HPSCGA41 STS Perspectives on Security and War

Course Syllabus

2017-18 session | Prof. Brian Balmer | b.balmer@ucl.ac.uk

Course Information

Basic course information

Course website:

See Moodle Site

Moodle Web site:

search ‘HPSCGA41’

Assessment: Coursework (4000 words) – 80%, Coursework (1000 words) – 20%

Timetable: www.ucl.ac.uk/sts/hpsc

Prerequisites: ‘no pre-requisites’, ‘course designed for MSc students’

Required texts:

n/a

Course tutor: Prof. Brian Balmer

Contact: b.balmer@ucl.ac.uk

020 7679 3924

Web: www.ucl.ac.uk/silva/sts/staff/balmer

Office location:

22 Gordon Square, Room and Room 2.4

Office hours: See Moodle or Office Door

This course focuses on how history, philosophy and social studies of science investigates the

relationship between science, technology and security issues. Our focus will be on security in

relation to war and violence, particularly the control of biological, chemical and nuclear

weapons; automation and simulation in war; the use of non-lethal weapons; and the role of

secrecy, absence and ignorance in security and war. To address this issue, the course will

explore concepts and ideas derived from science and technology studies such as tacit

knowledge; social shaping of technology; actor-network theory; risk; secrecy, uncertainty,

ignorance and science; and bio-politics.

HPSCGA41 STS Perspectives on Security and War 2015-16 session

2

Schedule

UCL Week Topic Broad Theme Date

20 Introduction to the Course: STS, Security and War

Overview 11/1

21 How does STS study military technology? 18/1

22 Are scientists responsible for the weapons they create?

Ethics and STS 25/1

23 Disarmament and Arms Control 1/2

24 Tacit Knowledge and Security Epistemology and STS 8/2

24 Short Review Due See Moodle

25 Reading Week 15/2

26 Non-Knowledge and Security: Secrecy, Ignorance and Absence

Epistemology and STS 22/2

27 War Every Day? The securitzation and miliarization of the mundane

Domestic Security 1/3

28 Security and Law: Forensic Science and Lie Detectors

8/3

29 Automatic War The Battlefield 15/3

30 After War: Who Counts the Dead 22/3

College Closed Peace !!

30 Essay deadline See Moodle

Assessments

Summary

Description Deadline Word limit

1 Review (1000 words) (20%) 12 Feb (provisional)

See Moodle

2012]

1000

2 Essay (4000 words) (80%) 24 April (provisional)

See Moodle

4000

HPSCGA41 STS Perspectives on Security and War 2015-16 session

3

Assignments Assignment 1. Review

By this stage of the MSc course you should be able to read, understand and start to provide your own evaluation of research articles that draw on STS approaches when dealing with war and security. First read the chapter:

Vogel, Kathleen et al (2017), “Knowledge and Security”, in The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies 4th,, edited by Ulrike Felt et al. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 2017, Section V, 973-100. [Available online through UCL Library] This is an up to date review of the ‘state of the art’ of research in STS and security. Perhaps wait until at least week 2 (after the class) of the course to begin reading it.

Select one research article or chapter (or whole book if you’re feeling ambitious) from the chapter bibliography at the end of this review on a topic that you are not intending to choose for your long essay. Avoid any short news items or very descriptive background pieces as there will be less to agree or disagree with. You may choose other articles or chapters from beyond the reading list on security and war but they must draw on STS approaches and be published in 2017 or later (if in doubt discuss with me). You must make this a different topic to your essay two topic (you are permitted some overlap, but it should mainly link to a different topic). Write a 1000 word critical review of the article/chapter/book.

The review should have a title of your choosing, and you should also clearly state which piece you are reviewing. [don’t add this to the word count]

You should also read at least 3-4 pieces from the most relevant topic on the reading list or material cited in the Vogel chapter as contextual material. You can also search out your own contextual material.

The review should describe and explain the main argument(s) presented in the article/chapter/book. Your review should also leave space for critical discussion of the material presented in the piece (e.g. strengths, weaknesses, comparison with other literature on the topic, or with other approaches on the course, does it really achieve what it claims to have done?). Hint: It helps here to have one main message that runs through your review.

Once you have cited your main review article/chapter/book for the first time, after that you can simply refer to the page number(s) in brackets instead of citing each time. Other citations to contextual reading should be fully cited (see standard referencing conventions such as Harvard or Chicago for in text and in bibliography formats).

Assignment 2. Essay

You may choose your own title in discussion with me or use (or adapt) one of the indicative essay questions at the end of the syllabus

HPSCGA41 STS Perspectives on Security and War 2015-16 session

4

Essays should be 4000 words long, with references cited in the main text and a list of references at the end. Do not cite material in the end references that you have not used in the main text. Essay font should be no smaller than 12 point type, essays should have page numbers, be double-spaced and include a word count at the end. Please read the guidelines on how to write an essay. If you are not used to writing essays then you should also read chapter 5 of A. Northedge’s The Good Study Guide. Essays must be submitted via Moodle. In order to be deemed ‘complete’ on this module students must attempt of the written assignments.

Criteria for assessment The departmental marking guidelines for individual items of assessment can be found in the STS Student Handbook. Aims & objectives This course investigates the relationship between science, technology and war, primarily using intellectual tools from history, philosophy and sociology of science. The course explores military science and technologies in their social, political and historical context, and focuses mainly on the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. By the end of this course you should:

Be able to apply critical STS thinking to understanding issues around science, technology, war and security.

Have developed knowledge of the history and governance of modern military technologies.

Have been able to write both (a) concise review and (b) an extended essay on topics relevant to the course

Be able to make links between broader concepts in STS and how they apply to the specific domain of war and security.

Course expectations Lectures and seminars Each week there will be a one hour lecture followed by a seminar discussion. You should complete the “seminar reading(s)” for each topic. Reading: The notes that you take in lectures will not be detailed enough to understand a topic or to write an essay on that topic. It is therefore essential that you make use of the reading lists. In essays you are expected read widely and to use (and make reference to) material in addition to that labelled essential reading. You may use material that is not on the reading list but use all readings critically - you don’t necessarily have to agree with everything you read. Where to find the reading material

HPSCGA41 STS Perspectives on Security and War 2015-16 session

5

No one text covers this course. Most of the required and optional reading material is kept in the DMS Watson science library. Where possible we will make seminar readings available on Moodle. Unless otherwise marked, assume journal articles are available online through the library Electronic Journals link. All of the seminar readings, unless otherwise noted, can be accessed electronically through the library or Moodle page. There is a reading list on Moodle (left hand column) of digitized readings which would otherwise be more difficult to access. There is also useful material kept in Senate House Library which you can obtain a library with your UCL Identity Card. You are also encouraged to use the Wellcome Library. The Service is a reference library with a large collection of science policy material - including some material on chemical and biological warfare. You are also encouraged to use the internet for research. However make sure you reference the full web address, the site title and date visited. Be critical of what you read. Be very careful of purely descriptive sites, such as Wikipedia – we are looking for analysis and argument in your essays not just re-hashing basic information. Also note that plagiarism, particularly involving internet sources, will be treated as a severe exam irregularity. Attendance Anyone who misses more than 70% lectures or seminars will be asked to provide an explanation. Anyone who fails to provide an adequate documented explanation may be declared INCOMPLETE for the course.

HPSCGA41 STS Perspectives on Security and War 2015-16 session

6

Week 1 Introduction to the Course: Science, Security and War

Essential Reading: Kaldor, M (2013) ‘In defence of new wars’, Stability: International Journal of Security and Development 2(1) [Open Access Online] Recommended Reading: David Edgerton, ‘Significance’, ‘War’, and ‘Killing’ in The Shock of the Old: Technology and Global History since 1900, London: Profile Books, 2006. [War chapter in digital Moodle readings] These are readings that set the broad context for the course and contain useful background material - particularly if you feel there is a gap in your knowledge. Howard, M. (2009). War in European history. London: Oxford University Press. (A short, authoritative and readable history of war – the 2009 edition brings the history up to post-Cold war). Kaldor, M. (2007). New and Old Wars. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. (Post-cold war) Wolfe, A. (2012). Competing with the Soviets: Science, Technology, and the State in Cold War America (Johns Hopkins Introductory Studies in the History of Science) (Short, extremely readable overview of science in Cold War USA) Roland, A (2003) ‘Science, technology, and war’, in Mary Jo Nye (ed.), The Cambridge History of Science. Volume 5: The Modern Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.561-578. (Very useful, if compressed, summary of relationships between science, technology and war in C20th century) [Available through Moodle digital readings] Anthony Giddens, “Capitalist Development and the Industrialization of War,” in Giddens, The Nation State and Violence, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1985. TC 6207. (Sociological analysis of nature of modern warfare and its relationship to the development of capitalism and the state)

HPSCGA41 STS Perspectives on Security and War 2015-16 session

7

Week 2 How Does STS Study Military Technology?

Lecture: Where does new military technology come from? What role does science play in the invention of new military technologies? What does it mean to claim that a technology is ‘socially shaped’? Seminar Reading: Background: If you have not studied any sociology of technology before then: Matthew Ford (2017), Weapon of Choice: Small Arms and the Culture of Military Innovation (London: Hurst) Chapter 1 is good background on different approaches to sociology of technology. Seminar Focus: Grint, K. and Woolgar, S. (1997). ‘What’s Social About Being Shot?’ in The machine at work. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. pp140-168 [Moodle] Additional Reading Alex Roland, (2010). Was the Nuclear Arms Race Deterministic?. Technology and Culture, 51(2), pp.444-461. Weber, Rachel (1997) “Manufacturing Gender in Commercial and Military Cockpit Design,” Science, Technology and Human Values 23: 235-53. Matthew Ford (2017), Weapon of Choice: Small Arms and the Culture of Military Innovation (London: Hurst) Chapter 1 is good background on different approaches to sociology of technology. Stone, J. (2012). The Point of the Bayonet. Technology and Culture, 53(4), pp.885-908. Donald MacKenzie and Judy Wajcman, (eds.) (1999) The Social Shaping of Technology (2nd Edition). ‘Military Technology. Introduction’, (Open University Press) pp.343-350. Brian Rappert, Brian Balmer and J. Stone (2007), ‘Science, Technology and the Military: Priorities, Preoccupations and Possibilities’, in E. Hackett et al (Eds), The New Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Cambridge Mass: MIT Press, 2007. David Edgerton, ‘Significance’, ‘War’, and ‘Killing’ in The Shock of the Old: Technology and Global History since 1900, London: Profile Books, 2006. [War chapter in digital Moodle readings] Gusterson, H. (2008). Nuclear futures: anticipatory knowledge, expert judgment, and the lack that cannot be filled. Science and Public Policy, 35(8), pp.551-560. Specific Case Studies Discussed in the Lecture: Collins, H. and Pinch, T. (1998). ‘A Clean Kill? : The role of Patriot in the Gulf War’, The golem at large. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. [In digital Moodle readings]

HPSCGA41 STS Perspectives on Security and War 2015-16 session

8

Janet Abbate, ‘Cold war and white heat: the origins and meanings of packet switching’ in MacKenzie and Wajcman (eds.) The Social Shaping of Technology (2nd Edition), 1999, Chapter 25 M. Armacost, ‘The Thor-Jupiter Controversy’ in MacKenzie and Wajcman (eds.), The Social Shaping of Technology (2nd Edition), 1999 Chapter 28. Paul Forman, ‘Behind Quantum Electronics: National security as basis for physical research in the United States, 1940-1960’, Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences (1987) 18(1) pp.149-229 . Lynn White, Medieval Technology and Social Change, London: Oxford University Press, 1976. (For the stirrup case.)

Week 2 Are Scientists Responsible for the Weapons they Create?

This lecture will explore two senses of this moral question. What are the responsibilities of scientists doing research on weapons? Secondly, are scientists responsible for how those weapons are used? The lecture will explore how scientists have dealt with these issues during the 20th Century. Seminar Reading: Thorpe, C. (2004). Violence and the Scientific Vocation. Theory, Culture & Society, 21(3), pp.59-84. Additional Reading Daniel Charles, ‘Chapter 9: “The greatest period of his life”’, in Between Genius and Genocide: the Tragedy of Fritz Haber, Father of Chemical Warfare, London: Jonathan Cape, 2005 (Haber stands in contrast to Oppenheimer in the ways they handled their vocation and violence) Charles Thorpe, Oppenheimer: The Tragic Intellect, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007, chapters 6 and 7. (Chapter 6 digital Moodle reading) (Analyses physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer’s views on the moral responsibility of the scientist) Bridger, S. (2015). Scientists at War: The Ethics of Cold War Weapons Research (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press). Brian Balmer, ‘Killing “Without the Distressing Preliminaries”: Scientists’ Defence of the British Biological Warfare Programme’, Minerva (2002) 40, pp57-75 Hugh Gusterson, Nuclear Rites: A Weapons Laboratory at the End of the Cold War Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998 (See Chapter 3 on morality/ethics). John Rubin Productions (2007), ‘The Living Weapon’ – Emmy-winning documentary on the history of biological warfare: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/weapon/program/index.html

HPSCGA41 STS Perspectives on Security and War 2015-16 session

9

Cropley, D (et al) (eds) (2010), The Dark Side of Creativity (Cambridge: CUP) Human Experiments and the Military Susan Lindee, ‘The Repatriation of Atomic Bomb Victim Body Parts to Japan: Natural Objects and Diplomacy,” Osiris (1999) 13, pp.376-409. Argues that the material body parts from bomb victims, and the way they are (mis)treated, are a way of ‘instantiating’ (i.e. making concrete) abstract ideas such as victory in war). Schmidt, U (2015), Secret Science: A Century of Poison Warfare and Human Experiments (Oxford: OUP). Jonathan D. Moreno, Undue Risk: Secret State Experiments on Humans, London: Routledge, 2001. (All useful, but esp Chapters 3, 5, 6, 7)

Week 3 Disarmament and Arms Control:

Can Chemical and Biological Weapons Be Controlled?

What factors guide the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (atomic, biological and chemical weapons)? How can we prevent the spread and use of weapons of mass destruction? What role do international treaties play? The lecture will focus on chemical and biological weapons control. Seminar Readings: The readings have been chosen to address three possible sources of biological weapons threat: nation states; so-called ‘dual use research of concern’, and bioterrorism. Lentzos, F. (2013). Hard to Prove: Compliance with the Biological Weapons Convention. King's College London. (available online http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/policy-institute/projects/secdefence/BWC-report2013.pdf ) McLeish, C. and Nightingale, P. (2007). Biosecurity, bioterrorism and the governance of science: The increasing convergence of science and security policy. Research Policy, 36(10), pp.1635-1654. Chevrier, I (2007), Why do conclusions from the experts vary? In Wenger, A. and Wollenmann, R. (2007).

Bioterrorism. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Additional Reading Enia, J and Fields, J (2014), The Relative Efficacy of the Biological and Chemical Weapon Regimes, The Non-Proliferation Review Vol 21(1): 43-64. Kenyon, I (2000) ‘Chemical Weapons in the Twentieth Century: their Use and their Control’, The CBW Conventions Bulletin No.48 (June 2000) pp.1-15. Available at http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hsp/bulletin/

HPSCGA41 STS Perspectives on Security and War 2015-16 session

10

Lentzos, F (ed) (2016) Biological Threats in the Twenty-First Century (London: World Scientific). Up to date collection covering many aspects of the BW threat – table of contents here: http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/p1081 Jeanne Guillemin, Biological Weapons: From State-Sponsored Programs to Contemporary Bioterrorism, New York ; Chichester: Columbia University Press, 2005 (Chapters 1, 8 and 9) Rappert, B. (2014). Why has Not There been More Research of Concern?. Frontiers in Public Health, 2. C. McCleish, ‘Science and Censorship in an Age of Bioweapons Threat’, Science as Culture (2006) 15(3), pp.215-36. Examines the way in which threat is ‘framed’ in terms of dual-use. McLeish, C and Balmer, B (2012) ‘Discovery of the V-series nerve agents during pesticide research’, in

Tucker, J (ed) Tucker, J (2012), Innovation, Dual-Use and Security: Managing the Risks of Emerging Biological and Chemical Technologies (Cambridge MA: MIT Press) (Chapters 1 and 2).(E-book ordered for the library).

Tucker JB (1994), ‘Dilemmas of a Dual-Use Technology: Toxins in Medicine and Warfare’, Politics and the Life Sciences Vol.13 No.1 pp51-62. (Wellcome Library) Coleman, K. (2005). A history of chemical warfare. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Buchanan, A and Kelley, M (2013), ‘Biodefence and the Production of Knowledge: Rethinking The Problem’, Journal of Medical Ethics 39: 195-204. Lentzos, F. (2013). Hard to Prove: Compliance with the Biological Weapons Convention. King's College London. (Online) John Rubin Productions (2007) ‘The Living Weapon’ (Emmy award winning documentary) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/weapon/filmmore/index.html Lentzos, F (2014), ‘The risk of bioweapons use: Considering the evidence base’ BioSocieties (2014) 9, 84–93.[Roundtable discussion with experts about the risk of from BW] Three STS articles all on pandemic flu and dual use: Porter, H (2016), ‘Ferreting things out: Biosecurity, pandemic flu and the transformation of

experimental systems’, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 22–45 Lakoff, A (2017), ‘A fragile assemblage: Mutant bird flu and the limits of risk assessment’, Social Vogel, K (2014), ‘Expert Knowledge in Intelligence Assessments: Bird Flu and Bioterrorism’, International

Security Volume 38 (3 ): 39-71

HPSCGA41 STS Perspectives on Security and War 2015-16 session

11

Week 4 Tacit Knowledge and Security

The concept of ‘tacit knowledge’ has a long history within STS and has more recently been adopted by various scholars within and beyond STS in relation to security and arms control. The concept is now starting to be used in arms control discussions beyond academia. Yet, while undoubtedly a useful concept, there is surprisingly little literature that is critical or challenges ‘tacit knowledge’. Seminar Readings Vogel, Kathleen M. (2008), ‘Framing biosecurity: an alternative to the biotech revolution model?’, Science and Public Policy, Volume 35, Number 1, February 2008 , pp. 45-54(10). Additional Reading Donald MacKenzie and Graham Spinardi, ‘Tacit knowledge, weapons design, and the uninvention of nuclear weapons’ American Journal of Sociology 101(1) (1995), pp.44-99. [a seminal STS discussion of ‘tacit knowledge’ and arms control] Schmidt, K (2012), ‘The trouble with ‘tacit knowledge’’, Computer Supported Cooperative Work 21:163-225 [Not about security but one of the few critiques of ‘tacit knowledge’] Revill, J. and Jefferson, C. (2013). Tacit knowledge and the biological weapons regime. Science and Public Policy, 41(5), pp.597-610. Ouagrham-Gormley, S. (2012). Barriers to Bioweapons: Intangible Obstacles to Proliferation. International Security, 36(4), pp.80-114. Marris, C., Jefferson, C. and Lentzos, F. (2014). Negotiating the dynamics of uncomfortable knowledge:

The case of dual use and synthetic biology. BioSocieties, 9(4), pp.393-420. Not about security: Lynch, M. (2002). Protocols, practices, and the reproduction of technique in molecular biology. British

Journal of Sociology, 53(2), pp.203-220. (Not about security, but there is a critique of ‘tacit knowledge’ in the article.

Collins, H. (1985). Changing order. London: Sage Publications. (Chapter 3 on replicating the TEA laser) Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (esp Part 2)

HPSCGA41 STS Perspectives on Security and War 2015-16 session

12

Week 5 Non-Knowledge and Security: Secrecy, Ignorance, Absence

Security is a field where uncertainty, secrecy and other forms of non-knowledge are ubiquitous. STS has recently turned from looking at the construction on knowledge to also look at these various forms of non-knowledge. If there can be a sociology of scientific knowledge, can there equally be a sociology of ignorance? With respect to secrecy, a combination of STS with the geography of knowledge has promised to re-think the dynamics of secrecy. Seminar Reading

Paglen, T. (2010). Goatsucker: toward a spatial theory of state secrecy. Environment and Planning

D: Society and Space, 28(5), pp.759-771.

Additional Reading

Forsyth, I. (2013). Designs on the desert: camouflage, deception and the militarization of space.

Cultural Geographies, 21(2), pp.247-265.

Galison, P. 2004. Removing knowledge. Critical Inquiry, 31(1), 229-43.

Rappert, B (2012), How To Look Good in a War: Justifying and Challenging State Violence, London:

Pluto. Chapter 3: ‘Disabling discourses: International Law, Legitimacy and the Politics of Balance’

Masco, J. 2001. ‘Lie detectors: of secrets and hypersecurity in Los Alamos’. Public Culture, 14(3),

441-67.

Aradau, C (2017)’ Assembling (non)knowledge: security, law, and surveillance in a digital

world’ International Political Sociology https://academic.oup.com/ips/advance-

article/doi/10.1093/ips/olx019/4372386

Revill, J and Edwards, B (2015), ‘What counts as the Hostile Use of Chemicals?’, in Rappert, B. and Balmer, B (eds) Absence in science, security and policy: From research agendas to global strategy (Basingstoke: Palgrave) Chapter 8. (digitized on Moodle)

Paglen, T. 2009. Blank Spots on the Map: The Dark Geography of the Pentagon’s Secret World. New

York: Dutton.

Balmer, B (2012), Secrecy and Science: A Historical Sociology of Biological and Chemical Warfare

(Farnham: Ashgate) (Chapter 1 for a review of literature on science and secrecy).

Balmer, B (2006), ‘A Secret Formula, A Rogue Patent and Public Knowledge about Nerve Gas:

Secrecy as a Spatial-Epistemic Tool’, Social Studies of Science, 36(5): 691-722.

HPSCGA41 STS Perspectives on Security and War 2015-16 session

13

Dennis, M.A. 2007. ‘Secrecy and science revisited: from politics to historical practice and back’, in

The Historiography of Contemporary Science, Technology and Medicine: Writing Recent Science,

edited by R.E. Doel, and T. Söderqvist. London: Routledge, 172-84.

McLeish, C (2010) “Opening up the secret city of Stepnogorsk: biological weapons in the Former

Soviet Union”, Area vol 42. no 1, 2010, pp60-69.

B.Rappert and B.Balmer (2015), 'Ignorance is Strength? Intelligence, Security and National Secrets'

in Gross, M and McGoey, L (eds), Routledge International Handbook of Ignorance Studies (London:

Routledge,)

Nina Witjes and Philipp Olbrich (2017), ‘A fragile transparency: satellite imagery analysis, non-state actors, and visual representations of security’ Science and Public Policy, Volume 44, Issue 4, 1 August 2017, Pages 524–534

Vogel, K. (2008). 'Iraqi Winnebagos™ of death': imagined and realized futures of US bioweapons

threat assessments. Science and Public Policy, 35(8), pp.561-573.

Not about security but relevant:

Merton, R. 1973. The normative structure of science, in The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and

Empirical Investigations, edited by N. Storer. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 267-78.

Kempener, J (2011), ‘Forbidden Knowledge: Public Controversy and the Production of

Nonknowledge’, Sociological Forum 26(3): 475-500.

Week 6 War Every Day?

The securitzation and miliarization of the mundane and everyday life

How does military science and technology creep into civilian life? Are uses of non-lethal weapons, or the merging of public health and biosecurity issues, for instance, to be welcomed or challenged? Seminar Reading: Neyland, D (2010), ‘Mundane terror and the threat of everyday objects’, in Aas, KF et al (eds), Technologies of Insecurity: The Surveillance of Everyday Life (London: Routledge) (On Moodle) Additional Reading Cooper, M (2006), ‘Preempting Emergence: The Biological Turn of the War on Terror’, Theory, Culture and Society, Volume 23.4, July 2006, pp. 113-135. Collier, S. (2008). Enacting catastrophe: preparedness, insurance, budgetary rationalization. Economy and Society, 37(2), pp.224-250.

HPSCGA41 STS Perspectives on Security and War 2015-16 session

14

Lakoff, A. (2007). Preparing for the Next Emergency. Public Culture, 19(2), pp.247-271. Benjamin Goold, Ian Loader and Angélica Thumala, ,The Banality Of Security: The Curious Case of Surveillance Cameras, Brit. J. Criminol. (2013) 53, 977–996 [Considers how some security technologies become normalized and others attract controversy] Bussolini, J. (2011). Los Alamos as Laboratory for Domestic Security Measures: Nuclear Age Battlefield Transformations and the Ongoing Permutations of Security. Geopolitics, 16(2), pp.329-358. Schouten, P. Security as controversy: Reassembling security at Amsterdam Airport, Security Dialogue 2014, Vol. 45(1) 23–42 Bourne, M., Johnson, H. and Lisle, D. (2015) ‘Laboratizing the border: The production, translation and anticipation of security technologies’, Security Dialogue, 46(4), pp. 307–325. Pugliese, J (2016), ‘Drone casino mimesis: Telewarfare and civil militarization’, Journal of Sociology Vol 52, Issue 3, pp. 500 – 521. Agamben, G. (2005). State of exception. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Rappert, B. 2001. “Scenarios on the Future of Non-lethal Weapons” Contemporary Security Policy 22(1): 50-74. Elbe, S. (2006). Should HIV/AIDS Be Securitized? The Ethical Dilemmas of Linking HIV/AIDS and Security. Int Studies Q, 50(1), pp.119-144. Kelle, A (2007) ‘The Securitization of International Public Health. Implications for Global Health Governance and the Biological Weapons Prohibition Regime’, in Global Governance, Vol.13, No.2, pp.217-235. Kroener, I (2014), CCTV: A Technology Under the Radar (Farnham: Ashgate). Davison, N (2009), NonLethal Weapons (Basingstoke: Palgrave) Malcolm Dando, A New Form of Warfare: the Rise of Non-lethal Weapons, London: Brassey’s, 1996.

Week 7 Security and Law: Forensic Science and Lie Detectors

STS has built up a rich body of literature looking at science and the law. Although much of this work touches on broader criminological themes than security, much of it is relevant to thinking about how technology, crime and security inter-relate. Seminar Readings Simon A. Cole, Michael Lynch (2006) ‘The Social and Legal Construction of Suspects’ Annual

HPSCGA41 STS Perspectives on Security and War 2015-16 session

15

Review of Law and Social Science, Vol. 2: 39-60 . Balmer, A.S. "Telling Tales: Some episodes from the multiple lives of the polygraph machine." In Knowledge, Technology and Law, 104-118. Oxon: Routledge, 2015. (Digitized on Moodle). Additional Reading Maschke, K (2008) ‘DNA and Law Enforcement’ in From Birth to Death and Bench to Clinic: The Hastings Center Bioethics Briefing Book http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Publications/BriefingBook/ Jasanoff, S. (2006). Just evidence: the limits of science in the legal process. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 34(2): 328–341. Lynch, M and McNally, R (2003), ‘ "Science", "common sense", and DNA evidence: a legal controversy about the public understanding of science’, Public Understanding of Science, 12(1): 83-104. (Detailed case study that challenges the distinction between ‘common sense’ and ‘scientific’ evidence) Roberts, P. (2013). Renegotiating forensic cultures: Between law, science and criminal justice. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 44(1), pp.47-59. (Argues that law and science are not separate domains) Heinnemann, T et al (2012), ‘Risky Profiles: Societal Dimensions of Forensic Uses of DNA Profiling Technology’, New Genetics and Society 31(3): 249-258 (This is an introduction to a special edition of this journal, with all the articles dealing with DNA profiling – read this intro to see whether the other articles are going to be helpful) Dahl, J. Y. and Sætnan, A. (2009). ‘It all happened so slowly’—on controlling function creep in forensic DNA databases. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 3(37): 83–103. Wallace, H (2006), ‘The UK National Database: Balancing Crime Detection, Human Rights and Privacy’, EMBO Reports, Vol 7 (Special Issue) pp26-30 Williams, R and Johnson, P (2005), ‘Inclusiveness, Effectiveness and Intrusiveness: Issues in the Developing Uses of DNA Profiling in Support of Criminal Investigations’, Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 33:454-558. Masco, J. 2001. ‘Lie detectors: of secrets and hypersecurity in Los Alamos’. Public Culture, 14(3),

441-67.

Rusconi, E. and Mitchener-Nissen, T. (2013). Prospects of functional magnetic resonance imaging

as lie detector. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7:1-12

Reyes-Galindo, L. (2016) "Molecular Detector (Non)Technology In Mexico". Science, Technology &

Human Values 42.1: 86-115. Web. 8 Dec. 2016. (Not about lie detectors – but interesting article on

STS and fake drug detectors).

HPSCGA41 STS Perspectives on Security and War 2015-16 session

16

Week 8 Automatic War

The application of information technologies to warfare is not new. However, since the Vietnam War there has been an intensification of the trend, with talk of an ‘automated battlefield’, a ‘revolution in military affairs’ and the widespread deployment of apparently autonomous weapons – self-guiding missiles, drones and so on. Seminar Reading Sullins, P (2013), An Ethical Analysis of the Case for Robotic Weapons Arms Control, in 5th International Conference on Cyber Conflict K. Podins, J. Stinissen, M. Maybaum (Eds.) https://ccdcoe.org/cycon/2013/proceedings/d2r1s9_sullins.pdf Sharkey, N., Suchman, L (2013), Wishful mnemonics and autonomous killing machines Proceedings of the AISB. 136, p. 14-22. Additional Reading Suchman, L (2015) ‘Situational Awareness: Deadly Bioconvergence At The Boundaries Of Bodies And Machines’, MediaTropes eJournal Vol V, No 1 (2015): 1–24 http://www.mediatropes.com/index.php/Mediatropes/article/view/22126/17971 Suchman, et al (2017), ‘Tracking and Targeting: Sociotechnologies of (In)security’, Science, Technology and Human Values Volume: 42 issue: 6, page(s): 983-1002 (This is an introduction to a special edition, so you might want to read this first and other articles in the special edition that interest you). Robert Sparrow, ‘Building a Better WarBot: Ethical Issues in the Design of Unmanned Systems for Military Applications’, Science and Engineering Ethics 15(2), pp. 169-187 Gusterson, H. “Toward an anthropology of drones.” In M. Evangelista and H. Shue, eds., The American Way of Bombing: Changing Ethical and Legal Norms from Flying Fortresses to Drones. Cornell Univ. Press, pp. 191-206. (Also see his new book Drone: Remote Control Warfare (Cambridge: MIT Press)) Ghamari-Tabrizi, S. (2000). Simulating the Unthinkable: Gaming Future War in the 1950s and 1960s. Social Studies of Science, 30(2), pp.163-223. James der Derian, Virtuous War: Mapping the Military-Industrial-Media-Entertainment Network, Boulder, CO: Westview, 2001 Engaging academic travelogue through the world of military simulation and its links to the entertainment industry Crogan, P (2011), Gameplay mode : war, simulation, and technoculture (University of Minnesota Press)(especially the intro and chapters 1 and 3). Robert Paul Edwards, The Closed World: Computers and the Politics of Discourse in Cold War America, Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1994, pp. 3-15. (On Moodle)

HPSCGA41 STS Perspectives on Security and War 2015-16 session

17

Useful Material not specifically from an STS perspective: Sharkey, N. (2010). Saying ‘No!’ to Lethal Autonomous Targeting. Journal of Military Ethics, 9(4), pp.369-383. Sparrow, ‘Predators or Plowshares? Arms control of robotic weapons’, IEEE Technology and Society (Spring 2009) pp. 25-29. Available via: http://www.sevenhorizons.org/docs/SparrowPredatorsorPlowshares.pdf Rosa Brooks, ‘What’s not wrong with drones?’, and ‘Take two drones and call me in the morning’, in Foreign Policy September 5th and 12th 2012. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/05/whats_not_wrong_with_drones http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/12/take_two_drones_and_call_me_in_the_morning Information Warfare: Its Application in Military and Civilian Contexts Authors: Blaise Cronin; Holly Crawford The Information Society, Volume 15, Issue 4 November 1999 , pages 257 - 263 T Yoshihara, ‘Chinese information warfare: a phantom menace or emerging threat?’ (2001). Available via: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA397266 Dorothy Denning, Information Warfare and Security, Harlow: Addison-Wesley, 1999.

Week 9 After War: Who Counts the Dead?

After war, casualties must be counted (but how?), weapons such as land mines or unexploded cluster munitions must be cleared (but how, and could their use have been prevented or controlled?) and the infrastructure essential to civilian life must be repaired (but why was it attacked in the first place?) Seminar Readings Rappert, B. (2012). States of ignorance: the unmaking and remaking of death tolls. Economy and Society, 41(1), pp.42-63. Additional Reading Martin, A. and Lynch, M. (2009). Counting Things and People: The Practices and Politics of Counting. Social Problems, 56(2), pp.243-266. (More general than just about security) John Stone, ‘Technology and the problem of civilian casualties in war’, in Brian Rappert (ed.), Technology and Security: Governing Threats in the New Millennium, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007, pp.133-151 (Digitized on Moodle) Stephen Graham (2005), ‘Switching cities off’, City 9(2): 169-84

HPSCGA41 STS Perspectives on Security and War 2015-16 session

18

(About attacking infrastructure as a theme of modern warfare.) Richard Price, ‘Reversing the Gun Sights: Transnational Civil Society Targets Land Mines’, International Organization 52(3) (1998), pp. 613-644. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2601403 Brian Rappert and Richard Moyes, ‘The prohibition of cluster munitions: setting international precedents for defining inhumanity’, The Nonproliferation Review 16(2) (2009), pp. 237-256 Susan Lindee, ‘The Repatriation of Atomic Bomb Victim Body Parts to Japan: Natural Objects and Diplomacy,” Osiris (1999) 13, pp.376-409. (Argues that the material body parts from bomb victims, and the way they are (mis)treated, are a way of ‘instantiating’ (i.e. making concrete) abstract ideas such as victory in war)). Bureaucratization and Killing Zygmunt Bauman, ‘Chapter 4: the Uniqueness and Normality of the Holocaust’, in Modernity and the Holocaust, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1989. Carol Cohn, ‘Sex and death in the rational world of defense intellectuals’, Signs (1987) 124, pp.687-718 OR

Carol Cohn, “Nuclear Language and How We Learned to Pat the Bomb,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 43(5):17-24 (June 1987). Thorpe, C. (2004). Against Time: Scheduling, Momentum, and Moral Order at Wartime Los Alamos.

Journal of Historical Sociology, 17(1), pp.31-55.

Lynn Eden, Whole World on Fire: Organizations, Knowledge and Nuclear Weapons Destruction, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2006. Henry T. Nash, “The Bureaucratization of Homicide,” in E. P. Thompson ed., Protest and Survive (Harmondsworth, Penguin: 1980), 62-74. Also online in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=owoAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=nash+bureaucratization+homicide+bulletin&source=bl&ots=nkUX5rAr-9&sig=x76hDzCMFEtUNBkwI_r1MAASLQo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwimjIKR4LzQAhVHC8AKHWgrCYYQ6AEIITAB#v=onepage&q=nash%20bureaucratization%20homicide%20bulletin&f=false

HPSCGA41 STS Perspectives on Security and War 2015-16 session

19

Essay Questions See the start of the course outline for instructions on the format and length of essays. These are indicative questions for your essays. If there are topics that interest you or you want to adapt a question to take a direction that is more in line with your specific interests, then please discuss with me during office hours.

1. How, if at all, are military technologies socially shaped? What, if any, are the limitations of the ‘social shaping’ approach?

2. Are scientists responsible for the weapons they create?

3. Are there better ways to think about the so-called dual-use dilemma than in terms of ‘dual-use’?

4. Does ‘tacit knowledge’ present a serious barrier to the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction? [or you might want to focus on one type of weapon]

5. Is secret military science simply open science done behind closed doors?

6. How do security technologies ‘spread’ into everyday life? Do these new security technologies make daily life more or less secure?

7. “Just as science can free the innocent, it can also identify the guilty” (Romney cited in Jasanoff 2006). To what extent can DNA profiling and/or lie detectors live up to this expectation?

8. Critically discuss Sullin’s contention that ‘If you are a politician in a liberal democracy, then the technology of unmanned weapons is the answer to your dreams’.

9. Critically discuss the role of impersonalisation as a trend in twentieth and twenty-first century warfare.

HPSCGA41 STS Perspectives on Security and War 2015-16 session

20