Collecting Our Thoughts: Selected Insights from Recent Schar School Op-Eds (February 2020)

From the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:

A Biotech Firm Made a Smallpox-like Virus on Purpose. Nobody Seems to Care.

The loosely regulated market for synthetic DNA, the normalization of synthetic orthopoxvirus research, and a large number of capable facilities and researchers creates an environment in which a rogue state, unscrupulous company, reckless scientist, or terrorist group could potentially reintroduce one of the worst microbial scourges in human history.

Unless world bodies, national governments, and scientific organizations put in place stronger safeguards on synthetic virus research, the next press release touting a new breakthrough in synthetic biology might announce that an unknown scientist in an obscure lab has successfully resurrected the smallpox virus.

—Gregory Koblentz

 

From Newsweek:

Why Impeachment Doesn’t Work

The institution of impeachment and removal from office works only if we are following the norms that support institutional checks and balances—and we most certainly are not. Therefore, the constitutional provision that allows Congress to remove a president who has broken the law is broken. There is no check on the president because modern partisans are more strongly motivated by party loyalty than inter-branch responsibility.

—Jennifer Victor

 

From The Hill:

The Best Way to Fix Social Security

There is a better way to make Social Security more progressive on the benefit side, which is to reduce benefits for retirees with higher lifetime labor earnings. That approach builds on the progressive benefit formula today, which links the monthly benefit of each retiree to a measure of the lifetime earnings on which he or she paid Social Security taxes. Although monthly benefits are higher for retirees with higher lifetime earnings, they are less than proportionately higher. In other words, high earning retirees receive more dollars each month, but get a lower rate of return on the Social Security taxes that they paid throughout their working lives.

—Sita Slavov and Alan Viard

 

From The Business of Federal Technology:

Is It Time for a National Digital Bill of Rights?

We have become accustomed to video cameras and surveillance. Government and the private sector have installed cameras everywhere, raising a number of privacy issues. There is also the use of automated license plate readers (ALPRs), which can capture roughly 2,000 plates per minute. In all, what is done with this data? Who has access -- and on what terms and conditions? How is this data stored and for how long? And then there is the growing concern regarding facial recognition, the use of drones with cameras, and artificial intelligence—each posing unique threats to privacy and data.

We recognize that technological advances are always far ahead of regulatory frameworks, and public managers and policymakers are often lagging behind in meaningful remedies. So, while there is growing awareness about the need for both data security and privacy, one can't help but see the looming crisis of each state having its own data privacy laws.

—Alan Shark

 

From the Syndication Bureau:

Trump Peace Plan: Will It Lead to Peace or More Violence?

In fact, the plan was premised on an “outside-in” logic, that more important Arab states would associate themselves with the plan, and persuade the Palestinians that they should accept this reduced offering, compared to the “just, equitable” formula of the past. But the breakdown in solidarity or sympathy between wealthy Arab states and the Palestinian community is deep, and there is little to suggest that major Arab states can create any momentum for the plan, or even muster any enthusiasm for Palestinian aspirations. Of course, Palestinian political dysfunction and the radicalization of its politics through the emergence of Hamas as a counterweight to the old PLO leadership are equally to blame for the absence of Arab unity.

—Ellen Laipson

 

From Responsible Statecraft:

How Long Can Russia and Turkey Cooperate Amid a Myriad of Conflictual Hazards

In Syria in particular, then, the differences between Moscow and Ankara are over high stakes issues for both sides. And it is not at all clear that common antipathy toward American and European policies will be able to help Putin and Erdogan overcome them this time.

—Mark Katz

 

From The Hill:

New Hampshire Democratic Primary Did What It Was Supposed to Do

It clarified the race. It looks like the contest is coming down to Bernie Sanders versus an anti-Sanders.

—Bill Schneider

 

From Aljazeera:

Whatever His Title, Putin Plans to Remain in Charge: Is it a Solo ‘Tandemocracy’ Now?

One possibility that appears to be unlikely is that Putin will become president for a fifth term. Not only would the new stricter term limits on the presidency rule this out, but the fact that the presidency will be a weaker position than it has been up to now suggests that it would not be of interest to Putin. On the other hand, there has been speculation that Putin will “restart the clock” in 2024 on the absolute limit of two terms as president, thus enabling him to stay on until 2036.

—Mark Katz

 

From The London School of Economics and Political Science:

Bolsonaro’s New Alliance for Brazil Is a Lesson in the Politics of Loyalty and Campaign Finance

Against all odds, the president is now calling on voters to reject candidates who accept public campaign financing. Not only has Bolsonaro succeeded in ripping apart the most successful Brazilian political party in 2018, he now wants to separate loyalists from prospective allies, pitting those who accept public campaign financing against those who do not in this year’s elections.

—Senior Fellow Mark S. Langevin

 

From The Hill:

The Sanders Factor: Establishment Democrats Are Beginning to Panic

If Sanders sweeps Iowa and New Hampshire, the Democratic Party establishment is likely to go into full-scale panic. Democratic elected officials are already expressing concern about their ability to survive with a self-proclaimed socialist at the top of the ticket. A “Stop Sanders” movement is likely to emerge. The question is, will it get any further than the “Never Trump” movement did in 2016? 

—Bill Schneider