Search

Begin New Search Topic Science and Technology

291. Indian GI: Local Goes National Goes Global

Author:
Blaise Fernandes
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Research Paper
Institution:
Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations
Abstract:
Geographical Indication (GI) tags denote a good's specific physical origin. These are potential revenue-generators for India. Combining government support with its e-commerce network, India can empower MSMEs and women-led cottage industries to compete with large companies by building a strong GI ecosystem. The Make in India initiative and GI can together provide an impetus to social and economic growth in India.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Business, Economic Growth, Commerce, Revenue, and Geographical Indication (GI)
Political Geography:
South Asia and India

292. India in the Indo-Pacific: Pursuing Prosperity and Security

Author:
Christopher Conte
Publication Date:
02-2022
Content Type:
Research Paper
Institution:
Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations
Abstract:
Research Papers in this compendium include: India, the Blue Economy and the Indo-Pacific’s Future (Amb. Rajiv Bhatia); Green Hydrogen: Securing the Energy Supply Chain in the Indo-Pacific (Amit Bhandari); Enhancing Regional Financial Intermediation in the Indo-Pacific (David Rasquinha); India’s Diaspora: Soft Power in the Indo-Pacific Countries (Sifra Lentin); India in the Resilient Supply Chain Initiative: Opportunities, Challenges & Possible Collaborations (Roger C. Liu); India’s Indispensable Role in Human and Economic Security in the Indo-Pacific (Cleo Paskal); Extending India’s Maritime Security Strategy in the Indo-Pacific (Cdr. Amrut Godbole); India’s Current and Potential Contribution to Cyber Resilience in the Indo-Pacific (Sameer Patil); Digital Public Goods for the Indo-Pacific: A Techno-legal Approach to Data Empowerment & Protection (Sanjay Anandaram & Manjeet Kripalani); India’s Role in Equipping Earth Observation Satellites for the Indo-Pacific (Dr. Chaitanya Giri).
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Science and Technology, Cybersecurity, Economy, Maritime, Prosperity, Supply Chains, Hydrogen, and Satellite
Political Geography:
South Asia, India, and Indo-Pacific

293. Electronic Warfare: Russia's Approach

Author:
Pavel Luzin
Publication Date:
02-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI)
Abstract:
Russia considers electronic warfare (EW) one of the key military capabilities in its ongoing confrontation with the West. EW provides a non-nuclear deterrence capability and helps Russia keep its great power status and strategic autonomy while also taking into account its long-term economic and demographic weakness. Russia has made significant advances in EW during the 2010s. However, at the beginning of 2020s, Russia still faces technological, technical, industrial, organizational, and political challenges that prevent Moscow from getting the EW capabilities it wants. Technological challenges are related to delays in developing air- and space-based EW capabilities, and to the need to unify EW systems. Technical challenges stem from the number of different types of EW systems that must be maintained, the relatively short lifespans of various EW systems, and issues integrating them with other combat systems and units. The last point also indicates why Russia has struggled to transform its quantity of the EW systems into a higher quality of combat capabilities. Industrial challenges are caused by the volatile dynamic of Russia’s arms procurements and R&D programs and the capacity of defense corporations to develop and produce advanced EW systems with acceptable costs. The main organizational challenge is that the number of EW troops that has already achieved its objective limit. Now EW troops need to be transformed from combat support into a combat branch. Finally, a political challenge appears in the confrontation between Russia and the West, which is the main driver for efforts related to EW. Russia is unable to compete with the United States and Europe in a symmetric way, and Russia’s political system does not allow Moscow to realize a “revolution in military affairs” because the centralized system struggles to implement a net-centric approach to the armed forces in effective way. For that reason, Russia has chosen a classic approach of asymmetric warfare with the goal of disrupting the command and control systems of a superior adversary. The coming decade promises to be challenging for Russia in terms of electronic warfare. Moscow will need to fix its previous EW efforts, pay more attention to the overall quality of electronic warfare rather than on the quantity of deployed EW systems, and bridge the evident gaps in EW on tactical, theater, and strategic levels. Moreover, after defense spending stabilized and even declined during the late 2010s, Russia has been forced to increase its defense budget again. This means spending for EW will also increase. Russia will try to fill gaps in air- and space-based EW capabilities, with the sea-based component continuing to play a secondary role in Russia’s military planning. It is also possible that Russia will chose to extend its ground-based EW infrastructure in Belarus with creation of an EW “chain” from Crimea to Kaliningrad.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Cybersecurity, Deterrence, Military, and Electronic Warfare
Political Geography:
Russia and Eurasia

294. The Rise of Sino-Russian Biotech Cooperation

Author:
Svitlana Lebedenko
Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI)
Abstract:
The People’s Republic of China’s rise as a global innovation power is rooted in the development of a sovereign innovation infrastructure, one that allows China to compete in high-technology races with the United States. This process is complemented by an intensifying science and technology partnership with the Russian Federation. By decoupling from China and Russia, the United States and its allies are pushing China and Russia closer to each other. The paper discusses recent examples of Sino-Russian biotechnology cooperation projects, offering an early account of the emerging integration of two distinct but complementary innovation infrastructures.
Topic:
Development, Science and Technology, Infrastructure, Innovation, and Biotechnology
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Eurasia, and Asia

295. Liberty’s Doom? Artificial Intelligence in Middle Eastern Security

Author:
Kristina Kausch
Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
IEMed/EuroMeSCo
Abstract:
The surge of artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled technologies has triggered global debates on the potential risks and opportunities of the use of these technologies to enhance societies’ prosperity, security and well-being while ensuring human control and safeguarding fundamental rights. In the area of security, AI has the potential of making key sectors, such as predictive policing, counter-terrorism or border management more efficient, just and humane. At the same time, the risks inherent to AI in the security sector have raised numerous concerns regarding surveillance and data protection, human rights and civil liberties, or the prospect of an arms race in autonomous weapons systems, which have overshadowed debates on opportunities. The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region presents particular challenges in this equation. On the one hand, the region’s myriad security challenges could greatly benefit from a booster in security-related problem-solving efficiency. On the other, ethical and legal considerations gain particular weight in a region largely governed by authoritarian rulers and with a weak rule of law, as these conditions prevent thorough AI governance and the necessary checks and balances to avoid authoritarian abuse of the ample opportunities presented by AI. This collection attempts to approach the questions and dilemmas raised by AI in Middle Eastern security through a European policy lens. Zooming in on AI in border management, surveillance, defence and regulation, exploring both risks and opportunities of this set of technologies for the fragile security of the MENA region, each chapter draws conclusions for future European Union (EU) policy and cooperation with MENA partners on AI.
Topic:
Security, Science and Technology, Innovation, and Artificial Intelligence
Political Geography:
Middle East

296. Immaterial Competition: Rethinking the Roles of Economics and Technology in the US-China Rivalry

Author:
Arthur Tellis
Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Hudson Institute
Abstract:
The US-China rivalry is likely to be the fulcrum around which international affairs are structured in the twenty-first century, akin to the Cold War from 1947 to 1991. This rivalry, like its predecessor, emerges from divergent geopolitical interests and imperatives. While the Chinese Communist Party’s aims are many, various, and subject to change, they include its continued control of the Chinese State; economic and technological modernization and leadership; internal order; complete union with Taiwan on Beijing’s terms; certain territorial concessions from its neighbors; and the disestablishment of security arrangements across the Indo-Pacific that it views as threatening and trammeling. The latter three are in direct conflict with US interests and imperatives in the Indo-Pacific: prohibiting China’s unilateral modification of the status quo vis-à-vis Taiwan; preserving the sovereignty and territorial integrity of its allies and partners; and maintaining its military partnerships and presence in the region. These antithetical interests animate a larger struggle for hegemony in the Indo-Pacific and serve as the terms on which this contest will be decided. Explanations of the rivalry as an ideological contest or a competition born from competing economic interests are less compelling by comparison. The United States and China are motivated to an extent by ideological imperatives, but these do not appear to propel or serve as the central stakes for the rivalry as much as they affect each’s disposition toward the other. Long-standing trade, investment, and commercial disputes and competition, meanwhile, are not so substantial that they motivate the rivalry. While these issues are impactful to niche communities and conspicuous to national policymakers, they are not particularly consequential for national prosperity. The logic of competition, trade, and globalization, in fact, suggests that the US-China commercial relationship is mutually beneficial, notwithstanding each’s concerns with the other’s economic statecraft and market-leading firms. In their geopolitical rivalry, there are a few key forces or contests of interest: path dependence, regime continuity, prudent strategy, third-party alignments, and the balance of military forces in the Indo-Pacific. Each affects the United States’ and China’s ability to achieve their ends and shapes their rivalry. Economic and technological statecraft, by contrast, is largely peripheral to these ends as it does not effectively advance political objectives relevant to territory, borders, security architectures, and national defense. That is not to suggest that economic and technological factors are irrelevant, however; they shape, constrain, and advantage the United States and China across their rivalry’s key forces and contests of interests. Particularly noteworthy are economic and technological factors’ impact on the military balance. Tradition and intuition hold that nations with bigger and more advanced economies are better postured to resource, procure, and manufacture military equipment and can therefore generate greater military power. In the case of the US-China military competition, however, total military power is less relevant than the specific military balance in the Indo-Pacific, in which the distribution and strength of forces in the theater, the capability and reliability of key materiel inputs of outsized importance, and the operational concepts and tactics with which each’s military fights are more important. Total military power—and in particular greater military equipment—matters on the margin, of course, if only because the party with the greater mass and quality of materiel will be able to retain more forces in the Indo-Pacific, maintain more of these key materiel inputs, and develop novel operational concepts and tactics tailored to their superior materiel. Neither the United States’ nor China’s total economic production, public balance sheet, high-technology commercial firms, and scientific production are likely to provide a decisive or lasting advantage on this count. Each country’s economy can support substantially greater military spending, limiting the extent to which one can derive an advantage from the other’s more binding constraints. The capacity and maturity of each country’s defense industrial base is of greater relevance, but these are flexible quotients that investment can improve. This elasticity of defense production suggests that microeconomic endowments may be binding in the short run but variable in the longer run, meaning that policy choices—rather than existing economic endowments—constrain military production. Technological endowments, informing each country’s capacity for broad innovation, are of similarly bounded importance because military technology is somewhat narrow and other factors, such as military procurement processes and inflexibility in concepts of operation, limit the extent to which superior technology translates into military advantage. The fundamental result of this argument is that the concerns that propel the emerging US-China economic and technological competition are ultimately not all that relevant to the matters at the core to their rivalry and to the instruments of national power most relevant to these issues. The US should therefore be wary of policies ostensibly demanded by economic and technological competition and may find its interests better served by limiting its rivalry with China to military competition driven by its core geopolitical interests.
Topic:
Economics, Science and Technology, Strategic Competition, and Rivalry
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

297. Decrypting Crypto: Cryptocurrencies and the Quantum Computer Threat

Author:
Arthur Herman and Daley Pagano
Publication Date:
04-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Hudson Institute
Abstract:
Cryptocurrencies are increasingly embedded in the global financial and economic mainstream. One reason is that its security encryption, distributed ledger technology, or blockchain, is largely impervious to conventional cyber-attack or theft. However, thanks to Shor’s algorithm, cryptocurrencies will be exceptionally vulnerable to a future quantum computing attack. What makes crypto vulnerable to Shor’s algorithm is elliptic-curve cryptography, which applies to all distributed ledger technology. Based on our research, the overall cost of a major hack and devaluation of Bitcoin alone would equal $3 trillion plus. Fortunately, solutions already exist: post-quantum cryptography and quantum computing. Cryptocurrencies are here to stay. However, supporting crypto security with post-quantum cryptography or quantum cryptography will enable cryptocurrencies to remain a mainstay of the global financial system for many decades to come.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Innovation, Cryptocurrencies, Information Technology, and Quantum Computers
Political Geography:
Global Focus

298. Unreliable Data Have Infected the Policy Debates Over Drug Patents

Author:
Adam Mossoff
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Hudson Institute
Abstract:
The COVID-19 pandemic has vividly brought to the public’s attention the key role of medical innovation in saving lives and increasing the quality of daily life. The pandemic has also precipitated an international debate over the role of patents and other intellectual property rights in the discovery, manufacture, and distribution of drugs and vaccines to patients. Even before COVID-19, there has been an ongoing policy debate in Washington, D.C., over drug prices and patents with congressional hearings, proposed legislation, and antitrust enforcement actions. The pandemic has thus made apparent what reliable data have already shown: poorly crafted legislation or antitrust enforcement actions could have a tremendous negative impact on the innovation economy in general and on healthcare specifically by undermining the incentives that drive the billions invested annually in the research and development of life-saving drugs and other medical treatments. Congress and regulators should engage in evidence-based policymaking on these important issues, which have far-reaching implications for economic growth and quality of life. This policy memo identifies a serious concern about the data in these discussions.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Intellectual Property/Copyright, Innovation, Data, and Pharmaceuticals
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

299. Restarting the Post-Pandemic Indian Economy

Author:
Aparna Pande, Eric B. Brown, and Thomas J. Duesterberg
Publication Date:
07-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Hudson Institute
Abstract:
This report is a result of a Takshashila-Hudson Roundtable Series that brought together experts, policymakers, and academics from India and the United States in November and December 2021 to discuss opportunities for the two nation-states to collaborate in a fast-changing global order. This section summarizes key recommendations for policymakers based on deliberations at the Takshashila-Hudson roundtable series Restarting the Post-Pandemic Indian Economy. The recommendations are divided into four themes for India-US Collaboration: Trade, Investments, Technology, and Human Capital Movement.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Immigration, Economy, Investment, Human Capital, Trade, and Supply Chains
Political Geography:
South Asia, India, North America, and United States of America

300. State Right-to-Repair Laws Need to Respect Federal Copyright Laws: A Constitutional, Legal, and Policy Assessment

Author:
Devlin Hartline and Adam Mossoff
Publication Date:
08-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Hudson Institute
Abstract:
Various states are considering laws that would mandate that producers of electronic devices provide consumers and repair shops with all the tools and know-how necessary to repair these devices. Proponents of these “right-to-repair laws” argue that consumers should be able to do whatever they want with their devices, whether a smartphone, a smart TV, or a gaming console. Right-to-repair advocates, however, ignore inconvenient facts. These state laws conflict with federal copyright law and are unconstitutional, and they are bad policy as well. First, as a simple legal matter, the proposed right-to-repair laws are unconstitutional. These laws mandate the disclosure and distribution of the code in the computer programs that make our devices work, such as operating systems, apps, and the “digital locks” that protect these computer programs from unauthorized access and copying. Federal copyright law protects all these computer programs and “preempts” any conflicting state laws under the Constitution. Second, state right-to-repair laws are wrong as a matter of policy. These laws upset the long-standing balance of rights implemented by federal copyright law. For over 200 years, Congress has enacted copyright laws to secure to authors and innovators the fruits of their creative labors. These laws have properly balanced the rights of creators, the rights of companies that produce and distribute their copyrighted works, and the rights of consumers and the public. As a result, federal copyright law has been a launching pad for the economic and cultural revolutions in books, movies, music, and now digital games and the internet of things. Everyone values their electronic devices because copyright law provides the legal foundation for today’s thriving digital marketplace. Consumers have access to an incredible selection of movies, music, games, and many other previously unimagined digital goods and services. The same is true for products that consumers have long used and that have become “smart” today, such as phones, TVs, automobiles, and other devices. Overbroad right-to-repair laws fail to acknowledge the legal rights and the underlying policies in federal copyright law that have made all this possible.
Topic:
Economics, Science and Technology, Intellectual Property/Copyright, and Innovation
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America