 |
| Home | CV | Research | Data |
Dissertation/Book Project
A Casualty of Kinetic Warfare? Military Neglect and the Rise of Civilian Biodefense
The United States military is responsible for protecting its forces from biological weapons. However, the Department of Defense has neglected biodefense - most of the funding for which now comes from civilian organizations. Why did the Department of Defense fail to support biodefense yet eagerly create and procure other science and technology? Conversely, why did civilian organizations like the Department of Health and Human Services support research related to biological weapons?
I argue that organizational frames explain military neglect and the rise of civilian biodefense. Organizational frames are shared ideas that define and limit the tasks an organization will do. Because the military's frame of reference is defined by kinetic warfare involving projectile weapons and explosives, it neglects non-kinetic capabilities like biodefense. In contrast, the Department of Health and Human Services has a different organizational frame and thus is more amenable to supporting biodefense. I test this theory against realism and bureaucratic politics using case studies and content analysis. I find that the history of research, development, acquisition, and doctrine for biodefense supports the ideational theory of organizational frames, which has important implications for security studies and national security policy.
Transnational Outbreaks of Infectious Diseases (SARS, H5N1, H1N1)
WHO Governs? Limited Global Governance by the World Health Organization during the SARS Outbreak
Social Alternatives (forthcoming)
Did the World Health Organization's response to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome represent a radical change in global health governance? The short answer is no. Granted, some scholars have argued that global health governance was radically transformed because WHO appeared to exercise unprecedented power and change state behavior regarding SARS. Yet global governance by WHO was actually of limited content and consequence during this outbreak. State and local governments, in contrast, governed the most important public health actions, namely medical treatment and infection control. While these findings may curtail optimism about global governance, they have important implications for understanding the international response to transnational outbreaks of infectious diseases.
| Home | CV | Research | Data |