically at issues of deemed exports, where foreign nationals at US universities are given information that is considered militarily significant. The questions I am asking are: Who decides what counts as militarily significant technology within an emerging research environment? How are controls substantiated? How are they legitimized and justified, and to whom? Who has a say in the process of determining an acceptable level or government regulation?
Do get in touch if you would like to discuss any of these issues.