Search

Begin New Search Topic Science and Technology Publication Year within 25 Years

571. Immunity Passports in the context of COVID-19: Τechnological Solutions, Regulatory Considerations and Ethical Challenges

Author:
Mihalis Kritikos
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP)
Abstract:
The European Parliament and the Council of Ministers of the EU recently reached an agreement on COVID-19 certificates designed to facilitate travel and help revive tourism in Europe. Although the certificate is expected to greatly simplify travel within the EU, its large-scale deployment is not without scientific, legal, and ethical challenges. The current analysis sheds light on the main tenets of the agreed EU framework and highlights the positions and initiatives of the main stakeholders. It also examines the major ethical and legal questions associated with the release of the certificate and makes a series of recommendations that could contribute to the efficient handling of some of these challenges so as to ensure a socially-responsible and effective use of this new EU instrument.
Topic:
Science and Technology, European Union, Regulation, Ethics, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Europe

572. Artificial Intelligence for Social Good: Avoiding the Solutionist Trap

Author:
Andreas Tsamados
Publication Date:
07-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP)
Abstract:
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is slowly moving past the public bewilderment phase that is common to most revolutionary technologies. In the past decade, AI has often been portrayed as either a sentient technology with an apocalyptic destiny, or as a silver bullet for most if not all conceivable problems ranging from the climate emergency to global crime prevention. This article contributes to a more recent and realistic assessment that is beginning to see the light: AI is a powerful technology that can help us address a wide range of well-defined problems given proper design, development, integration and monitoring.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Innovation, and Artificial Intelligence
Political Geography:
Global Focus

573. How to get European businesses to digitalise

Author:
Frederico Mollet
Publication Date:
07-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Policy Centre (EPC)
Abstract:
Europe’s underperforming tech sector and reliance on foreign technologies has long alarmed its policymakers. But a significant – and often overlooked – factor in the EU’s economic underperformance over the last two decades is its slow business digitalisation. EU industry, especially SMEs, struggles with the prosaic challenge of integrating digital technologies into its business models and operations. The preoccupation tends to be on how to foster new digital start-ups. But what about the digitalisation of existing firms? The EU budget and recovery fund are armed with a range of new EU funding streams and programmes to tackle this challenge. With its 2030 targets and new policy framework, the EU aims to catch up with the previous generation of digital technologies and ensure that it does not miss out on the next wave of transformational change. Otherwise, Europe will fall behind its economic competitors even further. But there are still some gaps in the EU’s game plan for business digitalisation. Frederico Mollet outlines several areas where the new policy framework can be optimised, and new initiatives would be worthwhile: Additional funding should be mobilised from Cohesion Policy funds. Business digitalisation is a critical factor in regional convergence, and so an increased funding share would be in line with the policy’s main objectives. The Commission should use its coordinating and convening powers to get banks to commit to a best practice code, to assess digitalisation loans and improve their staff’s digital knowledge. Public authorities should leverage private partners. Many firms lack the awareness and information necessary to digitalise, but a number of ‘access points’ and private sector networks (e.g. finance providers, B2B businesses, supply chain networks) can reach them. The EU should consider complementing the design and implementation of European Digital Innovation Hubs and transition pathways – its main programmes for supporting business digitalisation directly – with 5 additional components. Taken together, these recommendations will bolster the funding available for business digitalisation, tackle some of the critical barriers to finance, and optimise the delivery of the Commission’s programmes.
Topic:
Political Economy, Science and Technology, European Union, Business, and Digitalization
Political Geography:
Europe

574. From Plan to Action: Operationalizing a U.S. National Technology Strategy

Author:
John Costello, Martijn Rasser, and Megan Lamberth
Publication Date:
07-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for a New American Security (CNAS)
Abstract:
Ideas abound for actions the United States should take to better position itself for the unfolding global technology competition. Concerning topics as diverse as raw materials to semiconductors to STEM education, a nonstop cavalcade of presidential directives, congressional bills, industry proposals, think tank reports, and pronouncements by big-name luminaries have been issued as measures to address American economic competitiveness and national security challenges. Almost all make their case in the context of dealing with a rising China. Some of these recommendations are excellent and quite a few are good; too many get lost in the noise. It’s not just the sheer volume that presents a challenge to identifying and executing the most promising recommendations. The U.S. government lacks a strategic construct to merge these ideas—for research and development spending, public-private partnerships, tax policy and subsidies, immigration reform, and education—into a coherent whole. The goal of CNAS’ National Technology Strategy project is to create the framework for a comprehensive, whole-of-nation approach for the United States to navigate the global technology competition. The first report in this initiative, “Taking the Helm,” makes the case for a national technology strategy and lays out what such a modern-day strategy should be.1 Its chief argument is that the United States is in a long-term, multifaceted geostrategic competition with China, one that has technology at its core. Technological leadership is more important than ever, yet current U.S. government policies fall well short of what is needed to maintain it. Crafting an affirmative technology policy agenda is not just about competing with China; it comprises the guiding principles for the nation’s technology policy goals and priorities to pursue economic prosperity, protect national security interests and democratic values, and advance society. How the U.S. government should structure itself organizationally and bureaucratically to execute such a strategy is the focus of the second report, “Trust the Process.”2 Today, key institutions such as the National Security Council, National Economic Council, and Office of Science and Technology Policy are not optimized to craft, run, and maintain this effort. “Trust the Process” explains what talent, resources, infrastructure, and processes are needed for strategy development, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation. This third report in the series focuses on concrete and pragmatic measures that U.S. policymakers should take to operationalize a national technology strategy. There are four premises to the security and technology competition that guide these findings: the utility of industrial policies, the convergence of national and economic security, gaps in knowledge, and the need for international partnerships. The report offers recommendations for specific changes to U.S. government departmental and agency authorities, regulatory updates, policy initiatives, and diplomatic efforts that will bolster the U.S. government's ability to craft, execute, and maintain this strategy.
Topic:
Diplomacy, National Security, Science and Technology, and Strategic Competition
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

575. Transitioning to Tech: Transitioning Service Members and Veteran Perceptions Regarding a Career in the Technology Sector

Author:
Jason Dempsey, Katherine L. Kuzminski, Nathalie Grogan, and Cody Kennedy
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for a New American Security (CNAS)
Abstract:
Military experience provides service members with a range of technical and soft skills that can prepare them for meaningful employment in the private sector. Unfortunately, perceptions about the differences between military service and civilian employment can hinder the transition process, leading some veterans to believe they are unqualified for certain roles, or unaware of the steps they can take to gain meaningful employment in positions that seem vastly different from the work they did in uniform. This can be particularly true in the technology sector, where stereotypes and misperceptions—on both sides—can make the gap between military service and employment in a place like Silicon Valley seem insurmountable. However, as many have demonstrated, veterans can successfully make the leap to meaningful employment in the technology sector, and the firms that hire them can benefit from the skills and experience transitioning service members bring to the field. Understanding veteran perceptions about opportunities in technology is therefore an important first step in identifying the hurdles, both real and perceived, to expanding this pathway and getting more military veterans into meaningful employment in this sector. This white paper uses a mixed-methods approach to examine veteran opportunities and perceptions of opportunities in the technology sector. It begins with an overview of current support efforts specific to employment and education in the technology sector provided by the government’s Transition Assistance Program (TAP), technology companies, and veteran-serving nonprofit organizations. The paper then examines the attitudes of veterans in transition with a focus on perceptions of employment opportunities in the technology sector and perceived gaps between the skills transitioning service members have and the skills they believe are necessary to pursue a career in technology. The white paper concludes with recommendations for relevant departments, agencies, programs, employers, veteran-serving organizations, transitioning service members, and veterans. For the purposes of this paper, employment in “technology” is broadly defined to include both jobs that require specific technological skills and general employment in companies that produce technology products. Technology companies range from small startups to large software and e-commerce corporations with a myriad of job titles and a variety of roles requiring different skill sets. The span of technological expertise can cross industries, including technological support and information management for large brick-and-mortar businesses and the medical and financial industries. The analysis provided in this white paper is informed by a survey that CNAS and VetsinTech, a veteran-serving nonprofit, performed from August 31, 2021, through September 18, 2021. The survey yielded over 1,000 responses from veterans, transitioning service members, and active-duty service members. The analysis also incorporates feedback from interviews with action officers at the Department of Defense (DoD), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and the Department of Labor (DoL), as well as veterans currently employed in the technology sector and those who seek to hire veterans in the technology sector.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Military Affairs, Veterans, and Career
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

576. The Future of the Digital Order

Author:
Jeff Cirillo, Sarah Curtis, Joshua Fitt, Kara Frederick, Coby Goldberg, Ilan Goldenberg, Andrea Kendall-Taylor, Megan Lamberth, Martijn Rasser, and Dania Torres
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for a New American Security (CNAS)
Abstract:
Nations that successfully harness the vast economic, political, and societal power of emerging information and communications technologies will shape the future of the global digital order. This future is not set in stone. A digital order defined by liberal democratic values requires U.S. leadership and the cooperation of trusted like-minded partners. In the absence of democratic leadership, autocratic rivals of the United States can fill that void—exploiting the control of information, surveillance technologies, and standards for technology governance to promote a digital ecosystem that entrenches and expands their authoritarian practices. In exploring how a closed, illiberal order is taking root in strategic regions around the world, this report offers recommendations for how to craft, promote, and preserve a more open and democratic alternative. An assessment of crosscutting trends between China, Russia, and the Middle East across three pillars—information control, surveillance, and technology governance—leads us to the following conclusions: China is the prime mover in shaping the evolving digital order in its favor. Beijing’s use of technologies such as facial recognition software and telecommunications networks allows the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to expand control over its citizens. The CCP’s ability to promote and export this model of digital repression, in turn, gives like-minded, nondemocratic governments a roadmap for how to deploy digital technologies for control and abuse in their own countries. Russia’s model of digital authoritarianism, while technologically less sophisticated than China’s, could prove to be more readily adaptable and enduring for current and aspiring autocrats. Regional powers such as Belarus, Azerbaijan, and some Central Asian states have already incorporated elements of this model. In the Middle East, authoritarian leaders use digital tools to control internal populations by sabotaging and spying on citizens, and this contributes to the construction of an illiberal digital order that is beneficial to America’s peer competitors—China and Russia. These conclusions reveal four key trends with implications for the future of the digital order: Growing China-Russia alignment will generate dangerous digital synergies, such as (1) making digital autocracy accessible for a broader swath of states; (2) accelerating China’s and Russia’s digital innovation; (3) eroding liberal norms in international institutions; and (4) raising the prospects of a “splinternet,” a fragmenting of the internet along nationalistic, political, technological, religious, or ethnic lines. Countries around the world, particularly autocratic regimes and those flirting with illiberalism, will seek to regulate online communications platforms through (1) social media; (2) data localization laws; and (3) instigating company self-censorship, which restricts free speech and increases online control. Illiberal regimes will seek out Chinese technology to help them control social movements and civil protests. U.S. nondemocratic partners, adversaries, and even some democratic partners justify their pursuit of Chinese technology by underscoring ways the adopted technologies will contribute to economic growth, social stability, and efforts to fight crime and terrorism. The practices of illiberal regimes will reduce the efficacy of U.S. mitigation practices. Russia and China’s efforts to promote an illiberal digital order complement one another and could accelerate innovation between the two nations. The United States must craft a policy response that considers these emerging patterns and incorporates more than its usual partners in Europe and the Indo-Pacific. Shoring up the existing coalition of democratic actors to counter these illiberal trends will likely not be sufficient. This report offers recommendations that the United States can implement on three fronts: at home, while engaging with traditional U.S. democratic as well as nondemocratic partners, and when countering U.S. adversaries such as China, Russia, and Iran. The United States must take a leadership role, recognizing that the future digital order is at stake.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Governance, Authoritarianism, Leadership, Surveillance, and Digitalization
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Middle East, North America, and United States of America

577. Edge Networks, Core Policy: Securing America's 6G Future

Author:
Martijn Rasser, Ainikki Riikonen, and Henry Wu
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for a New American Security (CNAS)
Abstract:
Technological leadership by the United States requires forethought and organization. The plan necessary to maintain that leadership—a national technology strategy—should be broad in scope. Its range includes investments in research, nurturing human talent, revamping government offices and agencies, and ensuring that laws, regulations, and incentives provide private industry with the ability and opportunity to compete fairly and effectively on the merits of their products, capabilities, and know-how. Given that key inputs are diffused globally, this plan must also carefully consider how the United States can effectively partner with other tech-leading democracies for mutual economic and security benefit. This includes taking measures to promote norms for technology use that align with shared values. In the context of strategic competition with China, the need to craft new approaches to technology development and deployment is increasingly apparent to government leaders. Many lawmakers grasped the stark reality that U.S. technological preeminence was eroding when they realized that China had become a global juggernaut in telecommunications, a situation exacerbated by Beijing’s push to dominate global fifth generation (5G) wireless networks. The state of play poses national and economic security risks to the United States, which, along with its allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific and Europe, has made notable headway in addressing and mitigating these risks. However, much work remains. Chinese firms continue to push for greater digital entanglement around the world, from Southeast Asia to Africa to Latin America. Given the fundamental importance to the digital economy of communications networks and the standards that govern them, the more successful Beijing’s policies are, the greater the challenge for tech-leading democracies to maintain their economic competitiveness. There is also the specter of norms. If these are dominated by illiberal actors, their power to shape how networks are used and to manipulate data flows poses threats to liberal democratic values the world over.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Norms, Strategic Competition, and Digitalization
Political Geography:
China, North America, and United States of America

578. AI and International Stability: Risks and Confidence-Building Measures

Author:
Michael Horowitz and Paul Scharre
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for a New American Security (CNAS)
Abstract:
Militaries around the world believe that the integration of machine learning methods throughout their forces could improve their effectiveness. From algorithms to aid in recruiting and promotion, to those designed for surveillance and early warning, to those used directly on the battlefield, applications of artificial intelligence (AI) could shape the future character of warfare. These uses could also generate significant risks for international stability. These risks relate to broad facets of AI that could shape warfare, limits to machine learning methods that could increase the risks of inadvertent conflict, and specific mission areas, such as nuclear operations, where the use of AI could be dangerous. To reduce these risks and promote international stability, we explore the potential use of confidence-building measures (CBMs), constructed around the shared interests that all countries have in preventing inadvertent war. Though not a panacea, CBMs could create standards for information-sharing and notifications about AI-enabled systems that make inadvertent conflict less likely.
Topic:
Science and Technology, International Affairs, Military Affairs, Political stability, and Artificial Intelligence
Political Geography:
Global Focus

579. Taking the Helm: A National Technology Strategy to Meet the China Challenge

Author:
Martijn Rasser and Megan Lamberth
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for a New American Security (CNAS)
Abstract:
The United States faces a challenge like no other in its history: a strategic competition with a highly capable and increasingly resourceful opponent whose worldview and economic and political models are at odds with the interests and values of the world’s democratic states. A rising China poses a fundamental challenge to the economic vitality and national security of the United States and its allies and the currency of liberal democratic values around the world. Technology—a key enabler for economic, political, and military power—is front and center in this competition. Technological leadership—how a country invents, innovates, and deploys technologies to compete economically and to secure its interests—will shape the coming years to a remarkable degree. The United States has maintained such leadership for decades. Today, that leadership is at risk. The United States is failing to rise to the occasion—its policies inadequate and disconnected and its response reactive and disjointed. The country needs a new approach to regain the initiative. The stakes are high and the window for action is closing. The U.S. government must craft a national technology strategy for an era of sustained competition with a highly capable contender: a comprehensive framework to plan, execute, and update its technology policies. The strategy is a whole-of-nation approach—including human capital, infrastructure, investments, tax and regulatory policies, and institutional and bureaucratic processes—to preserve its current advantages and to create new ones. To be effective, creating and executing the strategy must involve stakeholders from federal and state governments, private industry, academia, and civil society. The overarching goal is to maintain the United States’ standing as the world’s premier technology power so that it can empower its citizens, compete economically, and secure its national interests without having to compromise its values or sovereignty. The purpose of this report is to provide the intellectual framing for what a national technology strategy is and why the United States needs one. It does not offer a list of prioritized technology areas. Rather, it provides guidelines for how to think about such prioritization and what qualities should inform the resulting policy decisions.
Topic:
Politics, Science and Technology, and Economy
Political Geography:
China, Asia, and United States of America

580. Myths and Realities of China’s Military-Civil Fusion Strategy

Author:
Elsa Kania and Lorand Laskai
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for a New American Security (CNAS)
Abstract:
In U.S. policy debates on China, military-civil fusion (MCF) has emerged as a frequent subject of debate and concern. Once a niche topic of study among only avid watchers of Chinese military modernization and defense technological development, Beijing’s drive to break down barriers and create stronger linkages between its civilian economy and defense industrial base has started to draw considerable attention in Washington.1 During Donald Trump’s administration, Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, senior officials across the State Department and Defense Department, and members of Congress all devoted time to MCF in speeches, using it to justify a broad range of policies. These included expanding investigations into intellectual property theft, banning Huawei from U.S. networks and critical infrastructure, urging companies like Microsoft and Google to stop working with Chinese counterparts, and even advocating for “decoupling” from the People’s Republic of China (PRC), such as in supply chains and by limiting technological collaboration.2 MCF has emerged as a key analytic driver of the intensifying economic and technological competition between the United States and the PRC in recent years. While Joe Biden’s administration will have an opportunity to reset the tone of the U.S.-China relationship and recalibrate the use of instruments of U.S. policy, China’s model of MCF is likely to remain a major concern for U.S. policymakers.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Science and Technology, Bilateral Relations, and Engagement
Political Geography:
China and United States of America